The scientific evidence is now overwhelming: climate change presents very serious global risks, and it demands an urgent global response.

Climate change is global in its causes and consequences, and international collective action will be critical in driving an effective, efficient and equitable response on the scale required.

The benefits of strong, early action on climate change outweigh the costs. What we do in the next 10 or 20 years can have a profound effect on the climate in the second half of this century and in the next.

No-one can predict the consequences of climate change with complete certainty; but we now know enough to understand the risks. Mitigation – taking strong action to reduce emissions – must be viewed as an investment, a cost incurred now and in the coming few decades to avoid the risks of very severe consequences in the future.

The stocks of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides and a number of gases that arise from industrial processes) are rising, as a result of human activity. The current level or stock of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is equivalent to around 430 parts per million (ppm) CO2, compared with only 280ppm before the Industrial Revolution.

Even if the annual flow of emissions did not increase beyond today’s rate, the stock of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would reach double pre-industrial levels by 2050 – that is 550ppm CO2e – and would continue growing thereafter.

But the annual flow of emissions is accelerating, as fast-growing economies invest in high carbon infrastructure and as demand for energy and transport increases around the world. The level of 550ppm CO2e could be reached as early as 2035. At this level there is at least a 77% chance – and perhaps up to a 99% chance, depending on the climate model used – of a global average temperature rise exceeding 2°C.

Under a BAU scenario [levels of emissions remain the same as today, therefore assumes no accelaration], the stock of greenhouse gases could more than treble by the end of the century, giving at least a 50% risk of exceeding 5°C global average temperature change during the following decades. This would take humans into unknown territory.

The following are possible physical outcomes, taken from the Stern Review, of temperature rises of between 1 to 2°C and 3 to 5°C.

1 to 2°C rise

Food – Falling crop yields in many developing regions, rising number of people at risk from hunger, with severe impacts in marginal Saharel region.
Water – Small mountain glaciers disappear worldwide, significant changes in water availability (e.g. more than a billion people suffer water shortages in the 2080s).
Ecosystems – Coral reefs extensively and irreversibly damaged, large fraction of ecosystems unable to maintain current form.
Weather – Rising intensity of storms, forest fires, droughts, flooding and heat waves.
Risk of rapid climate change and major irreversible impacts – Risk of weakening of natural carbon absorption and possible increasing natural methane releases and weakening of the Atlantic THC, Onset of irreversible melting of the Greenland ice sheet.

3 to 5°C rise

Food – Entire regions experience major declines in crop yields (e.g. up to one third in Africa).
Water – Sea level rise threatens major world cities, including London, Shanghai, New
York, Tokyo and Hong Kong.
Ecosystems – Possible onset of collapse of part or all of Amazonian rainforest, Many species face extinction (20 – 50% in one study).
Risk of rapid climate change and major irreversible impacts – Increasing risk of abrupt, large-scale shifts in the climate system (e.g. collapse of the Atlantic THC and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet)

The most alarming outcome listed above is that for a rise of 5°C, for which Stern says there is now a 50% risk of happening, up to 50% of the earth’s species are at risk of extinction — this prospect is truly appalling and would be catastrophic for life on earth.

In a recent meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Prof James McCarthy said the planet will be in “huge trouble” unless Barack Obama makes strides in tackling climate change. Prof McCarthy said that the US has just four years to save the planet. And at the same meeting, Professor Chris Field, said future temperatures “will be beyond anything” predicted. He said warming is likely to cause more environmental damage than forecast: “We are basically looking now at a future climate that is beyond anything that we’ve considered seriously in climate policy”. He said the increases in carbon dioxide have been caused, principally, by the burning of coal for electric power in India and China. “Without effective action, climate change is going to be larger and more difficult to deal with than we thought,” he said.

The measures now needed to deal with climate change are going to extensive and will effect every area of life — and the changes required need to start in the next months and years. We simply don’t have a moment to lose.

It was relatively easy for the bank managers to turn up this week and suffer the indignity of having to apologise (and their apologies seemed well rehearsed), but they personally will be able to keep all the millions that they made in salaries and bonuses — and you could ask where are all the billions of profit these companies have made over the past few years. The banks have really screwed up and it’s taxpayers who had to bail them out and will be paying for years for their mistakes — this is very unfair. And to cap it all, it turns out that Mr Hornby, the former boss of HBOS, is still getting £60k a month for his advice – this is a scandal, bearing in mind we all more-or-less own the bank.

