Copenhagen Climate Change Summit 7-18 December 2009: Last Chance Saloon?

1.0 COP15 INTRODUCTION

The next climate change summit is upon us, and the UN will again hope to develop a successor to the Kyoto Protocol series which was initially developed in Kyoto, Japan back in 1997. This series of United Nations Climate Change Conferences originally dates back to the 1992 Earth summit in Rio, a global forum which first addressed the issue of man-made climate change. This year’s summit is being considered by climate scientists to be of particular importance if the global community is to have a chance of keeping warming below the perilous 2C level.

Lord Stern, author of the UK Government’s authoritative report on the economic impact of climate change, believes Copenhagen has a 50/50 chance of stopping a catastrophe. Failure to secure a new agreement could lead to a world temperature rise of more than 5C, a change that Lord Stern believes ‘could only be described as catastrophic’. In order to avoid this scenario it is estimated that cuts of 25%-40% in relation to 1990 emission levels by 2020 are required, then rising to 80-95% by 2050. This translates to a cut from 47 billion tones of global emissions, to 44 billion tonnes by 2020. So far potential resolutions are considered to be way below these targets.

2.0 THE CONSEQUENCES OF A ‘4 DEGREE WORLD’

The Consequences of not meeting these targets could be potentially devastating, Professor John Beddington (Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Government) presented findings from a number of models that co-ordinated to suggest that if the Copenhagen summit was not to agree a successful strategy for reducing global warming, then somewhere between 2060-2100 a 4 degree rise in worldwide temperature will occur. Currently a 2 degree increase in temperature is considered to be problematic, however a worldwide rise of temperature by 4 degrees, could have potentially disastrous effects.

The key effects of a ’2 and 4 degree world’ are shown below:

2 Degree increase – Problematic – Increased floods and storms
- Shortage of water resources
- Impacts on food production at low latitudes
- Greater depth of seasonal permafrost thaw

4 Degree rise in temperature is considered to be ‘disastrous’
- A 16 degree increase in the Arctic
- Substantial impact on major crops
- Around 1 billion additional people experience water scarcity
- Extensive coastal flooding

Looking at a more detailed area, Professor Beddington states that current models observe that North-East America could see a localised increase of 10-12 degrees. More specifically, when considering New York whose current hottest day is 39 degrees, this could increase to the low 50C degrees a near unbearable heat.

In the new ‘4 degree world’ the effect of global warming also becomes self-serving, as due to the increased heat they will be substantial vegetation rotting, which in turn releases large amounts of methane which can significantly contribute to global warming. Other affects of a 4 degree increase in temperature include ocean acidification, ice melt, and more intense tropical cyclones.

Furthermore, a ‘4 degree world’ will increase the number of people suffering from severe water shortage 8 fold to a total of 4 billion; it will also see increasing shortages of food due to drought and desertification this in turn creates a scissors effect where the world’s increasing population conflicts against a decreasing availability of food & water. The dangers of mass migration will also rapidly increase upon current figures, suggesting that a mass migration of 150-200 million people could occur. These effects in turn could lead to increased danger of conflict, and these problems will only be strained and exacerbated by the trends of a 4 degree world. (Source: David & Ed Millband, Prof. Beddington, Climate Change Summit)

To go to interactive map click here.

This is an interactive map showing the effects of global warming

3.0 ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE

These are just some of the physical effects; economically climate change will also have a large impact. Lord Stern believes the costs of addressing climate change will continue to rise at an increasing amount if we don’t begin to do something to curb it. The economic impact of addressing extreme weather effects could cost as much as 1% of global gross domestic product (GDP) - GDP was estimated at $70 trillion in 2008 according to the World Bank.

A global temperature rise of 2-3 degree, could reduce global economic output by 3%. Furthermore, in a worst case scenario global consumption per head could fall by as much as 20%. Stern estimates that to stabilise emissions to manageable levels, emissions would need to stabilise in the next 20 years and further decline between 1-3% after that, this would cost 1% of GDP.

Other findings by scientists at the Carnegie institution measured the effects of global warming on the impact of agriculture and the potential for lower crop yields caused by increasingly warmer temperatures. They estimated that over the past 20 years, the annual yield of the worlds six largest crops accounted for 55% of non-meat calories consumed by humans and 70% of total animal feed. The findings suggested that with the estimated lower crop yield caused by global warming would amount to a net economic loss of $5 billion a year.

4.0 HOW TO CHANGE AND WHO SHOULD MAKE THE CUTS

One of the key issues to be discussed at COP15 will be how changes will be made and who will make them. This is a complex argument which has created much debate between developed and developing nations. One side of the argument suggests that developed nations such as US, Japan, UK among others have heavily emitted and are by far the worst contributors of carbon emissions on a per person basis, and thus should have a responsibility to make the biggest cuts.

However, the emerging economies of India and China are booming, and any form of global treaty on cutting emissions, could significantly curb their economic progress. There is a school of thought that suggests that China, India and other developing nations alike deserve the opportunity to pollute in order to improve the quality of life within their nations, who currently per person have small carbon footprints due to the millions of people who live in poverty within their nations. This issue is a key discussion point for the negotiations, and agreeing a balanced accord for both parties is vital.

How are these changes going to be paid for? Whilst in the long term, a low-carbon economy is viewed as cheaper and more sustainable option than a fossil-fuel based economy, currently time is deemed short and high costs will be forthcoming in the near future.

Indeed, one of the costs needing to be covered is that of the poorest nations such as Bangladesh and Sudan that have been most affected by climate change yet have done almost nothing to cause it. Reparations (as some are calling it) from rich polluting nations to poorer nations whom have suffered damage from climate change could cost billions. Furthermore, Lord Stern estimates that financial support for developing nations attempting to curtail their emissions and cope with the affects of climate change necessary within the next few years could cost as much as £30 billion a year as required by 2015.

Whilst any attempts to build a clean energy infrastructure diversifying away from dirty energy resources will also have huge economic repercussions. The EU have estimated that $100bn a year from 2020 would cover the global climate change cost, however agreeing a figure that all the nations will accept will be a vital part of the negotiations.

4.0 CONCLUSION

The accumulation of evidence stating the causes and effects of man-made climate change is impressive, and shows a real urgency for something substantial to be achieved at COP15.

However, it is worth noting that there is still a large contingent of ‘climate-change deniers’ and doubt surrounding this evidence, and if reports are correct this is a number that is increasing, particularly in the light of recent allegations of falsification of climate change data. This statistic observes a need for increasing transparency in scientific reports and funding, and a requirement of the scientific world to regain a higher level of trust in their findings and motives, in order to gain as much unity as possible on the issue.

However, doubters aside, if you believe the scientific rhetoric, then the requirement of a successful treaty between nations at COP15 is of the utmost importance.

Written by Tim Madden.