Climate
Chaos Is
Inevitable.
We Can Only
Avert
Oblivion
By Mark
Lynas
24/06/08
"The
Guardian"
---
Sometimes we
need to
think the
unthinkable,
particularly
when dealing
with a
problem as
dangerous as
climate
change -
there is no
room for
dogma when
considering
the future
habitability
of our
planet. It
was in this
spirit that
I and a
panel of
other
specialists
in climate,
economics
and
policy-making
met under
the aegis of
the
Stockholm
Network thinktank to
map out
future
scenarios
for how
international
policy might
evolve - and
what the
eventual
impact might
be on the
earth's
climate. We
came up with
three
alternative
visions of
the future,
and asked
experts at
the Met
Office
Hadley
Centre to
run them
through its
climate
models to
give each a
projected
temperature
rise. The
results were
both
surprising,
and
profoundly
disturbing.
We gave each
scenario a
name. The
most
pessimistic
was labelled
"agree and
ignore" - a
world where
governments
meet to make
commitments
on climate
change, but
then
backtrack or
fail to
comply with
them. Sound
familiar? It
should: this
scenario
most closely
resembles
the past 10
years, and
it projects
emissions on
an upward
trend until
2045. A more
optimistic
scenario was
termed
"Kyoto
plus": here
governments
make a
strong
agreement in
Copenhagen
in 2009,
binding
industrialised
countries
into a new
round of
Kyoto-style
targets,
with
developing
countries
joining
successively
as they
achieve
"first
world"
status. This
scenario
represents
the best
outcome that
can
plausibly
result from
the current
process -
but
ominously,
it still
sees
emissions
rising until
2030.
The third
scenario -
called "step
change" - is
worth a
closer look.
Here we
envisaged
massive
climate
disasters
around the
world in
2010 and
2011 causing
a sudden
increase in
the sense of
urgency
surrounding
global
warming.
Energised,
world
leaders
ditch Kyoto,
abandoning
efforts to
regulate
emissions at
a national
level.
Instead,
they focus
on the
companies
that produce
fossil fuels
in the first
place - from
oil and gas
wells and
coal mines -
with the UN
setting a
global
"upstream"
production
cap and
auctioning
tradable
permits to
carbon
producers.
Instead of
all the
complexity
of
regulating
squabbling
nations and
billions of
people, the
price
mechanism
does the
work:
companies
simply pass
on their
increased
costs to
consumers,
and demand
for
carbon-intensive
products
begins to
fall. The
auctioning
of permits
raises
trillions of
dollars to
be spent
smoothing
the
transition
to a
low-carbon
economy and
offsetting
the impact
of price
rises on the
poor. A
clear
long-term
framework
puts a price
on carbon,
giving
business a
strong
incentive to
shift
investment
into
renewable
energy and
low-carbon
manufacturing.
Most
importantly,
a strong
carbon cap
means that
global
emissions
peak as
early as
2017.
This
"upstream
cap"
approach is
not a new
idea, and
our approach
draws in
particular
on a
forthcoming
book by the
environmental
writer
Oliver
Tickell.
However,
conventional
wisdom from
governments
and
environmental
groups alike
insists that
"Kyoto is
the only
game in
town", and
that
proposing
any
alternative
is dangerous
heresy.
But let's
look at the
modelled
temperature
increases
associated
with each
scenario.
"Agree and
ignore" sees
temperatures
rise by
4.85C by
2100 (with a
90%
probability);
for "Kyoto
plus", it's
3.31C; and
"step
change"
2.89C. This
is the
depressing
bit: no
politically
plausible
scenario we
could
envisage
will now
keep the
world below
the danger
threshold of
two degrees,
the official
target of
both the EU
and UK. This
means that
all
scenarios
see the
total
disappearance
of Arctic
sea ice;
spreading
deserts and
water stress
in the
sub-tropics;
extreme
weather and
floods; and
melting
glaciers in
the Andes
and
Himalayas.
Hence the
need to
focus far
more on
adaptation:
these are
impacts that
humanity is
going to
have to deal
with
whatever now
happens at
the policy
level.
But the
other great
lesson is
that
sticking
with current
policy is
actually a
very risky
option,
rather than
a safe bet.
Betting on
Kyoto could
mean
triggering
the collapse
of the West
Antarctic
ice sheet
and crossing
thresholds
that involve
massive
methane
release from
melting
Siberian
permafrost.
If current
policy
continues to
fail - along
the lines of
the "agree
and ignore"
scenario -
then 50% to
80% of all
species on
earth could
be driven to
extinction
by the
magnitude
and rapidity
of warming,
and much of
the planet's
surface left
uninhabitable
to humans.
Billions,
not
millions, of
people would
be
displaced.
So which way
will it go?
Ultimately
the
difference
between the
scenarios is
one of
political
will: the
question now
is whether
humanity can
summon up
the courage
and
foresight to
save itself,
or whether
business as
usual - on
climate
policy as
much as
economics -
will condemn
us all to
climatic
oblivion.
· Mark Lynas
is the
author of
Six Degrees:
Our Future
on a Hotter
Planet
|
