Everyone talks about the weather but nobody does anything about it, runs the old joke. Unfortunately, the result of the Kyoto climate summit does little to prove this wrong. Five years ago, at the Rio Earth Summit, the developed countries agreed to return their emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2 ), the major “greenhouse” gas, to 1990 levels by the year 2000. Since emissions have been increasing since then, mainly due to the USA, the target is already starting to look ambitious. Nevertheless, the Kyoto summit of signatories to the UN Convention on Climate Change met in December to consider how to achieve reductions in CO2 emissions to below 1990 levels.
The European Union (EU) nations were proposing a reduction in emissions by the industrialised countries of 15% by 2010 but would only go ahead with these reductions if the others agreed, too. Faced with a US position which essentially promised nothing, the conference finally agreed reductions of 7% by the US, 8% by the EU and most other smaller European nations, and 6% by Japan, Canada, Hungary and Poland. Russia and Ukraine were allowed a zero reduction target.
This agreement was described as “dirty dealing” by New Scientist, “a coup [which] allows the US to buy the right to pollute”. Let’s see how this is the case.
Firstly, the implosion of the former Soviet Union’s economy means that Russia’s CO2 emissions are now some 30% below 1990 levels. All well and good for the fight against the “greenhouse” effect, one might think. But Russia’s agreed target is the same level as in 1990, allowing it to either pump out masses more CO2 or to sell its emissions permit to the USA or Japan. That way, these countries can buy the right to pollute. Energy analysts estimate that they can thus increase their CO2 emissions by some 14% above their agreed targets.
Even without “emissions trading”, the Kyoto agreement will still leave total world CO2 emissions higher in 2010 than they were in 1990 whereas the goal is one of zero net CO2 emissions for the world taken as a whole! In fact, the ultimate goal should be one of CO2 consumption to get CO2 levels back to pre-industrial ones.
Of necessity, predictions about “global warming” are imprecise but certain interesting features emerge from a recent study by Karl, Nicholls and Gregory reported in Scientific American. Firstly, even small increases in average temperatures can cause a big jump in the number of very warm days. Secondly, rainfall should decrease at lower latitudes and increase at higher ones. Average precipitation should increase, though, because a greater average temperature means more evaporation. A lot of the extra water will fall in less populated parts of the world, much of it as snow.
Thirdly, the models predict an increased number of heavy downpours with accompanying flood damage and erosion, with some evidence for drier soils, nevertheless, because of increased evaporation.
The overall picture is one of massive disruption in the most highly populated areas of the world.
