"Clearly it's hard to think how we could better present the case," said Brasseur, the Climate Service Center director. "The science has been very clear."
"It is now up for society to decide."
And signs do suggest society is starting to decide: China is talking with the U.S. on emissions reductions and has launched a Green Revolution with the goal of catching Europe by 2020. Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt of Sweden, who assumed the EU presidency in July, has called on European nations to tax carbon emissions regardless of global negotiations.
There is time, Brasseur said, but not much: If delegates cannot seal the deal in Copenhagen but can make sufficient progress to deliver an agreement within five years, the talks can be considered successful.
WRI's Morgan, who has spent a decade playing key roles at UN climate talks, takes a harder line. After December, there is not enough time to get a treaty ratified and in place by 2012, when Kyoto expires, she said. Countries and industries need to know what market mechanisms and signals will be in place post-Kyoto.
Amid the contention, there is one bright spot: Industrialized countries have realized they have an obligation to help the world's poor, said Huq, the London-based adaptation expert.
Of the many pieces to the climate treaty puzzle, this is the area closest to agreement, Huq said. He is confident Copenhagen will produce some consensus on this point.
"There is simply no way (delegates) can look themselves in the mirror and not do anything about it," he said. "This now is no longer disputed territory."
In some ways, that's the great irony of climate change. So many of the initial impacts from a carbon-intensive lifestyle are first hitting those who use the least amount of carbon: Drought in the Sahel, floods in Bangladesh, changing agriculture patterns in India, parts of Asia and Africa, increased water stress for millions living downslope of the Andes and Himalaya.
That will change, scientists predict, and discussion over how to adapt will move quickly from the Third World to the First.
Soon - absent steep cuts and the pressure of a global treaty - politicians across the United States will confront questions that make budget woes and health care costs seem downright quaint, said Brasseur.
"Where will I get my water? What is my strategy (for adaptation)? .... How am I going to have enough food to feed all of California?" he said, rattling off a hypothetical list.
By then the solutions may carry a frightful cost.
"The later we take action, the more we have (climate) impact," Brasseur said.
"And that impact is going to be irreversible."
This article originally appeared at The Daily Climate, the climate change news source published by Environmental Health Sciences, a nonprofit media company.
Subscription Center
See what we're tweeting about
15 Comments
Add CommentThe common element of many cults is threats of apocalyptic consequences of not drinking the Kool-aid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a geologist I'm dismayed that otherwise reputable science sites have promoted the non-science of global warning with the zeal of teenage groupies.
Climatology should be a science but has morphed into an ideology...or worse, akin to astrology.
if want the answer it's in magnet wave generator 's look it up
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI recall in the late 60's and early 70's hearing that if we did not do something quickly, we were facing a coming ice age. So we spent trillions erecting electrostatic precipitators, baghouses, and scrubbers that stripped that particulate from the exhaust gasses and eliminated the 'global chilling' effect that those little bits of gunk had. Crisis averted?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCould it be that we could slow the effect of global warming by simply turning off the emission control devices? An over simplification true, but sometimes the simple solutions are good solutions.
Few can argue that a global energy policy that is not carbon neutral, is unwise. However, can we realistically have a vibrant economy when the few remaining manufacturing jobs are driven to countries where environmental regulations either do not exist or are not enforced? I do not believe so.
I recall in the late 60's and early 70's hearing that if we did not do something quickly, we were facing a coming ice age. So we spent trillions erecting electrostatic precipitators, baghouses, and scrubbers that stripped that particulate from the exhaust gasses and eliminated the 'global chilling' effect that those little bits of gunk had. Crisis averted?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCould it be that we could slow the effect of global warming by simply turning off the emission control devices? An over simplification true, but sometimes the simple solutions are good solutions.
Few can argue that a global energy policy that is not carbon neutral, is unwise. However, can we realistically create and maintain have a growing economy when the few remaining manufacturing jobs are driven to countries where environmental regulations either do not exist or are not enforced? I do not believe so.
We have too much confidence in government and international agreements. The problem of climate change will be solved by technologies and demands of markets. It it too complex to be properly addressed by international agreement. It will be too easy to cheat.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKyoto was a major fraud. So will any agreement in Copenhagen. It is good to talk but let's not expect the hot air that will be created among the talkers in Copenhagen to really solve the problem of the hot air created by human activities.
