“Even if China and India followed the EU in first limiting emissions, and decrease them in decades to come, without the US not acting means we would never get to those levels. Similarly, if the US wakes up tomorrow and says, the EU is right, but China and India don’t do anything, you’d never get there either.”
- Dr Bill Hare, lead author of UN climate change report
It came down to one number: 445
That figure marks the ideal amount of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere, measured in parts per million (ppm).
If concentrations of such gases, which cause global warming, are stabilised at between 445ppm and 535ppm, it would mean a temperature rise of between 2 and 2.8 deg C, with a peak by 2020, said a United Nations climate change report.
The European Union has been pushing for a 2 deg C temperature rise cap, warning that anything more would be devastating.
But 445ppm – the most ambitious target of a UN climate change report – was one of the most hotly debated numbers during this week’s UN climate change meetings. Concentrations are already at an estimated 430ppm.
In fact, if China had its way, the number would never have made it into the 35-page summary of solutions that resulted from the week-long Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) meeting, which ended on Friday in Bangkok.
The issue was contentious enough for a separate “contact group” of about 20 delegates and scientists to be formed, just a day into discussions, to take the debate to the sidelines to be settled.
They met well into the night at least four times for “politically charged but non-acrimonious” discussions, only reaching some kind of consensus at 11pm Thursday, said one of the report’s lead authors, who was part of the splinter group.
He told The Sunday Times that China, as well as countries that include India and the United States, initially did not want stabilisation levels mentioned at all – let alone most ideal ones – but the scientists would not back down.
The eventual consensus: Not just a few but a range of examples of targets, from the 445ppm to 1,130ppm to be mentioned, along with the corresponding costs and a disclaimer that this could vary based on country and sector.
Scientists say that to stabilise carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, levels would go up first then decline to the stabilisation level. The lower that level, the more quickly countries will have to act, and the higher the cost.
A level between 445ppm and 535ppm, for example, would cost up to 3 per cent of global gross domestic product.
But even though a deal had been reached, some, among them co-authors of the report like Dr Zhou Dadi, maintained that the ideal target was “unrealistic”.
The director of China’s Energy Research Institute said: “I don’t think there is a real consensus… on whether the levels should be 450 or 550, or the temperature 2 degrees. That will take some work.”
Even the report takes no issue with that.
Another lead author, Dr Bill Hare said: “Even if China and India followed the EU in first limiting emissions, and decrease them in decades to come, without the US not acting means we would never get to those levels. Similarly, if the US wakes up tomorrow and says, the EU is right, but China and India don’t do anything, you’d never get there either.”
Still, scientists and environmentalists praised the inclusion of the contentious figure.
They felt the danger of not including the lowest ppm figure and most ideal scenario would provide an “out-clause” for countries to – at least temporarily – go on with “business as usual”.
Greenpeace International’s Gavin Edwards said: “The whole purpose of the IPCC meeting was to lay out the options. And that is an option. An expensive one, yes but one that is ultimately cheaper than dealing with the impact of climate change.”
Source: The Sunday Times
(2007-05-06)
