Small talk

If you can forgive me for writing in a hurry, then I’ll draw your attention once again to the phenomenon I spoke of a few days earlier. That is climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) might have committed itself to consistent misinterpretation. Whether this actually occurred and, if so, to what extent people are to be held responsible for doing so knowingly and willingly, is another matter, but we’ll come back to that later.

As I previously argued we have good reason to believe climate change is occurring, and also that we do not have conclusive proof that humans are at its roots. That naturally leads to a great deal of scepticism, which is a good thing as long as it does not prevent us from taking on matters effectively. I would consider it to be good thing that such is the trend these days. We might not have a decent climate bill yet, but that is more to the fact of stubborn Chinese officials and the economical unwillingness of nations.

But as there are always two sides to one coin, this news was ‘too good’ to be left well alone. Since 1990 the number of weather stations used by the IPCC has shrunk from a total of 6000 to only 1500. According to some scientists, of which Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts are two familiar names, this is one of the major reasons why numbers so consistently point to higher average temperatures.

This does not necessarily mean the figures have become unreliable. What does seem to make this happen, however, are their geographical locations, or absence of it. Most stations have been removed from high altitudes, the North Pole and countryside. Influences of the first two of these are clear, as temperatures on great heights and the North Pole are high enough to pull down nearly any average temperature, but the countryside is highly significant as well as it generally comes with less heat radiation from asphalt and industry.

Even worse, there is another blow. Temperatures by the IPCC are measured via these weather stations, but they can also be measured via satellite systems. These systems lack one serious disadvantage, namely the one we just mentioned. Their measurements are not tied to geographical locations owing to their ‘3rd person perspective’, meaning more is measured to the same standard and viability to irrelevant or biased fluctuations is less likely. This ‘shows’ itself in the figures: The IPCC temperature on average has been rising, while satellite mappings of this earth’s temperature have shown decreases since 2001.

No opportunities have so far arisen to take a deeper look into the data, so I cannot verify the arguments here presented. The numbers are taken from several newspapers, albeit not the ones I admire best for their quality. It is truly interesting, though, as it shows the nature of science by illuminating its ability and tendency to overthrow consensus, even if matters haven’t reached this point (yet?). It not only shows that data interpretation is highly sensitive to our questions, it also shows that philosophy of science is sometimes right when it stresses that measuring devices, systems or principles can lead us astray.

Do not jump ahead here. I do not mean to say there is no climate change. Still being indebted to scientific consensus (even if fully aware of this), I need a little more in order to accept my beliefs to have been falsified. Lately, some good attempts occurred, though sadly it all came from within the branch that upheld the theory. Not by rational reflection, but by ignorant ways of using ill-founded information.

That is scandalous. The richness of literature prevents nearly everyone from knowing all about the issue, as each case tends to build upon previously collected data. Let it be stressed here that my own thoughts and articles form no exception to this rule whatsoever. The danger of doing so should by now be obvious. Even if it turns out that the IPCC has a good explanation of their weather-station numbers and satellite figures, we still have the Himalaya glaciers as a reminder.

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 21^st 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.

Xie Zhenhua, head of China’s delegation for the Climate change summit that has now ended, used remarkable positive words, saying that ‘everybody should be happy’. But everybody is not happy.  Two weeks have been wasted by endless bickering on subjects that could and should have been scrutinized weeks, nay months, before the summit itself started.

China knew all along that check-ups on their emissions are not considered objective without foreign import, and all knew a legally binding maximum of emission was exactly what we needed. The Copenhagen summit, so it seems, has passed with the sole result of fulfilling the purpose of keeping our ambitions alive.

Even a spokeswoman of the European Commission could no longer turn a blind eye to the vast difference between what was achieved in the Copenhagen accord, and what was hoped for:

“A deal is better than no deal. What could be agreed today, falls far below our expectations. But It keeps our goals and ambitions alive. It addresses the needs of developing countries. It was the only deal available in Copenhagen.”

The worst thing is that the summit started with several goals in mind. One was that global temperature must not rise with more than two degrees Celsius. This brought along a difficult matter, since no side knows how much greenhouse gas emissions will have to be cut to meet this demand.  The other goal, resulting from that wish and widely considered to be the overarching principle, was finding a replacement for the Kyoto protocol. This meant that any treaty without legal-binding power would by many inevitably be seen as a let-down.

Tragically, this is what happened. Copenhagen’s accord has no binding force. It’d almost make you think that the future of your planet depends on sheer good will from national governments. That no such binding force has been implemented has far-reaching consequences therefore, since no one can be held accountable for their actions. Any attempt to reduce carbon emissions will for the most part depend on cap and trade systems, meaning actual cuts rather than compensatory measurements. Cash is a vital aspect in this system, to make pollution economically less viable.

As was suspected, developed countries will have to subsidize developing ones. In the 2010 to 2012 period this will amount to 30 billion dollars, and it is planned to rise to 100 billion dollars, by a collective commitment of rich countries, by 2020. As I noted yesterday, rich countries will be subjected to an 80% emission cut by 2050. Figures relevant for functioning as shorter-term goals are yet to be decided upon. Also, a 2016 date has been picked as one for reconsideration, if ever the need arises to set the limit of global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

None of this is likely to struck you as part of an amazing job, and rightly so. The burden has again been shifted forwards a couple of years, as also shown by guidelines for reporting on emissions and progress. National mitigation schemes that run thanks to subsidizing will have to be justified in light of international standards,  measurements, reports and verifications (or the, in this case more gloomier, falsification). Developed countries face similar rules of monitoring and reporting: Every second year by guidelines later to be adopted by the parties to the UN framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). But, once again: Later. Why not now?

