Consensus

The warming CO2 emissions of global energy production continue to rise regardless of the consensus of the basic problem causing the planet to heat up and the acidification of the oceans. Unless extractive companies are reigned in the world is on target to burn a further 2,795 gigatons of known carbon reserves. This represents five times the 565 gigatons scientists say is safe to burn in order to limit a global temperature rise to 2ºC . Much of these reserves are already economically active with energy companies financially beholden by the futures investments that they've traded on. Solutions involve private investment in preventing the effects of further carbon releases into the atmosphere and a rapid change in the status quo to an economy fuelled by alternative energy. Fortunately alternative technologies do exist. The extent to which critical investment can address both these callenges is dependent on strong government policy on climate change.


Vital Statistics

* Global mean surface temperatures have increased 0.6-1.2°F since the late 19^th century.
* The 20th century's 10 warmest years all occurred within the last 15 years. Of these, 1998 was
   the warmest year on record.
* Global mean sea level has already risen by around 10 to 15 centimeters during the past     century, and global warming is expected to cause a further rise of 15 to 95 cm by the year 2100 (with a "best estimate" of 50 cm).
* Precipitation has increased by about 1 percent over the world's continents in the last century.
* Carbon emissions have quadrupled during the past half-century.
* The cost of natural disasters in 1998 alone exceeded the cost of all such disasters in the 1980s.
* Eighty-four Governments have signed the Kyoto Protocol, but only 22 countries have ratified the treaty; none of them from the industrialized world.

Atmospheric CO2 levels are currently over 380 parts per million (ppm), up from 280 ppm at the time of the industrial revolution and have been rising by more than 2ppm each year for the past decade. At 650ppm, science says the world would face a catastrophic 4ºC average rise in temperature. A target to cap the rise at 450ppm might offer a chance of limiting the eventual temperature rise above pre-industrial times to 2ºC, which is still defined as high risk. To date the world has had 0.8 degrees Celsius of that already and an estimated extra 0.8ºC at least is guaranteed because of earlier emissions.That means that we are already three quarters of the way to the two degrees target.

It is estimated that humans can pour roughly 565 more gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by 2050 and still have a reasonable hope of staying below 2ºC. Limiting a global temperature rise at 2ºC requires a 75% decline in carbon emissions in industrial countries by 2050, assuming the population is 10 billion by 2050. A 75% decrease in 40 years is about a 2% decrease every year. According to the Worldwatch institute, the increase of emissions should really stop within a decade due to the estimated 25–30 years lag in the complete warming effect of emissions.

Repeated studies predict that that carbon emissions will keep growing by roughly three percent a year – and at which rate, the 565-gigaton allowance will be exceeded in 16 years. Estimates suggest that more than 90 per cent of the growth in energy consumption over the next 20 years will come from emerging markets. In the present developed world, energy use will likely be flat or falling.Developed economies will carry on growing but they would do so without using significantly more energy.

There are at least two potential game-changers as to how emission levels might be reduced. One would be a radical advance in plentiful energy production that is just around the corner but which at the moment cannot be clearly seen: an energy revolution. The other would be much faster-than-projected advances in energy efficiency. In developed economies energy efficiency is increasing by about 2 per cent a year: that enables economic growth without any significant increase in energy consumption. In the emerging economies things vary vastly from country to country but, on average
energy efficiency is also improving by a similar amount. But because both population and economic growth is much faster, energy use is rising by close to 3 per cent a year. If, however, the world was able to improve its performance at energy conservation there is the potential to reduce the world's energy needs by one third, by 2050.

An often overlooked point about global energy sources is that nuclear energy supplies only a small amount of the world’s primary energy, about 6 per cent. It is slightly less important than the other main source of energy other than fossil fuels: hydro-power, which is about 7 per cent of the the global total. All the renewable sources of energy – biofuels, wind, solar and the rest – account at present for less than 2 per cent. So at the moment the amount of energy that comes from the three main fossil fuels – oil, coal and gas – is more than 85 per cent of the total.

Any technical advances are likely to occur in Germany and/or Japan both under the most direct pressure to reduce dependence on nuclear power. To the extent that they succeed, China will follow. That is why the German decision to close all nuclear power stations by 2022 is so important for the rest of the world. Assume nuclear power goes into a slow, but steady, decline: few new stations are built and existing ones are gradually closed. So instead of supplying 7 per cent of the world’s energy nuclear supplies only 4 per cent. If everything else stayed the same the share of fossil fuels would rise from, say, 80 per cent to 84 per cent. That would be a move in the wrong direction in that it would increase carbon emissions, but in the context of the world energy supply it is not that huge. It is equivalent to about three years of trend growth in energy demand. What is done in countries like Britain about nuclear power stations does not, in world terms, matter significantly.

The fact that emissions are still increasing and that emission reductions in a number of industrialising countries are unlikely in the short-term puts a major emphasis on regions like the EU to make deeper cuts in emissions. There is debate within the EU on whether it should move towards a 30% cut in emissions by 2020. The concept of transitioning to a carbon-neutral economy has in fact been broadly outlined and endorsed by actors including the G8, the United Nations, the International Energy Agency, Governments, industry, insurance companies as well as civil society groups like the Transition Town movement.

To date renewables are recognised as the only energy source that can provide a sustainable, carbon neutral energy supply in the long run. It is technically possible that existing renewable technologies and deep efficiency programs could ensure emissions peak as early as 2015 and decrease rapidly towards zero after that. This would allow developed countries to make cuts of 40 percent on their 1990 carbon emissions by 2020. Such a scenario would require backing by the right enabling public policies. The Kyoto Protocol, is currently the only global deal to cut greenhouse gases. Covering 37 countries, the Protocol’s five-year commitment period expires in December 2012. Many believe in the need to continue building on what has already been accomplished. The future of the Protocol is uncertain due to the fact that China and United States, the world’s two largest polluters, are not subject to the constraints. Eighty four governments have signed the Kyoto Protocol, but only 22 countries have ratified the treaty; none of them from the industrialised world.  Also, any new international climate treaty is unlikely to include a stabilisation goal even at above 450ppm. Many small island states are predicted to be swamped by rising seas with global warming triggered by carbon levels as low as 400ppm. It is seen as too difficult for these countries to sign up to something that loses them half their territory. New agreements could begin by concentrating instead on shorterterm targets, such as firm emission reductions by 2020.

If anything though climate change appears to be slipping down the public agenda. There are at least three reasons for this, one being the state of the economy, the effects of which are discernible now while global warming is still percieved as a future concern. The second is that climate sceptics, few of whom are climate scientists, and many of whom are funded by the fossil fuel industry, have induced uncertainty in the public mind about the issue. And this has been able to take root in recent years because – the third reason – the warming process appears to have paused. No one really knows why. One guess is the gigantic cloud of sulphur emissions from Chinese power stations, which doubled their output of waste gases between 1996 and 2006: sulphur particles have the opposite effect of the carbon emissions, and reflect back the sun's heat. But unless the laws of physics are altered, those global carbon emissions, now 33 billion tons annually and rising at 6 per cent a year, are going to make world temperatures rise considerably in the coming decades with potentially disasterous consequences.