The baby turtles were cute, but they were also clearly suffering. The tropical
sun was beating down on the beach in Bali as they swam round and round in
their big plastic bowls full of slowly warming water. They were waiting to
be liberated into the ocean – but first came the talking.
The turtle release was a side event to the United Nations climate change
conference taking place a few hundred yards away in the Bali international
convention centre, and that meant a host of dignitaries first had to make
themselves heard.
As they droned on, with each speaker placing their own particular emphasis on
the threats presented by global warming – not least to endangered species
such as turtles – the energy of the captives began ebbing away. They stopped
swimming and sat still in the water.
By the time those gathered on the beach were allowed to scoop up the turtles
and carry them down to the water’s edge, some had almost lost the will to
live and, when released, lay motionless on the sand.
Pushed into the cool of the water they did gradually revive and paddled slowly
away, but to many observers it seemed the perfect metaphor for the events of
the past fortnight in Bali: a lot of humans talking endlessly while nature
suffers.
Last Thursday the World Meteorological Organisation revealed that 2007 had
been one of the 10 hottest years on record, as were eight other years in the
past decade.
In Bali, the best response that the politicians could manage yesterday was to
agree a “road map” for more talks without any specific targets for cutting
emissions of greenhouse gases.
Getting that agreement was certainly dramatic. Yesterday saw Yvo de Boer, the
UN’s main climate change official, burst into tears while addressing the
conference. The strain of multiple sleepless nights and tortured
negotiations had become too much.
America even appeared to have been forced into concessions after its
representative, Paula Dobriansky, was booed by delegates from other
countries.
Optimists, including Hilary Benn, Britain’s environment secretary, hailed the
agreement as “historic” yesterday, mainly because America had signed up to
it.
Others, however, fear that it will prove too weak to achieve anything. As the
exhausted delegates and politicians board their planes to travel home today,
are the real prospects of controlling global warming any better than before
the Bali talks began?
THE precedents are not good. It is 10 years since the world’s politicians held
a similar gathering in Japan where they signed the Kyoto treaty. At the
heart of Kyoto was a commitment from industrialised countries such as
Britain, America, Australia and Russia to cut their greenhouse gas
emissions. John Prescott, then environment secretary, helped to broker the
agreement and proclaimed it as the deal that would save the world.
In reality Kyoto was a disappointment. The draft treaty had promised that the
industrialised nations would reduce emissions of all greenhouse gases –
there are six in total – by 6% from 1990 levels by 2008. The final version
referred to only three gases, the date had slipped to 2012 and the level of
cuts had fallen to 5.2%.
Australia ratified the treaty only after the election of a new prime minister
last month and America, the world’s biggest emitter, has still not done so.
In 1997 mankind was already generating the equivalent of 40 billion tons of
CO2 a year. Kyoto was meant to herald a new era in which such emissions
would stabilise and then reverse. Instead they have risen faster than ever –
up to 50 billion tons last year.
The International Energy Agency (IEA), an energy policy adviser to 27
industrialised countries, believes that trend is unlikely to change. In its
recent World Energy Outlook report, it said emissions would be pushed well
above 65 billion tons by 2030.
The IEA concluded that we still had a faint chance of keeping global
temperature rises below 2.4C by 2020, but only if energy-related CO2
emissions were cut by 25% to 40%. Such a cut would be, said the IEA,
“unprecedented”.
At the heart of the negotiations of the past fortnight was this extremely
simple but tough target. The European Union was desperate to include it
while America was determined to throw it out.
Last week Al Gore, the former US vice-president who is now enjoying a second
career as an environmental activist, was among the first to acknowledge
publicly that the target could not survive. “The truth is that the maximum
now considered possible here in this conference is still far short of the
minimum that will really solve this process,” he said.
The tough American approach was perhaps best revealed by James Connaughton,
President George W Bush’s chief adviser on environmental issues. Late in the
week he was asked why America, a global leader in so many other ways, was so
unwilling to lead the fight against global warming.
“We are leading and we will continue to lead,” he growled, to gasps of
amazement. “But leadership requires the rest of the world to fall in line
and follow us.”
Connaughton is a lawyer rather than a scientist and was appointed by Bush
after a career defending chemical manufacturers and aluminium smelters
against environmental lawsuits.
Time after time, just as an agreement on emissions reduction targets had drawn
near, the US delegation submitted amendments or new texts that threw the
process into disarray. It was these tactics that eventually saw them get
their way and have the emissions target figures removed.
They might have won even more concessions had it not been for a last-minute
outburst from Kevin Conrad, head of Papua New Guinea’s delegation, who won
mass applause when he told the Americans yesterday: “We seek your
leadership, but if you cannot lead, leave it to the rest of us. Get out of
the way.”
It was after this that America finally yielded and offered a deal.
