It may be unfair to yet again bring attention to the dramatic situation humanity is facing on a day like this – it being Good Friday and all. But it cannot be ignored and we are all in it.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC presented it’s second report today at a press conference in Brussels. This report assesses the vulnerability of socio-economic and natural systems to climate change, negative and positive consequences of climate change, and options for adapting to it.
The first report was on the scientific aspects of the climate system and climate change and was released in February.
A third report will assess options for limiting greenhouse gas emissions and otherwise mitigating climate change. This report will be launched on May 4th in Bangkok.
Follow below:
What is clear is that regardless of how much the world manages to reduce emissions over the next years, we must be prepared for dramatic climatic changes in the next few decades. This is no longer an issue that will hit us in some distant future. It is happening now – all around us.
Outlining the report’s findings, Dr Martin Parry, co-chairman of IPCC Working Group II, said evidence showed climate change was having a direct effect on animals, plants and water.
“For the first time, we are no longer arm-waving with models; this is empirical data, we can actually measure it,” he told a news conference.
“The arctic, where temperatures are rising fast and ice is melting; sub-Saharan Africa, where dry areas are forecast to get dryer; small islands, because of their inherent lack of capacity to adapt and Asian mega-deltas, where billions of people will be at increased risk of flooding,” he explained.
As a result, the most severe impacts will be felt by the world’s poorest countries, the report says.
“The poorest of the poor in the world… are going to be the worst hit and are the most vulnerable in terms of impact of climate change,” said IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri.
Mr Pachauri said those people were also the least equipped to deal with the effects of such changes.
This is not an alarmist report; the usual suspects have done what is in their power to water down the report’s conclusions. The 20-page summary was subject to tough negotiations even this week, a fact that a number of the participating scientists have found quite problematic.
Scientists and government officials from more than 100 countries met through the night, trying to agree on the wording of a summary for policy makers.
Several delegations, including the US, Saudi Arabia, China and India, had asked for the final version to reflect less certainty than the draft. (link above)“The authors lost,” one scientist in the negotiations told the Associated Press. “A lot of authors are not going to engage in the IPCC process any more. I have had it with them.”
It is easy to understand their frustration; the IPCC reports will form the basis for future global negotiations on climate agreements. Starting off by refusing to face the facts is not encouraging.
CNN – Several scientists objected to the editing of the final draft by government negotiators but in the end agreed to compromises. However, some scientists vowed never to take part in the process again.
The climax of five days of negotiations was reached when the delegates removed parts of a key chart highlighting devastating effects of climate change that kick in with every rise of 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, and in a tussle over the level of scientific reliability attached to key statements.
European news sources are giving prominent coverage to the story, I had to search a bit to find the CNN-link.
Happy Easter!
Update [2007-4-6 11:15:22 by ask]: Added link to Summary Report (20-page pdf)
This is knoxville progressive’s territory, but apart from leaving a couple of recommendations here and there, I have not seen him around lately.
I forgot; check your own ecological footprint.
I was shocked at my own result, probably due to a lot of plane travel. Time to make some more changes.
I checked out that site. I don’t do a lot in the way of plane travel, but there are some other habits that need changing. Our household does leave a smaller footprint than average for the US, but let’s just say finding out that we’d need 3.5 Earths to have everyone live like me is well, a harbinger that more changes are going to have to happen pronto.
I got a 20.
Looks like we both have some work to do.
I got a 12. I don’t know if that’s good or bad.
Mine was a 16 – like Booman’s better than the average American (which was a 24 if I recall), but still consuming more than the planet can manage.
Maybe put the test up in the next Open Thread – ask everyone to participate – could be an eye opener for many.
Good idea.
And would need 4.3 planets to sustain …
Much better than most of us here so far. I got a 17 and drive very little. I either work at home or at the county office building 2 blocks from home. Looks as if we all have a lot of work to do in this area.
I got 16 too. I think the equations aren’t too accurate given the questions they asked, but clearly my life style is not sustainable.
Ahead of the crowd, but with more to do.
Need to do more local food.
this is called “getting what we deserve”.
We have been warned, for 20 years now and counting, that we were killing ourselves. The 1990s were the “make-it-or-break-it” decade, in which we had to address global warming before it became irreversible.
It is now irreversible. We are going to die and we heartily deserve it.
However, I’m an optimist: I am hopeful that climate change will kill off humanity, but that other species like bugs and bacteria survive.
“Happy easter”. Try, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.”
For at least forty years the Zero Population Growth people have been trying to get word out that dire consequences are the likely result of overpopulation.
Of course, they’re dying without heirs.
And instead of appropriately and timely addressing the problem, ways are now being sought to go around it. Theses include genitically modified crops better able to withstand drought and heat conditions. While hunger is not something to look forward to, releasing yet more GMOs upon the environment is very scary. We can only guess the ultimate outcome.
And look for the nay-sayers to emphasise the apparent positive aspects of the report – the prolonged growing season in temperate zones. Conveniently ignoring that new pests will also arrive, that weather patterns will change, that drinking water and irrigation is in jeopardy where this is currently provided by summer melying of glaciers, and on and on.
We can only guess the ultimate outcome.
Except that we CAN guess the outcome: More UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES–or perhaps, for the more paranoid amoung us, “unintended” consequences–and cascade failures that reduce or simplify (kill) the biosphere.
The particulars of the failures are strictly unpredictable, but that there will be failures and that they will be sweeping, is completely sure. (Probability = 1).
The general shape is not so obscure, either: Right now, the trend is destruction of human-food species and formerly effective medicines.
Is this really an accident?