Copenhagen Climate Summit: The Thinking Person’s Guide

By: Louise Gray – Telegraph.co.uk (Published Dec. 7, 2009)

Adapted and Edited for Powerpoint

The Debate

• People are having an impact on the global environment. The pollution (CO2, Methane, etc.) we produce are impacting the global climate.

• Climate change is part of the natural progression and evolution of the global environment and climate.

What are the Copenhagen talks about?

• The UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen is attempting to secure a new international deal to cut the emissions of greenhouse gases, which most scientists blame for causing climate change.

Hang on, I thought man-made global warming was not yet

proven? • More than two years ago the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), after conducting a five-year review of research from around the world, concluded that evidence for warming of the climate was “unequivocal” and that the changes were more than 90 per cent likely to be the result of human actions.

Are People Having an Impact?

• The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 35% higher now than it was before industrialization

• The amount of methane in the atmosphere has more than doubled

• Over the past 25 years Earth’s temperature has risen by 0.18 oC per decade, more than 2x the average over the last 100 years

From United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4 th Report

But Earth’s climate has changed before…

• Over the past 100 years (1906-2005) the Earth’s temperature has risen by 0.74 oC

• In comparison, warming after the last global ice age was 4 – 7 oC and this increase took place over 5000 years.

From United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Report

Couldn’t this be due to ordinary weather patterns and solar

activity? • Weather patterns do fluctuate over time, due to

events like El Nino and La Nina, which is why the world has seen cooler years since 1998 rather than a linear increase in warming. However, temperatures across the globe have crept up by an average of 0.7 degrees since pre-industrial times, a figure which would double by the end of this century even if no more CO2 was produced. The UK has experienced nine of the 10 warmest years on record since 1990. Meteorologists have looked at solar activity and most say it cannot explain the warming.

OK, let’s suppose you’re right. What would happen to us, then,

if we keep on polluting?

• On the direst predictions, temperatures could rise by an average of 4C (7.2F) as soon as 2060, transforming the landscape of Britain. It would be possible to grow Mediterranean fruits in the South West, while melting polar icecaps would cause the sea level to rise, leading to flooding along the low-lying east coast.

Vineyards in Cornwall and the end of Norfolk. It sounds rather

desirable. So what’s the problem?

• If all this happened, many parts of the world would become uninhabitable. The sea could indundate the large deltas in areas of South East Asia like Bangladesh, displacing millions of people. Droughts would cause famine and floods destroy homes. Many species of animals and plants could die out as forests die back and fertile lands become deserts.

Would it affect me directly?

• Almost certainly. Droughts and floods will become more common in Britain, threatening people’s homes in wide areas and pushing up insurance premiums. Climate change refugees will flood in from countries that are worse affected, food could become more expensive - and countries like Greece would be too hot for summer holidays. Even in Britain, summer heatwaves will cause more deaths, and tropical diseases like malaria could arrive.

Sounds bad. What can we possibly do about it?

• Most scientists - though not all - say we have to cut emissions, and fast. The IPCC reckons that the world must cut carbon emissions by half by 2050 to stand a chance of keeping temperature rise within a “safe” limit of 2C (3.6F). To achieve that, the developed world would need to make cuts of 80 per cent - and at least 25 per cent by 2020, says the IPCC. Poor countries would also be expected to take action.

Is there anything I can do to help?

• You don’t have to wear a hair shirt and move to a cave. There are relatively simple things people can do, such as switching off lights, turning down the heating and driving less. Eating less meat, which can cause global warming because of the methane produced by cows, is another.

But what’s the point when China is building a new coal-fired power station every week?

• This is exactly the point. China is growing at an extraordinary rate and we need to persuade it - and all the world’s poorer countries - to join in the attempt to reduce emissions. But countries like China argue that they should not have to limit economic growth that is bringing millions of people out of poverty when they did so little to cause the problem.

It’s not my fault my ancestors kicked off the Industrial

Revolution. • No, but its not the fault of the average

Bangladeshi that they will be at greater risk of cyclones and floods if temperatures rise.

So how do we make this fair?

• The developing countries want money to help them switch from dirty fossil fuels, like coal, to clean technologies like wind and solar. They also want cash to prepare for the problems that climate change will bring, by measures like building sea defences against floods.

Sounds reasonable. But who’s going to pay?

• You. Developed countries will have to put up a certain amount of money from public funds - in other words, taxpayers’ money. The rest will come from taxing big polluters like heavy industry and aviation - and in the end this will be paid for by consumers.

OK, how much?

• Poorer countries say they need a total of £250 billion per annum but they’re unlikely to get anything close to this. Their best hope is a fund that starts giving out £6 billion from next year, rising to around £30 billion a year by 2015 and £120 billion by the 2020s.