Now of course the Copenhagen accord is neither fully implemented, finished nor the replacement of Kyoto, yet. Instead, it is a bill waiting for many add-ons so that it might do some good in the end. This might also be due to the fact that the last day, or even hours, turned out to be much more a struggle between this world’s leading forces, than one of a consensus reaching world meeting. The rest of the world was watching eagerly while the U.S.A., China, Brazil, South-Africa and India came up with something. It is good that, in order to prevent flying home completely empty handed, big nations take initiative and responsibility. It is bad that they apparently don’t know what these concepts mean.

They have agreed, among each other, that cuts will have to be made. That is a sound step, but again not one they made legally binding, which is certainly necessary. In the meantime international pressure might prove hard to ignore, which is, rather optimistically, like saying we have to put our hopes in cooperation for as long as legal muscles remain absent. On the other hand, it is better to have this, than to have nothing at all. Remember that up until now China and India were not bound by any agreement, and the USA did not ratify the Kyoto protocol. This route has enabled at least a morally binding principle and a framework for more result in the future.

That framework is what will be looked at now. Next year a new meeting will be held, which is so close to the 2012 that it looks even more foolish that we have deprived ourselves of a decent bill on climate change. If governments continue to put efforts into this project, by drafting proposals and lobbying before the actual deadline forces politicians to think minutes have become important, then maybe next year things will look sunnier. Sergio Serra, Brazil’s climate change ambassador, sums it up nicely:

It’s very disappointing, I would say, but it is not a failure… if we agree to meet again and deal with the issues that are still pending. We have a big job ahead to avoid climate change through effective emissions reduction targets and this was not done here.

The past few weeks then, have lead to a conclusion that many expected from the outset. Much talk, many promises, high hopes, low expectations, and a small sigh of relief that at least something was agreed upon. Those willing to make sacrifices just didn’t hold enough strategic power to create more than an intermediate step. The only hint of how important this summit was is that the head of many states sat together in one room.

The Copenhagen summit is almost over. President Obama stated just what we’ve all known for years, that talking does not solve our problems and that concessions are needed to get things going.

Too bad talking is all we’ve seen thus far. At first the major obstacle seemed to have been who will cover costs for the damage of history. Some letters and proposals have leaked one way or another, resulting in well feigned outrage of developing nations (figures talk about 10 billion dollars that will be made available for developing nations as a subsidy for green technology and past-damage). This no longer seems the case, however. Latest figures that were registered by my ears spoke of 10 billion Euros of short term investment, as the first share of a total investment of 100 billion Euros. I cannot tell how much of this will end up in poorer countries, but I’ll put that matter to rest until we hear more, since it seems unlikely that any big, developing country will settle for a deal that goes against the currents of their principles.

At this moment there remain two problems that have proved hard to take. How much will global CO2 emissions have to be reduced in order to achieve the goal that the earth’s temperature will not rise by more than two degrees Celsius? China is the other problem: They have so far refused bipartisan check-ups. They will definitely come up with data, figures and conclusions of their own, but when we think of Yuan-value, human-rights and many other issues, it becomes doubtful to which extent we can trust these outcomes.

China’s refusal is unsurprising. They have since long been reluctant to allow any country to meddle in their businesses, or indeed to let anyone publicize material that has not been state-approved (or state-made). It is essential, if anything positive will have to come out of the Copenhagen summit, that this attitude is dropped: America will not accept any deal that is ambitious enough to be able to work, that does not include the option to check amounts of CO2 emissions in all participating countries.

The U.S.A. didn’t leave us in doubt when it comes to that. Obama also reminded us that ‘our ability to take collective action is in doubt right now´. After switching on my television, I was again confronted with this, though the major emphasis was laid on something else, namely that ‘there are so many participants, hence so many interests’. What this fails to grasp is that we have only one interest. Nationalities might differ, climate change as a process does not. This has been underlined by the rapidity of global recognition: Climate change is not an issue that has presented itself decades after decades, rather, after many denials and sceptics, politicians have almost universally accepted that it occurs and needs solving.

In the coming hours they will probably be working on a deal along the following lines. By 2050, global CO2 emissions will have to be reduced by 50%. Rich countries will have to put even more effort into the project, with targets as high as 80%.  In a combination with extra flows of money to developing nations this seems a pretty fair way to spread this threat and burden. Lately, thanks to the heat that radiates from this topic,  many sceptics have again cried out loud that this is ´blind science´, and a waste of money. But if we do it right, this whole threat will not need to cost more than one, or a less positive two, percent of global economic output. That is a whole lot less than what we invested to avert the crisis.

Economies relations and political power seem to go hand in hand. Behind the scenes America and China are trying to reach common grounds. Without either of these I can’t see anything good coming out of Copenhagen at all.  They need each other, and neither wants to lose face, which is somewhat positive as both countries seem to realize they will be blamed if no treaty is drawn and accepted.

Political minds will need to be cunning and decisive in the ‘next five minutes to midnight’. China will need to make concessions by stop being over-suspicious and allowing foreign officials into their borders to register emission trends. My hopes are still high, my expectations are still low.