Climate Change

So here is how it all began.

It was a long time ago and God was in the final stages of assembling all the animals.

Working from a large pile of pre-assembled organs and limbs, She had carefully constructed the land mammals using a similar plan for each (with some small modifications): four legs (some short, some long), two eyes (various shades), two ears (some powerful, some less so), a range of noses, tails and other attributes, and a variety of decorations (hair, stripes, scales and so forth) and brain sizes.

Then She turned to the marine animals. She quickly realized that they did not need legs. Instead she made the fish stream-lined and finned, and able to quickly cut through the dense medium of the water (something she had made earlier and which she liked so much that she filled most of the planet with it).

She briefly experimented with the whales but, after a while, took their little legs away too. They really were not needed in the watery world.

Finally, when God had almost finished, She stopped to review what she had made, but realized that there remained a pile of parts that she had not used. Many legs were left over. So she took these and using groups of five she made the star-fishes, the sea-stars and, rolling five legs into a tight ball and adding some left-over spines, she made the sea-urchins.

God looked at all that She had done, and thought that it was good. She had no idea that the difference She had made between the marine animals and the land ones would lead to so much trouble in the future.

Hundreds of millions of years passed. In the dawn of a new age, the human species (by now globally dominant and hugely destructive) was meeting to review the fate of some of the others, including several marine ones, and maybe it was the difference between the animals in the sea and the animals of the land that led to the differences in the ways that they decided they should be treated.

The meeting was the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES) and it met in Doha, in Qatar in March 2010, where a variety of issues were on a packed agenda. Here agreements could be reached to protect species from international trade, and foremost in these issues was the question of the Atlantic blue-fin tuna – a large, fast-moving and delicious species. The proposal came from Monaco and after almost no debate, was profoundly defeated by a vote of 68 to 20. (It would have needed the support of two-thirds of the nations attending the Doha conference to succeed).
In fact there were thirteen proposals for marine species protection at this CITES conference (more than ever before) and all ultimately failed.

There are various tuna species. These tasty fish ultimately find their way into many human meals, from sandwiches to sushi and expensive sashimi. In the last fifty or so years, 90% of the big predatory fish (including the tuna) have vanished from the seas; the seemingly insatiable human appetite for these animals has virtually wiped them out in a single human generation. The Bluefin tuna is so prized that it can sell for several hundred dollars a kilogramme and a single Bluefin weighing in at 262kg fetched a near-record 16.28mn yen ($175,000) at an auction at Tokyo's Tsukiji fish market two months before the Doha meeting.

The proposal to protect them at the CITES conference was a last ditch stand to save them and Japan has been largely credited with blocking the proposal. Given Japan’s dependence on marine foods, its ability to corral the votes of many allied nations and its fierce opposition to protection for marine species, as evidenced by its actions concerning whales and whaling, this was not perhaps surprising.

The loosers at this particular CITES conference, in addition to the tuna, included the sharks and the corals. Perhaps even more surprising was that the polar bear proposal from the United States also failed. (The bear is very much an animal of the frozen sea, even if it has four legs, and maybe its honorary marine status helped to crash the trade ban proposal). Given the bear’s status as the most obvious and immediate victim of climate change, the failure of countries to agree to address the trade threat to its survival is all the more remarkable. This also bodes badly for other species which may have their survival truncated by climate change combined with international trade.

A few species did gain new protection: an endangered salamander from Iran and the Bolivian rhinoceros beetle were added to the lists of the protected. (Japan presumably has no interest in eating either in the immediate future.)  A proposal for a one-off sale of elephant ivory from Zambia and Tanzania was defeated and more action was called for to protect rhinoceroses, but these positive developments for the terrestrial animals stand in stark contrast to the thirteen defeated pro-conservation proposals.    

Perhaps God is looking down and wondering where She went wrong. Perhaps She is watching the tuna merchants hording the flesh of these increasingly expensive fishes in their freezers against the day when extinction will make their stores even more valuable and a tuna sandwich will become a luxury for the privileged few alone to nibble on.  

In a follow up to my recent post on the issue of climate degradation I noted two features in this week's New Scientist Magazine that i thought might interest you.

Firstly, further evidence is coming to light that methane is being released from under the Arctic Ocean. Alaskan based scientists have discovered over 100 hot-spots where methane is leaking from seabed permafrost to form areas of seawater at eight times the level of expected dilution in surrounding Arctic waters. Estimates suggest that 7 million tonnnes are being released a year at the moment, but as the Arctic warms up this could accelerate, contributing to rapid climate degradation.

