Ordinary Gweilo

I was recently listening to John Micklethwait the new(ish) editor of The Economist on the New Year’s Day edition of Start the Week.  He made the rather startling prediction that 2007 would be the year the George Bush would ‘go green’.  His argument was that some of his natural supporters, including neocons, evangelical Christians, big business and farmers, are coming round to the view that something has to be done, and that Bush himself also believes this but also does not want to upset the oil industry.

Micklethwait expanded upon his thoughts in an editorial in The Economist (subscription required):

Business is changing its mind too. Five years ago corporate America was solidly against carbon controls. But the threat of a patchwork of state regulations, combined with the opportunity to profit from new technologies, began to shift business attitudes. And that movement has gained momentum, because companies that saw their competitors espouse carbon controls began to fear that, once the government got down to designing regulations, they would be left out of the discussion if they did not jump on the bandwagon. So now the loudest voices are not resisting change but arguing for it.

Support for carbon controls has also grown among some unlikely groups: security hawks (who want to reduce America’s dependence on Middle Eastern oil); farmers (who like subsidies for growing the raw material for ethanol); and evangelicals (who worry that man should be looking after the Earth God gave him a little better). This alliance has helped persuade politicians to move. Arnold Schwarzenegger, California’s Republican governor, has led the advance, with muscular measures legislating Kyoto-style curbs in his state. His popularity has rebounded as a result. And now there is movement too at the federal level, which is where it really matters. Since the Democrats took control of Congress after the November mid-term elections, bills to tackle climate change have proliferated. And three of the serious candidates for the presidency in 2008—John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama—are all pushing for federal measures.

One of the more tedious aspects of the debate on global warming
(and most things environmental) is the assumption that it’s a left vs.
right issue.  Those on the left instinctively support the environmental
lobby, and those on the right assume that it’s all a left-wing plot to
bring down capitalism, so they are against it.  It’s certainly easier
than taking the trouble to study the real evidence and thinking about
it, I suppose.

However, the evidence is starting to become overwhelming, and in the last few days a new report was published that offers an even more pessimistic view of what will happen if we don’t take action:

The new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report says there is 90% certainty that the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities are driving climate change. Read the global reaction to the report here.

“The word unequivocal is the key message of this report,” said Achim Steiner, executive director of UNEP, adding that those who have doubts about the role of humans in driving the climate “can no longer ignore the evidence”.

The IPCC report says the rise in global temperatures could be as high as 6.4°C by 2100. The report also predicts sea level rises and increases in hurricanes. It is the work of 1200 climate experts from 40 countries, who have spent six years reviewing all the available climate research. It was released in Paris, France, on Friday (read the 21-page summary here, pdf format). Listen to audio from today’s press conference.

The last IPCC report, issued in 2001, predicted that temperatures would rise by 1.4°C to 5.8°C by 2100, relative to 1990 temperatures.

But the new report says temperature rises by 2100 could, in the most extreme scenarios, range from 1.1°C and 6.4°C. The most likely range is 1.8°C to 4.0°C (see figure 1, right), with the report predicting that 4°C is most likely if the world continues to burn fossil-fuels at the same rate (read the The impacts of rising global temperatures).

I’m sure that there will still be those who stubbornly refuse to accept that this can be true.  All those scientists are only saying this so they can keep their highly-paid jobs and get their hands on more of our tax dollars.  Of course they are.