Absolute must-read report

IPCC says debate over, further delay fatal, action not costly

Posted by Joseph Romm (Guest Contributor) at 2:08 AM on 18 Nov 2007

Read more about: IPCC | climate | climate science

In its definitive scientific synthesis report (PDF), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) today issued its strongest call for immediate action to save humanity from the deadly consequences of unrestrained greenhouse gas emissions.

This report -- signed off by 130 nations including the U.S. and China -- slams the door on any argument for delay and makes clear we must under no circumstances listen to those who urge that we wait (who knows how long) to develop as yet non-existent technology [this means you President Bush, Newt Gingrich, Bjorn Lomborg]. As The New York Times put it:

Members of the panel said their review of the data led them to conclude as a group and individually that reductions in greenhouse gasses had to start immediately to avert a global climate disaster that could leave island states submerged and abandoned, African crop yields decreased by 50 percent, and cause over a 5 percent decrease in global gross domestic product.

... this summary was the first to acknowledge that the melting of the Greenland ice sheet from rising temperature [which would raise the oceans 23 feet] could result in sea-level rise over centuries rather than millennia.

Readers of this blog know the IPCC almost certainly underestimates the timing and severity of likely impacts because it ignores or downplays key amplifying feedbacks in the carbon cycle (see "Are scientists overestimating or underestimating climate change," especially Part II and Part III). Indeed, IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri -- a scientist and economist -- admitted as much:

He said that since the panel began its work five years ago, scientists have recorded "much stronger trends in climate change," like a recent melting of polar ice that had not been predicted. "That means you better start with intervention much earlier."

How much earlier? The normally understated Pachauri warns:

"If there's no action before 2012, that's too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment."

In short: time's up! America, we better pick the right President in 2008.

To balance the bad news, the IPCC and its member governments agree on the good news -- action is affordable:

In 2050, global average macro-economic costs for mitigation towards stabilisation between 710 and 445ppm CO2-eq are between a 1% gain and 5.5% decrease of global GDP. This corresponds to slowing average annual global GDP growth by less than 0.12 percentage points.

But how is that possible? How can the world's leading governments and scientific experts agree that we can avoid catastrophe for such a small cost?

Because that's what the scientific and economic literature -- and real-world experience -- says:

Both bottom-up and top-down studies indicate that there is high agreement and much evidence of substantial economic potential for the mitigation of global GHG emissions over the coming decades that could offset the projected growth of global emissions or reduce emissions below current levels.

In fact, the bottom up studies -- the ones that look technology by technology, which I believe are more credible -- have even better news:

Bottom-up studies suggest that mitigation opportunities with net negative costs have the potential to reduce emissions by around 6 GtCO2-eq/yr in 2030.

Wow! A 20% reduction in global emissions might be possible in a quarter century with net economic benefits! Take that, delayers who oppose rapid, mandatory action and supposedly represent the "pragmatic center on climate and energy" -- but who in fact represent the fatal siren song of "wait for new technology, wait for new technology."

But don't we need new technologies? Of course, but we don't need -- and can't afford -- to sit on our hands when we have so many cost-effective existing technologies:

There is high agreement and much evidence that all stabilisation levels assessed can be achieved by deployment of a portfolio of technologies that are either currently available or expected to be commercialised in coming decades, assuming appropriate and effective incentives are in place for their development, acquisition, deployment and diffusion and addressing related barriers.

Yes delayers -- we need to do two things at once: aggressively deploy existing technology (with carbon prices and government standards) and aggressively finish developing and commercializing key technologies and systems that are in the pipeline. Anyone who argues for just doing the latter is disputing a very broad consensus, and is neither pragmatic nor centrist.

What do we risk if fail to act now?

Anthropogenic warming could lead to some impacts that are abrupt or irreversible, depending upon the rate and magnitude of the climate change.

