The latest climate-modelling projections underline the potentially catastrophic impact of global warming. The implications for civic and political action are profound, writes Paul Rogers

THE approach to the United Nations climate-change summit in Copenhagen on December 7-18 is mired in controversy as blocs of states vie with each other to determine the real agenda. The multiple interests involved range from elite trading networks and powerful oil producers to small-island states in the global south. The underlying reality is a deep-seated inequality in bargaining power in which the United States and leading European Union member-states can assemble delegations of a hundred or more specialist advisers, whereas the poorest states may have two or three diplomats with no special help. The stark injustice is reinforced by the fact that the climate dynamics of the world’s environment put the majority world most at risk.
   The beginning of progress in redressing current dangers and unfairness is accurate information and sound analysis. There have been great advances here since the significance of atmospheric carbon accumulation was registered in the mid-1970s, around the time of the original study of The Limits to Growth. At that time, most analyses predicted that climate change would have its dominant impact on the temperate latitudes of north and south. In part this was because very long-term natural changes in climate (across millions of years) appeared to have had little impact on the tropics and subtropics. When the British landmass was covered in ice and snow around 11,000 years ago, for example, the climate of sub-Saharan Africa was not greatly different to what it is today. The conclusion reached was that the regions likely to experience the largest climate- change impacts were also among the world’s richest – and thus would be best able to adjust.
   The next generation saw improvements in climate-change modelling that by the early 1990s had overturned this thinking. There was now a recognition that the tropical and subtropical landmasses would indeed be greatly affected, though less by a process of warming than by major changes in world rainfall distribution; the expectation being that more of the world’s rain would fall over the oceans and the northern and southern polar regions, and far less over the tropics and sub-tropics (see David Rind, ‘Drying out the tropics’, New Scientist, May 6, 1995). This ‘drying out’ of the tropics would – if not prevented by radical cuts in carbon emissions – drastically reduce crop yields. With two-thirds of the world’s people dependent on local food production, the consequences could be disastrous.
   
   The sinking road
   SOME current analysis on climate change also predicts increasing variations in rainfall distribution, part of a damaging global asymmetry in temperature-related trends. A study by Britain’s Met Office made public on September 28 assesses several recent climate-change models in terms of the consequences of a 4ºC overall rise in temperature (using 1980 as the baseline of comparison). This may seem alarmist; but since average temperatures in 1980-2009 have already risen around 0.7ºC, and since there is a very long time delay between cutting carbon emissions and containing climate change, the approach is actually realistic. The projection is quite properly indicative of the world as it could look in 2055 unless there are radical cuts in carbon-emissions that go a very long way beyond current plans (see Shanta Barley, ‘A World 4ºC Warmer’, New Scientist, October 3).
   The asymmetry of impact predicted by this recent modelling is very significant. Many parts of the world will warm relatively slowly; much of the southern ocean will become only marginally warmer; most other oceans (the Arctic excepted) will warm by 2-3ºC compared with 2009 levels. Some continental landmasses will experience a slightly below-average rise; in this category will be the southern part of South America, parts of southern India, and Southeast Asia and Australia. Even so, these regions still face temperature increases of 3ºC or more, leading to dangerous shifts in climate, while the ocean-warming will intensify tropical storms and lift sea-levels.
   This is serious enough, but the modelling should cause even greater concern in relation to the projected impact on other landmasses and the Arctic. Much of Amazonia, and central and north America, is expected to warm by around 10ºC on average on current trends; as will southern Africa, central and eastern Europe, much of the middle east, and central and north Asia right through to the Pacific. The temperature increases across the Arctic could even exceed 12ºC, leading to wholesale melting of the Greenland and Canadian Arctic island icecaps and major increases in sea-levels across the world. These are potentially catastrophic changes.
   It is possible that further modelling will lead to some modification of these results, and there is no pretence that climate-change predictions made at a single point in time are immutable. But the work that has been done suggests with reasonable certainty that the continuation of present trends will carry two major consequences.
   The first is that the impact of climate change will be highly variable across the world. Its effect on land-masses will be massive, on the oceans (apart from the Arctic) slightly less so. The most worrying in ecological terms among all the expected outcomes would be the destruction of the Amazonian rainforest, a process that would accelerate the existing impacts of human activity.
   The second is that many of the poorest regions of the world, those least able to cope with climate change, will suffer the most (see Camilla Toulmin, Climate Change in Africa [Zed Books, 2009]). The severity of the effects can be gauged if it is recalled that the world’s tropical and sub-tropical land-masses are home to a majority of the world’s people and produce almost all of their food.
   
