UN Climate Talks in Bonn, June 6 to 17, 2011 Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC

 

The UN sponsored climate change  talks began in Bonn, Germany on June 6^th 2011 and will run until June 17^th 2011.  These talks will attempt to revive negotiations on various aspect of climate change  so that a fair, ambitious and  legally binding treaty, a successor to the Kyoto Protocol,  can be signed at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change  (UNFCCC) in Durban, South Africa, later in the year.

While the UN negotiation process on climate change was revived and strengthened at the Climate Conference in Cancun, Mexico in December 2010, none of the hard decisions were taken, especially when it came to pledging serious cuts in CO₂ levels  from economically rich countries.  There was general agreement among the participants at Cancun that deep cuts in emissions “are required ….. so as to hold the increase in global average temperatures below two degrees  Celsius.”

In order to inject a sense of urgency into the Bonn  negotiations, Christiana Figueres, the executive secretary of the UNFCCC, reminded the participants on the first day of the Conference that greenhouse gas emissions had climbed dramatically in 2010. Unfortunately, the clock is ticking towards what are called “tipping points.”   An average rise in global temperature of four degrees Celsius would have a devastating impact on the life-systems of the planet and the knock-on effect on people would be devastating.

In a report  published in April 2012, entitled “Fate of Mountain Glaciers in the Anthropocene,”  a working group commissioned by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences state that “some of the current and anticipated impacts of climate change include losses of coral reefs, forests, wetlands, and other ecosystems; a rate of species extinction many times faster than the historic average; water and food shortages for many vulnerable people. Increasing sea level rise and stronger storm surges threaten vulnerable ecosystems and peoples, especially in low-lying islands and coastal nations.”

The task facing the negotiators during the next two weeks in Bonn and later in the year in Durban was not made any easier by the release of data on greenhouse gas emissions by the International Energy Agency ((IEA). In 2010,  a record 30.6 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide was released into the atmosphere. According to a spokesperson for IEA “it is becoming extremely challenging to remain below 2 degrees. The prospect is getting bleaker. That is what the numbers say.”[1]

The IEA’s figures are confirmed by preliminary data from the US government’s Earth Systems Research Laboratory at Mauna Moa in Hawaii  which show that carbon dioxide levels are at the highest levels on record with 394.7 parts per million (ppm): an increase of nearly 1.6ppm compared to last year.[2]

Lord Stern, author of the Stern Report on the economic implications of climate change was clearly taken aback by the data. According to him, “these figures indicate that (emissions) are now close to being back on a ‘business as usual’ path. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projections, such a path  .. would mean around a 50% chance of a rise in global average temperature of more than 4 degrees C by 2.100.” [3] He went on to point out that “such warming would disrupt the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people across the  planet, leading to widespread mass migration and conflict. That is a risk any sane person would seek to drastically reduce.” [4]  It is also important to remember that this dramatic increase in CO₂ emissions happened during the most serious economic recession since the 1930s. There was a small decline in emissions in 2009 due to the financial crisis.   Unless corrective action is taken soon emission will increase dramatically because almost every country in the world is seeking ways to boost their economic growth and, to date, no country  has yet has found a way to promote economic growth without increasing carbon emissions.

The European section of Climate Action Network (CAN), one of the largest non-government organizations which monitors the actions of governments on climate change, said that the weak response of Climate Commissioner Hedegaard to the IEA data in the run  up to the Bonn Conference was deplorable.

Fatih Biro, the chief economist at the IEA said that disaster could be averted if governments head the warming and are  willing to take bold, decisive and urgent action soon.   CAN-Europe asks EU policy makers to implement a −40% emissions reduction target by 2020.

---

[1]  Fiona Harvey, “Worst ever CO2 emissions leave Climate on the brink,” The Guardian,  May 30^th 2012, page 1 and 2

[2] John Vidal, “Carbon dioxide levels hit new peak despite recession and political will,” The Guardian,  June 1^st 2011,page 10.

[3] ibid

[4]  ibid

No Breakthrough at Bonn Climate Change Conference Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC

 

At the end of the Climate Change Conference in Bonn (June 6^th to 17^th ), Christiana Figueres, the executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Conference on Climate Change (UNFCCC), said that the negotiations on climate change were “the most important negotiation the world has ever faced.” [1] Unfortunately, there was no dramatic break-through at the Bonn conference. Maybe it is too much to expect that the UNFCCC multi-track negotiation process can deliver a decisive outcomes.  Figueres appeared to acknowledge this herself when she said that  “governments, business organisations and civil society can’t solve the climate (problem) with a single treaty.”[2]

In reality unless the various parties to the negotiations are more flexible at the Conference of the Parties (COP 17) in  Durban in late November and early December 2011, then the goal of keeping the average increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius which was set at the Copenhagen meeting in 2009, will not be possible.   Agreement in Durban is essential, because the Kyoto Protocol (KP), which is the only current legally binding treaty on reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), expires in 2012.  A breakdown in negotiations in Durban could lead to a free-for-all which would see GHG emissions soar rather than fall, with horrendous consequences for everyone, especially the poor of the world.

The most important goal of any climate change agreement is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  In the language of the UNFCCC this is called mitigation.  During much of the past 10 years the European Union has given a lead in setting reasonable challenging mitigation targets for the member states.  This too is beginning to change. At the  conclusion of the Bonn talks the Jurgen Lefevere, the EU’s climate policy coordinator, said that it was not feasible to expect the 27  member states of the EU to sign up to a renewal of the K P  unless other countries take their responsibilities seriously.  He pointed out that the EU’s  GHG emission is only responsible for 11 per cent of global emissions. He stated that “we need a solution for the remaining 89 per cent as well.”  Other  major emitters such as the U.S. and China must come on board if a comprehensive solution is going to be found in Durban.[3]

The most disappointing development on this front is that countries, which were very much involved in creating and designing the K P have signalled that they plan to abandon the Kyoto Protocol when it expires next year.  These countries are Japan, were the Protocol was first negotiated, Russia which brought the treaty into forces when it signed the protocol, and Canada which launched the  negotiations for the second commitment period to K P  at the Montreal conference in 2005.

Equally unhelpful were the comments of the chief US negotiator Jonathan Pershing. He ruled out making any further commitments beyond the 17 per cent  cut in emissions by 2020. He gave the usual excuse that the U.S. is not “prepared to have a legal agreement that would apply to us and not to others.”[4]  This shows no awareness whatever of  the historic contribution which the U.S. and Europe have made for over a century and a half to increasing carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere which is responsible for triggering the warming of the atmosphere.  It also means that there is little possibility of closing, what is now being called the Gigatonne, Gap between what has been  pledged by many countries and the 2 degree target.  The position of the UNFCCC  has been that every country must act “in a  spirit of common but differentiated responsibility.”  This position was endorsed in a important paper entitled the “Fate of Mountain Glaciers in the Anthropocene,” from the Pontifical Academy of the Sciences.

