|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Environment : International Relations : Political-Economy |
|
'US Climate Policy Bigger Threat to World than Terrorism' |
Current rating: 0 |
by Steve Connor
(No verified email address) |
09 Jan 2004
|
|
"In my view, climate change is the most severe problem that we are facing today, more serious even than the threat of terrorism," Sir David King says. |
Tony Blair's chief scientist has launched a withering attack on President George Bush for failing to tackle climate change, which he says is more serious than terrorism.
Sir David King, the Government's chief scientific adviser, says in an article today in the journal Science (http://www.sciencemag.org/) that America, the world's greatest polluter, must take the threat of global warming more seriously.
"In my view, climate change is the most severe problem that we are facing today, more serious even than the threat of terrorism," Sir David says.
The Bush administration was wrong to pull out of the Kyoto protocol, the international effort to limit the emission of greenhouse gases, and wrong to imply the protocol could adversely affect the US economy, Sir David says. "As the world's only remaining superpower, the United States is accustomed to leading internationally co-ordinated action. But the US government is failing to take up the challenge of global warming.
"The Bush administration's strategy relies largely on market-based incentives and voluntary action ... But the market cannot decide that mitigation is necessary, nor can it establish the basic international framework in which all actors can take their place."
Results of a major study showed yesterday that more than a million species will become extinct as a result of global warming over the next 50 years. Sir David says the Bush administration is wrong to dispute the reality of global warming. The 10 hottest years on record started in 1991 and, worldwide, average temperatures had risen by 0.6C in the past century.
Sea levels were rising, ice caps were melting and flooding had become more frequent. The Thames barrier was used about once a year in the 1980s to protect London but now it was used more than six times a year.
"If we could stabilize the atmosphere's carbon dioxide concentration at some realistically achievable and relatively low level, there is still a good chance of mitigating the worst effects of climate change."
But countries such as Britain could not solve the problem of global warming in isolation, particularly when the US was by far the biggest producer of greenhouse gases on the planet. "The United Kingdom is responsible for only 2 per cent of the world's emissions, the United States for more than 20 per cent (although it contains only 4 per cent of the world's population)," Sir David says.
"The United States is already in the forefront of the science and technology of global change, and the next step is surely to tackle emissions control too. We can overcome this challenge only by facing it together, shoulder to shoulder. We in the rest of the world are now looking to the US to play its leading part."
Advisers to President Bush have suggested climate change is a natural phenomenon and criticized climate researchers for suggesting that rises in global temperatures are the result of man-made emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.
But Sir David says the "causal link" between man-made emissions and global warming is well-established and scientists cannot explain the general warming trend over the past century without invoking human-induced effects.
The Cambridge academic, who was born in South Africa and emigrated to Britain, implies that the US has a moral obligation to follow the UK's lead in trying to limit the damage resulting from rising world temperatures and climate change.
"As a consequence of continued warming, millions more people around the world may in future be exposed to the risk of hunger, drought, flooding, and debilitating diseases such as malaria," Sir David says.
"Poor people in developing countries are likely to be most vulnerable. For instance, by 2080, if we assume continuing growth rates in consumption of fossil fuels, the numbers of additional people exposed to frequent flooding in the river delta areas of the world would be counted in hundreds of millions assuming no adaptation measures were implemented."
President Bush has said more research on global warming is needed before the US will consider the sort of action needed to comply with the Kyoto protocol, but Sir David says that by then it could be too late. "Delaying action for decades, or even just years, is not a serious option. I am firmly convinced that if we do not begin now, more substantial, more disruptive, and more expensive change will be needed later on."
Britain is committed to cutting its emissions of greenhouse gases by 60 per cent from 1990 levels by around 2050 and believes other developed countries, such as the US, should follow suit. Bush officials say that would damage their economy and provide an unfair advantage to the country's international competitors. But Sir David says that it is a "myth" that reducing greenhouse gas emissions makes us poorer. "Taking action to tackle climate change can create economic opportunities and higher living standards," he says.
A spokeswoman for the US State Department said that she was unable to comment directly on Sir David's article.
© 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd
http://news.independent.co.uk |
Copyright by the author. All rights reserved. |
Comments
|
An Unnatural Disaster: Global Warming to Kill Off 1 Million Species |
by Paul Brown
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
09 Jan 2004
|
Scientists Shocked by Results of Research; 1 in 10 animals and plants extinct by 2050
Climate change over the next 50 years is expected to drive a quarter of land animals and plants into extinction, according to the first comprehensive study (http://www.nature.com/nature/links/040108/040108-1.html) into the effect of higher temperatures on the natural world.
The sheer scale of the disaster facing the planet shocked those involved in the research. They estimate that more than 1 million species will be lost by 2050.
The results are described as "terrifying" by Chris Thomas, professor of conservation biology at Leeds University, who is lead author of the research from four continents published today in the magazine Nature.
