Last week the cream of the global scientific community met in Copenhagen to discuss, debate and update scientific understandings of climate change. The event culminated in renewed calls from climate scientists for policy-makers to act quickly to promote global action.
The content of the conference was alarming. A point hammered home repeatedly was that once in the atmosphere, carbon-dioxide is there for a very long time. As a result we may already be committed to severe consequences including more rapid sea-level rise than previously anticipated.
Our current emissions pathway is also pushing us closer to tipping points - including dieback of the Amazonian rainforest and melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet. Were this to occur it would likely accelerate climate change.
The picture painted was generally worse than that the findings presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change two years ago. In part this was because scientists were presenting data that was more recent. Equally significantly though, at this conference scientists were unconstrained by government reviewers, who have a history of reigning in their predictions.
There is some hope that the recommendations drawn up in Copenhagen, which will be presented to global leaders in fuller form before we all return in December, may force governments to aim for deeper cuts in emissions. The scientific community has a long and successful history of pushing forward the international political process, dating to the Villach conferences of the mid-1980's.
But many in this community remain sceptical of the ability of policy-makers to respond. Most European governments, for instance, continue to implicitly base policy on stabilising global emissions at 450 parts-per-million, when more and more evidence suggests that not only is this goal inadequate, it may be impossible. Trying to stabilise emissions at such a high-level could mean passing tipping points and triggering feedback mechanisms, accelerating the build-up of greenhouse gases well beyond this point.
Ultimately the news from Copenhagen was not good. It is highly probable that we are running out of time to deal with climate change and for all the excellent work presented by thoughtful and engaged scientists, it is politicians who will decide our fate.
Related Reading:
The Final Warning
The Economy or the Environment? "Both" Say Half of Americans
There are studies underway to now what drives up carbon emissions. No doubt that individual change of behavior is not sufficient to reverse the trend. If one single country adopts measures they probably would have to be different than the whole world in one concerted action. To base all consideration on economic growth numbers is certainly a mistake since all peoples needs could easily met with a fraction of today's frantic moving around things. Longevity of things would play a mayor role. The central points are, methinks, taxing and gov spending.
I'd make bold advance to say that the solution is flat-rate of all gains including shares return and profit and the end of absurd taxation of payed labor. Work done is not necessarily connected with gain and should be tax-free investment lest it actually produces gain.
Second point i'd like to state that the entire social, sanitarian and governmental fields resent the pression on the housing market so to bring down taxes it would help to bring down rents to a realistic level and ban profits from the whole of the construction industry or allow lifting of the surface/living-space ratio on a wider scale. Or make investments in housing on a non-profit basis a patriotic issue.
Fact is that with today's technologies significant reduction of emissions is possible without grave loss of life quality - like lots of driving goes beyond that feeling of freedom that you can get with a few minutes of manipulating a steer-wheel, but is defended to the extreme by fear of loosing those few minutes.
Sorry for gettin a bit complicated.
leaves me prayin, hopin for the best.
Written in March 2009