 

While some progress on a Green Climate Fund was made at Bonn, there is little point in having a well structured and managed fund unless there is a substantial amount of money in the kitty.   Concrete decisions must be made in Durban to guarantee that the climate fund will reach $100 billion by 2020.  Here again the U.S. negotiators at Bonn were trying to block any progress on this front.  Tim Gore, Oxfam’s climate change policy advisor that the  U.S. had “done its best (in Bonn) to block any meaningful discussions  on the sources of climate finance from 2013 to 2020.”[5] Without such funds farmers and other sectors in poor countries will suffer greatly because they will not be in a position to adapt to the climate change which is already underway.

---

[1] Frank McDonald, “EU not prepared to go it alone on Kyoto nenewal,” The Irish Times, June 18^th 2011, page 11.

 

[2] Ibid.

[3]  ibid

[4] ibid

[5]  ibid

The Bonn Climate Change Conference Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC

 

At the end of the first week of the Bonn Conference on Climate Change, the first thing which comes to mind is how little coverage this vitally important negotiation session is receiving the world media.  A favourable outcome from the Bonn Conference is essential if the UN Framework Conference on Climate Change (UNFCCC) which is to meet later in the year in Durban, South Africa, is to succeed.   As the Kyoto Protocol runs out in 2012, Durban must deliver a fair, ambitious and binding climate change treaty.   The top priority in that treaty must be the ambition to close the gigatonne gap which the United Nation Environment Programme (UNEP) estimates at between 5-9 gigatonnes.

1 gigatonne = 10⁹ tonnes, or 1,000,000,000  tonnes.  This is why the world needs ambitious cuts in greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs)  if we are going to keep average rise in temperature below 2 degrees Celsius.  Rich countries must move to the top end of the cuts in GHBs which they have promised.  The reduction target now must be a 40% cut in emissions by 2020.  They must also agree to close loopholes which have been used in the past to avoid taking painful decisions now.   Among these has been the dodgy accounting systems often used for LULUCF or Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry.

There is no doubt about it, that  this is going to be difficult to achieve, given the stance which various countries have taken in Bonn, during the first week of the Conference,  June 6 to 10, 2011. Japan is a good example of this tendency.  June 11^th marks the third month after the nuclear accident at Fukushima in the wake of the powerful earth quake and tsunami.  Since then the Japanese government has made a decision not to build any more nuclear power plants and pledged to investing heavily in renewable energy.  There is a danger that in  the transition period, Japan will  increase it dependence on energy from fossil fuel  and therefore find it hard to meet its commitment to reduce GHG emissions by 25% by 2020 and 80% by 2050.  The Japanese negotiators at Bonn have also repeated the position that they articulated at Cancun which is that they will not favour a second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol which runs out in 2012. Their reason, of course, is that other wealthy nations, especially  the United States, are not covered by the Kyoto Protocol.  Neither are the transition economies of China, India, South Africa  and Brazil, which are now major emitters of GHGs. There is also a fear that the climate bill which is about to be discussed in the Japanese Parliament, will lower  it commitments to reduce GHG emissions.

Several independent studies show that Japan can achieve its 25% target even as the nuclear component of the energy mix is being phased out.  Japan  needs to follow a twin tack approach which will combine massive energy saving measures with serious investment in various forms of renewable energy.  While Japan has not been a leader in this area, this might be about to change.  Softbank Corporation which is the third largest mobile phone company in the country has come out in favour of clean and safe energy.  It intends to invest hundreds of millions of dollars to build 12 large solar power plants across the country.

Back sliding on commitments is not  confined to Japan. Norway ,  traditionally a leader in remission reductions,  pledged to reduce GHGs emission 40%. Now it seems that there are powerful commercial and political forces in the country, which are suggesting that Norway abandons its commitment to achieve two-thirds of these cuts through domestic decisions. They are suggesting that Norway might use its investment in funding REDDs (Reducing Emission in Deforestation and Degradation)  to achieve its 40% cut in GHG by 2020. This would set a very dangerous precedent for other rich countries.  It certainly would derail the challenge from the Cancun Climate Change Conference (Mexico December 2010) to wealthy countries that they increase and not decrease their commitments to lower GHG emissions.

Among important issue for Durban is adequate finance.  Cancun took positive steps towards setting up an institutional structure for financing various aspects of climate change, especially money to help poor countries to adapt to climate change which is already happening. The Durban Conference must ensure that there is adequate money to address adaptation needs. The Fund must be  increased year-on-year so that the $100 billion promised by 2020 is realized.  Without adequate finance poor countries which are already feeling the impact of climate change will suffer further disastrous consequences.

 

The United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development Fr. Seán McDonagh

 

In my article yesterday, I outlined some of the  background which led to the setting up of The United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.

The WorldWatch Institute in Washington D.C. is an interdisciplinary institute which assesses how the demands of humankind are effecting the well-being of the earth and future generations of humans. In its State of the World Report 2010, sixty renowned researchers and practitioners describe how we must harness the world’s leading institutions to reorient cultures towards sustainability. This would include education, the media, business, governments, traditions, and social movements to reorient cultures toward sustainability.   In the preface of the report, Christopher Flavin the President of WorldWatch Institute, wrote about “the Great Collision” between a finite planet and the seemingly infinite demands of human society. More than 6.8 billion human beings are now demanding ever greater quantities of material resources, decimating the world’s richest ecosystems, and dumping billion of tons of heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere each year.”

The really worrying statistic is that “despite a 30 percent increase in resource efficiency, global resource use has expanded 50 percent over the past three decades.”[1] The growth in consumption is staggering.  It includes a six-fold increase between 1960 and 2008, that is from $4.9 trillion to $30.5 trillion.  Even with the population growth, per capita consumption has tripled, helped by sophisticated advertising by transnational corporations. Increased consumption means consuming more of the earth’s resources. This means using more fossil fuel which involves opening coal mines and prospecting for more oil. Rapid increases in consumer spending involves opening more mines, building more factories roads, railways and shopping outlets. Increased consumption leads to more waste. It also means expanding agriculture often into crucial ecosystems such as the Amazon and the tropical forests South East Asia. The forests are burned to provide land for palm and soya plantations, thereby destroying valuable biodiversity.  Essential habitats are being systematically destroyed which is an immense impoverishment for the biosphere and yet, so few seem to notice because the culture of consumerism has trained them to keep their eyes fixated on growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP). According to Flavin, from a justice perspective the main responsibility for the current ecological devastation must be placed at the foot of rich nations.[2]

Since humankind appeared on the planet 2 million years ago, people have depended on other creatures for their food, clothing and shelter. As civilizations developed two thousand years ago, levels of consumption continued to increase. The exponential rate of consumption which emerged in the 20^th century, was driven by advertising, planned obsolescence, the search for economic growth and the enormous  dependence on non-renewable source of energy.

 

---

[1]  Christopher Flavin,  2010,  “Preface”, “2010 State of the World: Transforming Cultures from Consumerism to Sustainability,  page xv

[2] Ibid page 5.

