Sleepwalking
To The End Of The Earth
By Geoffrey Lean
09 February, 2005
The
Independent
Future
historians, looking back from a much hotter and less hospitable world,
are likely to play special attention to the first few weeks of 2005.
As they puzzle over how a whole generation could have sleepwalked into
disaster - destroying the climate that has allowed human civilisation
to flourish over the past 11,000 years - they may well identify the
past weeks as the time when the last alarms sounded.
Last week, 200 of
the world's leading climate scientists - meeting at Tony Blair's request
at the Met Office's new headquarters at Exeter - issued the most urgent
warning to date that dangerous climate change is taking place, and that
time is running out.
Next week the Kyoto
Protocol, the international treaty that tries to control global warming,
comes into force after a seven-year delay. But it is clear that the
protocol does not go nearly far enough.
The alarms have
been going off since the beginning of one of the warmest Januaries on
record. First, Dr Rajendra Pachauri - chairman of the official Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - told a UN conference in Mauritius that
the pollution which causes global warming has reached "dangerous"
levels.
Then the biggest-ever
study of climate change, based at Oxford University, reported that it
could prove to be twice as catastrophic as the IPCC's worst predictions.
And an international task force - also reporting to Tony Blair, and
co-chaired by his close ally, Stephen Byers - concluded that we could
reach "the point of no return" in a decade.
Finally, the UK
head of Shell, Lord Oxburgh, took time out - just before his company
reported record profits mainly achieved by selling oil, one of the main
causes of the problem - to warn that unless governments take urgent
action there "will be a disaster".
But it was last
week at the Met Office's futuristic glass headquarters, incongruously
set in a dreary industrial estate on the outskirts of Exeter, that it
all came together. The conference had been called by the Prime Minister
to advise him on how to "avoid dangerous climate change".
He needed help in persuading the world to prioritise the issue this
year during Britain's presidencies of the EU and the G8 group of economic
powers.
The conference opened
with the Secretary of State for the Environment, Margaret Beckett, warning
that "a significant impact" from global warming "is already
inevitable". It continued with presentations from top scientists
and economists from every continent. These showed that some dangerous
climate change was already taking place and that catastrophic events
once thought highly improbable were now seen as likely. Avoiding the
worst was technically simple and economically cheap, they said, provided
that governments could be persuaded to take immediate action.
About halfway through
I realised that I had been here before. In the summer of 1986 the world's
leading nuclear experts gathered in Vienna for an inquest into the accident
at Chernobyl. The head of the Russian delegation showed a film shot
from a helicopter, and we suddenly found ourselves gazing down on the
red-hot exposed reactor core.
It was all, of course,
much less dramatic at Exeter. But as paper followed learned paper, once
again a group of world authorities were staring at a crisis they had
devoted their lives to trying to avoid.
I am willing to
bet there were few in the room who did not sense their children or grandchildren
standing invisibly at their shoulders. The conference formally concluded
that climate change was "already occurring" and that "in
many cases the risks are more serious than previously thought".
But the cautious scientific language scarcely does justice to the sense
of the meeting.
We learned that
glaciers are shrinking around the world. Arctic sea ice has lost almost
half its thickness in recent decades. Natural disasters are increasing
rapidly around the world. Those caused by the weather - such as droughts,
storms, and floods - are rising three times faster than those - such
as earthquakes - that are not.
We learned that
bird populations in the North Sea collapsed last year, after the sand
eels on which they feed left its warmer waters - and how the number
of scientific papers recording changes in ecosystems due to global warming
has escalated from 14 to more than a thousand in five years.
Worse, leading scientists
warned of catastrophic changes that once they had dismissed as "improbable".
The meeting was particularly alarmed by powerful evidence, first reported
in The Independent on Sunday last July, that the oceans are slowly turning
acid, threatening all marine life.