At the same time three US states, Texas, Louisiana and South Dakota, have told their schools that they have to teach climate change scepticism. In the land of the 'First Amendment' it appears that states can decide what science is relevant, and what is not, and dance closely with the Constitution to insist that a political view is promoted in schools. So, whilst UK schools can debate the issue, with all points of view able to be discussed by enquiring students based on the evidence they can find; in South Dakota the state legislature has decided that the science is 'unresolved' and is 'complicated and prejudiced'. The legislature bill also says that climate change debate is 'political'.

These phrases from our state governments are political in their own right and I charge that they challenge the fundamental concept of Freedom of Speech. How can our legislators, local, state, federal or inter-governmental, insist that the science is 'prejudiced' unless they have already decided it is 'prejudiced' against what they wish students and young people to believe.

I for one thought the USA was founded on the right to oppose tyranny; but the modern tyranny of thought control over our children is maybe of more concern than any British musket ever could be.

Stop telling us what to believe, and let us decide ourselves.

Quite a few people have been looking at the very cold weather around Europe of the last few weeks and suggesting that this is disproving the notion that we are being affected by climate change. Their theory is that this is a sign that the planet is not really warming up. Sadly they are wrong.

It is not cold everywhere in the world at this time and, in fact, in North-east America, Canada, North Africa, the Mediterranean, and south-west Asia have all recently seen temperatures above normal. In some places this has been by more than 5 °C, and in parts of northern Canada, by more than 10 °C.

The immediate reason for the very cold weather in much of Europe at this time is that the air stream has been coming to us from the North. More usually it comes from the west in the winter and is warmed by the relatively warm Atlantic. (Typically this gives the UK milder winters than continental Europe.) For the last few weeks the Atlantic air movement has been ‘blocked’ and cold air has been flowing down from the Arctic or the cold winter landmass of Europe.

So what we are experiencing is part of the usual winter weather pattern (albeit it an unusually cold one) and it does not tell us anything about climate change.

The UK Met Office provides some further information here.

And please don't forget to put some extra food and some water out for the birds whilst the chill continues.

As is traditional at this time of year, the air is stirred by a gentle ringing of bells. But it is not the bells on a sleigh.

The Year, now ancient, her mind increasingly filled with holes, is ringing the bells by her bed summoning the Nurse. She doesn’t want anything except some company in her final days, and perhaps some reassurance.

She asks the question that she has forgotten that she has already asked many times before.

‘Was I kind?’

‘You were neither kind nor unkind’ says the Nurse gently, stroking her hand.

‘Will the people remember me? I would like to be remembered.’

‘Oh yes’, says the nurse, ‘You will certainly be remembered. You were the year when a great global recession lingered; you were the year when nations recognised that they were cooking the planet but failed to agree how to turn the heat down. You were the year when war, famine, weird weather and ignorance dominated global business. You marked the end of the first decade of the twenty first century. You were indeed an important and most memorable year.’

‘But I do not sound kind’, says the Year weakly turning her face away from the nurse, silent tears falling.

‘It’s not your fault dear old Year. It’s the people.’

‘What about the animals? Was I kind to the animals? I like the animals.’

‘Well’, the nurse pauses, and takes a deep breath, ‘Your passage saw a growing awareness by the people of animals as unique, valued, often sentient beings… as intelligences unlike their own, but still to be respected and cherished.’

The Nurse gently combs the grey tresses of the rapidly aging Year and smiles sweetly into her old rheumy eyes. He does not vocalise his own thoughts that, despite this awareness in some parts, cruelty continued to abound and people were more distracted than ever by their own immediate concerns. Nor does he mention that as conditions on the planet get more difficult, so he anticipates that the people will focus more and more on themselves and the animals will be increasingly forgotten.

But the Year has been reassured. ‘That’s good’, she gently sighs and then suddenly dozes. The Nurse tiptoes away until he will be summoned again to answer similar questions.

Soon it will be time to gently apply the medical sickle and the Year will pass.

Soon the jingling bells will be silent.

Soon, the Nurse will attend the urgent cries of the Baby, when little Twenty Ten arrives; a new year, even a new decade, full of promise and full of hope for all the denizens of the stressed planet.

