The science and facts of climate change are supported by the established scientific following organisations. Please browse some of the information that has been made available by the leading climate scientists in the world.
There is of course a political debate on the subject. We take the view that if the following organisations state that human induced climate change is taking place and is leading to global warming, until better science is offered we accept that finding.
By PAUL KRUGMAN, Published: September 27, 2009
Every once in a while I feel despair over the fate of the planet. If you’ve been following climate science, you know what I mean: the sense that we’re hurtling toward catastrophe but nobody wants to hear about it or do anything to avert it.
And here’s the thing: I’m not engaging in hyperbole. These days, dire warnings aren’t the delusional raving of cranks. They’re what come out of the most widely respected climate models, devised by the leading researchers. The prognosis for the planet has gotten much, much worse in just the last few years.
What’s driving this new pessimism? Partly it’s the fact that some predicted changes, like a decline in Arctic Sea ice, are happening much faster than expected. Partly it’s growing evidence that feedback loops amplifying the effects of man-made greenhouse gas emissions are stronger than previously realized. For example, it has long been understood that global warming will cause the tundra to thaw, releasing carbon dioxide, which will cause even more warming, but new research shows far more carbon dioxide locked in the permafrost than previously thought, which means a much bigger feedback effect.
The result of all this is that climate scientists have, en masse, become Cassandras — gifted with the ability to prophesy future disasters, but cursed with the inability to get anyone to believe them.
And we’re not just talking about disasters in the distant future, either. The really big rise in global temperature probably won’t take place until the second half of this century, but there will be plenty of damage long before then.
For example, one 2007 paper in the journal Science is titled “Model Projections of an Imminent Transition to a More Arid Climate in Southwestern North America” — yes, “imminent” — and reports “a broad consensus among climate models” that a permanent drought, bringing Dust Bowl-type conditions, “will become the new climatology of the American Southwest within a time frame of years to decades.”
So if you live in, say, Los Angeles, and liked those pictures of red skies and choking dust in Sydney, Australia, last week, no need to travel. They’ll be coming your way in the not-too-distant future.
Now, at this point I have to make the obligatory disclaimer that no individual weather event can be attributed to global warming. The point, however, is that climate change will make events like that Australian dust storm much more common.
In a rational world, then, the looming climate disaster would be our dominant political and policy concern. But it manifestly isn’t. Why not?
Part of the answer is that it’s hard to keep peoples’ attention focused. Weather fluctuates — New Yorkers may recall the heat wave that pushed the thermometer above 90 in April — and even at a global level, this is enough to cause substantial year-to-year wobbles in average temperature. As a result, any year with record heat is normally followed by a number of cooler years: According to Britain’s Met Office, 1998 was the hottest year so far, although NASA — which arguably has better data — says it was 2005. And it’s all too easy to reach the false conclusion that the danger is past.
But the larger reason we’re ignoring climate change is that Al Gore was right: This truth is just too inconvenient. Responding to climate change with the vigor that the threat deserves would not, contrary to legend, be devastating for the economy as a whole. But it would shuffle the economic deck, hurting some powerful vested interests even as it created new economic opportunities. And the industries of the past have armies of lobbyists in place right now; the industries of the future don’t.
Nor is it just a matter of vested interests. It’s also a matter of vested ideas. For three decades the dominant political ideology in America has extolled private enterprise and denigrated government, but climate change is a problem that can only be addressed through government action. And rather than concede the limits of their philosophy, many on the right have chosen to deny that the problem exists.
So here we are, with the greatest challenge facing mankind on the back burner, at best, as a policy issue. I’m not, by the way, saying that the Obama administration was wrong to push health care first. It was necessary to show voters a tangible achievement before next November. But climate change legislation had better be next.
And as I pointed out in my last column, we can afford to do this. Even as climate modelers have been reaching consensus on the view that the threat is worse than we realized, economic modelers have been reaching consensus on the view that the costs of emission control are lower than many feared.
So the time for action is now. O.K., strictly speaking it’s long past. But better late than never.
HOME
The recently completed Pacific Islands Forum is an interesting backdrop for the discussion on Mitigation and Adaptation from an Indigenous perspective. The forum in its final communiqué addressed climate change as the second topic – straight after maritime security. The communiqué says,
“Leaders recognised that for Pacific Islands States climate change is the great challenge of our time and adopted the Pacific Leaders Call for Action on Climate Change, attached as Annex A.” More on annex A later.
