COP21: Paris deal far too weak to prevent devastating
climate change, academics warn
Exclusive: Some of the world’s top climate scientists have
launched a blistering attack on the deal Tom Bawden
The Paris Agreement to tackle global warming has actually
dealt a major setback to the fight against climate change, leading academics
will warn.
The deal may have been trumpeted by world leaders but is far
too weak to do help prevent devastating harm to the Earth, it is claimed.
In a joint letter to The Independent, some of the world’s
top climate scientists launch a blistering attack on the deal, warning that it
offers “false hope” that could ultimately prove to be counterproductive in the
battle to curb global warming.
The letter, which carries eleven signatures including
professors Peter Wadhams and Stephen Salter, of the universities of Cambridge
and Edinburgh, warns that the Paris Agreement is dangerously inadequate.
Because of the Paris failure, the academics say the world’s
only chance of saving itself from rampant global warming is a giant push into
controversial and largely untested geo-engineering technologies that seek to
cool the planet by manipulating the Earth’s climate system.
The scientists, who also include University of California
professor James Kennett, argues that “deadly flaws” in the deal struck in the
French capital last month mean it gives the impression that global warming is
now being properly addressed when in fact the measures fall woefully short of
what is needed to avoid runaway climate change.
This means that the kind of extreme action that needs to be
taken immediately to have any chance of avoiding devastating global warming,
such as massive and swift cuts to worldwide carbon emissions – which only fell
by about 1 per cent last year – will not now be taken, they say.
“The hollow cheering of success at the end of the Paris
Agreement proved yet again that people will hear what they want to hear and
disregard the rest. What they disregarded were the deadly flaws lying just
beneath its veneer of success,” the academics write in the the letter, also
signed by Dr Alan Gadian of the University of Leeds and Professor Paul Beckwith
of the University of Ottowa in Canada.
“What people wanted to hear was that an agreement had been
reached on climate change that would save the world while leaving lifestyles
and aspirations unchanged. The solution it proposes is not to agree on an
urgent mechanism to ensure immediate cuts in emissions, but to kick the can
down the road.”
The authors don’t dispute the huge diplomatic achievement of
the Paris Agreement – getting 195 world leaders to sign up to a global warming
target of between 1.5C to 2C and pledging action to cut carbon emissions.
But they say the actions agreed are far too weak to get
anywhere close to that target. Furthermore, the pledges countries have made to
cut their carbon emissions are not sufficiently binding to ensure they are met,
while the Paris Agreement will not force them to “rachet” them up as often as
they need to.
Of even greater concern, they say, is the lack of dramatic
immediate action that was agreed to tackle global warming. The Paris Agreement
only comes into force in 2020 – by which point huge amounts of additional CO2
will have been pumped into the atmosphere. The signatories claim this makes it
all but impossible to limit global warming to 2C, let alone 1.5C.
“The Paris Agreement’s heart was in the right place but the
content is worse than inept. It was a real triumph for international diplomacy
and sends a strong message that the sceptics have lost their case and that the
science is correct on climate change. The rest is little more than fluff and
risks locking in failure,” said Professor Kevin Anderson of Manchester
University, who has not signed the letter but agrees with its argument.
READ MORE
Climate change deal ‘obscures problems’
Tories recycle cash for overseas aid to pay for Paris
climate deal
‘Why students must ensure governments achieve climate
justice’
Paris deal ‘won’t save island nations’, Kiribati says
Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics at the University
of Cambridge and a signatory of the letter, said the prospects for curbing
global warming following the Paris Agreement are now so dire that he advocates
a charge into geo-engineering – not something he recommends lightly. “Other
things being equal I’m not a great fan of geo-engineering but I think it
absolutely necessary given the situation we’re in. It’s a sticking plaster
solution. But you need it because looking at the world, nobody’s instantly
changing their pattern of life,” Prof Wadhams said.
Pumping huge amounts of water spray into clouds to make them
bigger and brighter so that they reflect sunlight back into the atmosphere –
known as Marine Cloud Brightening – offers the best geo-engineering prospect,
he said.