Partial loss of ice sheets on polar land could imply metres of sea level rise, major changes in coastlines and inundation of low-lying areas, with greatest effects in river deltas and low-lying islands. Such changes are projected to occur over millennial time scales, but more rapid sea level rise on century time scales cannot be excluded.

In short, we risk that our top climatologists's warnings on sea level rise prove true. What else?

As global average temperature increase exceeds about 3.5 degrees C, model projections suggest significant extinctions (40-70% of species assessed) around the globe.

IPCC to world: The time to act is now or we risk destroying life on the earth as we know it!

You can listen to the IPCC press conference, download their PPT presentation, and get the entire synthesis report here.

For story: Absolute must-read report
16 Comments | Post a Comment

IPCC work vital to a good future for our children

Dear Joe Romm,

At least to me, the news from the IPCC about the world we inhabit is forbidding. The unwelcome evidence appears to relate to aspects of stark biophysical reality that have been uncovered by good science and reported repeatedly by IPCC in recent years. Even though these apparently unforeseen data from the IPCC are bad news, the news itself appears to be gained from the practice of good science.

I prefer to rely on good science when it comes to sharing an understanding with our brothers and sisters about the way the world in which we live works and about an adequate enough grasp of the "placement" of the human species within the natural order of living things.

All the widely agreed to preternatural thinking we see in the world today, when taken together, cannot be favorably compared to even one single thought derived from good science.

From my perspective, we have a remarkably large and loud number of people, many of them are our leaders, who are denialists and naysayers with regard to the science of global warming. They have been doing what they are doing now during much of my adult life. What they are saying and doing, I suppose, is derived from one form or another of self-interested-thinking. At least one consequence of their widely shared and consensually validated way of viewing the world could lead the human community into danger. Let me say more now about what I mean.

Self-interested-thinking is potentially dangerous because it serves to hide the truth of global warming, among other things, as well as "poison the well" of public discourse regarding climate change.

Too many of our politicians, economists, big-business benefactors and the talking heads in the mass media are all "whistling the same tune." What is even worse is the way they entice many appointees and surrogates to whistle that same tune, too. After all, who can resist offerings of great wealth, power and privileges that accrue to those who go along with one's self-interests, with whatsoever is political convenient, economically expedient, religiously tolerated and socially agreeable. In the face of such temptation, we can readily understand why the scientific gains of the IPCC would be everywhere, in every way, rejected by the denialists and naysayers. The science from the IPCC could forcefully impede their acquisition of more wealth, more power and more privileges.

Not only are too many leaders trying to hide or otherwise deny the good scientific evidence of human-driven climate change, they are also actively involved in poisoning the well of public discourse by strategically disseminating disinformation. And for what? Evermore power, wealth and privileges for themselves and their minions so they can carefreely play out the "conspicuous consumption fantasies" of their "Me Generation" by living large and unsustainably, come what may, having forsaken the future of their children and forgotten how human life depends upon Earth's limited resources and frangible ecosystem services for its very existence.

It seems to me that the human community is approaching a crossroads: EITHER we will choose to "stay the current course" of endless economic growth, ever increasing conspicuous per capita consumption and skyrocketing human population numbers OR we will find other ways to go forward. If these distinctly human overproduction, over-consumption and overpopulation activities we see overspreading the surface of Earth are unsustainable, then I am going to suppose we will insist upon some changes in our behavioral repertoire so that sustainable ways of living in the world are proposed by policymakers and adopted by our leaders.

With thanks to you,

Steve

Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/

by stevenearlsalmony at 3:13 AM on 18 Nov 2007

Significant Extinctions

are already happening and the pace is hastening even without global warming. This is happening for many reasons but mainly because of the continuing destruction of natural ecosystems with our relentless pursuit of resources and conversions to domestic landscapes by the throwoffs of the human enterprise.