Afterwards, some of the negotiators who emerged bleary-eyed and dishevelled
from the 36 hours of talks were agreeing with Gore. “We might have a piece
of paper we can call an agreement, but we lost almost all the scientifically
determined emissions reduction targets that would have made it worthwhile,”
said one.
Others, however, were more upbeat. Among them was Benn, who said: “What we
have achieved here has never been done before.” Earlier in the week he had
insisted that the 25% to 40% cuts would be an essential part of any deal but
yesterday he said this did not matter: “The point is that we have got all
the countries involved signed up to the negotiations, including America.”
The question now is whether the process that has begun in Bali has the
potential to achieve the dramatic cuts in carbon emissions that the
scientists say are needed.
It seems unlikely. Even if the political will is there, the science mitigates
against it.
Vicky Pope, of the Met Office’s respected Hadley Centre for climate
prediction, was just one of many scientists presenting new research in Bali.
Sitting under the palm trees fringing the idyllic Nusa Dua beach, she
pointed to the “small but scary” graph showing the latest predictions on the
global temperature rises that we might expect as greenhouse gas levels rise.
The natural background level of CO2 is 273 parts per million (ppm) but human
activities have pushed this up to 379ppm. At some time before 2030,
greenhouse gas levels are predicted to reach the equivalent of 450ppm.
At this level, said Pope’s graph, global temperature rises of 2C are 80%
certain. If CO2 levels reach 550ppm, as the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) of respected scientists has said they will, probably
before 2030, then there is a 70% chance of the global rise exceeding 3C.
Such rises sound small on paper but in reality they would be disastrous.
Scientists say Australia’s climate, already marginal, would become
impossible, as would much of Africa’s and Asia’s. It is predicted that
Britain would suffer longer drier summers and extreme weather ranging from
droughts to floods and intense storms. The population might face food
shortages as global food chains came under stress, with additional pressures
from migration by environmental refugees.
In the longer term, other factors would come into play. Sea levels would rise,
partly from the melting of ice but also from the thermal expansion of water.
One delegate in Bali knew all too well what effects that can have. “When the
sea starts coming up through the floor you know global warming is real,”
said Ehele Sopoaga. He comes from Tuvalu, which is among the world’s
lowest-lying countries. It comprises nine coral atolls lying just south of
the equator northeast of Australia.
He described how the islanders are now suffering what they call “king tides”.
He said: “The higher sea water levels erode our coastlines and penetrate the
ground, contaminating our wells and farmland and sometime even rising up
through the floors of our homes. Sometimes it just appears and we have to
rush around moving ourselves and our possessions to safety.”
Predictably, many Tuvaluans lost their faith in global climate talks long ago.
Yet among the scientists there was a curious optimism. Talk to Pope, or
almost any scientist involved in climate research, about what the figures
show and they reel off similar lists of facts and figures that generally
spell disaster.
If, however, you ask them a human question – such as what hope there might be
for mankind should their predictions come true – and you get a very
different kind of answer, one for which there appears to be precious little
evidence. “I am just an optimist,” said Pope. “I believe we can solve this
problem if only we work together.”
Politicians suffer from the same contradictions. Benn said: “There are now six
billion of us on this small and fragile planet. There will be nine billion
of us in less than 40 years’ time. What are we going to do when people start
fighting, not about politics but about water? What will we do when people
start arriving on our shores fleeing not political persecution but
environmental catastrophe?”
Benn has no clear answers to such questions and yet he, too, professes to
“great optimism” for the negotiations which will follow on from Bali.
“People doubt the capacity of politics to change things,” he said.
“I don’t. It remains the best and only hope we have for the future of
mankind.”
The optimism of politicians like Benn is cheering, but is it helpful? One
consequence is to placate voters when, say many environmentalists, the
situation is so dire that they should be taking to the streets in protest.
“The targets for cutting emissions are hopeless,” said Tony Juniper, of
Friends of the Earth. “If people really understood what they mean for our
children’s future they would be up in arms about it.”
LAST week a new set of scientific reports reinforced that view – but in doing
so perversely provided a glint of hope. In a conference that coincided with
the Bali talks, thousands of scientists met in San Francisco at the annual
meeting of the American Geophysical Union.
They reported how 2007 was becoming a “year of worsts”. So far the year has
seen the least sea ice in the Arctic, the fastest retreat of mountain
glaciers on Kilimanjaro and the quickest decline of snow in Greenland. Some
even wondered if the Earth was now nearing a “tipping point” in which
climate change would become irreversible.
Such bad news from US scientists is, however, good news for American
environmental activists. Already local politicians are ignoring the
environmental scepticism coming from the White House and responding to the
scientific data.
Hundreds of US cities and many states have decided to cut their greenhouse gas
emissions unilaterally. In the country that emits more than any other, that
can make a difference to the rest of the world.
Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York, was among those in Bali who said America
was changing. “The evidence of escalating climate change is indisputable,”
he said.
The change in America is profound and rapid – but will it be enough? Gore
believes that, with presidential elections due next year, it just might be.
“My country is principally responsible for obstructing progress here in
Bali,” he said. “[But] over the next two years the United States is going to
be somewhere it is not now.”
It is a faint hope that Gore is offering. Not one of the presidential
candidates has made a commitment to cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
America generates about 14% emissions and the figure is rising fast.
Reversing thatof all global CO2 trend would be a huge challenge.
Politicians, however, feel a need to please their public and Gore, like Benn
and the other Bali negotiators, is clearly trying to offer the world at
least some hope of avoiding the worst effects of climate change.
To reismc1, Olathe,
If in any doubt about climate change, please read publicly funded research papers freely available by most universities (including my own - UEA).
A good place to start is the:
Climate Research Unit - Univeristy of East Anglia
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research - UEA
CSERGE - UEA
These have many publically funded research papers from a multitude of disciplines including social sciences, oceanography, earth sciences, geology, meteorology (and more). There are also many links to other government and ngo research.
You may find that climate change is not a political stunt, but rather that climate change has forced environmental consideration on the political agenda.
Melanie Bennet, Norwich,
AGW is a complete HOAX predicated on the global redistribution of wealth.
1) The data in the IPCC is useless. This is a policy statement prepared by politicians. They add enough "science" by "scientists" to make it appear credible. These "scientists" were paid by these politicians to produce this policy statement. It you don't see an inherent problem with this, don't bother reading any further.
2) The IPCC report had to be "amended" over and over again. The hockey stick graph has been eliminated, owing to the fact that it was discredited about as soon as it came out. In the beginning there was a statement in the IPCC that there was NO evidence that man was impacting climate change. This was removed as it did not fit their agenda. Several scientists left the panel when they saw the inaccuracies and exaggerations in the report. At least one scientist sued to have his name removed.
3) There are several petitions signed by more than 10s of thousands of scientists that do not agree with the IPCC. There were about 1200 "scientists" with the IPCC. There is NO consensus! If you were to poll scientists "anonymously" the vast majority would not agree with the IPCC. It must be anonymous so they won't lose their funding.
4) The models they used do not take in to consideration such things as solar activity, precipitation and cloud cover. The models themselves are not worthy of any consideration with out those three elements. Think about it, the three elements that OBVIOUSLY influence the temperature the most aren't even addressed.
5) Thus, this report is so fundamentally flawed that any true (non government funded) scientist would disregard it. This report is based loosely on "correlation" only. Correlation does not mean causation! There was just an article published that owing to the fact that there are fewer pirates there is global warming, same correlation.
6) AGW doesn’t even pass the most basic “smell testâ€. CO2 makes up .004% of the atmosphere, there in NO way this extremely small percentage, even if doubled, could impact the temperature as they are inclined to say it “doesâ€.
7) There is NO scientific proof of AGW. There is, however, proof that the increase in CO2 occurs after the warming. This would make much more sense. As the majority of the CO2 on earth is maintained in the oceans, as they warm they realize more CO2. If the CO2 caused the warming it would trigger an unstoppable (regardless of what man did) release of CO2 from the oceans in a never ending cycle. As the earth has warmed and cooled repeatedly, we know that this cannot be true.
8) The earth was cooling up until the 70s, right during the midst of historical CO2 production that should not have happened. The earth has not warmed since 1998, right when China and India have come on-line with massive amounts of CO2, this too, should be impossible. AGW doesn't even pass the most basic "smell test".
9) Its called WEATHER. It gets warmer and cooler; the poles have even been known to switch with each other. There have been ice ages, warm periods, and it will continue to be that way. This is the most inane crap that man has ever contrived!
I agree that we all need to be better stewards of the environment, but this is not the way to do it. I was around in the 70s when the next ice age was coming, as I am a climber I couldn't wait...oh well.
reismc1, Olathe,
How do we persuade the people holding the purse strings and the power, that with a bit of help, nature could cure global warming and some of our other worldly problems.
WATER - If fresh water was given the same world wide priority
as oil, we would stop it flowing into the sea and move it to where it is needed, and plant some trees in reclaimed deserts.
The cost of this could be covered by the U.N. restricting the sale of arms around the world.
THE WORLD MUST COME DOWN TO EARTH.
arthur marson, huddersfield, west yorkshire
Our government in Australia has just been unceremoniously kicked out of office because it refused to take climate change seriously, and chose the same line as the US. Our former Prime Minister, John Howard, even lost his seat after 33 years and is no longer even a member of Parliament! Australia has been suffering the worst drought in its history and still the former government chose to ignore the obvious, and follow the US line. Where I live in Melbourne, we have had water restrictions for some years. I keep my garden alive on water from the washing machine which I divert into my rain-water tank. It rarely has rain-water in it. Our new Prime Minister is already making changes but we have a lot of lost time to make up. However, it goes to show that in a democracy people can make a difference. But we are a tiny country of only 20 million people. If the people of the US were to do vote accordingly, now that would really make a difference. My God, it's actually raining...