The 19th Session of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) ended in failure Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC

 

Though it received very little media attention the failure of the 19^th Session of the UN Commission On Sustainable Development (CSD) to reach an agreement on May 14^th 2011, on a series of environmental and development issues is a major set-back for global diplomacy.  The CSD emerged in 1992 from the United Nations Conference on Environment and  Development (UNCED), popularly known as the “Rio Earth Summit.” Since 2003 the CSD cycle focuses on a thematic cluster along with cross-sectoral issues. The first year in the cycle is a Review Year, while the second year is a Policy Year. The recent 19^th Session focused on transport, chemicals, waste management, mining and the 10-Year Framework Programme (10YFP). In addition the delegates at CSD 19 participated in a multi-stakeholder dialogue with Major Groups such as Farmers, Women, NGOs, Trade Unions and Children and Youth. There was also a High-Level Segment involving government ministers from around the world.

In my daily report from May 3^rd 2011 onwards, I attempted to capture some of complexity of the discussions and the reasons for the positions taken up by major parties such as the Group of 77/China, the EU, the U.S., Japan, Norway, Australia and New Zealand.

At the closing session on Friday afternoon May 13^th 2011, the Chair László Borbély informed the assembly that the negotiations on the Means of Implementations (MOI) on chemicals and waste management were not concluded. He recommended calling a plenary to address the outstanding issues.  Negotiations continued through Friday evening into Saturday morning.  At 2.50 a.m. the chair introduced a text which he felt reflected a fair compromise between the various positions articulated by the different negotiating groups. The G-77/China negotiator said that, while they could agree with much of the text, there were important points on which they could not agree. The use of the word ‘green economy’ was a particular stumbling block, as was the lack of reliable finance to ensure the proper implementation of the programme. The U.S. negotiator indicated her opposition to opening up the text for what it called new negotiations at this point. The Arab Group represented by Sudan expressed “outrage” that the document did not include reference to the plight of people under foreign occupation, which everyone present understood as a challenge to Israeli policy.  The EU delegate complimented the chair Borbély for his perseverance and expressed “deep sadness” that while the text may not be perfect, it ought to be accepted as a fair compromise between the various parties. After a 30 minute break to allow delegates to consult with their governments, the meeting reconvened.  Both the G-77/China and the Arab Group expressed resentment about being forced to accept a “take it or leave it” ultimatum from Chair Borbély.  Another break was called at 4.45 a.m.

Tired and exhausted delegates returned to plenary at 7.19 a.m. for a final effort to reach agreement. There were arguments about whether there was a quorum since only 24 members of the 53 members were present and the quorum is 27.  Eventually, at 9.a.m. on Saturday morning May 14^th 2011, CSC 19^th finally came to a close with the participating governments unable to reach an agreement.

Sadly, two year’s work on crucial issues ended in a debacle which could have important consequences for future UN Conferences, especially the UN Framework Conference on Climate Change in Durban, South Africa in December 2011 and the forth coming Rio+20 in June 2012.

What went wrong?  One criticism of the CSD process is that  the government ministers involved in negotiations are almost exclusively from the ministry of the environment in their country rather than from ministries or industry. This imbalance was evident at the ministerial round table discussion on sustainable consumption and production which was packed by officials from government environment ministers rather than finance representatives from finance ministries.

On the positive side, there is now a growing consensus about the nature of the problem facing planet and humanity. Everyone agrees that there needs to be a major change in how we produce and consume the goods of the planet if we are to stave off a major collapse in important habitats and life-systems.  It is also agreed that we do not have the luxury of time on our side.  Unless, crucial far-reaching decisions are taken in the next decade, then the impact on the planet will be massive and irreversible.

The UN Secretary General of the UN Nations, Ban Ki-Moon had stressed the importance of a favourable outcome at CSD 19^th in order to ensure the success of Rio+20. Governments, NGOs and religious groups will have to redouble their efforts to ensure that Rio+20, does not end in a whimper like, CSD 19.

 

The Nineteenth Session of the Commission on Sustainable Development May 2 – 13 2011 Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC

 

The 19^th session of the UN Commission on Sustainably Development opened on May 2, 2011 and will continue until May 13^th 2011. The word “sustainability” became part of the vocabulary of many missionaries and development workers in the wake of the publication of deliberations of the UN Commission on Environment and Development in a book called “Our Common Future.”  The book is often called the Brundtland Report after the name of the Chair of the Committee, Gro Harlem Brundtland who was Prime Minister of 1990 to 1996. In a nutshell, Sustainable Development means meeting the needs of this generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

The Commission on Sustainable Development emerged from Agenda 21, the programme for action for sustainable development adopted in June 1992 by the United Nations Conference in June 1992 by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) also known as the “Rio Earth Summit.” Agenda 21 called for the creation of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD),  to ensure on the effective follow-up of the UNCED. The CSD has 53 member states.

The CSD held its first substantive session in June 1993 and has convened every year since then at the UN Headquarters in New York.  In the five years after 1993, the CSD systematically reviewed the implementation of all chapters of the Agenda 21.

One of the most significant meetings of the CSD took place in Johannesburg, South Africa in September 2002.

The 19^th session of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD-19) was opened by H.E. Mr. Laszlo Borbely, Minister of Environment and Forest of Romania. He reminded the participants that CSD-19 is a policy session.  Therefore, it needs to make policy decisions and to indentify concrete measures to advance, in an integrated manner the implementation of the agenda on a number of thematic issues. These include, transport, chemicals, waste management, mining and the ten-year framework on sustainable consumption and production patterns.

He pointed out that the growing transport challenges, especially for those living in economically poor countries, is urgent.

The management of chemicals has important implications for achieving the Millennium Development Goals. He stated that the chemical industry contributes to job creation, improving living standards, eradication of poverty, improved health of humans, agricultural productivity and energy efficiency. While he cautioned that sound management of chemicals is needed to prevent adverse consequences for the environment and human health, he failed to mention that many chemical companies are economically more powerful than the majority of nation states.  Chemical company use this power to ensure that the vast majority of chemicals are not tested for their carcinogenic, endocrine blocking or immune compromising  characteristics.

His comments on mining were equally bland and uncritical. The goal of mining, according to him was to “ maximize the positive economical impact of mining while minimizing its negative environmental and social impacts, and reinforcing the capacity of producing countries to  benefit from their natural resources in the long term.” He called for “a holistic approach with mining integrated in the sustainable development paradigm.”

I was one of the speakers of a side-event entitled, “Human Rights, The Environment and Mining: Perspectives from Peru,” organised by the Maryknoll Missionary Sisters. Among the speakers was Trinidad Carlos Serna, a  Human Rights Lawyer from Peru. She told a very different story about the abuses of human and environmental rights which was facilitated by the Peruvian Government.

I shared my own research of pollution at La Oroya, a mining and smelting city in the Peruvian Andes, which  is one of the 10 most polluted cities in the world. ((Cf. www.blacksmithinstitute.org/wwpp2007/finalReport2007.pdf  The full report can be found at www.worstpolluted.com ).

