News through the night (U.S. Pacific Coast Time) was of contention and possible postponement, but the latest Reuters report indicates that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will issue its report forecasting effects of the Climate Crisis today, as scheduled.
Though some scientists still say the executive summary has been watered down (especially by objections from the U.S., China and Saudi Arabia--why I am not surprised at those names?), it still provides, in Reuters words: the bleakest U.N. assessment yet of the threat of climate change, predicting water shortages that could affect billions of people, extinctions of species and a rise in ocean levels that could go on for centuries. .. climate change could cause a sharp fall in crop yields in Africa, a thaw of Himalayan glaciers and more heatwaves for Europe and North America. The IPCC report says climate change is no longer a vague, distant threat. "The whole of climate change is something actually here and now rather than something for the future," said Neil Adger, a British lead author of the report.
An AP report earlier said that much of the internal debate was over some charts that showed effects in various specific places according to possible temperature rises--apparently too graphic for some politicians. The charts have been called a "highway to extinction" because they show that with every degree of warming, the condition of much of the world worsens -- with starvation, floods and the disappearance of species. Those charts "tell us there's a danger in the future," said Belgian delegate Julian Vandeburie, who is in the science policy branch of his government.
Vandeburie compared the world's current situation to the Munich peace conference in 1938, when Britain and France had a choice between confronting Hitler and appeasing him: "We are at the same moment. We have to decide on doing something or not."
It will be interesting to see how this is covered today and this weekend, although my impression is that so far, not only the U.S. government but the U.S. media is softpedaling these conclusions, highlighting the most conservative and near term predictions. In Europe, where public and political awareness is higher, the emphasis has been different. For instance:
Draft versions seen by BBC News warn it will be hard for societies to adapt to all the likely climate impacts. The report is set to say that a temperature rise above 1.5C from 1990 levels would put about one-third of species at risk of extinction. More than one billion people would be at greater risk of water shortages, primarily because of the melting of mountain glaciers and ice fields which act as natural reservoirs. The scientific work reviewed by IPCC scientists includes more than 29,000 pieces of data on observed changes in physical and biological aspects of the natural world. Eighty-five percent of these, it believes, are consistent with a warming world.
There's also reference in the BBC story to the conceptual conflict over whether to concentrate on the "Fix It" phase of dealing with the effects rather than the "Stop It" phase of forestalling worse heating in the farther future by cutting carbon emissions drastically now:
Some observers of climate issues have long maintained that action on climate change should focus on protecting societies and natural systems against impacts such as floods and drought, rather than on curbing greenhouse gas emissions.
The IPCC, however, is set to conclude that "adaptation alone is not expected to cope with all the projected effects of climate change, and especially not over the long run as most impacts increase in magnitude".
In other words, we have to do both.
But will we do either? Even if we can't quite accept the bleakest assessments, will we take enough action in time? And what does "in time" actually mean?
I mean to address those questions as best I can in continuing the Climate Crisis Future series here. I keep adding chapters to this series, so I won't make any further promises on how many more are to come. But I do think next time I'll take a step back and look at all of this from the perspective of 1989. Why that year? Come back and see.
UPDATE: The New York Times has a quote on the interference and the final report:
As a result, the final document was “much less quantified and much vaguer and much less striking than it could have been,” said Stéphane Hallegatte, a participant from France’s International Center for Research on the Environment and Development.
Several U.S. news outlets, like the Times and the Washington Post via AP are emphasizing, as the Post headlines, "Poor Will Suffer Most." Well, apart from the axiom that in any major crisis the poor suffer most (so that's a duh deal) it is true that areas of Africa immediately endangered by drought (some of which has begun) and places most vulnerable to sea-level rises like Bangladesh are poorer on average, the comfort that the affluent Post reader might derive from this headline is deceptive. Some of the apparently suppressed graphs showed potential devastation within the U.S., and reportedly data on hurricanes were also kept out (while an active season is predicted this year by weather people.) A new report predicting a long and devastating drought in the U.S. Southwest (already well underway) is separate from the UN document, but eventually everybody is going to feel this.
The Post does quote Greenpeace: "This is a glimpse into an apocalyptic future." Apocalypse may not be an equal opportunity employer right away, but eventually...
No comments:
Post a Comment