The nurse knows that 2010 will keep him busy. There will be more people alive than at any previous time. Where the systems break down; the resources prove inadequate; or the planet rages in fever, then the merciful sickle will fall and the Nurse will take the fallen away. Where habitats and ecosystems fail he will do the same for the animals. So it is that some people, some populations, and even some whole species and will end before their potential span. But there is yet hope. A whole new year and a new decade to come that could mark a new beginning as novel rays of understanding and appreciation start to shine into the dark recesses of human minds. If humankind works together and applies its ingenious minds, things can still be resolved for the better.

The nurse stares into the void ‘Think people!’ he calls. ‘Think hard; understand and apply yourselves to your urgent responsibilities.’  Otherwise, in twelve short months, the Nurse will again find himself embellishing the truth for another dying year, and for all his kindness, he does not like to lie.  

Of all the post Copenhagen wraps up, George Monbiot pretty much sums up my feelings about the outcomes of the Copenhagen meeting, but others also remind me that there is still some hope.

Unlike many, I am not so worried not to have achieved the much sought ‘legally binding agreement’ at this meeting. It’s a lot to secure from so many Governments in such a short space of time.

I am a fan of global process. I am believer in the power and purpose of civil society. I am confident that the UN holds an important role in our future (when it overcomes the bureaucratic problems of the present). And, I know that when Governments want to, and the right negotiators are in the room, they can fundamentally change the way the world is structured.

Its been a night of confusion and deals within deals and 'meeting crashers' at the Copenhagen conference. And what's been agreed? Is it an agreement or is it a promise of an agreement? One of the best summaries of the intrigue last night seems to be Stephen Collinson
piece from AFP. The IWC meetings have been some of the most chaotic sessions I have ever attended in terms of international meetings, - but this conference seems to have taken the biscuit.

“It is not fiction it is science… the question… is no longer the nature of the challenge the question is our capacity to meet it….[but] our ability to take collective action is in doubt right now.”

With these words, US President Barack Obama, today called for urgent action at the Copenhagen climate summit to agree a deal on its last day.

However it appears that what is now being discussed has been stripped of any targets. Because countries simply cannot agree, simply cannot find that middle ground and we may well be left with just a wish list.

Two years ago they committed to making a new and binding agreement, now commentators suggest that the battle is on just to have some sort of paper agreement to take home.

It seems unlikely that there can now be a legally-binding treaty complete with verifiable emission and temperature targets or even a deadline to agree such a thing.

It seems that our species is just not us to this job any more than the dinosaurs were able to adapt to the global changes that ultimately wiped them out.

More information: BBC News/BBC Blog

Why do species go extinct? Many have gone extinct because they could not adapt quickly enough to changes in their environment. (Recently, we have helped many on their way.)

The big question for our species – the most adaptable species planet Earth has ever seen - is can we adapt quickly enough to address the global-scale damage we have done to our atmosphere. The latest reports from the Copenhagen conference on climate change now indicate that we probably cannot because no deal is going to be sealed there!

Many state leaders are now present. Many celebrities are also in town (Gordon Brown, Boris Johnson, Arnold Swartzeneger and many others and tomorrow Mr Obama arrives for the final day). Many non-governmental bodies are also there. Many are there without a hope of getting into the conference but they obviously feel they should be represented.

Outside the conference center there are reports that protestors are being treated very robustly by the security forces and delegates are even having problems getting into the conference itself.

Inside there is also conflict and an impasse, and people are starting to talk about another year of negotiations being needed.

Ed Miliband, the UK’s Energy and Climate Change Secretary who is leading the negotiations for the UK, said last night that the current position was very dangerous and if the talks failed that ‘people all over the world will be furious and they will be right to be furious’.

There is a lot of confusion about where the problems are. Many commentators are saying that they simply do not know what is going on. This may be one of the perils of having such a large conference with so many people involved.

One particular sticking point, however, is reported to be an objection from the developing countries based on the notion that the existing treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, will be done away with.

Britain had apparently agreed last night at the talks with Australia, France, Japan, Norway and the US to start a major new fund for the purpose of stopping and eventually reversing deforestation in developing countries, as long as there is "an ambitious and comprehensive" outcome in Copenhagen.

UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown said "Unless action is taken, these forests could be lost forever, impacting not only the global climate but on the livelihoods of 90 per cent of the 1.2 billion people living in extreme poverty who rely on forest resources for their survival.”