Joe, when are we going to wake up and shake off this entrallment with growth as measured by GDP? When are we going to have a true measure of planetary health instead of just listening to this artificial pulse rate of one of its species? GDP up, NEH (Net Earth Health) down. When that correlation becomes positive, let me know.

by justlou at 3:33 AM on 18 Nov 2007

Beyond GDP

Justlou writes:

Joe, when are we going to wake up and shake off this entrallment with growth as measured by GDP? When are we going to have a true measure of planetary health instead of just listening to this artificial pulse rate of one of its species?

Perhaps the "Beyond GDP" conference -- co-hosted by the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Club of Rome, WWF and the OECD --will shed some light on this issue. This international conference takes place in Brussels on Monday and Tuesday, 19-20 November, and live webcast coverage begins at 14:00 GMT (08:00 U.S. east coast time).

Following that (22-28 November 2007), the 3rd International Conference on Gross National Happiness takes place in Nongkhai/Bangkok, Thailand, offering "a creative platform for exchanges, networking and policy development towards transformation at individual, local, national and international levels."

These are only my personal opinions.

by Ron Steenblik at 4:16 AM on 18 Nov 2007
[ Parent ]

Ron -- Beyond GDP

EXCELLENT! Thanks for sharing this. A wealth of good information is on the Beyond GDP website including the background paper for the conference: http://www.beyond-gdp.eu/download/bgdp-bp-mbgdp.pdf info.

by justlou at 4:53 AM on 18 Nov 2007

end of endless human consumption/economic growth

Dear Justlou and Ron Steenblik,

Let me support your expressed enthusiasm for, and confidence in, the seminal works of the Club of Rome. The efforts of this organization (and one other in my lifetime, The Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions) stands alone on some mountaintop of excellence and is distinguished from other leading institutions, so I believe, by singularly sound scientific practices and unwavering intellectual honesty.

It was my good fortune to attend the 2005 Annual Meeting of the Club of Rome. Many of the finest minds I have encountered were present. A list of some of them would certainly include: Talal Halman, Roberto Peccei, David Wasdell, Raoul Weiler, Robert Hoffman, Hazel Henderson, Jerry Glenn, Wolfgang Sachs, Ernst von Weizsaecker, Roseann Runte, Michael K. Dorsey, Frithjof Finkbeiner, Sylvia Karlsson, Bernard Lietaer, Lynn Heppner, Kikujiro Namba, Guvenen Orhan, Dana Raphael, Ivo Slaus, Anitra Thorhaug, Thomas Schauer, Maria Ramirez Ribes, Baker al-Hiyari and Prince El Hassan bin Talal.

I believe the Club of Rome is beginning, once again in 2007, to fulfill the mission it began thirty-five years ago in 1972 with the publication of the book, Limits to Growth. Although this work has been widely discredited and repeatedly rejected by the "powers that be," then and now, the times are changing. The human community is awakening to stark aspects of biological and physical reality: human limits and Earth's limitations. As the book, Limits to Growth, made clear, humankind cannot endlessly grow the artificially designed, manmade global economy; cannot ever increase conspicuous per capita consumption of our plantary home's finite resources; and, as importantly, cannot continuously grow the human population, given its leviathan-size and skyrocketing growth rate.

Thanks, always,

Steve

by stevenearlsalmony at 7:37 AM on 18 Nov 2007

What action is how affordable to whom ?

Proposing that "action is affordable" seems pretty near meaningless without the relevant qualifiers.

For instance, large standard % cuts in emissions by all nations would not be affordable without massive N to S wealth transfers,
(any more that they would be negotiable),
since, in the absence of those transfers, the ensuing collapse of S nations' economies would be transmitted directly to impact N nations by a host of routes.

An equitable global distribution of future emissions rights, reflecting the current size of nations' populations (and not, de facto, their GDP)
is plainly a requisite factor of the global solution's global affordability.

This transition, over an agreed period of years, from GDP-based to per capita emission rights, is termed "Convergence" in the UNFCCC negotiations.

