Do more than just talk

Where is the world going in terms of temperature? :

Roshan Salinda

We as a people are keen to talk and analyze any sort of problem. Even more, we are wise enough to explain different perspectives of a single problem. But when human action is needed to solve a problem, people are really reluctant to react positively.

In 2009, at Copenhagen Climate Summit or rather Hope (nhangen) Summit at that time, the world agreed to keep the temperature increase within 2o degrees Celsius. However, the Copenhagen Accord isn’t agreed by every party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

As it stands in August 2010, 138 parties have agreed. Whatever political or geographical side you represent, the world agrees to keep the temperature increase to 1o to 2o degrees Celcius, definitely not more.

As an example, India says it is technically impossible to keep the temperature increase within 1.5o degrees Celsius. But the Bolivian Climate Summit, which was an alternative to the failed Copenhagen summit, has agreed to keep the temperature increase within one C with respect to pre-industrial temperature.

To achieve this, the atmospheric Co2 level needs to be stabilized at 300 parts per million (PPM) but at present it is close to 400 and growing rapidly by two parts per year.

Whether it is possible or not, it is the ambition of a collection of a people, who think that the best way to sort out the problem is to deviate from the existing development paradigm.

Yes, it is true. Science clearly shows the correlation between increased industrial activities, the increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs) and global warming. We have to rethink whether the existing development paradigm will ensure the survival of future generations or not.

Temperature increase

However, so far nine months have passed since the Copenhagen Summit and five months have passed since the Bolivian Climate Summit.

Where is the world going in terms of temperature? Is the world committed enough to keep the temperature increase within 1oC or 2oC? Let’s have look at the UNFCCC negotiation table and its Copenhagen accord, as this is the broader negotiation platform in relation to the Bolivian Climate Forum. We can’t talk about climate change without taking on board the USA and its allied G8. Prior to the Copenhagen Summit, America proposed to ensure a 17 percent reduction in emissions of GHGs relative to the 2005 level. But if we look at this proposal more closely, it is only a three percent reduction compared to the 1990 level. Science is asking a lot and the world is expecting much more than that from the biggest polluter. But America’s commitment is nowhere near to keeping the warming to 2o Celsius.

This is in contradiction to the Copenhagen Accord, which agreed to keep warming to a maximum of 2o Celsius.

World Resource Working Paper 2010

Prior to the Copenhagen Summit, Canada proposed a 20 percent cut in GHG emission compared to the 2005 level. But what they actually proposed to the UNFCCC was in line with the USA, a cut of only 17 percent.

Canada’s 17 percent cut relative to the 2005 level is like America’s, only a three percent reduction compared to the 1990 level. This is without considering land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF).

If we add that net total to Canada’s proposal it isn’t reduction, it is actually an increase of 19 percent relative to the 1990 level.

The European Union has proposed a 20 percent reduction relative to the 1990 level. Interestingly, their proposal included a conditional high-level target of 30 percent which they will meet if non-EU developed countries agree to meet a similar target. It seems to me that they can make their contribution to the climate catastrophe minimum from now on, but they don’t, because other countries don’t. this is ridiculous. If they have the capacity they should lead from the front.

Then others would slowly get on board not only because of that but also due to international pressure.

Comprehensive agreement

We see a similar case in Australia. It is even worse because in their proposal the gap between high level and low-level reduction is 20 percent. Perhaps they had prejudged that no comprehensive agreement would be reached in Copenhagen and therefore they set the conditional target at a higher level. In Russia there is a similar scenario, but not as bad because the gap is only 10 percent between the high level and low level targets.

Only two countries proposed sufficient emission cuts to keep warming within 2oC, Norway and Japan. They proposed 30 percent and 40 percent reductions compared to the 1990 level respectively.

Emerging countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America should initiate mitigation actions even though their per capita emission is far below the global average. This would help to ensure that those countries do not repeat same mistakes that developed countries have made since the industrial revolution.

There are some positive signs from countries such as China and India as they have proposed emission cuts, but these numbers are still debatable.

All developed countries’ emissions cuts should lead to a reduction of between 12 percent - 19 percent in relation to the 1990 level by 2020. But the Inter Government Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that a 25 percent - 40 percent cut is needed to keep the temperature increase within 2oC. For that to happen, the atmospheric Co2 level should be stabilized at 450 ppm. But even stabilization at 450 ppm has a more than 50 percent chance of increasing temperatures by more than 2oC.

Sea level rise

The commitment of the world isn’t enough to keep the globe within an increase of 2oC.

Hundreds of State leaders, Ministers and elite climate negotiators have been to thousands of conferences to talk about climate change, but when it comes to the solution people are reluctant to respond positively.

The exact number (1oC, 1.5oC, 2oC) isn’t important. What is crucial is how that number translates to an impact on people across the globe. From a Sri Lankan perspective, we have to consider climate extremes such as intense rainfall and extended drought periods, impact on agriculture, sea level rise and salt water intrusion, the list goes on.

We may have to hear more and more news such as floods in Pakistan, mudslides in China, heat waves across Europe, wildfire in Russia, hurricanes on the American continent and cyclones in South Asia.

Country	      
		Low level reduction	  High level reduction	   Baseline year 
		
Australia	     -5%			-25%			1990
Canada		    -17%			-			2005
EU		     20%			-30%			1990
Japan		     25%			-			1990
New Zealand	    -10%			-20%			1990
Russia		    -15%			-25%			1990
United State	    -17%			-			2005
Norway		    -30%			-40%			1990
GHG emission reduction pledges of some of the developed countries