Geneva, 25 February 2009 (WMO/ICSU) –
Multidisciplinary research from the International Polar Year (IPY)
2007-2008 provides new evidence of the widespread effects of global
warming in the polar regions. Snow and ice are declining in both polar
regions, affecting human livelihoods as well as local plant and animal
life in the Arctic, as well as global ocean and atmospheric
circulation and sea level. These are but a few findings reported in
“State of Polar Research”, released today by the World Meteorological
Organization (WMO) and the International Council for Science (ICSU).
In addition to lending insight into climate change, IPY has aided our
understanding of pollutant transport, species’ evolution, and storm
formation, among many other areas.
in Australia.
The
wide-ranging IPY findings result from more than 160 endorsed science
projects assembled from researchers in more than 60 countries.
Launched in March 2007, the IPY covers a two-year period to March 2009
to allow for observations during the alternate seasons in both polar
regions. A joint project of WMO and ICSU, IPY spearheaded efforts to
better monitor and understand the Arctic and Antarctic regions, with
international funding support of about US$ 1.2 billion over the
two-year period.
“The International Polar Year 2007 – 2008 came at a crossroads for the planet’s future” said Michel Jarraud, Secretary-General of WMO. “The new evidence resulting from polar research will strengthen the scientific basis on which we build future actions.”
Catherine Bréchignac, President of ICSU, adds “the planning for IPY set ambitious goals that have been achieved, and even exceeded, thanks to the tireless efforts, enthusiasm, and imagination of thousands of scientists, working with teachers, artists, and many other collaborators.”
IPY has provided a critical boost to polar research during a time in which the global environment is changing faster than ever in human history. It now appears clear that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are losing mass contributing to sea level rise. Warming in the Antarctic is much more widespread than it was thought prior to the IPY, and it now appears that the rate of ice loss from Greenland is increasing.
Researchers also found that in the Arctic, during the summers of 2007 and 2008, the minimum extent of year-round sea ice decreased to its lowest level since satellite records began 30 years ago. IPY expeditions recorded an unprecedented rate of sea-ice drift in the Arctic as well. Due to global warming, the types and extent of vegetation in the Arctic shifted, affecting grazing animals and hunting.
Other evidence for global warming comes from IPY research vessels that have confirmed above-global-average warming in the Southern Ocean. A freshening of the bottom water near Antarctica is consistent with increased ice melt from Antarctica and could affect ocean circulation. Global warming is thus affecting Antarctica in ways not previously identified.
IPY research has also identified large pools of carbon stored as methane in permafrost. Thawing permafrost threatens to destabilize the stored methane -a greenhouse gas- and send it into the atmosphere. Indeed, IPY researchers along the Siberian coast observed substantial emissions of methane from ocean sediments.
In the area of biodiversity, surveys of the Southern Ocean have uncovered a remarkably rich, colourful and complex range of life. Some species appear to be migrating poleward in response to global warming. Other IPY studies reveal interesting evolutionary trends such as many present-day deep-sea octopuses having originated from common ancestor species that still survive in the Southern Ocean.
IPY has also given atmospheric research new insight. Researchers have discovered that North Atlantic storms are major sources of heat and moisture for the polar regions. Understanding these mechanisms will improve forecasts of the path and intensity of storms. Studies of the ozone hole have benefited from IPY research as well, with new connections identified between the ozone concentrations above Antarctica and wind and storm conditions over the Southern Ocean. This information will improve predictions of climate and ozone depletion.
Many Arctic residents, including indigenous communities, participated in IPY’s projects. Over 30 of these projects addressed Arctic social and human science issues, including food security, pollution, and other health issues, and will bring new understanding to addressing these pressing challenges. “IPY has been the catalyst for the development and strengthening of community monitoring networks across the North” said David Carlson, Director of the IPY International Programme Office. “These networks stimulate the information flow among communities and back and forth from science to communities.”
IPY leaves as its legacy enhanced observational capacity, stronger links across disciplines and communities, and an energized new generation of polar researchers. “The work begun by IPY must continue”, said Mr. Jarraud. “Internationally coordinated action related to the polar regions will still be needed in the next decades,” he said. Ms Bréchignac concurs: “This IPY has further strengthened the ICSU-WMO relationship on polar research coordination, and we must continue to assist the scientific community in its quest to understand and predict polar change and its global manifestations at this critical time.”
