[NukeNet] Scotland: Can we really save the planet?

[The Roy Process]

Sunday Heraldhttp://www.sundayherald.com/58905
      Sunday Herald - 05 November 2006 
      Can we really save the planet?
      Environment editor Rob Edwards asks whether capitalism can deliver on the imperatives of the Stern climate review


--------------------------------------------------------------------------


      Something shifted last week. One of the world's leading economists put a cost on the climate chaos being caused by pollution, and everyone sat up and started to take notice. 
      With the publication of Sir Nicholas Stern's review of the economics of climate change, the argument suddenly seems to have got serious. It's no longer just scientists and environmentalists worried about humanity who are demanding urgent action, it's bankers worried about the bottom line. 

      Stern, a government adviser who was chief economist at the World Bank, was commissioned by chancellor Gordon Brown to investigate the economic impact of global warming. His 700-page report, published last Monday, unequivocally accepted that it will cause floods, droughts and storms around the globe, putting millions of lives at risk. Crucially, what he then did was to translate that into terms capitalists can understand. 

      As much as 20% of the world's economy, as measured by annual gross domestic product (GDP), could be damaged, he argued. That would mean disruption to people's lives on a scale similar to that caused by two world wars and an economic depression last century, hurting the poorest countries most. 

      Stern suggested that this could be avoided by spending only 1% of global GDP a year on combating climate change now. But will the money men and women do enough to save the planet? Can we trust them to make sure the world curbs its climate-wrecking emissions of greenhouse gases? Does Stern go far enough - or, as some experts are now arguing, are the risks of planetary disaster still too high? 

      Such questions have never been more important. Tomorrow, governments begin vital negotiations in Nairobi, Kenya, on how to cut pollution after 2012, when the first phase of the Kyoto climate change treaty is due to end. Many fear progress will be painfully slow. 

      Yesterday, protesters gathered in London and elsewhere to put pressure on their governments to move faster. According to Hans Verolme, director of WWF's international climate campaign, the window of opportunity for preventing dangerous climate change is rapidly closing. "Ministers need to chart a course for deeper emission cuts," he said. "We must work together to develop a safer, cleaner and more energy-efficient world." 




      THE INTERNATIONAL POLLUTERS 

      The latest figures compiled by the United Nations show that emissions of greenhouses gases such as carbon dioxide from the world's two biggest polluters, the US and China, are rapidly rising (see graphic). Emissions from other major economies like Japan, Canada, Italy, Australia, Spain, India and Brazil are also increasing, with Turkey registering a record rise of 73% between 1990 and 2004. 

      Even countries where emissions have declined since 1990 can't really claim that it was as a result of their attempts to curb climate pollution. The falls in Russia and Germany were caused by the closure of heavy industries after the collapse of the former Soviet Union, while the UK's 14% cut was mostly due to the running down of the coal and manufacturing industries, including the closure of the Ravenscraig steelworks in 1992. 

      Although the total amount of pollution from all industrialised countries dropped between 1990 and 2000, it has steadily risen in the years since. According to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, emissions from 23 countries declined prior to 2000, but only seven countries have recorded decreases since. In the UK, environmentalists say carbon dioxide emissions have increased by more than 4% since 1997, under Tony Blair's leadership. 

      Dr Richard Dixon, the director of WWF Scotland, criticised the Labour government for failing to meet its own 20% target for reducing emissions. "The UK's recent record on actually reducing emissions has been poor," he said. "But with Stern there is clearly a new political impetus to actually get something done." 

      The scale of the problem posed by the fast-growing economies of China, India and other developing countries will be highlighted in another report due out this week. On Tuesday, the International Energy Agency (IEA) will unveil its latest energy forecasts in London. They are likely to make grim reading for anyone who still believes in business as usual. 

      Without government intervention, the world energy market is heading for a fall. Primary energy demand could jump by more than 50% by 2030, leading to a similar increase in carbon dioxide emissions, mostly from new coal-fired power stations in China and India. China is on track to overtake the US as the biggest climate polluter before 2010. 

