MUST Read IPCC Report: Debate Over, Further Delay Fatal, Action Not Costly

In its definitive scientific synthesis report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) today issued its strongest call for immediate action to save humanity from the deadly consequences of unrestrained greenhouse gas emissions.

This report -- signed off by 130 nations including the U.S. and China -- slams the door on any argument for delay and makes clear we must under no circumstances listen to those who urge that we wait (who knows how long) to develop as yet non-existent technology [this means you President Bush, Newt Gingrich, Bjørn Lomborg]. As the New York Times put it:

Members of the panel said their review of the data led them to conclude as a group and individually that reductions in greenhouse gasses had to start immediately to avert a global climate disaster that could leave island states submerged and abandoned, African crop yields decreased by 50 percent, and cause over a 5 percent decrease in global gross domestic product.

... this summary was the first to acknowledge that the melting of the Greenland ice sheet from rising temperature [which would raise the oceans 23 feet] could result in sea-level rise over centuries rather than millennia.

And readers of this blog know the IPCC almost certainly underestimates the timing and severity of likely impacts because it ignores or downplays key amplifying feedbacks in the carbon cycle (see "Are Scientists Overestimating -- or Underestimating -- Climate Change" especially Part II and Part III). Indeed, IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri -- a scientist and economist -- admitted as much:

He said that since the panel began its work five years ago, scientists have recorded "much stronger trends in climate change," like a recent melting of polar ice that had not been predicted. "That means you better start with intervention much earlier."

How much earlier? The normally understated Pachauri warns:

"If there's no action before 2012, that's too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment."

In short -- time's up! America -- we better pick the right President in 2008.

To balance the bad news, the IPCC and its member governments agree on the good news -- action is very affordable:

In 2050, global average macro-economic costs for mitigation towards stabilisation between 710 and 445ppm CO2-eq are between a 1% gain and 5.5% decrease of global GDP. This corresponds to slowing average annual global GDP growth by less than 0.12 percentage points.

But how is that possible? How can the world's leading governments and scientific experts agree that we can avoid catastrophe for such a small cost?



Because that's what the scientific and economic literature -- and real-world experience -- says:

Both bottom-up and top-down studies indicate that there is high agreement and much evidence of substantial economic potential for the mitigation of global GHG emissions over the coming decades that could offset the projected growth of global emissions or reduce emissions below current levels.

In fact, the bottom up studies -- the ones that look technology by technology, which I believe are more credible -- have even better news:

Bottom-up studies suggest that mitigation opportunities with net negative costs have the potential to reduce emissions by around 6 GtCO2-eq/yr in 2030.

Wow! A 20% reduction in global emissions might be possible in a quarter century with net economic benefits!! Take that, delayers who oppose rapid, mandatory action and supposedly represent the "pragmatic center on climate and energy" -- but who in fact represent the fatal siren song of "wait for new technology, wait for new technology."

But don't we need new technologies? Of course, but we don't need -- and can't afford -- to sit on our hands when we have so many cost-effective existing technologies:

There is high agreement and much evidence that all stabilisation levels assessed can be achieved by deployment of a portfolio of technologies that are either currently available or expected to be commercialised in coming decades, assuming appropriate and effective incentives are in place for their development, acquisition, deployment and diffusion and addressing related barriers.

Yes delayers -- we need to do two things at once: aggressively deploy existing technology (with carbon prices and government standards) and aggressively finish developing and commercializing key technologies and systems that are in the pipeline. Anyone who argues for just doing the latter is disputing a very broad consensus -- and is neither pragmatic nor centrist.

What do we risk if fail to act now?

Anthropogenic warming could lead to some impacts that are abrupt or irreversible, depending upon the rate and magnitude of the climate change.

Partial loss of ice sheets on polar land could imply metres of sea level rise, major changes in coastlines and inundation of low-lying areas, with greatest effects in river deltas and low-lying islands. Such changes are projected to occur over millennial time scales, but more rapid sea level rise on century time scales cannot be excluded.

In short, we risk that our top climatologists's warnings on sea level rise prove true. What else?

As global average temperature increase exceeds about 3.5oC, model projections suggest significant extinctions (40-70% of species assessed) around the globe.

IPCC to world: The time to act is now or we risk destroying life on the Earth as we know it today!

You can listen to the IPCC press conference, download their PPT presentation, and get all the synthesis report here.

Comments

[ShaunHammer]

05:15 PM on 11/20/2007

http://www.longrangeweather.com/images/GTEMPS.gif

[bookish]

11:32 AM on 11/20/2007

Schwinn electric bicycle. 60 mile range. Detachable battery with 4 hour recharge time. $1800.00.

[rockymountainhigh]

11:20 AM on 11/20/2007

Has anyone who was part of this study figured out how to make a computer model that can accurately account for the effects of cloud cover and how it cools the climate? I didn't think so. If we are to believe all of the global warming hype(that is what it is, as the science is still flawed)should we believe that every day is sunny with blue skies? Is every day cloudy? Do the scientists just guess about how cloud cover affects climate? How about all of those flawed temperature readings from the NOAA weather stations? I recently saw a reprot that over 70% of them are improperly placed, giving faulty reading, almost always to the warmer side. 1998 the hottest year on record? Nope....not any more...that was 1934, when there was much less CO2 in the atmosphere. Don't get me wrong, I see nothing wrong with cutting down on emissions in general, being more efficient with the energy we use, and getting ourselves off of our oil addiction. However, the climate alarmists are no better than the Iraq alarmists. You use fear to try and prove your point. OH MY GOD OH MY GOD OH MY GOD...WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING NOW OR WE MAY WAKE UP TO A MUSHROOM CLOUD COMPLIMENTS OF SADAAM.(Replace mushroom cloud with rising sea levels, and you are essentially seeing the same methods as used in the run up to Iraq)

[WilliePilgrim]

10:15 AM on 11/20/2007

I'm a little apprehensive about this report. It's scope and scale is so huge that it seems it is naturally prone towards echoing which amplifies certain voices without adding any content. Keeping our options open and maintaining carefull consideration that objective oppostion to the current understanding is important and to neglect this aspect would be unscientific and unlikely to work very well. I don't see a lot of that kind of open minded thinking in the strident calls being issued by lots of non-scientists who think they understand the complex modelling we are using to make these determinations. I just don't think it is going to play out the way the UNIPCC says it is.

[ljsfolly]

10:05 AM on 11/20/2007

The past 7 years Bush has had "HIS" people who are not in any way qualified nor scientists for the most part, lie and alter wat the real scientists have been saying. That is why the scientists have written op eds signed onto lists, petitions anything they could do to get the truth out and here we still sit waiting for some directions and how to do "it". There are so many places to get information about what we can do but until recently no one cared. It starts with us at home in our daily life. The paper not plastic at the store the biodegradables we can look for and basic recycling. Think green.

[Robertx5]

06:12 AM on 11/20/2007

The sceptics of Global Warming by and large accept that the Earth is getting warmer but advise that this is part of a natural cycle and nothing to do with us, and so we have no need to worry.
They may be right or they may be wrong, History will determine the answer.
However, when that history comes to be written the sceptics will look very stupid to their decendants(assuming their family tree still florishes on a world potentially much hotter with less living space etc) if they were wrong.
Preferable surely is to accept that the current era of Global Warming may well be due to our excesses and take corrective action.
This does not mean we go back to a subsistence level existence, but take advantage of advances in technology, and also make some changes to out hugely wasteful Societies to help mitigate the warming effect.
Better safe than sorry.

[23000Days]

02:38 AM on 11/20/2007

I bought a couple of the LED flashlights today at Advance auto parts, with 9 LED's and battery for $2.50.
Very Bright! But the light is so cold and directinal....

[23000Days]

11:40 PM on 11/19/2007

Has anyone noticed that green tech. stocks are currently doubling semi-anually? Many companies with proven wind,solar and geothermal innovations that hold exciting promise, have popped up over the last few years.
Investing in these technologies will bring them to fruition (and profit) rapidly. Since the bushies leave all things to the marketplace, it's the only way we'll win.
More info:
www.energyandcapital.com
www.greenchipstocks.com

[Advocate123]

11:38 PM on 11/19/2007

You are wrong.

NASA just came out with a study that Debunks the IPCC

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131

[swift goat pet for truth]

11:16 PM on 11/19/2007

I was going to replace my incandesant light bulbs with florescent ones, but then I read where LED's were even more efficient, and that the new LED's were coming out in a few years. Your article inspired me to wait for the next few years. THANKS!