The increased threats posed by climate change make polar research a special priority. The “State of Polar Research” document not only describes some of the striking discoveries during IPY, it also recommends priorities for future action to ensure that society is best informed about ongoing polar change and its likely future evolution and global impacts. A major IPY science conference will take place in Oslo in June 2010.
Former Australian Institute of
Company Directors CEO Ian Dunlop writes:
The fatal flaw in the current global warming debate is that most
of the key players are singing off the wrong songsheet. Current policy
proposals are based on scientific information which at least five
years out-of-date. The latest information indicates that we now run a
rapidly increasing risk of sudden and total failure of some part of
the climatic system, from which recovery may be impossible -- in
short, a risk of catastrophe which may seriously damage society as we
know it.
The evidence is mounting daily:
• The Arctic sea-ice melt is far more rapid than predicted, to the point the Arctic may be ice-free in summer within a few years, giving a major boost to global warming; this was not supposed to happen until the end of the century
• Human carbon emissions are accelerating far faster than predicted.
• Natural carbon sinks appear to be absorbing less carbon than previously, thereby increasing atmospheric carbon concentrations.
• Ice-sheets are forecast to melt and disintegrate at lower temperatures than expected due to non-linear feedback effects, with consequent increase in sea level rise.
• Ocean acidification is accelerating with consequent destruction of marine organisms.
• Perhaps most concerning, carbon dioxide emissions from the Arctic permafrost and methane hydrate emissions from the Arctic seabed appear to be accelerating rapidly
Exactly what form this climatic failure might take is unclear, due to scientific uncertainty around these issues, so this is a matter of managing risk in the face of uncertainty. As a former Chief of Staff of the US Army put it in a recent global warming report: "If you wait for 100% certainty on the battlefield, something bad is going to happen".
Well, bad things are happening: Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar last year killed some 78,000 people with millions homeless; Cyclone Sidr in Bangladesh in 2007 killed some 3000 people and destroyed 500,000 homes; the Californian bushfires in 2007 killed nine people and destroyed 1500 homes; Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf of Mexico in 2005 killed 1500 people and devastated the city of New Orleans. Now it is our turn, with 209 killed in the Victorian bushfires and 1800 homes lost, and devastating flooding in North Queensland, to add to the grinding agony of extended drought.
All this is at only the existing 0.8oC warming, let alone the further 0.6oC to which we are already committed. None of these disasters can be put down exclusively to climate change, but they are all in line with the forecast evolution of global warming, with increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather events. Most, particularly the Victorian bushfires, are way beyond the bounds of normal statistical variation. But the immediate concern is the rapid summer melt of Arctic sea-ice and the increasing evidence of methane hydrate and permafrost carbon dioxide emissions. If this takes off, global warming will probably move beyond our control, with catastrophic consequences. We continue to ignore these warnings at our peril.
Honesty about this challenge is essential, otherwise we will never develop realistic solutions.
We face nothing less than a global emergency which must be addressed with a global emergency response, akin to national mobilisations pre-WWII or the Marshall Plan for the reconstruction of post-war Europe. This is not extremist nonsense, but a call echoed by an increasing numbers of world leaders as the science becomes better understood.
Solutions are available and should be built around emissions trading, but it will only work if the carbon price signals are strong and clear and the Federal Government’s CPRS proposals meet neither criteria. In the face of catastrophic risk, emission reduction targets should be based on the latest, considered, science, not on a political view of the art-of-the-possible.
The target for stabilisation of atmospheric carbon to avoid catastrophic consequences and maintain a safe climate is now a concentration of less than 300ppm CO2, not the outdated 450-550ppm CO2e on which current proposals are based. This means emission reductions for Australia must be in the range 45-50% by 2020 and almost complete decarbonisation by 2050, rather than the 5-15% by 2020 and 60% by 2050 currently proposed.
Many will dismiss these targets as unattainable given that current concentrations are 385ppm CO2; it will require not only the rapid curtailment of emissions, but the re-absorption of some carbon already in the atmosphere. We have the technology to achieve this and the targets are only unattainable when viewed with a business-as-usual mindset. When real emergencies loom then remarkable change is possible.
But emissions trading alone is not enough. Given the size and speed of the change required, it must be complemented with regulatory initiatives and other incentives to accelerate energy efficiency, conservation and alternative energy supply, improve building codes, improve vehicle and aviation emission standards, personal carbon trading opportunities etc. This does not mean picking winners, but setting the right framework for rapid change.