Independent researchers found that Lead levels in children 6 months to 6 yrs: 3x above the concentration set by WHO; for three in every ten children in the old city of La Oroya, the concentration was often six and seven times above the WHO limits.

Cadmium: Nearly all the participants from La Oroya, had three times more cadmium in their blood than the average US citizen. Cadmium is a toxic element which can cause kidney problems, loss of bone density, lung cancer and prostate cancer in men.

Arsenic concentration in La Oroya, exceeded the amount found in an average U.S. sample.

Mercury levels in the blood in La Oroya were found to be three times the level of the average US sample.

Caesium in both places was four times the average US amount

Antimony: La Oroya had more than 30 times the amount in comparison with the average US citizen.

Mr. Laszlo Borbely seemed to be unaware or unwilling to address any of these issues about international mining corporations which are replicated in many countries in Asia, Central and Latin America and Africa.   Not once in his talk or the subsequent presentations by  Dr. Istvan Teplan, Senor Advisor of the Hungarian Secretary of State for the Environment, speaking on behalf of the European Union and its Members States, was there any serious statement about the power that mining corporations wield over both national governments or even groups such as the European Union.

As I said at the side-event on “Human Rights, the Environment and Mining: Perspectives from Peru,” it seemed at every speaker on the first day of the 19^th Session of the Commission on Sustainable Development had taken an oath not to mention the role that the military and corporations play in the pollution and impoverishment of our world today. Such institutional amnesia does not augur well that the 19^th Session of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development will deal effectively with the current ecological crisis.

 

Sea ice is melting at an extraordinary pace in the Arctic Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC

 

This summer Arctic sea ice has melted at a rate not recorded since  satellite observations began in 1972. Floating sea ice melts in summer and early autumn and refreezes again each winter.  The problem for scientists and all of us is that the melting is happening twice as fast as it did when data collection began in 1972 and the consequences will be dire. Furthermore, scientists who have been studying this phenomenon for the past three decades claim that such an extensive melting has not happened for at least 8,000 years[1] The last time that the Arctic Ocean was free of summer ice was 120,000 years ago.

Physicists at Bremen university in Germany released data on  September 8^th 2011 showing that floating ice in the Arctic covered only 4.24 million square kilometres. The previous record low happened on September 17^th 200 when the sea ice covered 4.27 kilometres. The German researchers were adamant that the reason for this enormous change is global warming caused by climate change. Georg Heygster who is head of the Institute of Environmental Physics at Bremen said that the record melt was undoubtedly caused by human-induced global warming. The sea ice retreat cannot be explained by saying it is caused by  the natural variability we find in weather patterns. [2]

Reducing the area covered in ice and snow on the planet speeds-up global warming and climate change. The reason for this is simple. Ice and snow reflect solar radiation, whereas dark sea-water absorbs and retains the sun’s heat. This is called the albedo effect   As a result temperature changes in both the Arctic and Antarctic are about twice as high as they are in other parts of the world.

It is no wonder that Scientists at the Polar Science Centre of the University of Washington, Seattle are finding that, not only has the extent of the melt-ice increased dramatically, the ice is also thinning. One of the researchers, Axel Schweiger says that the “the ice volume is now plunging faster than it did at the same time last year when the record was set.”[3]  In 2010 the volume of sea ice was 2,135 cubic miles. This is only half the average and it is 62 percent below the maximum coverage in the Arctic recorded in 1972.

Arctic scientists predict that, if the current warming continues, the Arctic ocean will be ice-free during the summer within 30 years.  This new projection of summer-free ice in the Arctic ocean is 40 years ahead of the time-scale predicted in the 2007 Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In response to this new data Shaye Worf, the Director of the Centre for Biological Diversity in San Francisco, told journalists that “This stunning loss of Arctic sea ice is yet another wake-up call that, climate change is here now and is having devastating effects.”[4] The reason for this is that the Arctic ocean plays a crucial role in regulating and moderating the global climate.

Glaciers on land are also shrinking at an extraordinary pace. In May 2011,the Pontifical Academy of Scientists published a report entitled, Fate of Mountain Glaciers in the Anthropocene.  The scientists involved in researching this report came from a variety of scientific disciplines – glaciologists, meteorologists, hydrologists, physicists, and climate scientists. The report states that carbon dioxide which is released by human activity, especially the burning of fossil fuel, was the main driver of climate change.

The Welsh glaciologist, Alan Hubbard, who works at Aberystwyth University, has come to a similar conclusion. He has been studying the Petermann glaciers in northern Greenland.  This glacier, which covers 6 percent of the icecap, is 300 kilometre long and up to 3.1 kilometre in height.  In August 2010, a 260 square kilometre block of ice calved from the Petermann glacier. Satellite data has shown that by July 2011 all the ice had melted and disappeared.  He said that “I was gobsmacked. It [was] like looking into the Grand Canyon full of ice and coming back two years later to find it full of water.”[5]

According to the report of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, “failure to mitigate climate change will violate our duty to the vulnerable [people] of the earth, including those dependent on the water supply from mountain glaciers, and those facing rising sea levels and stronger storm surges.” The document goes on to call for a worldwide reduction of carbon dioxide emission without delay.

 

 

 

---

[1]  John Vidal, “Arctic sea ice melts at fastest pace for 40 years,” The Guardian, September 12^th 2011, page 13

[2] ibid

[3] ibid

[4] ibid

[5]  John Vidal, op.cit

Severe Weather in the U.S. Fr. Seán McDonagh

 

 

Climate scientists tell us that one of the effects of global warming is that we can expect more and more severe weather events.  According to Dr. Richard Somerville, a professor emeritus of Scripps Institute of Oceanography, “all weather events are now influenced by climate change because all weather now develops in a different environment than before. Some types of extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and severe due to climate change. These include heat waves, heavy rain, floods, and droughts.  Climate change is increasing the odds that extreme weather will occur.”[1]

During the past year there has been unprecedented weather extremes in the United States.  Starting in January 2011, the massive blizzards brought cities such as Chicago to a standstill.   The cost to Chicago alone was in the region of $2 billion and 36 people lost their lives.  According to the National Ocean and Atmospheric administration in the United States (Noaa), there has been 10 major weather-related disasters in the first nine months of 2011.  700 people lost their lives and the property damage is estimated to have cost somewhere in the region of $35 billion.   46 tornadoes were recorded in both southern and Midwest states in the U.S. in early April 2011.    During the following week 59 tornadoes hit Midwest and North-east states.  Oklahoma and Pennsylvania were hit during the following week.  The damage from those three weather events is estimated at $6.5 billion.

In late April devastating storms swept through the South killing at least 60 people and spawning a tornado which cut through downtown Tuscaloosa. The twister flattened homes and other buildings and just missed a medical centre.

In May the Midwest and South-east were hit again by severe weather.   177 people were killed, many more were injured and the cost in terms of damage to property and clean-up calls reached $7 billion.