Alicat, Melbourne, Australia
The solution to Greenhouse gas buildup & to the rate of oil depletion is to immediately cut, globally, consumption of coal, gas & oil. In developed countries this will mean real reductions in our consumer lifestyles. Developing nations will have to stop aiming for western consumer lifestyles. We will need to rethink what we regard as the "good life" & our definition of economic security & social status. We will need to develop new economic ideas that are geared to non-growth economies, with international trade mainly in technology & knowledge rather than mainly in material commodities. We will need to find effective ways to reduce the human population to about 1000 million globally. These changes will radically alter our lifestyles & long term for the better. The alternative is to resist change until change is forced upon us. In this case we will have to accept what ever is on offer, which for billions globally, will be a very unhappy existence & an early death.
david, Mullumbimby, Australia
Bali was all hot air. It does not matter what the greens say or anyone signs -the earth is doomed and GW or whatever euphemism your politics call it is NOT the cause. Over population is and nobody left or right will admit this. Bye bye planet earth. Hello the global maggot farm!
Emily P, cambridge, UK
I seem to recall that the IPCC has always maintained that their scenarios are not 'projections' and should not be used as such.(3rd assessment report).Yet the IPCC are allowing green action groups to do just that in their scaremongering tactics possibly because they feel that greens are closer to the general public. The science with regard to Co2 and its roll in GW is far from settled, with scientist increasingly thinking that warmth comes first then Co2. Read the recent letter of 150 of them to secretary general of the united nations in that respect. As for the MET office and 2007 being the worst for the climate with another 8 in the past decade. Here are the figures:1998: ( the truly warmest thanks to the El Nino) 0.526, 1999: 0.302, 2000: 0.277, 2001: 0.406,2002: 0.455, 2003: 0.465, 2004: 0.444, 2005: 0.475,2006: 0.422. In other words 2006 was the coldest year since 2001. Since 1998 we have actually regained 0.2 degrees of the 0.6 rise ( claimed but never validate.
dirk Schouten, Zoetermeer, The Netherlands
I seem to recall the IPCC always maintained that 'scenarios'
were not 'projections' and should not be used as such (3rd assessment report) Yet the IPCC allowed 'green' action groups to do just that in their scaremongering tactics, possibly to widen their limited audience as regards the man in the street. The science is far from settled with regard to the role of Co2 in GW, with more and more scientist voicing the view that warmt comes 1st then Co2. With respect to the MET office and 2007 being dramatically worst for climate with 8 other years in the last decade, here are the figures: 1998 ( the absolute warmest thanks the El Nino) 0.526, 1999: 0.302, 2000: 0.277,
2001: 0.406, 2002: 0.455, 2003:0.465, 2004: 0.444, 2005: 0.475, 2006: 0422. In other words: 2006 was the coldest year since 2001. As a matter of fact we have gained 0.2 degree in relation to the 0.6 degrees centigrade accepted but never validated global warming since 1875 or so.
dirk Schouten, Zoetermeer, The Netherlands
A rather pathetic result from a conference that would have cost hugely in CO2 emissions. Shame on Bush and more particularly the evil Cheney for their beggar my neighbour approach. it had been better to wait until their successors were elected. The international system built on consensus politics and non-enforcement looks incapable of dealing with this problem. Hopefully the catastrophes to come will spur the creation of rational world politics.
Lance White, brussels, Belgium
fdxAbandon hope all ye who abandon science for politics.
Thanks to the Nobel Prize for GUFF more people are more confused than ever. If a scientific body awards prizes for alarmism, there is an assumption that there must be some foundation in the science. I have read as much as I can for 30 years on climate change and am a practicing geoscientist. I cannot find a single reference that elevates AGW beyond an unsupported hypothesis. As an unsupported hypothesis, AGW has more value than the concept that the moon is made of blue cheese because that has been disproven, and less value than fluctuations of the sun are responsible in a very complex manner for climate change (glaciations).
The other positions, discounted by the UN, that water vapour is by far the most abundant GHG, has also been ignored along with the sound astrophysical research by the Danish National Space Center (web site). The worst piece of all is throwing out the scientific balance of experiment and testing.
Fran Manns, Toronto,
I guess it's all down to the money that American politicians won't get into reducing their pollution..............but nature will get back what we have ALL destroyed. Like the Manic Street Preachers song.......If you tolerate this then your children will be next.
Hugo Flores Ortiz, Los Cabos, Mexico