Well, there you go:

The snappily titled United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), just to rub the point in, have just published statistics about the rise in CO2 emissions.

Guess who is topping the list and, by the way, who is least likely to do anything about it?

There was a 2.4% total increase in emissions across 41 industrialised countries between 2000 and 2004.

Britain, France and Germany were relatively close to achieving Kyoto Protocol targets.

The United States, bless them, remained the world's biggest greenhouse gas polluter - its emissions increased by a staggering 15.4% between 1990 and 2004.

Unfortunately, the situation in the US, according to Al Gore, is this:

"In the last six years, we've seen an energy bill written by oil companies, a prescription drug bill written by pharmaceutical lobbyists, and a global warming policy run by the biggest polluters. Only in the out-of-touch world of this Republican Congress could public service mean raising their own pay nine times without raising the minimum wage once."

The last sentence I included because it so typical of conservative politicians. I seem to remember the same thing happening here in the UK, during the Thatcher/Major years - while clamping down on the public sector pay, the government kept awarding themselves inflation-busting wage rises. But I digress...

For additional information see:

The UNFCC

The Stern Review:

Sir Nicholas Stern, former chief economist at the World Bank, was commissioned by Gordon Brown, UK Chancellor, to write a report about the anticipated effects of global warming. Given that he is an economist, there is a substantial emphasis on the monetary cost; however, it does go into some depth about the likely effects of global warming and what we need to do.

Summary of the report's findings:

Temperature

• Carbon emissions have already pushed up global temperatures by half a degree Celsius
• If no action is taken on emissions, there is more than a 75% chance of global temperatures rising between two and three degrees Celsius over the next 50 years
• There is a 50% chance that average global temperatures could rise by five degrees Celsius

Environmental impact

• Melting glaciers will increase flood riskCrop yields will decline, particularly in Africa
• Rising sea levels could leave 200 million people permanently displaced
• Up to 40% of species could face extinction
• There will be more examples of extreme weather patterns

The report goes into some length about what we need to do. However, I want to focus on one particular recommendation - stabilising the amount of greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere at 500 to 550 parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2050. Now, bear in mind that at the level Sir Nicholas Stern is proposing here, there will still be significant climate change. It is somewhat alarming to know that to acheive this level, the world will need to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 60%!

60%!

I may be being rather skeptical when it comes to putting trust in politicians - paticularly that house plant in the White House - but I just don't see this happening... at least not until something totally tragic happens. For one, the likely victims in the short term are the poorer countries. Until the consequences of global warming start to affect the richer countries directly - particularly the United States - I anticipate there will be little effort made to stem the emissions.

For further information:

The Stern Report
Analysis: A stern warning
Analysis: Stern's impact
Simple verdict: time is running out
White House nods at climate change report

"This disaster is not set to happen in some science fiction future many years ahead, but in our lifetime ... We can't wait the five years it took to negotiate Kyoto - we simply don't have the time. We accept we have to go further (than Kyoto)."

Tony Blair, UK Prime Minister

Leaping on the Bandwagon:

When politicians decide to get interested in a topic that is not inherently short-term, you know it's a problem.

Politicians, by nature, are a farsighted as the next election. However, climate change is such an emotive subject, it has even featured in the campaigns of the leaders of the main political parties.

A lot of it is hot air of course - we are talking about politicians. Take that self-styled environmentalist David Cameron's choice of car for instance... When offered a Toyota Prius (CO2 emission - 104g/km), he turned it down in favour of the Lexus GS 450H (CO2 - 186g/km).

His explanation: "My problem is that often when I go on tour, I have a lot of people in the car with me and I found on the tour when I used a Prius it meant we had to have two cars rather than one, so I don't think it would be very good for the environment."

Fair enough one might think.

However, according to the official Lexus website, it has a seating capacity of 5 and luggage capacity of 12.7; over to the main Toyota website, where we find the Prius with a seating capacity of 5 and a luggage capacity of 14.4.

Maybe the Lexus has a very large roof rack.