Sources: The Independent  and BBC Environment Blog

There you are – perfect example of the ‘law of inverse optimism’!

The moment that I suggest it might all be going well in Copenhagen (see last blog) many countries walk out in protest. (Not in protest at what I said but at the deal that is 'on the table'.) That will teach me. I am not going to say anything more about whether this will be successful or not! (But we need to hope.)

Meantime, we have had violent clashes between Danish police and protesters over the weekend; UN chief Ban Ki-moon has urgently told nations to get on with it and "seal a deal"; the British Environment minister has been telling us about the perils of ocean acidification (another result of excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere); and the world conservation union has announced that it is not all just about the polar bear (we know).

Meanwhile, climate has fallen off the front page of most British newspapers already. 

Time is, however, really running out now!

More about ocean acidification and the whales here. BBC blow by blow blog from the conference here.

So we come to the end of the first week of the climate summit in Copenhagen. We know a few more things now than we did when the meeting began. For example, it seems that the toilet facilities in the conference centre are not adequate for the number of people there. This cannot be helping negotiations. We know from IWC meetings that key figures missing in the toilet (or occasionally ‘gone shopping’) can change the whole nature and outcome of a debate.

We also know now that President Obama will join the summit towards its end next week, further signalling serious engagement from the US.

To coincide with the summit Bristol University has launched some scary new information about ocean acidification (another product of excess CO2 in the atmosphere) which underlines a significant threat to marine systems (although I cannot find a link to paper on this just advance press notice – so I cannot point you at the research yet).

Back in Copenhagen, there is also an offer on the table for a substantive contribution from Europe (with the UK proffering a major part of this) to help the developing nations.

This all seems surprisingly positive given early concerns that nothing would be agreed. Is it possible that the Copenhagen is going to produce something meaningful? Well, there is a way to go yet.

What is less positive is the outburst of outspoken views of the climate-change ‘nay-sayers’ who continue to state that this is all a big con. Indeed it is reported that only about half the people in the UK believe climate change is a problem. This is a real problem for the negotiating politicians because they need a strong public mandate in order to be able to do their jobs. The journalist Ben Goldacre writing in the Guardian today (Saturday 12^th) suggests that part of the reason for public doubt is because the government has a bad reputation in its use of science. Politicians, he suggests, are simply not trusted in their use of science.

We probably all have some sympathy with this. But what do those governments seeking a negotiation and pledging money to help do so even at this difficult economic time, have to gain beyond addressing this urgent threat?  Equally, what have all these scientists standing together in their call for action got to benefit? Promotion of their careers? There could be an element of this. There is no doubt that climate scientists have become important scientists as this issue has developed. But they could still be important and successful scientists without making a call for action which some characterise as extreme. Indeed there is a risk to them as the recent spin and extreme scrutiny of some emails from the University of East Anglia may show.

Historically, we have had scientists being given a very hard time over other emergent issues. This is not new. Powerful players may not like news that counters their economic interests. The breaking of the news about the dangers of organochlorine pollutants in aquatic systems is one example. Marine noise pollution is another such issue and we are still deep in the debates with this about how far the science can go and how precautionary noise users and conservation managers need to be.

Goldacre, who writes a regular and fascinating column in the Guardian called ‘Bad Science’ where he typically debunks poor use of science, suggests that there is a recognizable repeating of themes in the arguments of the climate change nay-sayers. The same arguments come up again and again. They know the answers to these arguments but they make them anyway and some (who have not heard the arguments) continue to be affected by them.

We deal in lots of issues where science does not provide any simple answers at WDCS. I am not sure that I believe in unbiased science. Scientists are after all only people with view and aspirations like the rest of us (no matter how much some may like to dress this up). However there is an overwhelming and unprecedented weight of scientific support which says climate change is here and human activities, particularly the discharges of carbon dioxide, are the primary cause. The final leg of this situation is that action needs to come fast.

Source: Bad Science

Finally one thing that is nagging at the back of my brain is the issue of whatever agreement the nations reach in Copenhagen, how will it be policed? A country might agree to cut its emissions by a percentage but how will anyone know if this is actually successful. How can an independent check on a country’s emissions be made. I hope some smart people somewhere are thinking about this.

For regular updates from the Climate conference try the BBC's blog by Richard Black.