Yes the regulators and the government are also to blame for the bank crisis, plus we were all complicit in the credit boom and housing bubble, and the UK banks were partly victims of the worldwide problems in financial markets (in particular the sub-prime scandel in the US), but it’s the actions of these large financial institutions and in particular their executives that got us into this terrible mess. I’m not sure how this could be done, but the banks and their leaders should be made to pay for their mistakes.

Israel has some of the most powerful military in the world, the Gazans have very little in comparison (guns and few hundred small rockets) — the conflict is so unequal. What on earth do the Israelis think they can achieve with their actions? Their actions are criminal and ultimately futile. All they are doing is massacreing hundreds of innocent people, further devastating the Gazans living conditions, and strengthening Arab feeling against the state of Israel. This is all such a waste of human life and hopelessly counter-productive for Israel. The actions of the Israelis can only inflame opinion in the whole middle east and make a war with Iran (or a number of sympathetic Arab countries) more likely.

Of course Hamas should not be firing rockets into Israel, but such devastating retaliation by Israel is completely unjustified. The same brutal force was used against Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006, with little lasting results or effect. The use of overwhelming military force against a poor and more-or-less defenceless people, resulting in many hundreds or thousands of innocent people dieing, should be a crime in international law. The US has used the same ‘shock and awe’ tactics in the Iraq invasion in 2003, the Israelis continue to use such brutal tactics on the Palestinians.

For over 60 years there have been numerous wars and conflicts and so far no solution looks likely. The UN and international community has completely failed the people of this area, while the Palestinians have lived in impossible conditions in Gaza and the West Bank for decades. The world urgently needs to find a solution, otherwise the terror of the past two weeks, or worse, will happen again.

The background to the conflict is covered here: Q&A: Gaza conflict. The following are extracts. 

Gaza has a population of 1.5 million of whom some 33% (about 490,000) are classified as refugees. It is 40km (25 miles) long and between six and 12km (4 and 8 miles) wide. The United Nations Works and Relief agency (Unwra) provides basic food aid to about 750,000 people in Gaza.

Since 2001, when the rockets were first fired (by Hamas into Israel), more than 8,600 have hit southern Israel, nearly 6,000 of them since Israel withdrew from Gaza in August 2005. The rockets have killed 28 people and injured hundreds more. [In the current conflict in Gaza, over 700 Palestinians have died (including over 200 children) and thousands have been injured. ]

Gaza was part of Palestine when it was administered by Britain in a mandate granted by the League of Nations after World War I. In fighting after Israel declared its independence in large areas of Palestine in 1948, the Egyptians captured the Gaza Strip. Palestinian refugees from the coastal cities to the north took refuge there. They or their descendants still live in UN camps in Gaza. Israel captured it in the war of 1967 and eventually moved about 8,000 settlers there, but all Israeli settlers and soldiers left in 2005.

Stern pointed out that the financial crisis shows us that the longer we leave a problem or ignore a risk then the worse a crisis can become and the harder it is to resolve it. The same can be said on climate change — if we leave it too long to act then it will be more difficult to solve it, and more costly in financial terms and its effect on the planet. He also suggested that the need to solve the climate change issue represents a great opportunity for technology, science and business, on a level with the industrial revolution.

Stern suggested that the financial crisis has been large in magnitude, but suggested that the issue of climate change is far bigger, in terms of the effort and commitment required. He was however very optimistic that is could be solved, but stressed that it would require so-far unseen collaboration, across governments and international agencies. Given that in crisis situations, wars and such like, countries tend to act in their own self interest, this will be a huge challenge for the world, but one we must attempt and meet. The scale of the challenge cannot be underestimated, but it’s looking increasingly like we have absolutely no option but to take up the challenge.

Jarvis Cocker ended his stint as editor of the Today programme with an assessment of his interview with Stern. Cocker felt we are at a turning point and that we have interesting times ahead. Acknowledging that the financial crisis will effect a lot of people, he was very optimistic about our capacity to solve the climate change issue and that people would be able to adapt. Maybe if you resolve to do one thing this year it should be to ‘do your bit’ for climate change, and then hope the US, China and other governments can reach a historic and binding agreement later in 2009 to tackle climate change: the time for urgent action is now.