Professor Chris
Rapley, director of the British Antarctic Survey, presented new evidence
that the West Antarctic ice sheet is beginning to melt, threatening
eventually to raise sea levels by 15ft: 90 per cent of the world's people
live near current sea levels. Recalling that the IPCC's last report
had called Antarctica "a slumbering giant", he said: "I
would say that this is now an awakened giant."
Professor Mike Schlesinger,
of the University of Illinois, reported that the shutdown of the Gulf
Stream, once seen as a "low probability event", was now 45
per cent likely this century, and 70 per cent probable by 2200. If it
comes sooner rather than later it will be catastrophic for Britain and
northern Europe, giving us a climate like Labrador (which shares our
latitude) even as the rest of the world heats up: if it comes later
it could be beneficial, moderating the worst of the warming.
The experts at Exeter
were virtually unanimous about the danger, mirroring the attitude of
the climate science community as a whole: humanity is to blame. There
were a few sceptics at Exeter, including Andrei Illarionov, an adviser
to Russia's President Putin, who last year called the Kyoto Protocol
"an interstate Auschwitz". But in truth it is much easier
to find sceptics among media pundits in London or neo-cons in Washington
than among climate scientists. Even the few contrarian climatalogists
publish little research to support their views, concentrating on questioning
the work of others.
Now a new scientific
consensus is emerging - that the warming must be kept below an average
increase of two degrees centigrade if catastrophe is to be avoided.
This almost certainly involves keeping concentrations of carbon dioxide,
the main cause of climate change, below 400 parts per million.
Unfortunately we
are almost there, with concentrations exceeding 370ppm and rising, but
experts at the conference concluded that we could go briefly above the
danger level so long as we brought it down rapidly afterwards. They
added that this would involve the world reducing emissions by 50 per
cent by 2050 - and rich countries cutting theirs by 30 per cent by 2020.
Economists stressed
there is little time for delay. If action is put off for a decade, it
will need to be twice as radical; if it has to wait 20 years, it will
cost between three and seven times as much.
The good news is
that it can be done with existing technology, by cutting energy waste,
expanding the use of renewable sources, growing trees and crops (which
remove carbon dioxide from the air) to turn into fuel, capturing the
gas before it is released from power stations, and - maybe - using more
nuclear energy.
The better news
is that it would not cost much: one estimate suggested the cost would
be about 1 per cent of Europe's GNP spread over 20 years; another suggested
it meant postponing an expected fivefold increase in world wealth by
just two years. Many experts believe combatting global warming would
increase prosperity, by bringing in new technologies.
The big question
is whether governments will act. President Bush's opposition to international
action remains the greatest obstacle. Tony Blair, by almost universal
agreement, remains the leader with the best chance of persuading him
to change his mind.
But so far the Prime
Minister has been more influenced by the President than the other way
round. He appears to be moving away from fighting for the pollution
reductions needed in favour of agreeing on a vague pledge to bring in
new technologies sometime in the future.
By then it will
be too late. And our children and grandchildren will wonder - as we
do in surveying, for example, the drift into the First World War - "how
on earth could they be so blind?"
WATER WARS
What could happen?
Wars break out over diminishing water resources as populations grow
and rains fail.
How would this come
about? Over 25 per cent more people than at present are expected to
live in countries where water is scarce in the future, and global warming
will make it worse.
How likely is it?
Former UN chief Boutros Boutros-Ghali has long said that the next Middle
East war will be fought for water, not oil.
DISAPPEARING
NATIONS
What could happen?
Low-lying island such as the Maldives and Tuvalu - with highest points
only a few feet above sea-level - will disappear off the face of the
Earth.
How would this come
about? As the world heats up, sea levels are rising, partly because
glaciers are melting, and partly because the water in the oceans expands
as it gets warmer.
How likely is it?
Inevitable. Even if global warming stopped today, the seas would continue
to rise for centuries. Some small islands have already sunk for ever.
A year ago, Tuvalu was briefly submerged.
FLOODING
What could happen?
