The fatal flaw in the current global warming debate is that most of the key players are singing off the wrong songsheet. Current policy proposals are based on scientific information which at least five years out-of-date. The latest information indicates that we now run a rapidly increasing risk of sudden and total failure of some part of the climatic system, from which recovery may be impossible — in short, a risk of catastrophe which may seriously damage society as we know it.
The evidence is mounting daily:
- The Arctic sea-ice melt is far more rapid than predicted, to the point the Arctic may be ice-free in summer within a few years, giving a major boost to global warming; this was not supposed to happen until the end of the century.
- Human carbon emissions are accelerating far faster than predicted.
- Natural carbon sinks appear to be absorbing less carbon than previously, thereby increasing atmospheric carbon concentrations.
- Ice-sheets are forecast to melt and disintegrate at lower temperatures than expected due to non-linear feedback effects, with consequent increase in sea level rise.
- Ocean acidification is accelerating with consequent destruction of marine organisms.
- Perhaps most concerning, carbon dioxide emissions from the Arctic permafrost and methane hydrate emissions from the Arctic seabed appear to be accelerating rapidly.
Exactly what form this climatic failure might take is unclear, due to scientific uncertainty around these issues, so this is a matter of managing risk in the face of uncertainty. As a former Chief of Staff of the US Army put it in a recent global warming report: “If you wait for 100% certainty on the battlefield, something bad is going to happen”.
Well, bad things are happening: Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar last year killed some 78,000 people with millions homeless; Cyclone Sidr in Bangladesh in 2007 killed some 3000 people and destroyed 500,000 homes; the Californian bushfires in 2007 killed nine people and destroyed 1500 homes; Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf of Mexico in 2005 killed 1500 people and devastated the city of New Orleans. Now it is our turn, with 209 killed in the Victorian bushfires and 1800 homes lost, and devastating flooding in North Queensland, to add to the grinding agony of extended drought.
All this is at only the existing 0.8oC warming, let alone the further 0.6oC to which we are already committed.
None of these disasters can be put down exclusively to climate change, but they are all in line with the forecast evolution of global warming, with increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather events. Most, particularly the Victorian bushfires, are way beyond the bounds of normal statistical variation. But the immediate concern is the rapid summer melt of Arctic sea-ice and the increasing evidence of methane hydrate and permafrost carbon dioxide emissions. If this takes off, global warming will probably move beyond our control, with catastrophic consequences. We continue to ignore these warnings at our peril.
Honesty about this challenge is essential, otherwise we will never develop realistic solutions.
We face nothing less than a global emergency which must be addressed with a global emergency response, akin to national mobilisations pre-WWII or the Marshall Plan for the reconstruction of post-war Europe. This is not extremist nonsense, but a call echoed by an increasing numbers of world leaders as the science becomes better understood.
Solutions are available and should be built around emissions trading, but it will only work if the carbon price signals are strong and clear and the Federal Government’s CPRS proposals meet neither criteria. In the face of catastrophic risk, emission reduction targets should be based on the latest, considered, science, not on a political view of the art-of-the-possible.
The target for stabilisation of atmospheric carbon to avoid catastrophic consequences and maintain a safe climate is now a concentration of less than 300ppm CO2, not the outdated 450-550ppm CO2e on which current proposals are based. This means emission reductions for Australia must be in the range 45-50% by 2020 and almost complete decarbonisation by 2050, rather than the 5-15% by 2020 and 60% by 2050 currently proposed.
Many will dismiss these targets as unattainable given that current concentrations are 385ppm CO2; it will require not only the rapid curtailment of emissions, but the re-absorption of some carbon already in the atmosphere. We have the technology to achieve this and the targets are only unattainable when viewed with a business-as-usual mindset. When real emergencies loom then remarkable change is possible.
But emissions trading alone is not enough. Given the size and speed of the change required, it must be complemented with regulatory initiatives and other incentives to accelerate energy efficiency, conservation and alternative energy supply, improve building codes, improve vehicle and aviation emission standards, personal carbon trading opportunities etc. This does not mean picking winners, but setting the right framework for rapid change.
The focus must be on the opportunities and benefits of creating new industries rather than the problems and costs of moving away from the old. It can be achieved at far less cost than the horror stories propagated by the existing sunset fossil-fuel lobby and in many cases with a net economic benefit. Employment is likely to rise as these new industries are far more labour-intensive than the industries they replace.
But compensation must be minimised — public funding should encourage a viable future, not prop up an unsustainable past, particularly when that funding is going to be in short supply. There is absolutely no justification for compensation to trade-exposed industries, or domestic high-emitters, in the emergency situation we now face. The world will be crying out for low-carbon product, which will be a source of competitive advantage.
Carbon taxes make no sense in current circumstances. They do not deliver guaranteed emission reductions and the inevitable continued tinkering with tax levels would be politically and commercially untenable.
The best tribute we can pay to the victims of the Victorian bushfires is to now start taking global warming seriously and stop playing political games.
