UN Intergovernmental Report Warns Time Running Out to Tackle Climate Change

Another Stark Warning

A United Nations (UN) report published today has added weight to recent warnings on climate change, and comes ahead of negotiations on renewing the Kyoto Protocol in 2012. The report is based on scientific data and the collaborative work of hundreds of scientists, but has already been hit by criticism that its data is out of date, and that the message being sent is not damning enough.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) fourth report makes no bones about the potentially devastating effects of global warming, and places the blame squarely on the shoulders of humans. The last report six years ago could only guess at the potential cost of unrelenting use of fossil fuels and intensive production techniques. The latest document says that it is 90% certain that humans have caused the rise in temperatures, and warns that global warming is already in process—citing "unequivocal" evidence of the melting of polar ice caps and increased average global air and sea temperatures. It forecasts rising sea levels and increased (and more erratic) weather activity such as storms, heatwaves, and heavy rainfall—meaning further droughts for some areas already affected.

The report notes the high atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2), and says that the growth rate in CO2 over the last 10 years was in excess of the natural rate seen over the last 650,000 years, and that since the start of the industrial period, this growth can be attributed in the main to the use of fossil fuels, as well as other smaller contributory factors, for example changes in land use. The increase in methane concentrations in 2005 though, subject to similar analyses, is blamed on land use and agriculture.

Main Forecasts/Findings

• The next two decades will see a 0.2-degree-Celsius increase in the average global temperature.
• By 2100, global temperatures will have risen by three degrees.
• It is 125,000 years since the last period when polar regions were significantly warmer than at present.
• Sea levels will rise between 28 and 43 centimetres. This is less than the previous report’s upper estimate of 88 centimetres, although the figure is only based on the belief that the Antarctic ice cap will melt at a slower rate due to increased rainfall. The Arctic icecap is still very much endangered.

Political Impact

The warnings and forecasts are certainly alarming, but in terms of political impact it is feared that the report does not hit home hard enough. Unlike the 2006 U.K. Stern Report, it shies away from placing an economic cost on the changes. It was not in the panel’s remit to do this, but without spelling out the cost in layman’s terms, the political momentum remains limited.

Nonetheless, the report provides additional ammunition for German Chancellor Angela Merkel to use, in tandem with the Stern Report, when she attempts to put climate change on the agenda at the Group of Eight (G8) summit in June, which Germany is hosting this year. Germany also holds the rotating six-month presidency of the European Union (EU) until July, and will attempt to raise the issue here too. It is increasingly difficult for major industrial nations to ignore the reports' findings, but there remains the danger that politicians will do nothing more than pay lip service to the issue, particularly when energy security is higher in many minds. Also in Merkel's armoury is the EU's 2007 energy action plan, which recommends switching to alternative sources of energy. Although this action plan itself was criticised for being rather toothless and vague, it crucially left the issue of alternative energy sources a sovereign one, including leaving it up to nation states to decide whether to employ more nuclear energy.

Yesterday, a symbolic five-minute switching off of electricity was carried out in several cities across France, Italy, Spain and Greece. This intended to highlight popular concerns about climate change ahead of the report's release in the French capital, Paris, and the growing need for policymakers to be publicly accountable on the issue. Governments have recognised the public appetite for “green” policies in Europe, but their deeds have not necessarily matched their words.

Signs of Change in the U.S.?

As the world's largest energy user by a wide margin, as well as its biggest polluter, any action to limit carbon emissions will have limited overall impact without U.S. co-operation. The administration of President George W. Bush has been famously sceptical about climate change, highlighting the scientific uncertainties and resisting any policy change that could damage the economy. Bush refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol negotiated by his predecessor and has encouraged greater domestic oil and natural gas extraction. Officials alleged earlier this week that the administration has actively undermined those who depart from the official line, revising documents to highlight uncertainties. The administration has powerful allies in the energy sector and among other heavy energy users.

Is this all starting to change, however? There are some signs that the administration is softening its scepticism. Recent policy documents have acknowledged climate change more openly; it was cited as partial justification for bold energy initiatives announced in Bush's latest State of the Union address (even if the primary motivation was energy security). Bush proposed a reduction in projected gasoline (petrol) consumption by 20% over the next 10 years, in favour of renewable fuels. There will be huge government investment in the latter, although some of the fuels do not result in a significant reduction in carbon emissions. The administration is not ignoring the flipside of the coin either, conservation. Tougher mileage standards are planned for cars and light trucks, with fuel efficiency standards improving by 4% a year from 2010 (or 2012 for trucks). The initiatives focused very much on consumption rather than emissions, however, and Bush did not announce any specific measures to cut emissions from power plants and factories.

So while the administration may be trying to break the United States' "addiction to oil", it is not expected to take an international lead in curbing emissions. Environmentalists are instead pinning their hopes on developments at the state level, and on a Democrat victory in the 2008 presidential elections. Leading Democrats have adopted a much stronger line on climate change of late, most notably former vice-president Al Gore. Even without the presidency, the party is now in a position to influence policy with control of both chambers of Congress. There is some scepticism about how far a Democrat president would really go in practice, however. The party also sees itself as an ally of blue-collar workers in heavy industry, and it is in no hurry to compromise U.S. economic prospects. At the state level, there have been some promising developments on emissions and renewables, notably in California. It is hoped that more will follow that state's lead, but ultimately the big changes need to be mandated from the federal level.

Outlook and Implications

Predictably, the report has been derided by some experts, who believe that the message should have been starker, and that it has failed to take into account recent data that shows a worsening picture with regard to the state of the ice caps. The authors may have felt that the message that it is not too late to act should be given more prominence, to encourage doomsayers not to write off the benefits of addressing emissions and using more efficient and renewable energy sources.

For the developing world, the predicted consequences of climate change make for depressing reading: those regions already prone to harsh or volatile conditions such as droughts or landslides are likely to see a rise in such events, threatening the homes and livelihoods of millions, and adding to a vicious cycle of poverty. For the developed world, the Stern Report highlighted huge future economic costs too, but there is always the tendency for governments to focus on the near-term economic challenges. Although scientists may debate the relevance of the report's findings, it is not the scientific world that makes the decisions on energy policy. What the IPCC report has in common with other recent literature on the matter is a lack of concrete policy recommendations, leaving it up to the leading nations to shape future policy.

Find out more about Same-day Analysis