London, New York, Tokyo, Bombay, many other cities and vast areas of
countries from Britain to Bangladesh disappear under tens of feet of
water, as the seas rise dramatically.
How would this come
about? Ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica melt. The Greenland ice
sheet would raise sea levels by more than 20ft, the West Antarctic ice
sheet by another 15ft.
How likely is it?
Scientists used to think it unlikely, but this year reported that the
melting of both ice caps had begun. It will take hundreds of years,
however, for the seas to rise that much.
UNINHABITABLE
EARTH
What could happen?
Global warming escalates to the point where the world's whole climate
abruptly switches, turning it permanently into a much hotter and less
hospitable planet.
How would this come
about? A process involving "positive feedback" causes the
warming to fuel itself, until it reaches a point that finally tips the
climate pattern over.
How likely is it?
Abrupt flips have happened in the prehistoric past. Scientists believe
this is unlikely, at least in the foreseeable future, but increasingly
they are refusing to rule it out.
RAIN FOREST FIRES
What could happen?
Famously wet tropical forests, such as those in the Amazon, go up in
flames, destroying the world's richest wildlife habitats and releasing
vast amounts of carbon dioxide to speed global warming.
How would this come
about? Britain's Met Office predicted in 1999 that much of the Amazon
will dry out and die within 50 years, making it ready for sparks - from
humans or lightning - to set it ablaze.
How likely is it?
Very, if the predictions turn out to be right. Already there have been
massive forest fires in Borneo and Amazonia, casting palls of highly
polluting smoke over vast areas.
THE BIG FREEZE
What could happen?
Britain and northern Europe get much colder because the Gulf Stream,
which provides as much heat as the sun in winter, fails.
How would this come
about? Melting polar ice sends fresh water into the North Atlantic.
The less salty water fails to generate the underwater current which
the Gulf Stream needs.
How likely is it?
About evens for a Gulf Steam failure this century, said scientists last
week.
STARVATION
What could happen?
Food production collapses in Africa, for example, as rainfall dries
up and droughts increase. As farmland turns to desert, people flee in
their millions in search of food.
How would this come
about? Rainfall is expected to decrease by up to 60 per cent in winter
and 30 per cent in summer in southern Africa this century. By some estimates,
Zambia could lose almost all its farms.
How likely is it?
Pretty likely unless the world tackles both global warming and Africa's
decline. Scientists agree that droughts will increase in a warmer world.
ACID OCEANS
What could happen?
The seas will gradually turn more and more acid. Coral reefs, shellfish
and plankton, on which all life depends, will die off. Much of the life
of the oceans will become extinct.
How would this come
about? The oceans have absorbed half the carbon dioxide, the main cause
of global warming, so far emitted by humanity. This forms dilute carbonic
acid, which attacks corals and shells.
How likely is it?
It is already starting. Scientists warn that the chemistry of the oceans
is changing in ways unprecedented for 20 million years. Some predict
that the world's coral reefs will die within 35 years.
DISEASE
What could happen?
Malaria - which kills two million people worldwide every year - reaches
Britain with foreign travellers, gets picked up by British mosquitos
and becomes endemic in the warmer climate.
How would this come
about? Four of our 40 mosquito species can carry the disease, and hundreds
of travellers return with it annually. The insects breed faster, and
feed more, in warmer temperatures.
How likely is it?
A Department of Health study has suggested it may happen by 2050: the
Environment Agency has mentioned 2020. Some experts say it is miraculous
that it has not happened already.
HURRICANES
What could happen?
Hurricanes, typhoons and violent storms proliferate, grow even fiercer,
and hit new areas. Last September's repeated battering of Florida and
the Caribbean may be just a foretaste of what is to come, say scientists.
How would this come
about? The storms gather their energy from warm seas, and so, as oceans
heat up, fiercer ones occur and threaten areas where at present the
seas are too cool for such weather.
How likely is it?
Scientists are divided over whether storms will get more frequent and
whether the process has already begun.