As the EU basks in the praise for its perceived global leadership on climate change policy, new scientific findings show that we’re not just failing to stabilise the situation but that it is worsening. This complicates matters for policymakers around the world in their efforts to agree on a post-2012 international agreement in Copenhagen in December 2009. EU targets to reduce emissions from 1990 levels by 20% to 30% by 2020 were decided upon almost two years ago – during which time the science has improved. There is now compelling evidence that climate change is both more rapid and its consequences more serious than believed just a few years ago. In spite of that, several member states have complained bitterly that EU targets are too ambitious in these times of economic crisis. This led to a watered-down decision by EU leaders in December 2008, which prompted the following comment in the editorial in the New Scientist (Dec. 20): “Europe has chickened out on climate change.” The reason for that is that new data are making it abundantly clear that the measures adopted by the EU are totally insufficient to rein in climate change.
The main objective of EU climate policy – and often referred to also in the UN-led climate negotiations – is to avoid an increase in the average temperature on the planet of more than 2° Celsius. New scientific findings claim that even this objective won’t avert disaster; if the average temperature increases by 2°C, several studies tell us, there is a significant risk not only that summer ice in the Arctic will disappear but, as well, the glaciers in the Tibetan Plateau. The consequences would be devastating. Freshwater provisions for more than a billion people living around the Himalayas would be seriously affected – just to mention one example.
MATTERS OF OPINION |
Europe’s patchwork of climate change opinions
A Eurobarometer survey on attitudes towards climate change showed markedly differing attitudes across the EU. Although in most countries a majority saw it as a serious issue, in the Czech Republic, Italy and Portugal less than half of those polled thought so.
Nine out of 10 people in Cyprus and Greece thought climate change to be serious, 71% in France and Germany, and 57% in the UK.
But Europeans generally agreed that not enough was being done to tackle the problem. The survey reported that 76% of Europeans thought that business and industry were not doing enough. This view was most strongly held by nine out of 10 respondents in Greece and Slovenia. And 67% of respondents felt that Europe’s citizens themselves were not doing enough, and 64% believed their own national government
needed to do more.
While 56% of Europeans agreed that fighting climate change could have a positive effect on the European economy, there was less harmony over who should pay. Just 18% of Europeans told Eurobarometer that they would be prepared to pay between 1% and 5% more for energy produced from green sources, and 30% said they were not prepared to pay any more at all for green energy.
|
In the language of the UN-led negotiations the overall objective should be to cut global emissions by half in 2050. While perceived as ambitious, such action would not be sufficient. What is required instead – to be on the safe side – would be to cut emissions by 80% to 90% for 2050. To achieve that, total emissions would have to peak within ten years and then start decline by 5% to 10% yearly. Seen from that perspective, what is discussed both in the EU and within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) is pathetic.
One aspect of climate change that has so far received limited attention is the interplay between the climate system and the planetary system. Human-made emissions interact with ecosystems such as oceans and forests, with knock-on effects that are only beginning to be understood. These ecosystems have camouflaged global warming by so far absorbing roughly half of human-made emissions. There is now growing evidence that the capacity of such carbon sinks is weakening. If the planet absorbs less of the greenhouse gases, a bigger share will remain in the atmosphere and that will further accelerate warming.
Ecosystems also provide feedbacks, which haven’t received enough attention from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The feedbacks from ecosystems around the world are probably the most important reason why warming is now perceived to be more rapid than had previously been anticipated. While we can control emissions, we have little influence on feedback mechanisms from the planetary system. Once such feedbacks become more dominant there is little hope we can stabilise the climate system.
Fast feedbacks can be seen in the dramatic summer ice melt in the Arctic. Half of the normal ice cover during summer has already been lost. A combination of a lower albedo, or reflectiveness, and warmer ocean temperatures is causing a domino effect of accelerated warming.
Slow feedbacks, thought to happen over centuries, include melting permafrost. More than ten times the annual global greenhouse gas emission is thought to be trapped in frozen tundra across the world. Last summer a scientific survey of the Siberian tundra coastlines reported methane levels roughly 100 times above normal. As tundra thaws, a “tipping point” is soon to be reached and the tundra becomes a potential “Methane Bomb.” Large-scale methane leakage could have the same effects on the climate system as the collapse of Lehman Brothers had on the financial system. |
The climate system is highly sensitive. Differences in average temperature levels of 1°C or less can have a major impact. A region could reach a “tipping point” faster than most people imagine, especially if several climate-change factors converge. History has shown that tipping points are not an exception – look at the Dust Bowl in the U.S. Midwest in the 1930s. A similar sudden event today would be for the Amazon rainforest to "tip over" to a dry savannah state under the multiple pressures from global warming and deforestation.