Ian Dunlop was formerly a senior international oil, gas and coal industry executive. He chaired the Australian Coal Association in 1987-88, chaired the Australian Greenhouse Office Experts Group on Emissions Trading from 1998-2000 which developed the first Australian emissions trading concepts and was CEO of the Australian Institute of Company Directors from 1997-2001. He advises internationally on climate, energy and sustainability.
I totally agree with Ian Dunlop. We’re fiddling around the edges while Rome burns. We should be on a war footing – rationing fuel (and I believe we’ll soon be rationing food), banning unnecessary journeys in cars, not allow cars with one passenger to enter cities,importing the REVA electric car from India NOW rather than waiting for the government’s useless propping up of the US car industry with 4 cylinder cars. Use the REVA – and bicycles – as government-owned shuttles from public transport to destination at a plug-in centre – and for God sake, enforce building codes requiring low-energy-use housing. In WA, we have codes but one glance at the new developments makes it clear that they are ignored by building companies. And will someone tell Mr Rudd that insulating a house that is not appropriately oriented will make it into a hot box? Stop cutting down trees and start growing hemp for clothing, paper and rope. Give jobs that are useful to the global warming struggle to those laid off by the mining industry, eg planting trees, retrofitting houses, building fast trains (why Notley’s Engineering, which makes trains for the mining industry and which shut down last week, isn’t paid to do this is beyond me). Stop this rubbish about building more nuclear power stations and convert to renewables right now. Leave the coal in the ground until we know how to use it without cooking the planet. President Obama has surrounded himself with scientists to tackle this – most of the climatologists in Australia are still an embattled species. Maybe the powers that be – and the people – will listen to someone with Ian Dunlop’s credentials
I would like Andrew Bolt to read this article, maybe he might then crawl out of the dungeon, where he hides with the older neo-con’s and Howardesque climate change deniers, and join the rest of the world to do something about this issue.
Malcolm – The level has to be finessed as the science improves, but we are already seeing major changes at current levels of warming. Safe, stable conditions would seem to lie around the pre-industrial level. The 300 level is around the upper boundary of the safe climate zone in which humanity has evolved over the last inter-glacial period. See:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/what-can-we-do-to-save-our-planet-1221097.html . Professor Martin Parry, IPCC lead author:
“We’ve reached a point where we have a crisis, an emergency, but people don’t know that. …There’s a big gap between what’s understood about global warming by the scientific community and what is known by the public and policymakers.”James Hansen, NASA, November 2008
“I am one of those who believes that any reasonably comprehensive and up-to-date look at the evidence makes clear that civilization has already generated dangerous anthropogenic interference in the climate system,” John Holdren, science advisor to US President Obama
Professor John Schellnhuber, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/15/climatechange.carbonemissions
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,3907790,00.html
Also http://www.climatecodered.net/
Andrew – The uncertainty is not so much the basic science. Rather I meant what form catastrophic failure might take first up – crop failure, fires, sea level rise, a combination?
Robert – Re carbon tax: The carbon price required under an ETS to achieve the change we need is far higher than the figures being bandied around politically, at least initially. Its trajectory will depend on how rapidly we all respond. If we move quickly it will come down, if not it will go up, so we all have an incentive to perform – provided the targets are ambitious enough initially, which at present is patently not the case!. No politician would have the backbone to impose an equivalent carbon tax at the levels we need.
Agree with Ian, except for his dismissal of a Carbon Tax.
It’s hard to imagine, but I guess there might be people who will prefer to buy expensive dirty electricity over cheap green electricity, prefer to loose money cutting down trees rather make money planting them, etc, and so Carbon Tax might not work.
And from what I understand, trading schemes are no less safe ‘tinkering’ than a tax.
To Lois’ point, I’m afraid I have to agree. I’ve never been a big fan of ‘war’ analogies. ‘War on Drugs’ and all that crap, but at least here we are in a situation where the idea of mobilising our entire society around an existential threat (much as the Brits did in WW2) makes grim sense.
I often wondered what today’s politicians would’ve done in the lead up to WW2. What special interests they would’ve caved in to as they ‘prepared’ for war. And what they’d say after we lost. The only consolation I guess is that, if we don’t overcome this crisis, the pollies won’t be getting any cushy jobs with the occupational government, they’ll be toast like the rest of us.
Churchill sums it all up: It is no use saying, ‘We are doing our best.’ You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary.
Ian Dunlop hits the nail on the head. Recent data shows us racing towards climate tipping points much faster than envisioned even 12-18 months ago. The release of CO2, NO2 and methane from Siberia and the Alaskan tundra is very scary. Estimates of up to 800 ppm of CO2 equivalent on top of the existing 385ppm could occur if the permafrost melts even partially. We are still being sidetracked from action by politicians and reactionary commentators that still equate environmental concern with anti capitalism. It is depressing but I am of the current belief that the world will only be pushed into serious action when it is too late. I am saddened by the way the current disasterous Vic bushfires and the drought which has caused them are being turned into a cultural battle where evil Greenies are being blamed for policy that minimises burn offs in communities inhabited by ‘real” Australians.(Devine, Bolt, &co). The popular media is complicit in its refusal to highlight the extreme urgency of the situation. Only direct massive action to curb carbon emissions has any chance of allowing us to mitigate the danger of global warning. The question is how do we achieve it??