Geo-engineering technologies – which also envisage putting
giant mirrors in space or whitening the surface of the ocean to deflect
incoming solar radiation back into space – are controversial because of fears
that they are technically demanding, would be extremely expensive while
interfering with the climate system could have damaging unintended consequences
for the planet.
A spokesman for the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change said: “The Paris
Agreement is a resounding declaration of political intent by all the world’s
nations. We are fully confident that countries are not sitting on their
haunches waiting until 2020 before doing anything,” he said.
The letter
The hollow cheering of success at the end of COP21 agreement
proved yet again that people will hear what they want to hear and disregard the
rest. What people wanted to hear was that an agreement had been reached on
climate change that would save the world while leaving lifestyles and
aspirations unchanged.
What they disregarded were the deadly flaws lying just
beneath its veneer of success. As early
as the third page of the draft agreement is the acknowledgment that its CO2
target won’t keep the global temperate rise below 2 deg C, the level that was
once set as the critical safe limit. The solution it proposes is not to agree
on an urgent mechanism to ensure immediate cuts in emissions, but to kick the
can down the road by committing to calculate a new carbon budget for a 1.5 deg
C temperature increase that can be talked about in 2020.
Given that we can’t agree on the climate models or the
CO2budget to keep temperatures rises to 2 deg C, then we are naïve to think we
will agree on a much tougher target in five years when, in all likelihood, the
exponentially increasing atmospheric CO2 levels mean it will be too late.
More ominously, these inadequate targets require mankind to
do something much more than cut emissions with a glorious renewable technology
programme that will exceed any other past human endeavour. They also require
carbon to be sucked out the air. The favoured method is to out-compete the
fossil fuel industry by providing biomass for power stations. This involves
rapidly growing trees and grasses faster than nature has ever done on land we
don’t have, then burning it in power stations that will capture and compress
the CO2 using an infrastructure we don’t have and with technology that won’t
work on the scale we need and to finally store it in places we can’t find. To maintain the good news agenda, all of this
was omitted from the agreement.
The roar of devastating global storms has now drowned the
false cheer from Paris and brutally brought into focus the extent of our
failure to address climate change. The unfortunate truth is that things are
going to get much worse. The planet’s excess heat is now melting the Arctic Ice
cap like a hot knife through butter and is doing so in the middle of winter.
Unless stopped, this Arctic heating will lead to a rapid release of the methane
clathrates from the sea floor of the Arctic and herald the next phase of
catastrophically intense climate change that our civilisation will not survive.
The time for the wishful thinking and blind optimism that
has characterised the debate on climate change is over. The time for hard facts
and decisions is now. Our backs are
against the wall and we must now start the process of preparing for
geo-engineering. We must do this in the knowledge that its chances of success are
small and the risks of implementation are great.
We must look at the full spectrum of geoengineering. This
will cover initiatives that increase carbon sequestration by restoration of
rain forests to the seeding of oceans. It will extend to solar radiation
management techniques such as artificially whitening clouds and, in extremis,
replicating the aerosols from volcanic activity. It will have to look at what
areas that we selectively target, such as the methane emitting regions of the
Arctic and which areas we avoid.
The high political and environmental risks associated with
this must be made clear so that it is never used as an alternative to making
the carbon cuts that are urgently needed. Instead cognisance of these must be
used to challenge the narrative of wishful thinking that has infested the
climate change talks for the past twenty one years and which reached its zenith
with the CO21 agreement. In today’s international vacuum on this, it is
imperative that our government takes a lead.
Signed by
Professor Paul Beckwith, University of Ottowa
Professor Stephen Salter – Edinburgh University
Professor Peter Wadhams – Cambridge University
Professor James Kennett of University of California.
Dr Hugh Hunt – Cambridge University
Dr. Alan Gadian -Senior Scientist, Nation Centre for
Atmospheric Sciences, University of Leeds
Dr. Mayer Hillman - Senior Fellow Emeritus of the Institute
of the Policy Studies Institute
Dr. John Latham – University of Manchester
Aubrey Meyer –
Director, Global Commons Institute.
John Nissen - Chair
Arctic Methane Emergency Group
Kevin Lister - Author of "The Vortex of Violence and
why we are losing the war on climate change" tomado de envio en red foroba
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario