Already in the second month of 2010, the Climate Change conference in Copenhagen seems a long forgotten story. New things have been added to the timeline in which nations worldwide want to fight the process that is said to be so devastating to this planet. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) can be found in many headlines in recent weeks. Skepticism, fury and lies set the tone.
Fist there is the issue of alternatives. There is such widespread consensus among politicians that no one seems to doubt global warming as a result of human action, which means that too little time and money are invested to see if there are alternative explanations that could reasonably tell us why our earth is warming up. While this, in part, might be a legitimate demand, it does not change the situation we are in. If, I repeat if, climate change is happening and we can do something about it, then the time to act has come, if it hasn’t already passed. Besides that, science is about aiming for truth, wherefore the obligation to pursue various theories is a rather loose one, as accumulated evidence tends to shift the burden of proof towards other points of view.
A second issue, even much more painful, is that of an agenda. Scientists have been accused of withholding information to the public for all sorts of reasons, such as maintaining financial support. The so called “Climate gate affair” in November/December 2009 is an example of this. Over a thousand personal e-mails were stolen from the East Anglia University, and supposedly some spoke of changing data and stories in order to prevent doubts about climate change from arising. In fact, what happened was interaction between people via e-mails in ways that you and I might opt for when e-mailing. Even if -and this is hypothetical- some data cannot satisfactorily be collected or explained by the current technological means available, that does not mean that ripping things out of context brings you at places better suited for objective judgments. The only thing it is likely to do is make all ‘the evidence’ fit your story, rather than doing it the other way around by making a story out of the evidence.
There is more. Glaciers’ melting is a common horror story for everyone fearing planetary demise. How horrifying is it that the IPCC seems to have been using the tentative, totally unproven, hypothesis of an Indian scientist. Another example, as if we need it, of using numbers and figures to your liking. We should be glad that the Himalaya glaciers will not melt before the second half on this century. Skeptics, once again, fiercely entered the fray with their claims, telling of conspiracies and lies. They are right in the sense that no one will be able to conclusively prove mankind’s influence in this planet’s overheating. They’re wrong in stating it is a conspiracy, however. The theory is build up out of numerous investigations, many collections of data and probable inferences. As the IPCC says about their unlucky mistake:
The Synthesis Report, the concluding document of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (page 49) stated:
“Climate change is expected to exacerbate current stresses on water resources from population growth and economic and land-use change, including urbanisation. On a regional scale, mountain snow pack, glaciers and small ice caps play a crucial role in freshwater availability. Widespread mass losses from glaciers and reductions in snow cover over recent decades are projected to accelerate throughout the 21st century, reducing water availability, hydropower potential, and changing seasonality of flows in regions supplied by meltwater from major mountain ranges (e.g. Hindu-Kush, Himalaya, Andes), where more than one-sixth of the world population currently lives.”
This conclusion is robust, appropriate, and entirely consistent with the underlying science and the broader IPCC assessment.
It has, however, recently come to our attention that a paragraph in the 938-page Working Group II contribution to the underlying assessment2 refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly. The Chair, Vice-Chairs, and Co-chairs of the IPCC regret the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in this instance. This episode demonstrates that the quality of the assessment depends on absolute adherence to the IPCC standards, including thorough review of “the quality and validity of each source before incorporating results from the source into an IPCC Report” 3. We reaffirm our strong commitment to ensuring this level of performance.
It sums up the moral of the story: They made a mistake, but the theory has not been falsified in any way. If we’d all just stop moaning and use all our ingenuity to get a good deal through, the search for truth and a solution can be continued via various routes. A case has already been argued –not just by the unknowing me, but by the Economist- that costs will not be huge. Work together quickly and effectively, and the bank bail-outs, hugely unpopular, will turn out to be more expensive than acting on global warming. And what is more important?
Well we know what is more important, that is not the problem. The problem is a lack of responsibility on the west’s side, complemented by hugely inflated egos from developing nations. Combine this with an increasing sense of skepticism, ignorance about facts and research and an even greater general unwillingness to invest in something that is not ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, and you have made sure ‘Green-people’ face serious challenges. This was one of the reasons why Copenhagen was neither failure, nor success. One of the few good things that can be said about it is that China and India are now bound by at least some agreement, even if it is not legally binding.
The European Union has now decided to step into the plan as well, by formally announcing in a press release that they ‘reconfirm their commitment to a negotiating process’ which aims at limiting warming to two degrees Celsius. The aims are an emission reduction of 50% by in 2050, (in comparison with figures from 1990), and the emission peak mustn’t be any later than 2020. Intermediate goals are less ambitious, yet should still be at least 20% lower by 2020 (again, in comparison with 1990 figures). This intermediate aim is not definite, as in theory the EU can decide to increase it to a 30% cut under the conditions agreed by the European Council.
These are common sense conditions too, not idealistic ones in which Europe tries to be the only good boy in class. The extra cuts will only take place if other developed countries will also commit themselves to comparable reductions, with the extra demand of cooperation from developing nations. These should display responsible behavior, which in essence means finding ways to limit emissions, but less vigorously and/or with financial help from rich nations. That step is easily justified, as anything done by the EU will be outweighed by the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China)-countries doing nothing, and developing nations can claim help from developed ones based on the voice of industrial history.
Lets hope that 2010 will be a better year for our climate. With temperatures low, and the weather bad, we’ll face arguments even more inclined to deny global warming. The fact that countries such as England and the USA (and many more) have been plagued by bad weather doesn’t change a damn thing. Measures on a global scale, that take wind currents and directions into account, will be able to give a suitable explanations for this.
In the meantime, we have the time to think our policies through, so that hopefully we’ll come up with something good at the next climate conference. The more we overestimate this problem, the fiercer we will act, the smaller the damage. The greater we underestimate this problem, the higher eventual costs and the more damage future generations will be stuck with. That is not a strictly sound argument, but it’s persuasive enough for me.