Bali: UN Climate Conference outcome

It was an 11th hour nail biting, final pulling together after berating the Americans for their attempts to sabotage any agreement, which resulted in .. a compromise.

World governments agreed a negotiating framework to decide a new global climate policy by 2009 on 13th December 2007 for the post-2012 period.

The Bali road-map commits all developed countries to quantified greenhouse gas emission reduction targets and says "deep cuts" will be needed. Developing countries will commit to "appropriate mitigation actions".

Disappointingly, upon the insistence of the US, the road-map suggests no concrete emission reduction targets. But a footnote makes reference to documents from the IPCC which say reductions of up to 40 per cent by 2020 are needed to head off dangerous climate change. Greenpeace lamented the lack of references to "crucial cuts" and the "relegation of science to a footnote".

On the positive, general approval was voiced for consensuses reached on tackling emissions from deforestation, on enhancing technology development and transfer, and on stimulating financial flows to fund all climate change-related action.

However, the next two years of talks promise to be difficult. Somewhat unsurprisingly, US officials saying that they had "serious concerns" about the Bali deal. White House spokesman Dana Perino said climate negotiators "must give sufficient emphasis to the important and appropriate role that the larger emitting developing countries should play" - a clear reference to India and China. This may complicate, and indeed hinder the process - a polite way of saying it is anticipated that the US will continue to be obstructive.

[Participation in the Kyoto Protocol, where dark green indicates countries that have signed and ratified the treaty and yellow indicates states that have signed and hope to ratify the treaty. Australia's new Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has promised to sign and ratify it - so should be coloured green also.The United States has signed the treaty but continues to refuse to ratify it.]

Technology transfer deal: a clear mandate
In a separate agreement in Bali, parties to the Kyoto protocol agreed to be fully guided by the IPCC's recommendations in setting a second round of commitments by 2009 (which suggests those 40% GHG reductions by 2020 will be implemented in due course - a matter of watch that space). It is intended for the two tracks - the Bali road-map and Kyoto - eventually to merge. A review of the protocol, which will focus also on how to enhance carbon markets, was also launched.

One deal was reached that can be considered the most significant milestone yet on the road towards a new global climate agreement for the post-2012 period. Agreement was reached on a text setting out how the industrialised world should transfer technology to developing countries. The text must still be rubber-stamped by ministers, but no problems are foreseen since it has been agreed by officials representing all parties.

The deal should create a new entity dedicated to technology transfer under the Global Environment Facility (GEF), a fund that supports environmental projects in developing countries. It is not clear whether funding will come from elsewhere within the GEF or from outside.

An expert group will analyse current and potential funding sources for a wish list of developing country technology transfer-related demands, with a view to filling gaps and developing new financing tools if necessary. It must report back by 2010.
Performance indicators for technology transfer will be developed.

Understanding IPCC reports

The other night I headed over to the Institute of Physics to hear Professor Jonathan Gregory give a lecture to a packed house on The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change. Prof Gregory is one of those scientists who comes armed with a string of positions (Snr. Scientist at the Walker Institute for Climate System Research, Prof. at the Dept. of Meteorology, University of Reading, Met Office Fellow in the Climate Change Group at the Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter - I'm sure there are more) that makes you wonder whether he is capable of being in many places and doing many things simultaneously (he is a scientist afterall). He is a man who is precise in his choice of words and concise in his explanations.

So, with that kind of background, it is no surprise that a man of those credentials is also an IPCC lead author. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - the world leading authority on climate change) was established in 1988 to assess scientific, technical and socio- economic information relevant for the understanding of climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. 2007 brings the completion of the 4th Assessment Report. There are three working groups who compile individual reports for the Assessment Report: Working Group 1 addresses the 'physical science basis', Group 2 the' impacts, adaptation ann vulnerability', Group 3 'mitigation'. Prof Gregory is a lead author for the Working Group 1 (whose report was published February 2007), who were tasked with turning their immense brains, knowledge and analytical skills to the physical science basis of climate change.