      That could lead to runaway climate chaos, plus the risk of sudden supply disruptions and price shocks. So appalled at the prospect is the IEA, which represents the industrialised nations, that it looks likely to propose a radical shift in favour of boosting energy efficiency and renewables. More predictably, it will also promote nuclear power. 

      The energy dilemmas raised by the IEA, traditionally a very conservative organisation, echo the fundamental shift in establishment thinking epitomised by the Stern report. But neither report really explains how the world is meant to overcome the entrenched vested interests that cause climate pollution, and the political contradictions they create. 




      THE INdustRial POLLUTERS 

      Last week the oil industry won the backing of the Department of Trade and Industry for a major push to open up the so-called Atlantic Frontier, west of the Shetlands, for oil and gas exploitation. Five leading oil corporations - BP, Exxon, Chevron, Total and Dong - met officials in London to discuss how best to extract the four billion barrels of oil the area could contain, without apparently worry ing about the pollution it would cause. 

      Similarly the aviation industry, one of the fastest-growing sources of greenhouse gases, is lobbying for a huge growth in the UK's airport capacity. The number of flights is expected to treble by 2030, the industry says, so major expansions are required at airports across the country, including Glasgow, Prestwick and Edinburgh. 

      And the car industry has admitted it will fail to meet its voluntary target to cut carbon dioxide emissions from new cars to 140 grams a kilometre by 2008. This has promp ted the Euro pean environment commissioner, Stavros Dimas, to propose legally binding targets to force the industry to act. 

      "Transport is probably the biggest challenge the government faces," said WWF Scotland's Dixon. 

      "Emissions from cars and planes are growing faster than in any other sector, yet politicians propose only the weakest measures, having long ago given up on the really effective remedy of fuel taxes." 

      Stuart Hay, head of research at Friends of the Earth Scotland, urged ministers to reverse the uncontrolled expansion of the airline industry. 

      "We also need to stop relying on voluntary action by industries such as motor manufacturers, and instead put in place tougher fiscal and regulatory measures so that promises to reduce emissions are actually delivered," he said. 

      "Everyone in the West will have to radically change their lifestyles so they use far less energy. This means changes to our tax regime, so that the polluter really pays and green lifestyles are rewarded." 

      WILL ANYTHING CHANGE? 

      Though most climate experts welcome Stern as a step forward, many are concerned that the economist may be being too timid. His plea for 1% of GDP to be invested in reducing global warming is aimed at stabilising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at around 500 to 550 parts per million (ppm). Before the industrial revolution levels were at 280ppm. They are now at 430ppm and rising at 2ppm a year. 

      Scientists, however, say that allowing concentrations to rise above 500ppm greatly increases the chances of pollution feedback loops that could trigger unstoppable and potentially catas trophic alterations in weather patterns. The Amazon rainforest could die back, the permafrost in Siberia could start melting or the Scottish peatlands could dry out - all of which would release large amounts of greenhouse gases. 

      Stern's own figures show that keeping greenhouse gas concentrations below 550ppm gives humanity no more than a 10% chance of restricting the average temperature rise to below 2?C . Keeping the rise to less than 2?C is seen by many scientists, and the European Union, as essential to preventing a global catastrophe. 

      It would be much safer, scientists argue, to aim at keeping greenhouse gas concentrations below 450ppm. But Stern has dismissed this target as unrealistic. It is "almost out of reach, given that we are likely to reach this level in 10 years", he said. 

      Climate campaigners, however, argue that we have no choice but to try, because it may be the only way to save the planet. Stern's target is too high, according to climate author Mark Lynas. "It is rather like playing Russian roulette with four out of the five chambers loaded," he said. "The odds are not just silly, but suicidal." 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------

     
        
      Copyright © 2006 smg sunday newspapers ltd. no.176088 
      Back to previous page 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/nukenet_energyjustice.net/attachments/20061104/bc6b0127/attachment.html