Heavy rain and melting ice caused the Mississippi to burst its banks and flood many farms, communities and towns in June 2011.  This is also an expected consequence of climate change.  Warm air holds more water vapour than cold air.  In the U.S. that led to record snowfalls in the winter of 2010 in the upper Midwest in places such as Minnesota and North Dakota  and record rainfall in the Spring of 2011.  Reporters Kick Jervis and Melanie Eversley  in an article on May 5^th 2011 in  USA Today   wrote that the governor of Mississippi Haley Barbour,  who is a Republican asked the White House to declare 11 counties   a disaster areas in anticipation of flooding in places such as Vicksburg,   The designation of the area as a disaster allows communities to become eligible for Federal help with the relief effort.  Bob Anderson an Army Corps spokesperson based in Vicksburg, Mississippi said that  “there’s never been a flood of this magnitude on the upper Mississippi,” Anderson says. “It’s testing the outer limits of our system.”[2]

Fourteen states in the U.S. including Texas and Oklahoma also suffered a severe drought which many people are comparing it to the dust bowl years of the 1930s.   David Miskus, a scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, blames the strong La Niña because it stops moist air coming up from the from the South.[3]   But stronger La Niñas are also associated with the warming of the surface of the Pacific Ocean. In August, Hurricane Irene slammed into the Caribbean and the Eastern Coast of the U.S. and left extensive flood and wind damage in its wake.

In order to reduce the severity of future climate change scientists are telling us that we must make large reductions in heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore we must do this within the next few years, otherwise it will be too late.

Despite an unprecedented increase in severe weather events and the clear evidence linking climate change to these events the Governor of Texas, Rick Perry, who is now seeking the Republican nomination for the presidential election in 2012, is a climate change denier.  His response to the drought was not to encourage people to restrict their carbon emissions, but to issue an official prayer for rain.  Sadly the governor is not helping religion. Such a spurning of overwhelming scientific evidence and a naive embracing of fundamentalist religion bring religion into disrepute.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-great-drought-of-2011-14-states-suffering-us-south-2011-7#ixzz1XT1jWdvf

 

---

[1][1]  Scientists Warn Extreme Weather Linked to Steroids of Climate Change

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/rkistner/scientists_warn_extreme_weathe.html

[2]  Rick Jervis and Melanie Eversley, “Flood dangers spread along the Mississippli” USA TODAY, June 5^th 2011, http://www.usatoday.com/weather/floods/2011-05-04-flooding-along-mississippi_n.htm

 

[3] Robert Johnson “ The Great Drought of 2011 is America’s Worst Since the Dust Bowl,”  Business Insider  http://www.businessinsider.com/the-great-drought-of-2011-14-states-suffering-us-south-2011-7#ixzz1XT3Cj0Lj

 

Fate of Mountain Glaciers in the Anthropocene A Report by the Working Group Commissioned by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences

May 11, 2011
The working group consists of glaciologists, climate scientists, meteorologists, hydrologists,
physicists, chemists, mountaineers, and lawyers organized by the Pontifical Academy of
Sciences at the Vatican, to contemplate the observed retreat of the mountain glaciers, its causes
and consequences. This report resulted from a workshop in April 2011 at the Vatican.
2007
Courtesy of GlacierWorks
1921
Courtesy of the Royal Geographical Society
Main Rongbuk Glacier (see inside page)
Main Rongbuk Glacier
Location: Mount Everest, 8848 m, Tibet Autonomous Region
Range: Mahalangur Himal, Eastern Himalayas
Coordinates: 27°59’15”N, 86°55’29”E
Elevation of Glacier: 5,060 – 6,462 m
Average Vertical Glacier Loss: 101 m, 1921 – 2008
Cover Image:
Morteratsch glacier (Alps). Courtesy of J. Alean, SwissEduc
Declaration by the Working Group
We call on all people and nations to recognise the serious
and potentially irreversible impacts of global warming caused
by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and other
pollutants, and by changes in forests, wetlands, grasslands, and other
land uses. We appeal to all nations to develop and implement, without
delay, effective and fair policies to reduce the causes and impacts of
climate change on communities and ecosystems, including mountain
glaciers and their watersheds, aware that we all live in the same home.
By acting now, in the spirit of common but differentiated responsibility,
we accept our duty to one another and to the stewardship of a planet
blessed with the gift of life.
We are committed to ensuring that all inhabitants of this planet
receive their daily bread, fresh air to breathe and clean water to drink
as we are aware that, if we want justice and peace, we must protect
the habitat that sustains us. The believers among us ask God to grant
us this wish.
1985
2007
P
age 2 – Fate of Mountain Glaciers in the Anthropocene
I. Summary
Receding Glaciers Require Urgent Responses
Kyetrak Glacier 2009; Photography 2009: Courtesy of Glacier Works
Kyetrak Glacier 1921. Location: Cho Oyu, 8201 m, Tibet Autonomous Region; Eastern Himalayas . Elevation of Glacier: 4,907 – 5,883 m. Courtesy of Royal Geographical Society
A Report by the Working Group Commissioned by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences – Page 3
Anthropocene: Aggressive exploitation of fossil fuels and other natural
resources has damaged the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land we inhabit.
To give one example, some 1000 billion tons of carbon dioxide and other climatically
important “greenhouse” gases have been pumped into the atmosphere. As a result,
the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air now exceeds the highest levels of the
last 800,000 years. The climatic and ecological impacts of this human interference
with the Earth System are expected to last for many millennia, warranting a new name,
The Anthropocene, for the new “man-made” geologic epoch we are living in.
Glacier Retreat: Glaciers are shrinking in area worldwide, with the highest rates
documented at lower elevations. The widespread loss of glaciers, ice, and snow on the
mountains of tropical, temperate, and polar regions is some of the clearest evidence
we have for a change in the climate system, which is taking place on a global scale at a
rapid rate. Long-term measurement series indicate that the rate of mass loss has more
than doubled since the turn of the century. Melting mountain glaciers and snows have
contributed significantly to the sea level rise observed in the last century. Retreat of the
glaciers in the European Alps has been observed since the end of the ‘Little Ice Age’
(first part of the 19th century), but the pace of retreat has been much faster since the
1980s. The Alpine glaciers have already lost more than 50% of their mass. Thousands
of small glaciers in the Hindukush-Himalayan-Tibetan region continue to disintegrate,
a threat to local communities and the many more people farther away who depend
on mountain water resources. Robust scenario calculations clearly indicate that many
mountain ranges worldwide could lose major parts of their glaciers within the coming
decades.
The recent changes observed in glacial behaviour are due to a complex mix of causal
factors that include greenhouse gas forcing together with large scale emissions of
dark soot particles and dust in “brown clouds”, and the associated changes in regional
atmospheric energy and moisture content, all of which result in significant warming at
higher altitudes, not least in the Himalayas.
Page 4 – Fate of Mountain Glaciers in the Anthropocene
Perspective on Past Changes: In response to the argument that “since the Earth has experienced alternating cold periods (ice ages or glacials) and warm periods (inter-glacials) during the past, today’s climate and ice cover changes are entirely natural events”, we state:
The primary triggers for ice ages and inter-glacials are well understood to be changes in the astronomical parameters related to the motion of our planet within the solar system and natural feedback processes in the climate system. The time scales between these triggers are in the range of 10,000 years or longer. By contrast, the observed human-induced changes in carbon dioxide, other greenhouse gases, and soot concentrations are taking place on 10-100 year timescales –at least a hundred times as fast. It is particularly worrying that this release of global warming agents is occurring during an interglacial period when the Earth was already at a natural temperature maximum.
Three Recommended Measures: Human-caused changes in the composition of the air and air quality result in more than 2 million premature deaths worldwide every year and threaten water and food security —especially among those “bottom 3 billion” people who are too poor to avail of the protections made possible by fossil fuel use and industrialization. Since a sustainable future based on the continued extraction of coal, oil and gas in the “business-as-usual mode” will not be possible because of both resource depletion and environmental damages (as caused, e.g., by dangerous sea level rise) we urge our societies to:
I. Reduce worldwide carbon dioxide emissions without delay, using all means possible to meet ambitious international global warming targets and ensure the long-term stability of the climate system. All nations must focus on a rapid transition to renewable energy sources and other strategies to reduce CO2 emissions. Nations should also avoid removal of carbon sinks by stopping deforestation, and should strengthen carbon sinks by reforestation of degraded lands. They also need to develop and deploy technologies that draw down excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. These actions must be accomplished within a few decades.
A Report by the Working Group Commissioned by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences – Page 5
II. Reduce the concentrations of warming air pollutants (dark soot, methane,
lower atmosphere ozone, and hydrofluorocarbons) by as much as 50%,
to slow down climate change during this century while preventing millions of
premature deaths from respiratory disease and millions of tons of crop damages
every year.
III. Prepare to adapt to the climatic changes, both chronic and abrupt, that
society will be unable to mitigate. In particular, we call for a global capacitybuilding
initiative to assess the natural and social impacts of climate change in
mountain systems and related watersheds.
The cost of the three recommended measures pales in comparison to the price
the world will pay if we fail to act now.
Page 6 – Fate of Mountain Glaciers in the Anthropocene
II. Specific Findings and Recommendations
Mountain glaciers are lethally vulnerable to ongoing climate change
Anthropocene: A New Geological Epoch
The last two centuries have seen an unprecedented expansion of human population and exploitation of Earth’s resources. This exploitation has caused increasingly negative impacts on many components of the Earth System—on the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land we inhabit. Humanity is changing the climate system through its emissions of greenhouse gases and heat-absorbing particulate pollution. Today’s
Qori Kalis outlet glacier (the largest outlet glacier from the Quelccaya Ice Cap in the southern Andes of Peru). Credit: Lonnie Thompson, Ohio State University
A Report by the Working Group Commissioned by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences – Page 7
atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas, exceeds
all other maxima observed over the last 800,000 years. Vast transformations of the
land surface, including loss of forests, grasslands, wetlands, and other ecosystems, are
also causing climate change. In recognition of the fact that human activities are profoundly
altering these components of the Earth System, Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen
has given the name anthropocene to the new geological epoch we have created for
ourselves.
An expert group of scientists met under the auspices of the Pontifical Academy
of Sciences at the Casina Pio IV in the Vatican from 2 to 4 April 2011 to discuss the
fate of mountain glaciers in the Anthropocene and consider the responses required
to stabilize the climate change affecting them. This group’s consensus statement is a
warning to humanity and a call for fast action—to mitigate global and regional warming,
to protect mountain glaciers and other vulnerable ecosystems, to assess national
and local climate risks, and to prepare to adapt to those climate impacts that cannot be
mitigated. The group also notes that another major anthropogenic risk to the climate
system is from the threat of nuclear war, which can be lessened by rapid and large
reductions in global nuclear arsenals.
The Earth Is Warming and the Impacts of
Climate Change Are Increasing
Warming of the Earth is unequivocal. Most of the observed increase in globally
averaged temperature since the mid-20th century is ‘very likely’—defined as more than
90% likely—to be the result of the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse
gas concentrations. This warming is occurring in spite of masking by cooling aerosol
particles—many of which are co-emitted by CO2-producing processes.
Page 8 – Fate of Mountain Glaciers in the Anthropocene
Some of the current and anticipated impacts of climate change include losses of coral reefs, forests, wetlands, and other ecosystems; a rate of species extinction many times faster than the historic average; and water and food shortages for many vulnerable peoples. Increasing sea level rise and stronger storm surges threaten vulnerable ecosystems and peoples, especially those in low-lying islands and coastal nations. The loss of mountain glaciers discussed here threatens downstream populations, especially during the dry season when glacial runoff is most needed.
The Earth’s Glaciers Are Retreating:
Causes and Consequences
The widespread loss of ice and snow in the world’s mountain glaciers is some of the clearest evidence we have for global changes in the climate system. The present losses of mountain glaciers cause more than 1 mm per year of sea level rise, or about one-third of the observed rate. In the most recent part of the Anthropocene, much of the reduction of glacier mass and length in tropical, temperate, and polar regions results from the observed increases in greenhouse gases and the increases in sunlight-absorbing particles such as soot, from inefficient combustion processes, and dust, from land cover change.
As shown in the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, extrapolations from mass change studies carried out on about 400 selected glaciers worldwide indicate a present average annual thinning of about 0.7 m in water equivalent. The equilibrium line between accumulation and ablation area of a glacier has shifted upward by several hundred meters in most mountain ranges compared to the mid–1970s. For many glaciers in lower mountain ranges, the snow line at the end of summer is above the maximum altitude of the mountains, leaving them lethally
A Report by the Working Group Commissioned by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences – Page 9
vulnerable to ongoing climate change. Glacier fragmentation is occurring in most
areas, leaving the resultant smaller glacier closer to disappearing altogether.
Glacier areas are observed to be shrinking worldwide, with the highest rates at lower
elevations. Large glaciers lose their tongues, leaving unstable moraines and fragilely
dammed lakes behind, such as Imja Lake in Nepal. Such fragile dams have been subject
to failure, causing outburst floods that ravage the already fragile infrastructure of poor
communities downstream.
In Western North America, human disturbance is increasing the dust load from the
deserts of the Colorado Plateau and Great Basin, which darkens and thus shortens the
snow season in the Colorado Rocky Mountains by 4–7 weeks. The dust particles also