The other key requirement is a rate of decline of the global emissions budget to avoid feedback loops pushing the climate into untenable, catastrophic destabilization - specifically of our biodiversity, our potable water, our farming and our built infrastructure.

A limit of 2 dC of GW, reflecting 450ppmv of airborne CO2e, has been widely credited as giving not certainty but at least a fair confidence of sufficiently constraining the feedbacks.

However, researchers working for the British organization, Climate Equity, have discredited this 2 dC target as being utterly unsafe,
given that (to put it briefly) ~
21ft of global sea level rise is held in the Greenland Ice Cap due to the Arctic Ice Cap's encompassing presence,
without which the best of the world's farmland and coastal cities, towns and villages will steadily be lost -

And the loss of the Arctic Ice Cap began when we had only O.5 dC of GW, with a mere 320ppmv of CO2.
(See www.carbonequity.info/PDFs/targets.pdf )

In one sense, the eventual emissions goal is less relevant for us today than is finding the maximum endurable rate of change out of dependence on GHG emissions.
That is the trua application of the concept of affordability.

In this light, the Dem candidates' proposed 80% cut in 43 years time by the planet's wealthiest nation is just more self-serving decadence, and richly deserves the international derision it is going to earn.

The rational and prudent global target-rate for the cutting or "Contraction" of emissions seems to me to pass net-zero GHG emissions well before say 2040, and then to continue with the cleansing of the atmosphere, (by sustainable reforestation, etc) until our descendants have "recovered" sufficient CO2 to restore the natural CO2 concentration of 250 ppmv.

The strategy would thus be one of "Contraction & Convergence for Recovery."

Given that the overall climate policy framework of "Contraction & Convergence" has now been so widely endorsed,
(see www.gci.org.uk )
and that no other such framework has earned the formal endorsement even of a single minor government or UN agency,
is it not time that the US Environment movement began to discuss (preferably here on Grist)
the C&C framework with which, in all likelyhood, it is going to have to work ?

Regards,

Billhook

by Billhook at 8:09 AM on 18 Nov 2007

Hrmm

Just thought I'd mention.

We could double our energy consumption, and still cut our emissions down to nill.

http://greyfalcon.net/greenenergy.png

by GreyFlcn at 8:21 AM on 18 Nov 2007

Kill-A-Watt

Great story and analysis. As usual, however, it doesn't really lay down a road-map to achieve those results, although that's not the purpose of the IPCC.

Very deep cuts can be made in existing energy demand by doing very simple things. Sure, we need zero-emissions technology to continue to grow but efficiencies are there.

Austin, TX created its "Kill-A-Watt" challenge and the results were remarkable. The winner of the residential award reduced electrical power by 86%, mostly by not using the air conditioner (a transplanted European BTW). The winner of the commercial award was of all things a beer distributor, with maybe 50% reductions (although a much larger amount of kW-hours).

Interestingly, computerized control of on-demand heating and cooling was a large factor in shaving energy demands. Many people had programmable thermostats but had no clue how to use them (sound familiar?). Then during off-times, all computers were turned off, a small but statistically significant savings of several percent.

So the reductions are there and can be done today without draconian regulations, although some areas are growing at 2-5% in terms of population, which tends of offset per-capita reductions over time.

This growth offsetting with clean, zero-emissions technology such as wind and solar is where we need sound, firm policy IMHO.
sam

Onward through the fog

by Sam Wells at 10:32 AM on 18 Nov 2007

Billhook hyperlinks...

Billhook, thanks for the update. I'm with you on Convergence and Contraction, with a goal of no net carbon by 2040. For lazy readers, here is the hyperlink that you give for www.gci.org.uk

Also the Carbon Equity report is definately important and should be better known to Grist readers. (Bill, I'd recommend reading how to do hyperlinks from the link in the Grist comment box.)

by Colin Wright at 11:27 AM on 18 Nov 2007

Unwelcome news of water woes in Georgia, USA

Find just below valuable work, thanks to colleagues at the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

FIRST ARTICLE:

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2007/1 ...