Here is how it works:
A core of scientists (Working Group 1 was written by 152 lead authors from over 30 countries and reviewed by over 600 experts) are tasked to assess existing peer reviewed literature on climate change, give information on how confident they are of the calculations, compile the report and a summary for policymakers. It is only after that do the scientists sit down with the government representatives to decide whether the summary correctly reflects the report. The Working Group 1 Summary for Policymakers was approved by officials from 113 governments. So, if you are in doubt as to whether or not climate change is really happening, these are the guys who listen to. They take the hard data, the existing literature, the physical theory, the numerical modelling, the research papers, the observations, the computations, the projections and circulation models - all in all the most up-to-date information - from all over the world. Once this is assessed the IPCC brains provide information on how confident they are of the calculations. It is not opinion, but analysis. And to ensure everyone is talking the same language and understands each other, a calibrated language is used (that in itself took a bit of doing to agree, as you can imagine).

IPCC Calibrated language
very likely > 90% probability
likely > 66%
unlikely < 33%
very unlikely < 10%

Unequivocal Fact: Global Warming is happening
There is one fact which none of the scientists and experts disagree on. The warming of the climate system is unequivocal. This is not contested. The 11 of the past 12 years are the warmest on record (the exception is 1996). So anyone who claims they are still unsure as to whether or not global warming is in fact taking place must surely be privy to some remarkable data that flies in the face of what can only be considered conclusive evidence.

The Greenhouse Effect
The greenhouse effect is the rise in temperature that the Earth experiences because certain gases in the atmosphere (water vapor, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane, for example) trap energy from the sun. Without these gases, heat would escape back into space and Earth’s average temperature would be about 60ºF colder. The gases in effect insulate the earth, rather like an invisible blanket. Because of how they warm our world, so the earth heats up underneath - rather akin to the heating up under the glass of a greenhouse - these gases are referred to as greenhouse gases. What is happening is that inside the greenhouse - planet Earth - is beginning to overheat.

Back to Prof Gregory: he gave an array of slides demonstrating the observed changes, and those that have proven consistent with expected (simulated) responses - which also demonstrates that much of the earlier future mappings have been pretty spot on.

Where such changes are inconsistent with other explanations, he explained, attributions can be made. Thus, where natural forcings alone do not explain the variations over the past 50 years, most of the observed increase in globally average temperatures since the mid 20th Century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic green house concentrations. In other words, there's >90% probability that it's all down to us - increase in temperature has resulted from the influence humans have on the natural world - from the burning of of fossil fuels and deforestation. So, there we have it - we are in all likelihood destroying the very world we live on by our own actions. Using that well worn analogy, if you were told by a medical expert you had >90% chance of dying of cancer very soon unless you stopped smoking now, what would you do? Go with the 10% off-chance that you may be okay? Or take action...

Future Simulations
Such extensive analysis of the changes in ice sheet volume, sea ice, glacier and ice cap reductions, salinity, precipitation, water vapour, green house gases, temperature, ocean heat, sea level rise, thermal expansion etc. has been put to good use. A family of future scenarios (on a business as usual premise) to the end of the 21st Century with a range of increase in temperature between 1 and 4 degrees has been computed. It does not make for pretty viewing. Even on the most optimistic scenario (and the most unlikely) of just one degree increase, does not absolve our responsibility to address what for future generations will bring even higher increases. Increase of temperature may bring positive feedbacks, such as die-back of forests, and with the loss of those sinks comes the release of even more greenhouse gases, contributing to even further and more rapid increase of temperatures.

Future warming of temperatures, in the calibrated language of the ever cautious scientists, is virtually certain, heat waves more frequent, and heavy precipitation very likely. By 2090 it is very likely that there will be no summer sea ice in the Arctic. That's a lot of dead polar bears. As for the cooling of the Gulf Stream from the increased loss of ice? Sudden collapse, as current analysis of the computations stands, is however very unlikely.

We need people like Prof Gregory and all the other lead authors and scientists to make analyse the data for us. I cannot pretend that I understand all of it, but, in the only way I can explain, I am satisfied so that I am sure that these IPCC scientists and experts know what they are talking about. Such data is inevitably our primary materials upon which we must act.

As for impacts, adaptation and vulnerability, and for that matter, mitigation of climate change - well, these two areas are the subject of reports that have been published by Working Group 2 and Working Group 3. What I need now are equally informative lectures on both those reports.

For the 2007 Working Group Reports (1, 2 & 3) go to: ipcc.ch
The reports by the three Working Groups provide a comprehensive and up-to-date assessment of the current state of knowledge on climate change. It is currently finalizing its Fourth Assessment Report "Climate Change 2007", also referred to as AR4 which will be available in November.