   The saving pressure
   WHAT are the implications of this analysis for the Copenhagen summit? It is important to emphasise the context of the meeting, namely that it is part of a process rather than an isolated event. This in turn means that not everything depends on its outcome alone – but the larger picture is such that the process does need to be accelerated in 2010-12 in order to prevent catastrophic impacts by 2040-50. The radical action required includes a reduction in carbon- emissions by industrialised and industrialising states amounting to 40 per cent by 2020 and 80 per cent by 2030.
   This may seem from the perspective of the present – including the widespread low expectations of the Copenhagen meeting – impossibly idealistic. But there are also many hopeful indicators, both at grassroots and government levels. The emergence of a new generation of determined and organised climate-change activists in a number of western countries, prepared to take non-violent direct action is one such; the embrace by some politicians of the need for bold action, after the ‘lost decade’ of George W Bush, is another. The developments in China are especially interesting; the official Chinese stance may foreground demands that western states curb their emissions while allowing China’s economy to catch up, but on the ground there are signs of an embrace of wind-power, photovoltaics and solar-thermal systems, as well as efforts at least to curb the increase in carbon-emissions.
   But for large-scale and comprehensive progress to occur, nothing less than a reworking of the structures of the global economy that addresses the issues of socio-economic divisions and environmental constraints is needed. Here too there are positive signals, such as the support by British prime minister Gordon Brown (at the G20 finance ministers’ meeting in Scotland on November 7) for a Tobin-like tax on financial transactions. This, from the leader of one of the world’s larger economies, represents a near-astonishing breakthrough whose impact among financial analysts is just beginning to be felt (see Saskia Sassen, ‘A global financial detox’, September 3).
   Beyond this, the economic shift of the coming generation must be grounded in a serious analysis of the essentials of the new green economy. The work being done by the London-based New Economics Foundation (NEF) – for example, in its new ‘great transition’ project – is just one welcome indicator. Much more research is needed, but even the initial analysis by the NEF is enough to show that ‘blue-sky’ thinking can also be deeply practical.
   Copenhagen may not achieve much, but this itself may not be fatal; for in terms of preventing the extremes of climate change, what happens elsewhere may well turn out to be more vital. The work of independent think-tanks (such as Sustainablesecurity.org) and dedicated activists could, in combination, become a singularly powerful force; the response of enlightened political leaderships could prove invaluable. But these agencies will need an infusion of more energy and broad-based support to enable the pressure for fundamental change to reach a tipping-point.
   openDemocracy, November 13. Paul Rogers is professor in the department of peace studies at Bradford University, northern England.

It is clear that any agreement reached at Copenhagen will only be effective if the world’s major polluters, China and the US, sign up. Even with these two on board however, progress cannot be made without significant contributions from developing nations, writes Mohua Rashid