Much has been said in the past few years about climate change, and there have been numerous committees set up and reports published (in 2006 the UK government published the Stern Review, and in 2007 there was a major report from the UN’s IPCC). It seems at last governments are starting to take steps to curb climate change in the form of greater recycling, more energy conservation, alternative fuels (especially for cars & other transport), non-carbon based or renewable energy generation, carbon capture, and so on — but there is long, long way to go. Another report was published this week by the UK Committee on Climate Change chaired by Adair Turner. The report suggests that Britain cuts greenhouse gas emissions by a fifth of current levels by 2020, which it describes as a ‘tough’ target and greater than has been attempted before. The report also recommends that the government does not use off-setting to achieve this target – apparently, the government has been planning to offset half of our emissions by buying carbon credits, which means someone else will have to implement the cuts in emissions. The full report by the HMCCC is here: Building a low-carbon economy – the UK’s contribution to tackling climate change.

Significant quotes from the Executive summary are useful:

“Climate change resulting from CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions poses a huge threat to human welfare [Ed: and the Earth, many species & the environment]. To contain that threat, the world needs to cut emissions by about 50% by 2050, and to start cutting emissions now. A global agreement to take action is vital. But a global agreement will not be possible unless the countries of the rich, developed world provide leadership.”

“A fair global deal will require the UK to cut emissions by at least 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. The good news is that reductions of that size are possible without sacrificing the benefits of economic growth and rising prosperity. Technologies are available or with appropriate support could be developed which deliver low-carbon energy; opportunities to increase the efficiency with which we use energy are huge; lifestyle changes which will not undermine welfare can produce significant cuts in energy consumption. And many of the actions required to tackle climate change we should want to do anyway because these have economic, wider environmental and security of supply benefits.”

“The challenge is not the technical feasibility of a low-carbon economy but making it happen. Ensuring action will require strong leadership from government and a concerted response from individuals and businesses… the path is attainable at manageable cost, and following it is essential if the UK is to play its fair part in avoiding the far higher costs of harmful climate change.”

It’s going to take a huge shift of consciousness to get the majority of people onto a more sustainable lifestyle. This kind of major shift tends only to happen after severe shocks in the world system, like wars, economic depressions, massive natural disasters — one such shock could be the current financial crisis. We need a “soft/peaceful” revolution to happen and soon. The ‘green movement’ has been advocating such a revolution for decades, and although we’ve made small steps (green thinking is now mainstream and no longer considered ‘loony’), we still have a huge mountain to climb.

My question to governments in general and to the green movement in particular is, how is this change or revolution going to come about? What will it take to get us onto a more sustainable path? We need lots of small steps by individuals at a local level, and very large & fundamental changes at the international level — the latter is really needed now to have the most dramatic and lasting effect. The costs of rescuing the earth are said to be manageable (a few percent of GDP of each major country), but the costs if we don’t, in both economic terms and for the future of the planet and humankind, is unimaginable.

The catalogue of missed opportunities and disasters is a dismal and shocking one:–

- Iraq, the biggest disaster of them all; the US believed Iraq had WMD when they had none. Their invasion of Iraq, with their “Shock and Awe” campaign unleased death and destruction on a weak country — the country fell in 2-3 weeks, overwhelmed by the mighty US military. Since then it is estimated that around 100,000 Iraqis have died, many more bereaved and injured, with terrible inter-ethnic fighting, excerbated by Al-Quaeda and Iran. Everybody’s lives there turned upside down, a country wrecked. There’s nothing about it to be proud of.

- ‘War on Terror’, the most ludicrous statement, lacking even the merest insight into the problem of jihadist fundamentalism. Tactically the so-called ‘War on Terror’ is probably unwinnable. From 911 onwards the US has lashed out, killed many thousands of innocent people, wreaked havoc across the middle-east, and all for nothing. They failed to tackle the root of the problem; disaffected and angry young men, with misguided views of islam, who have been manipulated by their masters. The jihadists have a politcal and religious agenda which has only been strengthened by the ‘War on Terror’.

- Afghanistan, a lot of people have said this is the real battle to be fought, although others say it’s a battle that cannot be won. The Taleban should not be allowed to regain power, but it seems that the only long-term solution for this country, which has been at war for over 30 years (Russia invaded in the 1970s), is a political one. And bordering Afghanistan is Pakistan, now unstable and greatly weakened, and the training ground for jihadist fighters — and it does have nuclear weapons. The middle east is as unstable as ever, Eastern Europe is more tense, with a resurgent Russia, and Africa is a terrible failure (Congo, Sudan, Zimbabwe) – the world is in greater danger now and will see continuing conflict in these areas.