Ecologically, perpetual growth is impossible thing

By RUSSELL ENGLAND

Published on: 11/15/07

It is time to look at Georgia's current drought from an ecological standpoint, not just an economic one, as has already been done quite thoroughly. This is important because our economy is just a small component of the ecosystem that sustains us; it is not the other way around.......

SECOND ARTICLE:

http://www.atlantajournal-constitution.com/

http://tinyurl.com/3dd7mb

GEORGIA'S WATER CRISIS: THE POWER OF WATER

Drought could put us in dark: Electric utilities are the biggest users of Georgia's freshwater, but their role has been largely ignored.

By Ken Foskett, Margaret Newkirk, Stacy Shelton
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
November 18, 2007

Historic drought worsens and the tri-state water battle escalates, Georgia policymakers are all but ignoring the region's biggest water guzzler.

Electric utilities are the single largest users of the region's freshwater. A family of four can use three times more water to power their home than they use to drink, bathe and water their lawn.

In Georgia, electric utilities use 68 percent of all surface water, the single largest user in the state, according to 2000 data from the U.S. Geological Survey, the latest year available.....

Yet the link between power generation and water use has been virtually ignored in the debate over how to fairly allocate the region's water resources and plan for growth.

Neither of the region's principal blueprints for water use --- the state water plan and the North Georgia metro water plan --- include strategies for managing water demand by the power industry.........

Where does water come up? In the state's official energy plan. It quotes research that makes the connection: The public "may indirectly consume as much water turning on the lights and running appliances as they directly use taking showers and watering lawns."

Carol Couch, director of the state Environmental Protection Division, declined an interview request to explain why the state water strategy doesn't include conservation by the biggest water user. Kevin Chambers, an EPD spokesman, said utility water use would be discussed in the next round of planning, examining the specific water requirements in the state's 14 water basins......

Steven Earl Salmony, Ph.D, M.P.A.
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001.
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/

by stevenearlsalmony at 1:11 PM on 18 Nov 2007

Energy cost vs. dollar cost

The IPCC is absolutely right in that efficiency measures and non-carbon sources of energy could be implemented at an energy cost profit. We would get more usefull energy from the systems than we put into making them. This is particularly true with wind power, geo-exchange, geothermal and Terra Preta.

The money game is a different thing. Becouse money represents political power rather than joules or kilowatt-hours of energy it can be manipulated to penalize those that would free themselves from dependancy on power grids and liquid fuels suppliers.

The money always, always wins.

There is no plausible candidate for president of the US at this point who does not advocate the burning of more coal.

Game Over.

Put the Carbon Back

by Pangolin at 1:19 PM on 18 Nov 2007

Depressing but true

I see a lot of very well written words about how we must do something NOW, yet when it comes to actually doing something what costs billions everyone runs away from the table.

One can talk about percent of GDP that would be allocated to reducing greenhouse gases, but few have a clue how to extricate the money in cold cash for that purpose.

While ignoring Chavez of Venezuela at the recent OPEC meeting, all member were very firm that a "carbon tax" of any kind would be met with opposition and retaliation - whatever that is.

Onward through the fog

by Sam Wells at 3:07 PM on 18 Nov 2007

Another voice

Thank you for the clear, direct article. The main points are 1) we MUST take actions (using immediate measures and also working on pipeline technologies), and 2) taking action is not significantly costly (or may even save funds).

These points need to be repeated over and over to political leaders as well as to fellow citizens in every country, to provide individual action as well as support for governmental action. Both individual action and government action are important in order to change our direction and lessen the increasing warming and the accompanying crises.

David Alexander
PlanetThoughts.org
Love your Planet.

by planetthoughts at 2:36 AM on 19 Nov 2007

Profound resistance to change and to what is real

There are "rear guard" actions occurring now in an concerted attempt by many big-business benefactors as well as their bought-and-paid-for politicians and minions in the mass media to suppress, distort and debunk the established scientific evidence of climate change.