Anyway, back to the point. There have been a number of news articles over the last week, featuring the major players and lesser lights:

• David Cameron has been proposing that if he wins the next election he would like to install solar panels and a wind-power turbine on the roof of Number 10, Downing Street (found in the Metro, a free London Underground paper).
• Gordon Brown, UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, commissioned a report (the Stern Review) that predicts irreversible economic damage unless the world acts now.
• David Miliband, the UK Environment secretary, has proposed a package of green taxes to combat climate change.
• Colin Challen (Labour MP for Morley and Rothwell, Leeds, UK) has launched a bid to force car makers to display more information on carbon emissions in their adverts.
• Tony Blair, who clearly felt left out, said the Stern Review showed the scientific evidence of global warming was "overwhelming" and its consequences "disastrous".

The Day After... the day after:

Hollywood predicts the future. And I managed to type that without bursting into fits of giggles. Nearly.

In the apocalyptic film, The Day After Tomorrow, sensors in the seas were used to dramatic effect to indicate the collapse of the transatlantic current. This then lead to a new ice-age in the Northern Hemisphere... in the film, that is.

It appears that the scientific community thought "hey, that seems like a good idea..."

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Ocean array acts as climate alert:
By Mark Kinver
Science and nature reporter, BBC News

Measurements from a network of monitors stretching across the Atlantic Ocean could offer an early warning of 'sudden climate change', scientists have said.

Underwater instruments measuring the temperature and salinity of seawater will detect any change to currents that regulate Europe's climate, they said.

A UK-led team of researchers said the data offered the most detailed picture of the ocean's circulation patterns.

No Peace for the Wicked:

I take a week off and there's a bumper crop of cheery articles on the Beeb website alone. Let's start with the oldest and, arguably, most worrying one:

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Global ecosystems 'face collapse':
Tuesday, 24 October 2006, 06:58 GMT 07:58 UK

Current global consumption levels could result in a large-scale ecosystem collapse by the middle of the century, environmental group WWF has warned.

The group's biannual Living Planet Report said the natural world was being degraded 'at a rate unprecedented in human history'.

Terrestrial species had declined by 31% between 1970-2003, the findings showed.

It warned that if demand continued at the current rate, two planets would be needed to meet global demand by 2050.

The biodiversity loss was a result of resources being consumed faster than the planet could replace them, the authors said.

They added that if the world's population shared the UK's lifestyle, three planets would be needed to support their needs.


The World Wildlife Fund's Living Planet Report makes interesting, yet notably grim, reading. It is based around two indications of the state of the planet:

Biodiversity index
This provides a trend-based analysis of, well, how successful we are at making species extinct. Data for 695 terrestrial, 344 freshwater and 274 marine species were analyzed:

• Terrestrial species declined by 31 per cent
• Freshwater species by 28 per cent
• Marine species by 27 per cent

Resource demands
The second indicator is our ecological footprint. This measures the demands we place on the planet's natural resources.

• Between 1961 and 2003, our resource requirements have tripled.
• Between 1961 and 2003, our CO2 production has increased by 900%
• In 2003, we exceeded the resource capacity of the planet by 25%... this is up from 21% in 2001

Cop out?

From the article:

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | UN to talk on climate adaptation

There is an 'urgent need' to help developing countries adapt to impacts of climate change, UK Climate Change Minister Ian Pearson has said.

Nations were experiencing environmental changes as a result of greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere, he told MPs.

He said he was hopeful that an action plan and funding would be agreed at a climate summit in Africa next month.

Yet another summit...

I always find the discussion of workarounds worrying. While it is important that the first world countries help those that are likely to feel the results of global warming the most, I can't help but think that ultimately this will be the sum total effort to stem the likely environmental catastrophe.

NASA's Earth temperature study:

A new study by NASA scientists finds that the world's temperature is reaching a level that has not been seen in thousands of years.

Excerpt:
Because of a rapid warming trend over the past 30 years, the Earth is now reaching and passing through the warmest levels seen in the last 12,000 years. This color-coded map shows average temperatures from 2001-2005 compared to a base period of temperatures from 1951-1980. Dark red indicates the greatest warming and purple indicates the greatest cooling.

Mexico, the end:

The first Ministerial Dialogue on Climate Change, Clean Energy and Sustainable Development gathering has drawn to a close. It's sponsor, the UK government, has declared it a success with the majority of the delegates in agreement about the urgent need to tackle greenhouse gas emissions.