- Guantanamo, how can this be at all justified, to anyone with any sense of justice or what is right. How could the US lock people up without trial, for many years in some cases, without proper legal process. GW Bush has also admitted the existence of secret CIA interrogation camps where they have used ‘water-boarding’, humiliation and other punishments — this is torture and totally unacceptable. Guantanamo should never have been allowed to happen, and should now be closed. If people have commited crimes they should be dealt with in the proper way.

- Palestine, this problem has been allowed to fester. Eight years without any real progress at all. Meanwhile the tit-for-tat violence goes on, with Israel the dominant, brutal force killing thousands of Palestinians and illegally occupying territory, and the terrifying use of suicide bombers from the Palestinians side. And during this time, Hamas have taken over throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

- Financial crisis and meltdown, and now an almost certain lengthy recession. The markets were not regulated enough, people borrowed too much, spent too much, consumed too much, and now the whole system is busted. The US Trade deficit, plus the cost of bank rescues and final cost of Iraq war leaves the US over $10 trillion in debt. A bankrupt state propped up by foreign money. The consumerist society also needs a major rethink, if we are to avert environmental and social collapse.

- Climate change, very little has been done to decrease CO2 emissions and halt climate change, despite the mounting evidence. Energy and resource use has carried on, and now the earth may be faced with catastrophic, environmental collapse, unless we take dramatic steps to stop the destruction. The US could and should be leading the effort.

It’s too easy to hate America, or what it does, but as a concept or idea, their multi-ethnic, liberal democracy is probably the best model we have. America is very good at some things: science, technology, medicine, and could be a major force for good on the foreign and diplomatic stage. It often appears to have the best of intentions, but their tactics or the actions they take are often counter-productive and alienate the rest of the world.

America needs to re-assert its founding principles, and given the right leadership, can look forward to a more sustainable future, and may even be liked again… In this election year, Barack Obama has emerged as the only candidate capable of remaking the American dream; he seems to connect with people and offers a believable message of hope.

There are so many urgent problems in the world that need America’s help to fix. Let’s hope the American people make the right choice! Having made the right choice, the real work will begin: it remains to be seen how successful Obama can be. This theme is summed up nicely by BOB HERBERT in the NY Times: Beyond Election Day.

Looking at the situation more broadly, however, this financial crisis or near meltdown, may be a manifestation of wider problems in our economies and our western society as a whole. Our whole way of life and levels of consumption have reached a level that relies on too many assumptions: relatively cheap and plentiful resources (fossil fuels & raw materials), relatively cheap and plentiful supply of food, as well as labour, and easy money/credit. Now though these assumptions have shown themselves to be completely unsustainable, as some resources become more scarce or expensive. Confidence in the whole system has broken down.

Consider the scale of the help given to the financial industry — it runs into the trillions of dollars, in the US and Europe, and we are told there are many ‘toxic assets’ that are hidden away that will probably need to be written off. We are told this help is necessry because the banking world is so central to the running of our economies. Imagine if we could spend a fraction of this on solving some of the other problems in the world, such as climate change, finding alternative energies, helping the developing world to fight disease, providing education, etc.

In the west we live in a kind of virtual dream world of relative luxury, that is supported by the media and advertising. This illusion has become shattered with the current financial crisis — consumer confidence has been hit by the crisis. A similar thing happened when the planes smashed into the Twin Towers in New York back in 2001 — immediately following the event people were traumatised and for a short while ‘normal life’ was suspended, while people stopped shopping and several websites were closed down. A blast of reality had shocked people into realising what really mattered to them — somehow they were turned off the merry-go-round of modern consumerist life. Soon after the attacks, President Bush told everyone to go shopping to get everything back to normal!

We really can’t go on living as we do, expecting our economies to carry on growing — we should aim for a good standard of living for the majority of people in the world. This financial crisis and impending recession gives us an opportunity to re-assess how we conduct our economies and lives as a whole. I’m sure the main thrust of how governments and individuals react to this will be “how do we get back to normal”, but I feel a more radical adjustment is needed — the changes needed to reach a fairer and more sustainable system are so huge it almost seems impossible to achieve. However, with the right leadership, with all the clever brains working on it, and with hope and optimism it could be possible.

