Scientists are more united than ever about the ill effects of greenhouse gases, writes Paul Brown
Only Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Today, as the whole Earth begins to heat up and the climate changes before our eyes, world leaders are reaching for their fiddles in droves. Politicians admit that they can see the flames – or, to put it their way, they accept that the scientists’ warnings about global warming are proving correct. Yet their reactions continue to be woefully inadequate.
The scientists are more united in their views than ever before. Action is needed quickly, they say: according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a 60% reduction in current carbon dioxide emissions is urgently required to save the world from dangerous climate change. Note the word “dangerous”. They point to evidence that the world is already heating up, currently by 0,1 C a decade; and if the process speeds up, then natural systems will not be able to adapt.
In Canada, fir trees are already dying back: an indication that the vast forests of the United States, Canada and Russia will die in the heat before the next generations of saplings can establish themselves on the cooler northern edge of the forest. Another problem is the slowing down of the Gulf Stream, which warms the west of the British Isles. This is caused by melting ice from Greenland, and the slowdown threatens Britain with more stormy and sometimes colder winter weather. Sir Robert May, the British government’s chief scientific adviser, described this prospect as awesome.
The US is also being made aware of the problem, not least because the most likely consequence of inaction is worldwide economic recession. At a World Bank conference in Washington earlier this month, there were dire warnings about the effect on the world economy of El Nio. This is the movement of extra warm water from west to east in the Pacific, enough to disrupt trade winds and weather patterns over more than half the world. El Nio is causing the drought that is allowing the Indonesian fires to burn out of control.It is going to cause economic disruption through the Asia Pacific region and South America for the next 12 to 18 months.
Other science publications this month show that much of the frozen soil that underpins Alaska is melting. The permafrost acts as a foundation for roads, railways and oil pipelines. With rising temperatures building foundations and airport runways are crumbling.
The solution is clear: carbon dioxide emissions must be cut. Carbon dioxide, although making up only a tiny percentage of air, acts as a barrier to prevent heat escaping. As with the glass in a greenhouse, it lets in the sunlight and prevents the heat getting out – so the “greenhouse effect”.
There are other greenhouse gases, such as methane, but carbon dioxide poses the most difficult problem because it stays in the atmosphere for up to 100 years before being re-absorbed by plants or the oceans.
What makes it possible to set targets for cuts is the fact that carbon dioxide production can be measured. We know how much coal is burned in power stations and how much fuel goes into cars, and each nation’s extra carbon dioxide can be calculated. Targets, however, are what the world cannot agree on.
Yet whatever compromise is reached, the problem will not wait for politicians. Dr Bob Watson, environment director at the World Bank, said: “We are approaching the point where the earth’s biological systems will not be able to meet our demands for goods and services on which we depend.”
Meanwhile, Fred Pearce reports that negotiations aimed at preventing a global meltdown are close to collapse, with the US, the world’s largest source of greenhouse gases, refusing to agree to controls on industry if they are not matched by developing countries. These countries argue that as the industrialised nations got us into this mess, they should take the lead in cutting emissions. Talks on a global deal resume in Bonn this week, with European negotiators hoping to broker a compromise.