It is widely recognised that the Island nations in the south Pacific are seeing an accelerated level of sea level rise despite the limited data available. The example of the Cateret Islands and the evacuation that has already begun is an example of what many of the other nations may have to look forward to in the coming years.
Minister Penny Wong, Climate Change and Water and Minister Stephen Smith, Foreign Affairs and Trade have addressed the issue of Australia’s assistance to the Pacific Island nations. The Government had previously announced $150 million for the International Climate Change Adaptation Initiative. Of this $75 million had previously been allocated and this announcement brought to the fore a further $50 million. $25 million has been allocated to:
• working with the agricultural sector to address food security issues;
• protecting water supplies and essential infrastructure;
• improving coastal zone management to increase the resilience of coastal areas and community settlements to climate change;
• supporting disaster preparedness and disaster risk reduction programs.
Annex A released with the communiqué states,
“For Pacific Island states, climate change is the great challenge of our time. It threatens not only our livelihoods and living standards, but the very viability of some of our communities. Though the role of Pacific Island States in the causes of climate change is small, the impact on them is great. Many Pacific people face new challenges in access to water. The security of our communities and the health of populations is placed in greater jeopardy. And some habitats and island states face obliteration. Mindful of the Niue Declaration, we therefore address this Call to Action to all leaders in the global community, and urgently seek their support to address this grave threat.”
We are very pleased for our Pacific cousins that they have managed to get commitments from Australia and New Zealand for assistance with this issue. Flanked by Climate Change Minister Penny Wong and Vanuatu Prime Minister Edward Natapei, Prime Minister Rudd said Australia needed to take practical measures to help Pacific nations adapt to rising sea levels, and voice their experiences at global forums.
Mr Rudd referred to a forum document, which highlighted the dangers of climate change including “severe economic impacts” caused by reduced income from agricultural exports, fisheries and tourism. The document also warned of storm surges, flooding and erosion and exacerbation of existing problems of water purity. “Threats also to food security and on top of that changes to the distribution of disease-bearing organisms like mosquitoes,” Mr Rudd said.
Replacing the words Pacific Island states with Indigenous communities puts the issue in context for us from the prespective of Indigenous Australians. The most disadvantaged and those with the smallest of energy footprints will have to face a disproportionate burden of climate change impact.
The UNPFII says , “Indigenous peoples are among the first to face the direct consequences of climate change, due to their dependence upon, and close relationship, with the environment and its resources. Climate change exacerbates the difficulties already faced by indigenous communities including political and economic marginalization, loss of land and resources, human rights violations, discrimination and unemployment.”
Research conducted by the UNSW, ‘Climate Change in the Torres Strait, Australia’ outlines some of the likely impacts in these Australian islands:
• Reduced freshwater availability.
• Greater risk of disease from flooded rubbish tips and changing mosquito habitats.
• Erosion of roads, airstrips, near shoreline buildings from more intense storm tides.
• Degradation of significant cultural sites, such as near shoreline graveyards.
• Change in the location or abundance of plants and animals, such as dugongs and mangroves.
• Change in coral growth or coral bleaching caused by increasing ocean temperature and acidity.
So what needs to happen to begin the process of engagement with Indigenous communities?
How do we begin to look at the regional impacts? The Torres Strait Islands will have a set of impacts that will bear no resemblance to what happens in Bourke or in the East Kimberleys. The current epidemic of Dengue fever in far north Queensland has now been declared to be the largest of its type in Queensland for 50 years. It is only matched at the other end of the country by a Ross River Virus outbreak.
The science is clear and all current governments accept the IPCC view of anthropogenic global warming. What is needed now is to begin answering the question “So what?”
We know temperatures are going to rise; so what are we going to do for the communities that live in the hot interiors of our states? We know that the droughts will be extended and water becomes scarcer; so what are inland towns going to do about recycling and reusing water? We know that sea levels will rise and increased salinity in estuaries and acquifers is expected in the Torres Straits; so what is the next step?
The four point assistance plan announced by the ministers would be a great starting point to beginning to address climate change impact as well as the opportunities from a green economy.
Begining with engaging the communities themselves a long term programme of information and education as well as direct action with and through the communities is becoming urgent.
The longer we leave it, the more acute and critical this action will become.