With the passing of the UN conference in Copenhagen at the end of 2009, climate politics has entered a new phase. Far from the beginning of a new global accord to a low carbon future, we have entered a period of apparent turbulence. The somewhat opaque mechanisms of international law via the UN can be heralded as either significant progress or scorned for lumbering ineffectiveness.

Progress can be declared on the grounds that unlike the limited membership of the Kyoto Treaty, as of the 31st of January deadline set at Copenhagen, countries accounting for nearly 80% of global emissions, including the USA and China for the first time, have now stated (non-legally binding) domestic targets for national carbon reduction to be met during the decade to 2020. (See the full list here)

If these countries then enact national legislation to attempt to meet these targets - as the UK has done with the 2008 Climate Change Act - then things will at last be starting to head in the right direction, provided such efforts are successful. The lively metaphor of the carbon in the atmosphere being like a bath with the taps on is a reminder of urgency. Slowing down the rate at which the water is pouring out of the tap will not necessarily prevent the house from being flooded.

Expectations were high over Copenhagen, in part due to the UN’s own deadline for the end of Kyoto’s first phase in 2012. Investors have no certainty in a carbon price beyond that date and so forth. But the carbon is only one part of the climate change challenge, and we must not neglect the impact of other greenhouse gases, and potent new ones unwittingly incorporated into manufacturing, should not be forgotten. The manufacturing of some high definition televisions and thin-film solar panels risk emitting far more potent greenhouse gases than CO2, such as the unregulated NF3 (See Michael Prather’s work on Nitrogen Triflouride at the University of California - http://www.physsci.uci.edu/psnews/?id=424). Meanwhile, away from the hubbub of Copenhagen, the low profile Montreal Protocol related to the control of ozone depleting gases recently underwent major review regarding related impacts on global warming.

A few bad apples?

The recent calamity over the UEA and IPCC errors is also a storm in a tea cup. Controversy relating to the conduct of individual scientists or the wider political context might be usefully contrasted with the story of Isaac Newton and his attitude towards his rival, Leibniz. Science is still carried out by human beings.

As for the IPCC Himalayan glacier data, this relates to a forecast consequence of global warming but does not disprove climate change. And neither does a spate of extremely cold weather in northern Europe. A warmer global climate will be a more chaotic one.

It is also notable that James Lovelock - who I would call the most important natural scientist since Darwin - outlined in his recent book on the Gaia Theory, an attack on the modelling approaches of some climatologists who fail to recognise the interconnections between the biosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere. Into this Gaian mix we have added the ‘technosphere’ and its accelerating chemical redistribution of fossil carbon - and other mined minerals - from deep within the Earth into the biosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere above.

Exhausted after an immense build up and the apparent failure to agree a global deal to cut carbon, the climate agenda may seem to be waning. But with little change in the underlying un-sustainability of modern development it should come as no surprise that the problem will not go away. Instead we might start asking slightly different questions, and looking at the issues in slightly different ways.
Climate change has come to dominate the environmental agenda in recent years, but it is not the fundamental issue. In fact, it is merely a symptom - an effect - of a deeper problem, and that problem is cheap energy, mined from the ground in the form of fossil fuels.

Anthony Alexander
10-02-10
www.anthonyalexander.info