The
conference—hosted in Montreal, Canada—was hailed as a success by the
Conference President, Canadian Environment Minister Stéphane Dion. Dion said,
“Key decisions have been made in several areas. The Kyoto Protocol has been
switched on, a dialogue about the future action has begun, parties have moved
forward work on adaptation and advanced the implementation of the regular work
program of the Convention and of the Protocol.”(2)
According to the Friends of the Earth, The Montreal Action Plan (MAP)
initiates crucial negotiations on legally binding targets for industrialized
countries and also sets in motion a wider review involving all countries, due to
be discussed at talks next year.(3)
However,
as a recent report by the International Energy Agency makes clear, there is
still a huge gap between the aspirations expressed by the signatories to the
Kyoto Protocol and the reality of global energy consumption trends.
The
World Energy Outlook 2005(4) categorically
states that if governments do nothing to change their policies, global energy
consumption will rise by over 50 percent by 2030. Even if governments implement
existing commitments such as the Kyoto Protocol, global energy consumption will
rise by 30 percent by 2030.
This
is mainly because developing countries such as India and China, which will see
the biggest increases in energy consumption, are not yet committed to binding
agreements to cut emissions. And despite the intentions expressed at Montreal,
most developed nations are also failing to meet their targets. In other words,
while the critical need to cut emissions was acknowledged by governments at
Montreal, there is not yet any evidence that commitments to make such cuts will
be realized.
Rapidly
Disappearing?
Yet,
all the signs indicate the effects of global warming are happening faster than
the most cautious pundits have predicted. The Greenland ice sheet appears to be
melting rapidly(5), recent research indicates
the Kalahari Desert in southern Africa could double in size over the next
century(6), while the release of methane from
the Siberian tundra also appears to be advancing faster than many had feared.(7)
Such
events dramatically reveal that the time scale for taking decisive action to
prevent further rises in carbon emissions is short, and getting shorter all the
time.
The
1992 Convention on Climate Change, to which the USA is a signatory, made a
commitment to limit atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases to avoid
“dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” It is
generally accepted within the scientific community that “dangerous levels”
of carbon emissions will be reached when global temperature rises by more than 2oc.
There is less agreement about how much more carbon dioxide can be released into
the atmosphere before a 2oc temperature rise is precipitated. Current levels of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere currently amount to around 380ppm (parts per
million). Some governments and corporations appear comfortable with the prospect
that emissions can rise to around 550ppm before any remedial action is needed.
Others estimate rises to around 450ppm will constitute the moment we have
reached ‘dangerous levels’.(8)
Yet,
the ‘Meeting the Climate Challenge’ report produced by an international task
force organized by UK policy activists in January 2005 spells out our margin for
error with chilling clarity:
“Climate
science is not yet able to specify the trajectory of atmospheric concentrations
of greenhouse gases that corresponds precisely to any particular global
temperature rise. Based on current knowledge, however, it appears that achieving
a high probability of limiting global average temperature rise to 2 degrees
Celsius will require that the increase in greenhouse-gas concentrations as well
as all the other warming and cooling influences on global climate in the year
2100, as compared with 1750, should add up to a net warming no greater than what
would be associated with a CO2 [carbon dioxide] concentration of about
400ppm.”(9)
The
predictions made by the International Energy Agency indicate that we will reach
the 400ppm threshold within around 10 years; by 2030, we will have completely
exceeded it. A 30-50 percent increase in global energy consumption could trigger
rising global temperatures of anything up to 60c by the end of the twenty first
century, capitulating us irreversibly into chaos.
If
the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic polar ice caps, and fragile ecosystems like
the Kalahari and Siberia are already facing rapid destabilization as a
result of rising temperatures, the effects of relentless continued rises on such
environments will be catastrophic. The melting of the ice sheets will eventually
cause sea levels to rise by anything from seven to 30 meters, wiping out cities
like London, New York, Miami, Bombay, Calcutta, Sydney, Shanghai, Lagos, and
Tokyo. Massive release of the Siberian methane may precipitate mass extinction
across the planet as temperatures become too high for life to be sustained.
At
the global level, the temptation to bury our heads in the sand in the face of
such potential devastation appears irresistible. According to a recent report by
the German Advisory Council on Global Change(10),
we need not only to implement the Kyoto agreements, but to go much further if
temperatures are to be kept at safe and sustainable levels. Their report says
that industrialized countries will have to cut emissions of greenhouse gases by
at least 20 percent by 2020, and by up to 60 percent by 2050, while rapidly
developing countries like China will need to take similar steps to switch to
sustainable energy sources. This is a shift that requires a political will
notably absent from global decision makers, who fail to even deliver on the
commitments they have made under Kyoto. Yet, we have to take decisive steps
wherever and whenever possible, without waiting for the ‘big brother’ of
global government to tell us to do it.
Such
initiatives are emerging. In defiance of the Bush administration, seven
northeastern US states have recently created the Regional Greenhouse Gas
Initiative, in which participating states have agreed to curb emissions starting
in 2009, with cuts in emissions starting in 2016(11).
The UK government has commissioned a review of future energy policy, due to
report in 2006, in the light of the need, in Tony Blair’s words, for a
“frantic” debate about future energy sustainability. Much of that debate
will focus on the role of nuclear energy as a potential source of ‘green’
energy, but environmentalists argue scaling up nuclear energy involves huge
storage and clean up costs, as well as an open invitation to terrorists, and
want to see far more emphasis on conserving and saving energy as a way of
meeting emissions targets.(12)
Clearly,
it will only be possible to prevent the unmitigated disasters runaway global
warming will cause if we act decisively and radically now. That in turn depends
on a willingness to see beyond our own immediate needs and to plan for a
sustainable future, for ourselves and for future generations. It still remains
to be seen whether or not we are capable of such decisiveness, and as the time
for action grows shorter, the chances of failure exponentially rise. Failure
shouldn’t be an option, given the potentially horrendous consequences it
entails, but only time will tell whether we have the will and resources to
collectively avert such an outcome.