The focus must be on the opportunities and benefits of creating new industries rather than the problems and costs of moving away from the old. It can be achieved at far less cost than the horror stories propagated by the existing sunset fossil-fuel lobby and in many cases with a net economic benefit. Employment is likely to rise as these new industries are far more labour-intensive than the industries they replace.
But compensation must be minimised -- public funding should encourage a viable future, not prop up an unsustainable past, particularly when that funding is going to be in short supply. There is absolutely no justification for compensation to trade-exposed industries, or domestic high-emitters, in the emergency situation we now face. The world will be crying out for low-carbon product, which will be a source of competitive advantage. Carbon taxes make no sense in current circumstances. They do not deliver guaranteed emission reductions and the inevitable continued tinkering with tax levels would be politically and commercially untenable.
The best tribute we can pay to the victims of the Victorian bushfires is to now start taking global warming seriously and stop playing political games.
As Europe and America rush to supplant polluting fossil fuels with plant-derived fuels like ethanol, soy and palm oil, farmers in the tropics are accelerating forest clearing to plant more sugarcane, soybeans and palm trees to meet the demand. What should be carbon-neutral biofuels - the carbon dioxide these plants take in while growing is returned to the atmosphere when they're burned, resulting in zero net carbon release - end up spewing more CO2 into the atmosphere as forests are slashed and burned.
Carbon dioxide is such a potent greenhouse gas that one recent study estimated it will take hundreds of years to recoup the greenhouse gas damage of clearing rainforests to grow and harvest plants for biofuels.
In one session, Michael Coe of Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts illustrated one ripple effect from the stampede to create more ethanol from corn in the United States. As corn prices skyrocketed several years ago, soybean fields were converted to corn, and the price of soy rose. As a result, farmers in Brazil, one of the main countries with the soil, climate and infrastructure to make up the difference, began to bulldoze rainforest to grow more soybeans.
"If reduced U.S. soybean production results in a parallel increase in Brazilian soybean production, a potential net release of 1,800 to 9,100 Tg (trillion grams) of CO2-equivalents of greenhouse gas emissions due to land-use change is possible," Coe wrote in a summary of his talk. That is equivalent to more than 9 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide.
Bulldozing Indonesian rainforests to plant oil palms
In the same session, Holly Gibbs of Stanford University reported that, despite assurances by biofuel producers that biofuel crops are being grown on degraded or already cleared lands, forest clearing throughout the tropics has increased. In Indonesia and Malaysia, especially, deforestation has accelerated as farmers scramble to plant oil palms to supply Europe with biodiesel fuel.
While growing crops on degraded land "would be restoring the land to a higher potential to provide environmental services for people," she said, "if biofuels are grown in place of forests, we're actually going to end up emitting a huge amount of carbon."
The British journal Nature, implies only a revolution in energy use can achieve the aim of limiting warming to less than two degrees Celsius (3.8 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels.
To achieve the objective -- embraced by the European Union (EU) and many scientists -- means that only 1,000 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) can be emitted between 2000 and 2050, it said.
By comparison, the world has emitted a third of that amount in just nine years.
"If we continue burning fossil fuels as we do, we will have exhausted the carbon budget in merely 20 years, and global warming will go well beyond two degrees," said the study's lead author, Malte Meinshausen of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Berlin.
Fossil fuels -- coal, gas and oil -- provide the backbone of the world's energy supplies.
But they are also the main source of heat-trapping carbon gases blamed for warming Earth's atmosphere and driving changes to weather patterns.
Boosting efficient use of these fuels so that they are no longer dangerous or switching to cleaner alternatives carries an economic cost, and this is the biggest stumbling block in efforts to defuse the threat.
Meinshausen said the change should not be delayed and cautioned that even with a 2 C (3.8 F) warming, there would still be unprecedented risk.
"Only a fast switch away from fossil fuels will give us a reasonable chance to avoid considerable warming," he said in a press release.
"We shouldn't forget that a 2 C [3.8 F] global mean warming would take us far beyond the natural temperature variations that life on Earth has experienced since we humans have been around."
"To keep warming below 2 C [3.8 F], we cannot burn and emit the CO2 from more than a quarter of the economically recoverable fossil fuels up to 2050, and in the end, only a small fraction of all known fossil-fuel reserves," said co-author Bill Hare, also of the Potsdam Institute.