All the stops are being pulled out by the "powers that be" with the hope of delaying and obstructing much-needed changes to their relentless efforts to endlessly expand the patently unsustainable global economy. Many politicians and economic powerbrokers are fighting tooth and nail not to acknowledge, much less address, the emerging requirements for sustainable big-business practices because such changes from "what is patently unsustainable" to "what is ecologically sustainable" will threaten their current level of control over the world's wealth as well as over the sources of political and military power that they purchase with gigantic sums of accumulated riches.

Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/

by stevenearlsalmony at 11:40 AM on 21 Nov 2007

Dear Joe Romm

Hi Joe,

There is something new to me concerning the global challenge potentially posed by the huge scale and fully anticipated rapid growth rate of the global economy that I would like to understand better. Would you or someone with an adequate background in economics kindly comment on the research of the economist, Clive L. Spash?

Perhaps this good doctor of the economy is one of those rare economists who is actually ecologically-minded rather than religiously growth-oriented. If this fellow is somehow on the right track, we will be served well by stepping up our efforts to raise awareness of the prospect of economic or ecologic collapse or both......sooner than anyone I know is anticipating such an unwelcome occurrence.

The following link will provide an introduction to his work.

http://www.euroecolecon.org/pdf/Spash_on_Stern

Thanks,

Steve

Steven Earl Salmony, Ph.D., M.P.A.
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/

by stevenearlsalmony at 3:48 PM on 25 Nov 2007

Another urgent must-read report to Bali delegates

Open Letter,

Please find below an email from a distinguished colleague and a personal friend of mine, with its request to you for assistance.

Dear Steven,

FEEDBACK DYNAMICS and the ACCELERATION of CLIMATE CHANGE

Climate change is non-linear. Once set in motion it is acceleratingly self-perpetuating. There is
then only a small time-window within which human intervention has any (rapidly diminishing) chance
of halting the process and returning the system to a stable state. Failure to act effectively
within that window of opportunity would inevitably precipitate cataclysmic change on a par with the
five mass extinction events known to have obliterated almost all life on earth.

This WESTMINSTER BRIEFING (subtitled PLANET EARTH WE HAVE A PROBLEM) was delivered to a packed
audience in the House of Commons in June 2007. It is now released in the approach to the Bali
Meeting of the UNFCCC because it presents material not yet addressed by the IPCC, but which is
absolutely critical to the decision-making process at and beyond that event.

Click on <http://www.apollo-gaia.org> (if the link is not active, copy and paste the address to your
browser) then follow the link to BALI & BEYOND to access the Introduction, Summary for Policy
Makers, Sample Presentations, and Book Order Form.

FEEDBACK DYNAMICS and the ACCELERATION of CLIMATE CHANGE provides an essential briefing for every
person and organisation involved in the UNFCCC Bali Meeting. Beyond Bali it lays the foundation for
all future strategic engagement with the imperative task of climate stabilisation.

Please do everything in your power to ensure that the material reaches:

All delegates and participants involved in the UNFCCC Bali Meeting
Political leaders and members of government at every level of society
Business leaders with strategic responsibility
Academics and research institutions working on climate change and environmental studies
NGOs and organisations of the Civil Society
Concerned citizens of all ages throughout the world community
Friends and family, colleagues and contacts
E-mail lists, groups, listings, networks, postings and web-sites

With best wishes,

David Wasdell

Director: The Apollo-Gaia Project
(Hosted by the Meridian Programme)
Meridian House
115 Poplar High Street
London E14 0AE
Tel: +44 (0) 207 987 3600
E-mail: wasdell@meridian.org.uk
Web-site: www.meridian.org.uk

[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Version 4.3.46 using the F-Prot Antivirus engine Version 3.16f]

Always, with thanks,

Steve

Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/

by stevenearlsalmony at 6:25 AM on 01 Dec 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.