add to atmospheric warming by absorbing sunlight. Elsewhere the widespread “brown
clouds” of black carbon from inefficient combustion could have a large impact in
regions such as the Himalayas. We have very limited—and in some cases no—energy
and mass balance studies that quantify the black carbon effects on snow and ice
in such remote mountain areas. The impacts that we do understand with detailed
measurements in the Western North America provide insight into the snow and glacier
responses in other similarly affected regions.
The amounts and rates of glacier mass loss differ by region, and so also do the
associated impacts on seasonal water availability in close-by valleys and neighbouring
lowlands. In regions with dry and warm seasons, such as Central Asia, mountains and
their glaciers and winter snows are like “water towers” that store water for millions
of people. Their behaviour can be deceptive. Glacial mass loss can cause an initial
temporary increase in runoff downstream from water that has been stored for a long
time, as has been observed in several basins, but runoff inevitably decreases as the
parent glaciers decrease further.
Mountain glaciers serve another critical function: they preserve detailed information
on past climate and the ability of glaciers to respond to different climate variables. This
Page 10 – Fate of Mountain Glaciers in the Anthropocene
makes glaciers powerful tools for understanding past and present climate dynamics. The full potential of mountain glaciers as climate research tools is just beginning to be realized. The additional research needed to reduce uncertainties, delineate governing processes, and quantify regional impacts could have a big payoff. It is time we pay more careful attention to mountain glaciers before their archives are lost forever.
Avoiding “Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference”
Requires Clear and Binding Climate Targets
The goal of a climate policy is to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at a level that would prevent “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” and “allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, ensure that food production is not threatened and enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner”, as laid down in Article 2 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
The temperature guardrail for avoiding “dangerous anthropogenic interference” is now proposed to be at 2° C warming (above the pre-industrial level), although many scientists argue and many nations agree that 1.5° C is a safer upper limit. Scientific, political, and economic considerations have contributed to the identification of this threshold, which has been adopted by the international climate negotiations. The Earth has already warmed by 0.75° C since 1900 AD, and might reach some 2° C by the year 2100 AD, even if today’s greenhouse gas concentrations are not increased further and air pollution is curbed for humanitarian reasons. There is a risk that the warming can well exceed 3° C if emissions of greenhouse gases continue to increase at present rates. Thus exceeding the 2° C climate target is a real and serious possibility.
A Report by the Working Group Commissioned by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences – Page 11
Rapid Mitigation Is Required If Warming and
Associated Impacts Are to Be Limited
Understanding the causes of climate change, as well as its current and projected
impacts, presents society the opportunity to avoid unmanageable impacts through
mitigation and to manage unavoidable impacts through adaptation. The time to act
is now if society is to have a reasonable chance of staying below the 2° C guardrail.
Possible mitigation by reducing carbon dioxide emissions and expansion
of carbon sinks: CO2 is the largest single contributor to greenhouse warming. While
more than half of CO2 is absorbed by ocean and terrestrial sinks within a century,
approximately 20% remains in the atmosphere to cause warming for millennia. Every
effort must be made to cut CO2 direct emissions from fossil fuel burning, cut indirect
emissions by avoiding deforestation, and expand forests and other sinks, as fast as
possible to avoid the profoundly long warming and associated effects that CO2 causes.
Possible mitigation by reducing the emission of non-CO2 short-lived drivers:
The second part of an integrated mitigation strategy is to cut the climate forcers that
have short atmospheric lifetimes. These include black carbon soot, tropospheric ozone
and its precursor methane, and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Black carbon (BC) and
tropospheric ozone strongly impact regional as well as global warming. Cutting the
short-lived climate forcers using existing technologies can reduce the rate of global
warming significantly by the latter half of this century, and the rate of Arctic warming
by two-thirds, provided CO2 is also cut.
Reducing local air pollutants can save about 2 million lives each year, increase
crop productivity, and repair the ability of plants to sequester carbon. Black carbon
management should be part of an integrated aerosol management strategy, to ensure
that BC warming is cut faster than the cooling from other aerosols. In many areas,
there is a real potential to reduce the BC and dust loading that accelerates glacier
Page 12 – Fate of Mountain Glaciers in the Anthropocene
and snow melt, by: reducing BC emissions from traditional cook stoves by replacing them with energy efficient and less polluting cook stoves, trapping BC from diesel combustion with filters, and restabilising desert surfaces and other soils to reduce their dust emissions.
HFCs are synthetic gases and are the fastest growing climate forcer in many countries. The production and use of HFCs can be phased down under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, while leaving the downstream emissions of HFCs in the Kyoto Protocol. This would provide the equivalent of 100 gigatonnes of CO2 in mitigation by 2050 or earlier. The Montreal Protocol is widely considered the world’s best environmental treaty; it has already phased out 98% of nearly 100 chemicals that are similar to HFCs, for a net of 135 gigatonnes of climate mitigation between 1990 and 2010.
In sum, air pollution and climate change policies are still treated as if they were two separate problems, when they actually represent the same scourge. Emission sources for air pollutants and greenhouse gases coincide, and a combined policy strategy reduces the cost of counteracting both these threats to human health and the well-being of society. These mitigation strategies must be pursued simultaneously and as aggressively as the dictates of science demand. Together they have the potential to restore the climate system to a safe level, and reduce climate injustice. But time is short. Warming and associated effects in the Earth System caused by the cumulative CO2 emissions that remain in the atmosphere for millennia may soon become unmanageable.
A Report by the Working Group Commissioned by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences – Page 13
Adaptation Must Begin Now
Because of the time lag between mitigation action and climate response, vulnerable
ecosystems and populations will face significant climate impacts and possibly unacceptable
risks even with ultimately successful mitigation. Therefore, in addition to
mitigation, adaptation must also start now and be pursued aggressively.
We cannot adapt to changes we cannot understand. Adaptation starts with
assessment. An international initiative to observe and model mountain systems and
their watersheds with high spatial resolution, realistic topography, and processes
appropriate to high altitudes is a prerequisite to strengthening regional and local
capacities to assess the natural and social impacts of climate change.
Glacier Measurements Need to Be
Expanded and Improved
We need to characterize the critical climate and radiative forcings on mountain
glaciers and their corresponding responses that are not yet sufficiently understood.
Among these, we must improve our understanding of the regional differences in glacial
response around the globe in terms of the regional changes in climate and in absorbing
impurities. Our observations of the glacier volumes, precipitation, and respective
changes in mountain catchments are severely limited. This limits our ability to create
scenarios of future runoff. Our climate models cannot resolve the rough terrain of
mountainous regions and therefore poorly represent precipitation, temperature variations,
and capture of aerosol loading. Likewise, our modeling and monitoring of the
connections between the changes in an upstream glacierised water catchment to water
resources at the downstream basin scale are at the initial stages.
Page 14 – Fate of Mountain Glaciers in the Anthropocene
The remoteness and dangerous nature of work above 6000 m is one reason why we have few detailed measurements, other than of glacier length and size, in high mountain systems like the Himalayas and Andes. Current remote sensing technologies can detect changes in glacier and snow extent, but do not quantify relative forcings or provide important snow and ice properties, such as grain size, local impurities, and surface liquid water content. However, airborne and space-borne imaging spectrometers will soon allow us to make spatially comprehensive measurements of these surface properties. Put in context by more extensive observations from large-scale field campaigns, and in situ energy balance and mass balance measurements, imaging spectrometers will be used to construct and validate the next generation of high resolution glacier mass balance models. Quantitative observations are the key.
Geoengineering: Further Research and
International Assessment Are Required
Geoengineering is no substitute for climate change mitigation. There are many questions that need to be answered about potential irreversibilities, and of the disparities in regional impacts, for example, before geoengineering could be responsibly considered. There has not been a dedicated international assessment of geoengineering. Geoengineering needs a broadly representative, multi-stakeholder assessment performed with the highest standards, based for example on the IPCC model. The foundation for such an assessment has to be much broader with deeper scientific study than there has been a chance to carry out thus far.
It may be prudent to consider geo-engineering if irreversible and catastrophic climate impacts cannot be managed with mitigation and adaptation. A governance system for balancing the risks and benefits of geoengineering, and a transparent, broadly consultative consensus decision-making process to determine what risks are acceptable must be developed before any action can be taken.
A Report by the Working Group Commissioned by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences – Page 15
Individuals and Nations Have a Duty to Act Now
Humanity has created the Anthropocene era and must live with it. This requires a
new awareness of the risks human actions are having on the Earth and its systems,
including the mountain glaciers discussed here. It imposes a new duty to reduce these
risks. Failure to mitigate climate change will violate our duty to the vulnerable of the
Earth, including those dependent on the water supply of mountain glaciers, and those
facing rising sea level and stronger storm surges. Our duty includes the duty to help
vulnerable communities adapt to changes that cannot be mitigated. All nations must
ensure that their actions are strong enough and prompt enough to address the increasing
impacts and growing risk of climate change and to avoid catastrophic irreversible
consequences.
We call on all people and nations to recognise the serious and potentially irreversible
impacts of global warming caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse
gases and other pollutants, and by changes in forests, wetlands, grasslands, and other
land uses. We appeal to all nations to develop and implement, without delay, effective
and fair policies to reduce the causes and impacts of climate change on communities
and ecosystems, including mountain glaciers and their watersheds, aware that we
all live in the same home. By acting now, in the spirit of common but differentiated
responsibility, we accept our duty to one another and to the stewardship of a planet
blessed with the gift of life. We are committed to ensuring that all inhabitants of this
planet receive their daily bread, fresh air to breathe and clean water to drink, as we are
aware that, if we want justice and peace, we must protect the habitat that sustains us.
Ajai, L. Bengtsson, D. Breashears, P.J. Crutzen, S. Fuzzi, W. Haeberli, W.W. Immerzeel, G.
Kaser, C. Kennel, A. Kulkarni, R. Pachauri, T. H. Painter, J. Rabassa, V. Ramanathan, A.
Robock, C. Rubbia, L. Russell, M. Sánchez Sorondo, H.J. Schellnhuber, S. Sorooshian, T. F.
Stocker, L.G. Thompson, O.B. Toon, D. Zaelke
Working Group Co-chairs are underlined