The study said world emissions of greenhouse gases have to be cut by more than 50 percent by 2050 levels compared to 1990 levels if the risk of busting the 2 C (3.6 F) ceiling is to be limited to 25 percent. In addition, reductions would have to be made from 2020.
The Group of Eight (G8) countries have pledged an emissions reduction of at least 50 percent by 2050.
But they have not identified a benchmark year against which this should be measured nor set an intermediate date by which emissions cuts should start.
Negotiations are underway under the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) for agreeing on emissions cuts beyond 2012, when current pledges under the Kyoto Protocol expire. The UNFCCC wants to wrap up a deal in a conference in Copenhagen in December.
The world has already warmed by
about 0.8 C (1.44 F) since the start of the
Industrial Revolution, and another 0.5 C (O.9 F)
or so is considered inevitable over coming decades
given past greenhouse gas emissions.
(c) 2009 AFP
Joint Letter by 66
Climate Action Groups
The Hon Kevin Rudd MP
Prime Minister
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600
Date: 5th May 2009
RE: PROPOSED CHANGES TO AUSTRALIA’S TARGET AND
CPRS
Dear Prime Minister
The 66 Climate Action Groups signing this letter
are completely shocked by your
decision yesterday to further weaken Australia’s
position on climate change.
We believe that you have abandoned your duty of
care to protect the Australian people
as well as our species and habitats from dangerous
climate change.
Groups strongly oppose your new 2020 emissions
reduction target band of 5-25%below 2000 levels:
·
We have consistently called for targets based on
the best available climate science,
which calls for reductions of at least 40 – 50% by
developed countries by 2020.
·
The 5% unconditional target would, according to
the world’s top scientists, commit us
to catastrophic climate change and the IPCC’s
worst-case scenarios.
·
The 25% upper target, if applied globally, would
lead to at least 2°
C of warming and the
loss of the Great Barrier Reef. This is an
untenable position and we cannot accept it.
·
These targets also remain out of step with the
unconditional targets agreed to by other
developed nations (the UK, US and EU have agreed
to cut emissions by 34-46%, 20% and 20-30% from
1990 levels respectively).
Groups also assert that a global agreement based
on 450ppm CO2e will not protect the
Great Barrier Reef, as you suggested yesterday.
International scientists estimate that
atmospheric CO2 needs to be no more than
350ppm, but preferably closer to 300ppm,
to avoid dangerous climate change.
Your decision to further weaken the Carbon
Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) by
increasing the number of free permits, delaying
the Scheme by a year and introducing a
$10 price cap in the first year, completely flies
in the face of the thousands of submissions
that were lodged by concerned communities,
scientists and individuals.
Groups, once again, recommend you urgently fix the fundamental flaws in the CPRS by:
· Urgently exclude international permits from the CPRS so that actual emissions in Australia will begin to fall from 2010 onwards, rather than reductions only taking place from 2035 onwards (as forecast by the Federal Treasury).
·
Remove the emission floor in the CPRS (which
prevents emissions from falling below the
5% target), to ensure that individual action can
contribute to additional emissions
abatement over and above the 5-25% emissions
reduction target band.
o The proposed ‘Australian Carbon Trust’ does
not address our concerns on the need for
individual action to be additional to the 5%
target. The Trust simply formalises what
individuals were always able to do anyway.
Nomatter what individuals do to reduce
emissions we can never go beyond the 5%
target.
·
Exclude both reforestation and deforestation from
the Scheme – Groups note the current
treatment creates a market distortion in favour of
increasing native forest logging.
This requires urgent rectification.
·
Replace ALL free-permits in the CPRS with a
system of Border Adjustments, to
ensure that these sectors transition to a lower
emissions intensity without being unduly
disadvantaged in the international market.
·
Change the requirements for the $3.9 billion of
assistance to coal-fired generators
under the CPRS to be conditional upon a phase-out
plan for these generators.
Yesterday’s announcement has confirmed to us that
you have not been able to stand up
to the immense pressure exerted upon you by
industry.
Your election promises to the Australian people on
climate change were clear and
unequivocal. Despite all of this, you have chosen
to put industry interests above the
national interest.
We stand by our comments to the Senate last month
– we believe that your climate change
‘spin’ is deceptive and misleading to both the
Australian public and the international community.
The 66 Climate Action Groups signing this letter
urge you to treat climate change as the
emergency it is, and broker an ambitious new
climate deal for Australia that truly addresses
the needs of future generations, builds new jobs
in ecologically sustainable industries and
protects our precious species and habitats.