Much of that loss - more than one in 10 of all plants and animals - is already irreversible because of the extra global warming gases already discharged into the atmosphere. But the scientists say that action to curb greenhouse gases now could save many more from the same fate.
It took two years for the largest global collaboration of experts to make the first major assessment of the effect of climate change on six biologically rich regions of the world taking in 20% of the land surface.
The research in Europe, Australia, Central and South America, and South Africa, showed that species living in mountainous areas had a greater chance of survival because they could simply move uphill to get cooler.
Those in flatter areas such as Brazil, Mexico and Australia, were more vulnerable, faced with the impossible task of moving thousands of miles to find suitable conditions.
Birds, which had the greatest chance of escape, could in theory move to a more suitable climate but the trees and other habitat they needed for survival could not keep pace and all would die.
Professor Thomas said: "When scientists set about research they hope to come up with definite results, but what we found we wish we had not. It was far, far worse than we thought, and what we have discovered may even be an underestimate."
Among the more startling findings of the scientists was that of 24 species of butterfly studied in Australia, all but three would disappear in much of their current range, and half would become extinct.
In South Africa major conservation areas such as Kruger national park risked losing up to 60% of the species under their protection.
In the Cerrado region of Brazil - also known as the Brazilian Savannah - which covers one fifth of the country, a study of 163 tree species showed that up to 70 would become extinct. Many of the plants and trees that exist in this savannah occur nowhere else in the world. The scientists concluded that 1,700 to 2,100 of these species - between 39% and 48% of the total - would disappear.
In Europe, the continent least affected by climate change, survival rates were better, but even here under the higher estimates of climate change a quarter of the birds could become extinct, and between 11% and 17% of plant species.
One British example is the Scottish crossbill which is found nowhere else. The future climate in Scotland will be different and the birds will be unable to survive, especially with rivals from warmer climes moving in.
The crossbill would need to move to Iceland, but currently there are virtually no trees and suitable food. The scientists conclude: "It seems unlikely that the species will manage to move to Iceland."
In Mexico, studies in the Chihuahuan desert confirmed that on flatter land extinction was more likely because a small change in climate would require migrations over vast distances for survival. One third of 1,870 species examined would be in trouble and three small rodents, the smokey pocket gopher, Alcorn's pocket gopher, jico deer mouse would go the way of the dodo.
In South Africa, where many popular garden plants originate, 300 plant species were studied and more than one third were expected to die out, including South Africa's national flower, the king protea.
Commenting on the findings in Nature, two other scientists, J Alan Pounds and Robert Puschendorf, who has studied the extinction of frogs in the mountains of Costa Rica since the 1980s as a result of climate change, say their colleagues have been "optimistic".
When other factors as well as increased temperatures were taken into account the extinctions would probably be greater.
"The risk of extinction increases as global warming interacts with other factors - such as landscape modification, species invasions and build-up of carbon dioxide - to disrupt communities and ecological interactions."
So many species are already destined for extinction because it takes at least 25 years for the greenhouse effect - or the trapping of the sun's rays by the carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide already added to the air - to have its full effect on the planet. Deserts, grasslands and forests are already changing to make survival impossible.
The continuous discharging of more greenhouse gases, particularly by the USA, is making matters considerably worse. The research says if mankind continues to burn oil, coal and gas at the current rate, up to one third of all life forms will be doomed by 2050.
Prof Thomas said it was urgent to switch from fossil fuels to a non-carbon economy as quickly as possible. "It is possible to drastically reduce the output of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and this research makes it imperative we do it as soon as possible. If we can stabilize the climate and even reverse the warming we could save these species, but we must start to act now."
If conservation groups wanted to save species they should devote at least half their energies to political campaigning to reduce global warming because that was the greatest single threat to survival of the species.
John Lanchbery, climate change campaigner for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, agreed: "This is a deeply depressing paper. President Bush risks having the biggest impact on wildlife since the meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs.
"At best, in 50 years, a host of wildlife will be committed to extinction because of human-induced climate change. At worst, the outcome does not bear thinking about. Drastic action to cut emissions is clearly needed by everyone, but especially the USA."
© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk |
|
Re: 'US Climate Policy Bigger Threat to World than Terrorism' |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
10 Jan 2004
|
Were'nt you guys the same people who predicted that by the year 1990 that the world would be in an "Ice Age"? Is it not the same scientist who predicted the world would run out of food because of overpopulation? How about the prediction that we would run out of fossil fuel before the year 2000.
Forgive me for not getting all in lather about your latest prediction but your "sky is falling science" combined with your batting average quite frankly sucks.
The fact remains that the scietific community has not concluded that Global Warming exists if at all. Perhaps if someone could accurately predict the weather for next Tuesday, I might be willing to look into your predictions twenty, fourty and even fifty years down the road.
Jack |
|