Update 23/10/08; just read a good article by one “clever brain”, namely Jeffrey Sachs, writing in the Guardian: Amid the rubble of global finance, a blueprint for Bretton Woods II. He suggests that the leaders of the world should go much further than ‘just’ fixing the world economy by trying to roll climate change, poverty alleviation, and so on, into a grand ‘new deal’ — great idea, and I hope they really can pull it off, if indeed they try to do this. A similar line is taking by another “wise man” Jonathan Porritt in his article: Zero hour for a new capitalism. He sees economic and environmental issues as totally interelated, which of course they are, on a global level.

However it seems that with the UK’s rescue package, put together by UK PM Gordon Brown and Chancellor Darling, that we have all been saved, and now many other governments in Europe, and in the US, are doing the same. So let’s hope the British public can feel proud of their Prime Minister, and proud that it was a British plan that saved the day. It often takes an outsider to recognise success and give praise when it is due, so it was that economist Paul Krugman of Princetown Univ and columnist for the New York Times was overflowing with praise for Mr Brown. His comments are reported in the New York Times today: Gordon Does Good (reg may be required).

To quote Paul Krugman: “the British government went straight to the heart of the problem — and moved to address it with stunning speed. On Wednesday, Mr. Brown’s officials announced a plan for major equity injections into British banks, backed up by guarantees on bank debt that should get lending among banks, a crucial part of the financial mechanism, running again. And the first major commitment of funds will come on Monday — five days after the plan’s announcement.”

I still believe the banks were largely to blame for this crisis, but the regulators should take the next portion of blame. And it is government that should have been checking the regulator, in the UK this is the FSA. As well as the bankers, individuals should also take some of the responsibility for the crisis, since they fuelled the demand for more and more debt: according to Robert Peston today, the British people owe the equivalent of 3x the UK annual GDP which surely is unsustainable. So there’s plenty of people at fault here, but I guess while the whole ship kept afloat no-one wanted to complain. Today however, the British public should at least stop griping about their PM and give him some credit for once.

For too long, our whole society has been living beyond its means, not just in Britain, but across the world, mainly in the Western developed world. As a whole, we borrow too much, we over stretch our finances too far, we buy too much, we consume too much. Aside from the obvious excesses you see from some people, such as gas guzzling vehicles, extravagent lifestyles, luxury goods, etc, the whole way of life in the west, for more or less every individual, is based on the over consumption of resources and energy. To support this lifestyle, we have borrowed too much, both as individuals and governments. For too long we have binged on credit, on easy money, and binged on the trappings of our modern lifstyle. The financial crisis is not something abstract that is happening in the banks, behind closed doors, or on stock markets, it is the manifestation of our bankrupt and unsustainable western way of life. And now it is thoroughly busted. To cap this, the government solution is to borrow ever greater sums of money to bail-out the system (yeah we haven’t got the £500 billion) – piling debt upon debt — in the end we all pay for this.

Many people think this crisis will get a lot worse, but surely at some point things will get better. So how do we get out of this mess? We have to go back to basics. With a good measure of common sense, we will have to change our lifestyles, live on less, use technology and innovation to help us — we need to create things of real value. We need a system that is sustainable, that uses resources wisely, one that is built in the service of people, all people, and future generations. Fine words, but after this crisis, it could be done, if we have the will.

Everyone is discussing how we respond to this situation, and it seems that in the short time solutions need to be urgently found — the assumption also appears to be that when the storm has passed we can all return to normal, resume our standard of living as before. But everyone is ignoring the fact that we cannot, if we are to avoid disaster — the longer term solutions will mean dramatic changes to our lifestyles and the whole way we run the world economy.

So that’s why you, me and everyone else are a big part of the problem in the current crisis, and that’s why we are going to have to be a big part of the solution. I don’t hear people saying: “We spent too much. We bought too much stuff. We borrowed too much. We should have been more careful.” People I talk to are worried mostly about losing their savings (of course you would, especially if you’ve been prudent and saved), but no-one seems to connect themselves with the problem – of living (and borrowing) beyond your means, to a lesser or greater extent — blame is always somewhere else. 

It is clear however that we do not have a sustainable money system/economy and way of life now (it’s clearly busted), but how we get to one that is, is the real problem?