Will the Vatican Finally Wake Up to the Dangers of Climate Change? Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC

During the first week of May 2011, the Pontifical Academy of Science released a report on the potentially devastating impact of climate change. The Working Group which consisted of glaciologists, climate scientists, meteorologists, hydrologists, physicists, chemists, mountaineers and lawyers was co-chaired by Veerabhadran Ramanathan and Nobel laureate Paul Cruzen. Though initially their focus was on glaciers, the study was expanded to include the impact on climate change of anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.[1] The widespread loss of glaciers, ice and snow on mountains in the tropical, temperate and polar regions is some of the clearest evidence we have for a change in the climate system which is taking place at a rapid pace across the globe. The authors call “on all people and the nations to recognise the serious and potentially irreversible impact of global warming caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants. If we want justice and peace we must act to protect the habitat that sustains us.”[2]

The Report examines how climate change will impinge on forests, wetlands, grasslands and, crucially, food production. The scientists claims that, because humans have pumped billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in the past few decades, “human interference” has resulted in the highest concentration of carbon dioxide in the past 800,000.

This is not a minor problem. The authors say “we have entered a new geological epoch when the impact of mankind (humankind) became a major factor in environmental and climate changes.”[3]

Nor can we put dealing with climate change on the long finger after we have sorted out our economic problems. The authors state that climate change is already under way and actions (to reduce carbon emissions) to mitigate its worst affects are a matter of social justice, especially for the poor.  It ties these mitigating actions to the biblical idea of “stewardships” for the Earth.  It is significant that the Report uses the language of the UN Convention of Climate Change which calls on everyone to act in a “spirit of common but differentiated responsibility.” This means that economically rich nations, such as the US, the EU, Australia, New Zealand and Japan, which built their prosperity on burning fossil fuel, must act first and make financial resources available to poor countries so that they can protect themselves from the consequences of climate change.  The United States has consistently opposed this principle. It insists everyone must act together, especially the newly industrialised nations such as China, India and Brazil. Unfortunately, some of the recently elected legislators in the US are climate sceptics and are blocking any action at a Federal level to deal with it.

The Report makes three recommendations:

1.     Reduce worldwide carbon dioxide quickly, using every means possible. All nations must change from carbon-based energy to renewable energy as quickly as possible.

2.     Strengthen carbon sinks by protecting forests and replanting in degraded lands.

3.     Make extensive provisions to help poor countries adapt to the sudden impact of climate change such as more severe weather patterns and rising sea-levels

Will anyone listen to these almost apocalyptic predictions?  Will the Vatican itself listen? Climate change has not been on the priority list of the Holy See. The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church published as recently as 2004, has only one paragraph on climate change.  The Encyclical Caritas in Veritate published in 2009, does not mention climate change.  There was no statement from the Holy See at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change at Cancun in December 2010. Cardinal George Pell, the Archbishop of Sydney, is constantly disparaging the science behind climate change. Given the seriousness of climate change as outlined in this study, will Vatican now caution him or sanction him in any way?  His colleague, Bishop William Morris of Toowoomba was forced to resign by the Vatican for publicly asking questions about the future of ministry in the Catholic Church. In a pastoral letter in 2006, he asked how ministry in the Catholic Church can be re-envisioned,  given the fact that in many places around the world vocations to the male, celibate priesthood have collapsed. For raising this question, which is on the mind of countless other Catholics as priests grow older, he was forced to resign. How Rome responds to Cardinal Pell’s climate change denying utterances will tell a lot about whether the Vatican is really serious about climate change.

Will this new report of the Pontifical Academy of Science persuade Cardinal Pell of the seriousness of climate change.  In the past he has dismissed the “hysterical and extreme claims about global warming” and seen them as symptoms of “pagan emptiness.” He is scheduled to give a lecture on the subject in October 2011 at Westminister Cathedral Hall, entitled, “One Christian Perspective on Climate Change. The lecture is sponsored by the Foundation established by Lord Nigel Lawson. Lord Lawson has written a book questioning whether climate change is taking place.  [4]

 

 

---

[1]  Ron Bennenati, “Vatican Calls for Immediate Action on Climate Change,” Sustainablebusiness.com News

www.sustainablebusiness.com/index/go/news.display/id/22362  Downloaded on May 6^th 2011.

 

[2] www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/22362 downloaded on May 7, 2011.

 

[3]  Ibid.

[4] Notebook, The Tablet, April 16^th 2011, page 18.