LATE last month the cabinet of the Maldives held a meeting several metres below sea-level. The low-lying islands have yet, however, to be swamped by rising sea levels and the meeting is being held only to draw attention to the potential watery end to the islands.
   A stunt maybe, but rising sea-levels, caused by global warming, are a very real danger to many countries.
   Bangladesh, like the Maldives, is one such country under threat. With most of the country sitting at or just above sea-level, merely a 1metre rise in sea level could see 17 per cent of Bangladesh disappear beneath the waves; land for rice farming would be reduced by half.
   Rising sea levels are not the only environmental threat to Bangladesh. Climate change is causing increasingly unpredictable weather that could see an increase in violence and frequency of the tropical cyclones that bring devastation to millions of Bangladeshis.
   At the end of this year another meeting will take place in Copenhagen on the issue of climate change. Some 190 countries will meet to discuss the culmination of the 2007 Bali Climate Change Roadmap.
   The aim of this meeting is to design a global framework for emissions reductions and replace the Kyoto Treaty that expires in 2012. The agreements that are made could have a real impact on reducing the climate change threat faced by Bangladesh and countries in similar positions. It is an opportunity not to be missed.
   ACCA (the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants), the global body for accountants, has several recommendations that world leaders should keep in mind when reaching their agreements.
   The recent global economic problems may increase the reluctance of some countries to commit their time, effort, and funds to combat climate change. This would be a mistake. Climate change and the economic crisis are problems as grave as each other.
   Indeed, the global economic problems are not a roadblock to action on climate change; they are an opportunity. Global leaders must rebuild global markets and when they do so they can mould them in ways sympathetic to combating climate change. The chance to make fundamental changes to financial systems may not come again for a long time.
   One solution that those meeting in Copenhagen should consider is the introduction of a global carbon market. A carbon market is already in operation in the EU and similar schemes have been proposed in the US, New Zealand, Japan, and Australia. By setting caps for acceptable emissions a degree of certainty can be achieved over emissions reductions, while simultaneously reducing the cost of reductions.
   However, different markets in different parts of the world have different prices for carbon. This encourages the movement of polluters around the globe as they seek out the cheapest places to pollute.
   A global market, with a uniform carbon price, could prevent this. However, it is important that developed nations provide support for developing countries to help them participate in such a scheme.
   The involvement of developing nations, such as Bangladesh, in such a scheme could see significant financial flows from developed to developing economies, enabling the building of ‘green’ capacity in developing nations and increased engagement with global markets.
   These markets, and the emissions within them, must be completely measurable, verifiable, and have clear requirements for monitoring and reporting. Accountants will play a key role in overseeing business involvement in carbon markets.
   For reductions to be successful businesses must provide structured carbon and sustainability reports, while environmental regulators should work with international accounting standard setters to develop a universally applicable climate change reporting standard for all organisations.
   Governments must review the incentives provided small business corporate taxation systems to increase investment in green technologies.
   It is clear that any agreement reached at Copenhagen will only be effective if the world’s major polluters, China and the US, sign up. Even with these two on board however, progress cannot be made without significant contributions from developing nations.
   ACCA is concerned that without a coordinated strategy to tackle the financial crisis with sustainable efforts, the possibility still exists that stimulus and recovery packages may lock us into the root causes of climate change. If we follow the model of the global banking bailout, we can achieve a sustainable, low-carbon, climate resilient future.
   The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) estimates that even if all developed countries reduced their emissions to zero, the world would still see considerably more than 2°c of warming. Bangladesh would see those threatened sea-level rises and increases in violent weather.
   The developed world is in a position to help however. Technical and financial assistance, partnerships, joint ventures, and private investment must be forthcoming. Private sector support will be vital and measures must be put in place by the developed world to encourage investment in the developing world.
   Action on climate change is needed now and Copenhagen presents the perfect opportunity to take that action. Accountants, businesses, governments, developed nations, and developing nations all have a part to play. Burdens must be shared, assistance given, and responsibility taken.
   Underwater cabinet meetings must not become a reality.
   Mohua Rashid is country manager, ACCA Bangladesh

Two more killed in ‘crossfire’

As it seems, ‘crossfire’ is turning into a preferred option to the law enforcing agencies to maintain the ‘law and order’. But this extrajudicial killing evinces the powerlessness of the people in a democratic country. One of the principle maxims of natural justice ‘man cannot be the judge of his own cause’ — is being violated by ‘crossfire’; ‘shootout’; or ‘encounter’. Triggering a crossfire competition among law enforcement agencies is not only transmuting them into a de facto death squad but also undermining the role of judiciary in safeguarding the right to life and protection of life which are engrafted in Articles 31 and 32 of the Constitution.
   A student
   University of Dhaka

---