UN offers little hope for the future |
 |
Roy Wilkes |
|
|
The three working groups of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have now reported, bringing together the work of nearly 3000 scientists from over 130 countries. As a series of consensus reports, whose Summaries for Policy Makers (SPMs) have been further watered down by diplomats from the most heavily polluting countries, this 4th Assessment Report undoubtedly underplays the severity of the climate crisis; nevertheless, it still constitutes a damning indictment of the potentially catastrophic environmental impact of capitalism. At the very least, the IPCC has driven the final nail into the coffin of climate scepticism. The first Working Group (WG1), reporting on The Physical Basis of Climate Change, concluded that warming is “unequivocal” and that human activities are the cause. Global average temperatures have risen by 0.74 C since 1906 and a further increase of 0.4 C is projected over the next two decades. During the course of this century we can expect temperature rises of between 1.8 and 4.0 C, unless there are significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.(1) The main challenge to the WG1 report comes from climatologists themselves, many of whom regard it as far too conservative. James Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, widely considered the world’s foremost climatologist, is particularly critical of the IPCC’s projections on sea level rises, on the grounds that they do not adequately take into account the contribution of melting ice sheets. “If you start talking two or three degrees Celsius,” Hansen warns, “then you’re really talking about a different planet from the one we know.” Hansen reckons we’ve got at most 10 years to achieve major reductions in emissions before it is too late. WG2 reported on Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. The impacts will be considerable, and will disproportionately affect the poor. By 2080, it is “very likely” that 1.1 to 3.2 billion people will be experiencing water scarcity; 200 to 600 million hunger; and 2 to 7 million more per year, coastal flooding. Health risks due to heat waves are projected to increase dramatically.(2) Forest productivity is expected to decline and the frequency of peatland fires to increase. The impact on ecosystems will be similarly horrific, with severe and potentially catastrophic reductions in bio-diversity. The interference of diplomats can clearly be seen by comparing the summary reports before and after negotiations. Before negotiations the report said that the “severity of floods and droughts will have implications on sustainable development.” This was removed completely from the final report. A “high risk of irreversible extinction” was changed to “increased risk of extinction.” “Hundreds of millions of people are vulnerable to flooding” was changed to “Many millions more people are projected to be flooded.” But the diplomats only changed the SPMs, presumably on the basis that people wouldn’t bother to read the more detailed technical reports or indeed the full reports. Both the full report and the technical report from WG1 have now been published and can be accessed at http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html The Third Working Group, which looked at Mitigation of Climate Change, published its SPM on May 4. This is the weakest of the three reports, offering little hope for the future of humankind. Section E lists the following policy instruments for reducing emissions: carbon taxes, tradable emission permits, financial incentives, voluntary agreements between industry and governments and awareness campaigns. In other words, the working group is offering nothing beyond market mechanisms, despite recognising in Section C that “market mechanisms alone, including rising fuel costs, are not expected to lead to significant emission reductions.” The IPCC has done an excellent job of bringing scientists together and focusing attention on climate change. But when it comes to finding solutions, we have to look elsewhere. As a creation of the UN, the IPCC is locked into the economic status quo of neo-liberalism and cannot see beyond the horizon of market mechanisms. And the market is hardly the best tool for suppressing a fossil fuel industry that generates super profits of over 1500 billion dollars a year! It’s not surprising therefore that the climate talks at Kyoto and Nairobi have generated such measly responses to so great a crisis. Instead of looking to the market for solutions we need to look to our own class. A global mass mobilisation, particularly of organised labour and the youth, could start to shift the balance of forces away from those who are prepared to endanger the entire future of life on this planet in pursuit of their blood-stained and oil soaked profits. Socialist Resistance is committed to being part of such a solution. (1) Section E, subsection 22, IPCC 4th Assessment Report, WG111, Summary for Policy Makers. |
|
