A serious post... (sorry - I won't do this often - normal service will be resumed shortly)
Leaders of the 20 largest economies will be meeting in London on 2 April to discuss how to tackle the global economic crisis. I want to show how this meeting is critical in terms of ensuring success at the UN climate change conference in December in Copenhagen.
COP15 (the 15th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) is the formal name of the important UN climate change conference that will take place in Copenhagen in December 2009 (see countdown clock to the right).
This is the point when countries are supposed to agree on a new and effective framework to tackle climate change after the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.
The KP, as I will call it (because it's almost as controversial as the other "KP" - England cricketer, Kevin Pietersen), was designed as a first step in tackling climate change and called on rich countries to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases by an aggregate of 5 per cent between 2008 and 2012 from a baseline of 1990. The first action was focused on developed countries because it is rich countries that have caused the problem - they are responsible for the vast majority of the stock of greenhouse gases now in the atmosphere - and they have the means to tackle it. Not that difficult, you might think.. put up a few windfarms, tax the worst gas guzzlers and fit a few energy efficient lightbulbs and Bob's your uncle.... However, the reality is very different. Although some countries will meet their targets (the UK being one - although more by accident than design!), the hard reality is that global emissions have grown by around 40 per cent since 1990 and the science is telling us that our earlier predictions about the sensitivity of the climate to rising greenhouse gases was too conservative both in terms of the rate of change and the extent of change that we should expect. So that initial 5 per cent reduction for rich countries, although a start, is now woefully inadequate if we are to have any chance of halting manmade climate change. Hence the agreement to begin negotiations in 2007 on a new post-2012 framework that would involve all countries, in accordance with their capabilities and historic responsibilities, in taking action to reduce emissions. The pace of these negotiations is slow and many are not optimistic that a sufficient deal will be done, especially in the context of the global economic crisis.
As we negotiate 2009 and work out how we tackle the immediate crisis in our economy, we are facing a number of other crises bubbling away under the surface - including climate change, energy security and biodiversity - all of which have been caused by the unsustainable use of resources, whether in the economy or in nature. A recent
EU report showed that the current financial losses on Wall Street of USD 1-1.5 trillion are dwarfed by the current loss of natural wealth - forests, water, grasslands, oceans etc (none of which appears on anyone's balance sheet), estimated to be between USD 2 and 5 trillion annually! If we don't do anything to tackle these crises in unison, our policies to tackle the financial and economic crisis will ultimately unravel as nature calls in our debt of borrowing against her.
The forthcoming London Summit of G20 leaders is a key point in time. Here we have leaders of the 20 major economies coming together to discuss coordinated governmental action to stabilise the global economy. Most are implementing huge stimulus packages involving a combined total of trillions of US dollars. If these stimulus packages take into account our climate and energy objectives by investing in renewable energy, energy efficiency, 'smart' electricity grids allowing more household generation, better public transport infrastructure and creating an economic value for our natural capital, we could put ourselves on a path towards a more sustainable, low-carbon economy that not only helps reduce the risk of serious manmade climate change and creates the political momentum for success in Copenhagen at the end of the year, but also reinvigorates our economies, creates new jobs, increases our energy security and tackle poverty. We may not get such a chance for coordinated governmental action on this scale again.
What can you do? Write to your MP (in the UK you can click
here to find out who your MP is and how to contact them), write to your Prime Minister or President, tell your friends, run naked through the streets (ok, that might be a step too far) and generally let it be heard that this matters.
Some common questions on climate change:
Q. Does a changing climate matter anyway? Hasn't the climate always changed?
A. The answers are yes, it does matter; and yes the climate has always changed but not at the RATE that we are causing it to change.
Q. Why does it matter?
A. Some think of global warming as meaning warmer summers, milder winters, maybe good English wine (ok, that might be a step too far etc..). And there is no doubt that there will be some benefits to some people, at least in the short-term (eg Siberia may be more inhabitable). However, the net effect of a climate that warms at a rate that is way beyond the natural cycle, is undoubtedly very negative. Consider the 2 billion people who rely on fresh water from summer glacier melt in the Himalayas. Traditionally these glaciers melt in the summer to provide fresh water and are replenished by precipitation in the winter. However, these glaciers are now melting at a much faster rate and are not being fully replenished in winter - the prediction is that they could disappear within a few decades. Where will these 2 billion people get their water from then? And, as the flow begins to dwindle, won't the people nearer to the source be tempted to capture and store sufficient supplies for themselves at the expense of others further down river? 2 billion people having to move because of a lack of fresh water will not be a trivial problem.
Most of the world's major cities are at sea level and near coasts (London, New York, Shanghai to name a few). All are vulnerable to sea level rise. If the ice shelf on Greenland melts there is enough water to raise sea level by 7-8 metres. And if that is combined with melt of the West Antarctic ice sheet, that rise could be up to 15 metres. That means my birthplace in Norfolk, England, has no chance and, in fact, most of Norfolk would be under water.
These are just two of the potential effects of man-made global warming. Others include more drought, particularly in already dry areas such as Africa, reduced crop yield, more intense tropical storms, increase in vector-borne diseases such as malaria and dengue fever, severe flooding in highly-populated low-lying areas such as Bangaldesh (India is already building a fence along its border with Bangladesh and it's not to stop Indians going on holiday to Bangladesh!).
Natural climatic variation usually happens very slowly and over thousands and millions of years, allowing species, including man, to adapt and make subtle changes to living patterns at natural rates. We are changing the climate fast and in a big way. And it is not just the environment that will be hit. This is going to hit our economies, affect our security by increasing the likelihood of conflict and the creation of millions of climate refugees as well as setting back development, particularly for the poor.
Q. OK, so it's serious. But isn't it all too expensive to put right?
A. No. The landmark report by Lord Nicholas Stern on the economics of climate change showed that the costs, although very difficult to quantify, would likely be around 1 per cent of GDP (higher if we went for a more aggressive stabilisation level) but the costs of inaction would cost us between 5 and 20 per cent of GDP by 2050. In other words, if we tackle climate change we will achieve our expected level of wealth in 2050 by June 2050 instead of Jan 2050 - is that such a hardship?. The problem with the climate debate is that it is often focused on costs and, therefore, everyone wants to minimise the cost to themselves as a contribution to the global effort. These 'costs' should really be considered investments - they are short-term costs that secure future wealth. And if we do it right we will create new jobs in low carbon energy and products and services, create new markets and, at the same time, increase our energy security by weaning ourselves off foreign energy sources from unstable parts of the world, improve our air quality and protect ourselves from volatile fossil fuel prices. If I was a government I would certainly want to invest in that!
Posts