All sounds rather positive, doesn't it?

However, there were a couple of rather depressing snippets in the source article:

The Under-Secretary of State for Global Affairs, Paula Dobriansky, told the BBC that the US was now acting urgently to tackle greenhouse gases - then later admitted that the country's emissions would continue to rise.

Another US delegate agreed that the world would face inevitable sea-level rise because of climate change. But when informally asked if the US opposition to mandatory CO2 cuts had changed in any way in response to a surge in concern over recent science of climate change, economically replied "no".

So, the biggest polluter, producing 25% of the CO2 emitted worldwide, can be counted upon to do bugger all. Not good.

And then there are the no-shows:

The Russians - who hope they will benefit from a warmer world - did not attend the Monterrey talks.

The Indians despatched only their concerned environment minister, instead of their unconcerned energy minister who has far more sway over India's emissions.

It is a strange and worrying thing to know that we are relying upon and entrusting politicians to look after the future of our planet; the one group of people that manage their lives around a 4-5 year election cycle.

Mexico, again:

Another day, another set of great soundbites coming out of the Mexico polluters party.

"We've got 30 years of climate change ahead of us even if we stop right now."
-- David King, British government's chief scientific advisor

"Because we've raised the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere so quickly, the earth's climate system is falling behind. This is way in excess of anything the planet has known, probably for 45 million years."
-- David King, again.

"The people in denial now are the equivalent of the Flat Earth Society. Humankind is in a race for life against global warming."
-- Malcolm Wicks, British Energy Minister

The silence from the US, the World's biggest polluter, is deafening. However, as the country is lead by the oil industry's friend, what should we be expecting?

Link:
Get ready for freak weather, world's polluters told

CO2 Emissions:

It was somewhat remiss of me not to mention the perceived problem with CO2 emissions.

CO2 is the main one of the many greenhouse gases; that is, it allows heat from the sun in, but prevents it from leaving. The increase in production of these gases has resulted in the heating of the planet, melting the polar ice-caps, and so forth.

It is encouraging to see the efforts of:

• California, reducing their emissions by 25% by 2020 and
  
  
• Kyoto, where "under which industrialised countries will reduce their collective emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2% compared to the year 1990 (but note that, compared to the emissions levels that would be expected by 2010 without the Protocol, this target represents a 29% cut)".
  

However, the pollution that has already been produced will cause further rises in the earth's mean temperature. It would require an immediate 70% reduction in emissions to save 9 out of 10 of the species expected to become extinct over the next 60 years!

Back to Mexico:

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Call for action on climate change:

The Ministerial Dialogue on Climate Change, Clean Energy and Sustainable Development - easy name to remember and the acronym doesn't help - was created by the UK when it held the presidency of the G8 in 2005.

It is starting in the right way - the opening soundbite sourced from the British government scientist and former World Bank chief economist, Nicholas Stern, is encouraging:

"It is imperative we take action to prevent further climate change because the economic costs - never mind the human costs and the costs to the environment - will far outweigh the costs of mitigation."

I'm also delighted to see the number of participating countries and their importance in terms of generated pollution. However, this is tempered by the events in Kyoto, where the US - the world's biggest polluter - refused to ratify the agreement.

Is doom an inevitability?

I don't wish to be skeptical, however, I am aware of the fact that the future of our planet is going to be decided by politicians; people that only think 4 or 5 years into the future at best.

Yes, Mexico is hosting a gathering of major polluters. No doubt we can expect a large increase in hot air; particularly from the representative from the north of that meeting point, based on their attitude toward the Kyoto accord.

However, there have been so many stories of late, even most politicians couldn't have failed to notice.

Arnie's on a green rampage:

The greening of California continues with the good governor focussing his efforts - up-close and personal - on the citizens.

Schwarzenegger OKs chemical exposure research

This will involve taking blood, urine, tissue, hair and breast milk samples to assess the level of man-made chemicals in people across the state.

This and other recent environmental initiatives by the Terminator are praise-worthy, though my enthusiam is dampened slightly by the timing - Arnie is currently seeking re-election.