Contact for this letter: Tracey Tipping, Climate Action Pittwater, ph: 0411 861 269.
Yours sincerely
1. Aldinga Climate Action Group, SA
2. Alpine Riverkeepers, NSW
3. Ararat Greenhouse Action Group Inc, VIC
4. Australian Forest and Climate Alliance,
National
5. Bathurst Community Climate Action Network (BCCAN),
NSW
6. Bayside Climate Change Action Group (BCCAG),
VIC
7. Bendigo Sustainability Group (BSG), VIC
8. Beyond Zero Emissions, VIC
9. Ballarat Renewable Energy and Zero Emissions (BREAZE),
VIC
10. Boroondara Sustainability Network, VIC
11. Canberra and South East Region Environment
Centre Inc, ACT
12. Carbon Equity, VIC
13. Citizens Climate Campaign, NSW
14. Clean Energy For Eternity - Jindabyne, NSW
15. Clean Energy For Eternity - Palerang, NSW
16. Climate Action Brisbane, QLD
17. Clean Energy For Eternity - Bega, NSW
18. Climate Action Canberra, ACT
19. Climate Action Hobart, TAS
20. Climate Action Newtown, NSW
21. Climate Action Pittwater, NSW
22. Climate Action Tomaree (WG of EcoNetwork Port
Stephens), NSW
23. Climate Change Balmain-Rozelle, NSW
24. Climate Emergency Action Network (CLEAN), SA
25. Climate Emergency Action Network (CLEAN) West,
SA
26. Climate Emergency Network, VIC
27. Dandenong Ranges Renewable Energy Association
Inc, VIC
28. Darebin Climate Action Now, VIC
29. Drummoyne/Canada Bay/Lowe Climate Action
Group, NSW
30. Emerald for Sustainability, VIC
31. Environment House, WA
32. Families Facing Climate Change, VIC
33. 450ppm, NSW
34. Green Coast Catalysts, NSW
35. Greenleap Strategic Institute, VIC
36. Greenlivingpedia – For A Sustainable Future (greenlivingpedia.org)
37. Jamberoo FutureCare, NSW
38. Katoomba Area Climate Action Now, NSW
39. Kyogle Climate Action Network, NSW
40. Lismore Climate Action Group, NSW
41. Locals into Victoria’s Environment (LIVE), VIC
42. Lighter Footprints, VIC
43. Moonee Valley Climate Action, VIC
44. Moreland Climate Group, VIC
45. Mount Alexander Sustainability Group (MASG),
VIC
46. Mums, Kids and Climate, SA
47. National Toxics Network, NSW
48. Otway Ranges Climate Action (ORCA), VIC
49. Our Future is the Natural World, NSW
50. ParraCAN, NSW
51. People for a Safe Climate (Inner City Sydney
CAG), NSW
52. Plug-In Australia, NSW
53. Quest 2025, QLD
54. SEE-Change Inc, ACT
55. SEE-Change Inner South, ACT
56. South-East Region Conservation Alliance (SERCA),
NSW
57. Southern Otway Landcare Network (SOLN), VIC
58. Surf Coast Energy Group, VIC
59. Sustainability in Stonnington, VIC
60. Sustainable Environment Education Development
Inc (SEED), VIC
61. Sustainable Living Foundation, VIC
62. Sutherland Climate Action Network, NSW
63. UQ Climate for Change (Students and Staff at
UQ), QLD
64. Victorian Climate Action Centre, VIC
65. Yarra Climate Action Now!, VIC
66. Zero Carbon Network, SA
More about Climate Action Groups
Climate Action Groups are collectives of ordinary
but highly concerned Australians who
have come together in their local communities to
act on climate change.
Climate Action Groups have experienced
extraordinary growth over the past few years, with
over 200 groups (representing thousands of people)
currently operating in local communities across
Australia.
\The dedication and determination of these groups is testimony to a deeply felt community concern about the threat of climate change and increasing unease in the community about the direction of climate policy in Australia.
Groups generally have no political affiliations,
and often represent the people and sentiments of
a broad cross-section of Australian society.
In early February 2009, the first ever Climate Action Summit was held in Canberra, bringing together over 500 participants representing around 150 Climate Action Groups.
The summit has lead to greater organisation, communication and collaboration among groups.
Climate Action Groups are rapidly proving themselves to be a powerful force in the public climate debatein Australia.