Are you mad? We’re in the middle of a recession.

• Don’t panic. It’s a very small price to pay. Even £120 billion is less than half of one per cent of the developed world’s total output.

• According to Lord Stern, the former World Bank economist asked by the Government to research the options, the total annual cost of switching to a low carbon economy and helping vulnerable countries to adapt would be less than one per cent of the world’s output. If unchecked global warming had the effects of which many scientists warn, Lord Stern calculated that adapting to it would cost around one fifth of the world’s money - in other words, 20 times more.

Would cutting carbon emissions change my life?

• Yes. Carbon taxes would increase the cost of electricity, and flying anywhere would become more expensive. However, on the plus side, pollution would be reduced, electric cars would be quieter and you might even discover a taste for tofu.

Don’t be ridiculous. But I’m beginning to think it might be a wise precaution. Who will be in

Copenhagen to make sure it happens?

• President Barack Obama has promised to pay a visit, Prince Charles will give everyone a lecture on forests and of course Al Gore will turn up. Angelina Jolie is also rumoured to be popping in to add a bit of much-needed glamour. Oh yes - 91 world leaders have so far promised to turn up for the photocall at the end, including Gordon Brown.

I smell a rat. Won’t all these people be flying in?

• The UN estimates the total carbon emissions associated with the conference will be in the region of 40,500 tonnes - the equivalent of running the UK’s biggest polluter, Drax power station, for a day. But the Danish government is planning to offset this by spending 700,000 euros (£620,000) on replacing outdated brick kilns in Dhaka, Bangladesh. We are promised that the 20 new kilns will put 50,000 fewer tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each year.

What are the likely outcomes?

• Most likely is a “political deal” to agree on the need to cut emissions and pay for adaptation by poorer countires, but to leave the details for later. However there is a chance that the whole thing could end in a screaming match with developing countries. The African nations have walked out before and will do so again if they do not get enough money for adaptation.

• The least likely outcome is a legally-binding agreement with the whole thing wrapped up by Christmas.

You mean this isn’t the end?

• Not by a long way. There will be more meetings next year to thrash out a legally-binding treaty, most likely in Bonn in June and Mexico in November.

Can’t we just rely on science to make it all OK?

• A whole array of alternative ideas have been put forward - from “carbon capture”, which is being tried at some coal-fired power stations now, to dramatic geo-engineering projects that are global in scale. These include putting mirrors into space to reflect back the sun, covering the Greenland icecap with a giant blanket to stop it melting, or dumping iron powder in the sea to encourage the growth of carbon-absorbing algae. But most of these are uncertain and could be dangerous - as well as expensive.

I know many scientists are saying this is “incontrovertible truth” but scientists have been wrong

before. Even the Met Office don’t always get the weather right.

• Even if the world were not being warmed by man made greenhouse gases, pollution is damaging the environment. We are also steadily depleting the reserves of fossil fuels, which must in the end be finite. A global agreement to cut carbon emissions, reduce consumption and help the poor world become more resilient to extremes of climate and might not be so bad, even if global warming is a myth. And if it’s not, a failure to take action could lead to disaster.

CONSEQUENCES AND CLIMATE ADAPTATION

United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth

Assessment Reporthttp://www.ipcc.ch/index.htm

Consequences

• In the middle of this century, wet areas will be get wetter (warmer temperature = more evaporation = more precipitation) and dry areas will get drier (harder to retain water due to increased evaporation)

Consequences

• Up to 1/6 (approx. 1.2 billion) of the Earth’s population will lack a sufficient water supply, as many regions depend on melting glaciers and snow for water. Example – Nepal.

Consequences

• 20-30% of the planet’s animals and plant species at risk of extinction if the average global temperature rises by 1.5 – 2.5 oC above the 1990 level.

Consequences

• Coral reefs are already being bleached by local temperature rises of 1 oC, and risk becoming extinct if temperature increases by 2 oC

Consequences

• Crop yields will decrease in areas near the equator, more people will be affected by famine.

Consequences

• Sea rise will erode coast lines and flood low lying areas (where 70% of world’s population lives)

Results of Copenhagen Climate Change Summit

What was accomplished?

An Agreement

• Not a binding or legally binding deal

• An agreement to work on the problem and continue negotiations that will form an international treaty

Targets

• No specific for countries

• Global targets for limiting the Earth’s average temperature to no more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels

Cap and Trade System

• Sets limits on pollution. Businesses can meet targets by lowering emissions or buying permits to pollute from companies that are under the pollution limit

• Another alternative is to buy credits from a certified seller who uses money to finance CO2 reduction projects in the developing world – offsetting the pollution created by the business that exceeds their limit.