WE NEED MORE HYPE LIKE THIS SO WE CAN SELL MORE PAPERS AND NEWS. PUT YOUR HEAD OUT THE WINDOW! IT'S RAINING ON MY GODDAMN CONVERTIBLE AND THE ROOFS DOWN.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is common knowledge that if you do nothing about an existing problem, it gets worse. That has been the norm throughout history. If we keep stoking billions of tons of pollutions into the air, water, and land and do nothing to curb our bad habits; soon, we will not be able to live here and we will bring about our own demise. We do not need to pollute and destroy the earth to survive and we cannot gently ease ourselves out of this mess in fifty years; we have the technology to do it quickly and that we must do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChevron and the Ser. Club met last night at the Commonwealth Center to discuss what can be done to speed up the cleaning process of our environment and they will be going to D.C. to protest the government giving welfare to the coal companys...it should be interesting in that these two opposits will achieve.
Q: "What Would Failure at Copenhagen Mean for Climate Change?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA1: Nothing for climate or climate change. For the UN, the IPCC and the EPA, a switch of emphasis to "Global Cooling".
For a really "cool" read:
Janssens, Jan. “SC24: Where Are The Sunspots?.” Powerpoint (PDF), VSW Urania, October 22, 2009. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/janssens_sc24uraniawebeng.pdf.
Watts, Anthony. “Jan Janssen’s presentation on Solar Cycle 24 hints at Dalton or Maunder type minimum ahead.” Blog. Watts Up With That?, November 8, 2009. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/08/jan-janssens-presentation-on-solar-cycle-24-hints-at-dalton-or-maunder-type-minimum-ahead/
The presentation: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/08/jan-janssens-presentation-on-solar-cycle-24-hints-at-dalton-or-maunder-type-minimum-ahead/
A2. For Scientific American, defection of subscribers
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is common knowledge that if you don't have a problem , that there always will people willing to help you create one, if the price is right! Scientist of the ilk of Al Gore will find the panic button - it follows the dollar symbol!
It is better to study the matter,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"common knowledge" - As "Every Thinking Person Knows", an appeal to "Consensus"
"pollutions" - False. CO2 is an indicator of EPA scientific corruption
"bad habits" - False in the CO2 case. Rather: efficient, beneficial, life-saving
"not be able to live here", "demise" - Proof other than falsified feedback parameters?
"pollute and destroy the earth" - see prior comments. Repetition does not increase validity
"we have the technology" - Other than nuclear, False. The Radical Left loathes Nuclear. Your recommendation for spinning reserves?
"welfare to the coal companys (sic)" - Cite source?
"these two opposits (sic)" - History contradicts "opposites". For example, Italy (Mussolini): "Syndicalist" or "Corporate" state. Look up for other examples.
The ever-growing hole in the ozone layer was luckily circumscribed by the international ban on CFCs. So the world can be decisive when there is a dangerous risk to the planet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe can be just as decisive about climate change at Copenhagen.
And here is what to do : Adopt biomass pyrolysis, which is adaptable at any scale, from farms to metropolises. It works, it is cheap and can be done now! See www.eprida.com and read all the technology pages done by this research group who have developed what is the only feasable method of curbing climate change.
If climate change deniers are right, (and scientific experts in their particular specialised climate domains consider that this is highly improbabile), no harm will be done. But as Climate change is very likely, biomass pyrolysis can redress the atmosphere at very little cost.
Re: raptordigits
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a physicist I am dismayed that a geologist would describe global warming as "non-science".
At this point, I would say that the biggest problem I see is that the developed nations (represented by the U.S.) and the developing nations (represented by China) face vastly different realities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you look at China, India, Brazil, SE Asia, Rwanda, Kenya, Etheopia and other developing nations, the story is NOT polar bears, carbon emissions, or some other EMOTIONAL catalyst for change. It is the every day reality that resources, when accessible, are often polluted. Polluted by energy intensive industries, by products of processes that create carbon (doesnt anyone say carbon dioxide anymore), and the solutions that they need are not to cap carbon emissions.. but to clean up processes that kick out various pollutants.