While feedbacks from ecosystems help accelerate climate change, other man-made emissions mask the true extent of warming. Aerosols from industrial and transport pollution and from biomass burning help cool the planet. New science indicates that aerosols are responsible for a cooling of as much as 1°Celsius.
When all these new insights are taken into account, EU domestic targets and the UNFCC-led negotiations appear all the more remote from what is actually required in terms of action. Incremental change will not suffice. What is needed is a crash programme in order to stabilise the climate system.
The overall aim of avoiding dangerous climate change seems almost to have been lost along the way. A global response is needed, using the latest science, with industrialised nations – namely the EU – taking the lead. The EU should base its policies on what is needed to stabilise the climate system – not what is perceived to be politically possible.
In the face of the huge risks, the precautionary principle should guide all EU as well as global climate targets. The EU should therefore:
- Advocate a 1.7°C target for mitigation, necessitating a global reduction target of 90% by 2050. Adaptation policies should however plan for 4°C of warming – the path we are most likely to head for if we stay on our current emissions trajectory.
- Call for regular assessments of the state of climate science on an annual basis. We can not wait five years for a new report to be published for a problem of such catastrophic dimensions. We desperately need a rapid-response, peer-reviewed mechanism to bring relevant new research to negotiators and policymakers in the shortest time possible.
- Mobilise huge investments in mitigation measures that can help take CO2 out of the atmosphere – such as reforestation, biochar (charcoal produced from biomass mixed with agricultural soils) and CCS from biomass.
- Accelerate all the programs already considered to reduce emissions, like energy efficiency, renewables, etc.
We can only stabilise the Earth’s climate system if we realise that what is required is not merely a question of stringent climate policies, but a plan for planetary sustainability. Managing emissions alone will not be sufficient. Active stewardship of the Earth’s ecosystems, together with massive support for resilience-building and adaptation, will be needed.
Industrialised countries must compensate for historical as well as current emissions, and thus bear the brunt of the mitigation effort. An effort-sharing framework, acknowledging developing countries' right to expand their economies, would mean that the EU and other industrialised countries should adopt:
• Long-term domestic emission reduction targets by 2050 of 100% to be achieved entirely by domestic at-source reductions in order to move toward carbon-free energy.
• Medium-term domestic emission reduction targets of between 70% to 80% by 2035, supplemented by a 40% to 50% emissions reduction target to be achieved through additional climate-friendly investments in developing countries.
• Short-term emission reduction targets of 40% domestically, supplemented by at least a 20% emissions reductions target through climate-friendly investments in developing countries.
The EU must also commit to substantial increases in support for technology transfer and adaptation measures in developing countries. These commitments should be legally binding under a future international agreement. By doing so we could also ask emerging economies to adopt reduction targets in the medium-term perspective.
The EU has a major self-interest in taking the lead to facilitate a rapid transformation into a carbon-free economy – not only because the planet demands it, but because by doing so the EU would become a global leader in climate-friendly technology. So far, other countries and regions are ahead. The United Arab Emirates is planning to become the first carbon-neutral country in the world. California recently unveiled a plan to switch its entire transport systems away from traditional fuel. China’s fuel-efficiency legislation is more ambitious than Europe's. And we are sure to witness new leadership from the U.S. – not least on technology – once the Obama Administration gets up to speed.
To be competitive, the EU should develop legislation that helps industry prepare for a new era of green economic development. The EU should:
• Adopt long-term targets and measures providing incentives for structural change. We should learn from the present crisis in car manufacturing. If policymakers had called for stricter efficiency standards years ago, many European companies would be in a much better situation today.
• Transfer financial and technology resources to emerging economies and developing countries to help them to leapfrog the most carbon-intensive stages of development onto a carbon-free energy path.
• Adapt national and EU budgets to the reality of climate change by making them more flexible in the face of crises and by adopting new innovative finance mechanisms, including earmarking of revenues from emissions trading for climate-change purposes.
• Review the effectiveness of market mechanisms, including the emissions trading scheme.
• Rapidly enforce a moratorium on coal power not equipped with CCS.
• Multiply investments in low-carbon technology in power production, transport and infrastructure through public-private partnerships. Special attention should be paid to the important role of information and communication technology in dematerialisation, transport substitution, energy efficiency, etc.
• Demand that the reform of international financial institutions should go beyond financial regulation to redress, as well, the political and market failures that contributed in the first place to the phenomenon of climate change and the ecosystem crisis. |
The acceleration of climate change that we are already witnessing paints a gloomy picture. The good news, though, is that we are still in a narrow but significant window of opportunity. The coming year will be crucial in setting the stage for EU and global climate policy for decades to come. The financial, environmental and climate crises we face also provide important opportunities to restructure our economies and create the foundations of a new green economy, with significant business leadership opportunities for European industry. Europe should grasp this opportunity quickly as we may well not be given a second chance.