Monbiot: Giving Up On Two Degrees, IPCC Report

Sometimes I read an article, book or blog that addresses an issue so succinctly, argues a point concisely, presents a universal truth that is being ignored or overlooked - and I make a mental note to raise it in my blog. Then, life comes along and other demands take over and the moment has passed. But this is one article that has struck such a chord with me, that I have returned to re-read. I urge anyone who is concerned about what the target level of greenhouse gas emissions should be to read George Monbiot's article, Giving Up On Two Degrees

Monbiot, in his usual well researched fashion, sets out why we need higher targets - and targets that must be met sooner. Infact, not only is our government relying on out-of-date figures, so is the European Union. Working on the basis of a 50% chance of preventing more than 2°C of warming, a global cut of 80% by 2050 would be required.

Monbiot explains that this is a cut in total emissions, not in emissions per head. If the population were to rise from 6 to 9 billion between now and then, we would need an 87% cut in global emissions per person. If carbon emissions are to be distributed equally, the greater cut must be made by the biggest polluters: rich nations like us. The UK’s emissions per capita would need to fall by 91%.

As Monbiot points out, what the recent IPCC report shows is that we have to stop treating climate change as an urgent issue. We have to start treating it as an international emergency.


This latest IPCC Report, "Mitigation of Climate Change" was published on the 4th of May. Here is a brief summary of the key findings of the report:
1. the world has until 2020 to reverse the trend of rising greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the most dangerous effects of climate change,
2. achieving this would reduce the world's annual gross domestic product by 3 per cent in 2030,
3. cuts in emissions of GHGs can be achieved with existing technologies,
4. bringing that technology into widespread use is likely to require extensive changes in public policy,
5. US$20,000 billion must be spent by 2030 on the world's energy infrastructure to help reduce costs.

The report also estimates that carbon emissions will cost between US$100 per tonne. Multiple strategies are proposed to prevent the potentially catastrophic consequences of climate change at a reasonable cost. These include measures such as switching to renewable energy and biofuels, taxing fossil fuels, incentives for improving the energy efficiency of transportation, buildings and industry, as well as changes to agricultural and forestry practices. The key findings of the report have been agreed unanimously by more than 100 governments, including those of the US, China, India and the European Union and will form the basis for international policy. They will also provide the framework for discussions, set to begin this December in Bali, on a successor to the Kyoto protocol on climate change, whose main provisions expire in 2012. Whilst the latest IPCC report makes it clear that the world has a substantial challenge, it also shows that there is an emerging consensus.

*Giving Up On Two Degrees
* IPCC Working Group III Report "Mitigation of Climate Change"

IPCC Report: The Evidence Stacks Up

On Friday the world's scientists lay down the most definitive report yet that a failure to cut greenhouse gas emissions will bring devastating climate change within a few decades. Average temperatures could increase by as much as 6.4C by the end of the century if emissions continue to rise, with a rise of 4C most likely, according to the final report of the expert panel set up by the UN to study the problem. The forecast is higher than previous estimates, because scientists have discovered that Earth's land and oceans are becoming less able to absorb carbon dioxide.

The report, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is written by hundreds of scientists across the world and has been approved by every government. It leaves little room for doubt that human activity is to blame.

The report itself said human activity was "very likely" to be responsible for most of the observed warming in recent decades, which means the scientists are 90% sure. Emphasis has now shifted. No longer is the question whether climate change is linked to human activity. IPCC reports later this year will focus of what we must do about it.

The good news is we still have time to adapt. The IPCC panel stressed that a significant switch to "clean and resource efficient technologies" would cut expected temperature rises by half (see the Energy Revolution Report for a blueprint on how to cut emission by 50%).

This report is the first volume of three. On April 6, the IPCC will report on the impact of climate change and the adaptation and vulnerability of people and wildlife; and on May 4, it will report on potential ways to mitigate the problem.

Work on the three reports began in November 2003, with the creation of three working parties. It will finish in November this year, when the IPCC will collate its findings into a single publication. The IPCC Fourth Assessment report will be released in time for key UN climate talks in Indonesia in December.

desmogblog.com FAQ about the IPCC

The Guardian Q&A: The IPCC Report