In the west, where people drink clean water from the tap and can take a jog under a clear blue sky, the reality and debate is very different. It is intangible. It is somewhere else, and affecting someone else& and it is driven by emotional messages of polar bears, rising seas, and other climate changing catastrophes. Catastrophes that, as we are seeing, bring out heated debates about motivations and do little to address the CORE issues.
Perhaps were the shoe on the other foot, and Al Gore were a resident of Xian, the messages would be less intangible.. and perhaps through a more personalized message of what climate change really means to YOUR FAMILY.. RIGHT NOW& things would get done.
But, that is not happening.
What is happening is that the media (who are largely just as ignorant of the real issues) are putting forward messages from the scientists, politicians, and finance community that individuals cannot do more than buy a hybrid car, wait for a wind turbine to be installed, and offset the rest. It is a problem that the traditional actors will solve for you, and all you need to do is stay home and watch it happen.
.. and nothing could be farther from the truth.
Based in China myself, and an active member of the sustainability community here, what I see getting done on the ground level is far more impressive than the investment columns would lead you to believe. Large scale investments in systems is occurring, investments that will yield positive social returns over the long term, and these investments are being made possible because the issues are PERSONAL.
So, going into COP 15, it is my hope that the various parties will find ways to turn this dialogue around. To move away from discussions focused solely on Carbon as THE problem, and understand that it is a BYPRODUCT of many problems.
At this point, I would say that the biggest problem I see is that the developed nations (represented by the U.S.) and the developing nations (represented by China) face vastly different realities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you look at China, India, Brazil, SE Asia, Rwanda, Kenya, Ethiopia and other developing nations, the story is NOT polar bears, carbon emissions, or some other EMOTIONAL catalyst for change. It is the every day reality that resources, when accessible, are often polluted. Polluted by energy intensive industries, by products of processes that create “carbon” (doesn’t anyone say carbon dioxide anymore), and the solutions that they need are not to “cap” carbon emissions.. but to clean up processes that kick out various pollutants.
In the west, where people drink clean water from the tap and can take a jog under a clear blue sky, the reality and debate is very different. It is intangible. It is somewhere else, and affecting someone else… and it is driven by emotional messages of polar bears, rising seas, and other climate changing catastrophes. Catastrophes that, as we are seeing, bring out heated debates about motivations and do little to address the CORE issues.
Perhaps were the shoe on the other foot, and Al Gore were a resident of Xi’an, the messages would be less intangible.. and perhaps through a more personalized message of what climate change really means to YOUR FAMILY.. RIGHT NOW… things would get done.
But, that is not happening.
What is happening is that the media (who are largely just as ignorant of the real issues) are putting forward messages from the scientists, politicians, and finance community that individuals cannot do more than buy a hybrid car, wait for a wind turbine to be installed, and offset the rest. It is a problem that the traditional actors will solve for you, and all you need to do is stay home and watch it happen.
.. and nothing could be farther from the truth.
Based in China myself, and an active member of the sustainability community here, what I see getting done on the ground level is far more impressive than the investment columns would lead you to believe. Large scale investments in systems is occurring, investments that will yield positive social returns over the long term, and these investments are being made possible because the issues are PERSONAL.
So, going into COP 15, it is my hope that the various parties will find ways to turn this dialogue around. To move away from discussions focused solely on Carbon as THE problem, and understand that it is a BYPRODUCT of many problems.
If Obama, including China, India and Russia, does not sign the Global Carbon Climate Tax Agreement in Copenhagen the USA has nothing to lose but only escape of Americans paying higher taxes with funds going to other counties. We're all already doing our part by recycling, using ethanol additive gasoline, not burning trash and buying hybrid/low emission cars.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe already have clean air (much, much cleaner than in previous years, especially when homes used coal furnaces and when the USA was an industrial country....do you remember! Climate temperature changes are common in history of our beloved and God given earth....Scientists have proven these trends and Climate Experts (other than UN Scientists and Al Gore who won't give up meat, mansion homes, and private jets.....crazy and RICH hypocrites) have also proven that a carbon tax against USA and other hard working countries will have no or nominal affect on earth temperature changes.
I love our God given earth as much as anybody but no one can convince me different that the Copenhagen Global Carbon Climate Tax Agreement is political and will only hurt the USA and diminish our personal American rights (taxes without representation), as well as our quality of living thru our wallets and personal savings.