Ben Nickell of GreenSteps asks whether Tony Blair is gambling with our future.
—
As blizzards sweep across parts of North America, leading US politicians are meeting legislators from the EU, China, Japan and India to try and break the deadlock in the international climate change debate. The meeting is an attempt to agree proposals for a new world deal on climate change for the forthcoming G8 summit.
Back in 2004, in a speech on climate change to celebrate the 10th anniversary of HRH the Prince of Wales’ Business and the Environment programme, Tony Blair said:
“The emission of greenhouse gases….is causing global warming at a rate that began as significant, has become alarming and is simply unsustainable in the long term. And by long term I do not mean centuries ahead. I mean within the lifetime of my children certainly; and possibly within my own. And by unsustainable, I do not mean a phenomenon causing problems of adjustment. I mean a challenge so far-reaching in its impact and irreversible in its destructive power, that it alters radically human existence…There is no doubt that the time to act is now.”
So he seems to understand the scale of the problem. Tony Blair now faces the challenge of brokering a deal which the US will agree to and yet which is meaningful in the face of growing urgency.
The figure being banded about is 3ºC. Mr Blair aims to restrict greenhouse gas emissions enough to limit the increase in temperature of the planet’s surface to 3ºC. It doesn’t sound like a lot, but what would happen to the planet if we allowed it to warm by 3ºC?
A widely accepted scientific view is that a 2ºC rise represents the threshold of ‘dangerous climate change’, beyond which ecosystems and food production systems will be unable to adapt. Placing a limit at 3ºC would therefore seem foolhardy. Certainly the Germans are up in arms about such a lax target. However, throw into the equation the reluctance of the US to even consider changing course on greenhouse gas emissions and it doesn’t seem so foolish after all. Obtaining any agreement from the US government which involves more challenging targets for emissions reduction seems eminently sensible. US climatologists hope that, even if President Bush continues to refuse mandatory emissions cuts, the next president will want to rejoin the mainstream global desire for action.
The US has signed the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which obliges rich nations to reduce emissions first. It’s therefore not surprising that China and India are outraged at the USA’s refusal to lead the way in emissions reduction. However, without commitment from both sides, any changes to policy by the US would be negated by the relocation of polluting industries to the emerging economies of China and India.
So it’s a classic chicken and egg situation. Someone has to take the lead. If Tony Blair could achieve some form of commitment from the USA, then at least the deadlock would be broken.
Is a 3ºC limit a foolish gamble or a smart manoeuver………….?