Many people ask how sure we are about the science of climate change. The most definitive examination of the scientific evidence is to be found in the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its last major report published in 2007. I had the privilege of being chairman or co-chairman of the Panel’s scientific assessments from 1988 to 2002.
Many hundreds of scientists from different countries were involved as contributors and reviewers for these reports, which are probably the most comprehensive and thorough international assessments on any scientific subject ever carried out. In June 1995, just before the G8 summit in Scotland, the Academies of Science of the world’s 11 largest economies (the G8 plus India, China and Brazil) issued a statement endorsing the IPCC’s conclusions and urging world governments to take urgent action to address climate change. The world’s top scientists could not have spoken more strongly.
Unfortunately, strong vested interests have spent millions of dollars on spreading misinformation about climate change. First, they tried to deny the existence of any scientific evidence for global warming. More recently, they have largely accepted the fact of man-made climate change but argue that its impacts will not be great, that we can “wait and see” and that in any case we can always fix the problem if it turns out to be substantial.
The scientific evidence does not support such arguments. Urgent action is needed both to adapt to the climate change that is inevitable and to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, to prevent further damage as far as possible.
At the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the world’s nations signed up to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, the objective of which is “to stabilize the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a level that does not cause dangerous interference with the climate system ... , that allows ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, that ensures food production is not threatened, and that enables economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.”
Such stabilization would also eventually stop further climate change.
It is now recognized that widespread damage due, for instance, to sea level rise and more frequent and intense heat waves, floods and droughts, will occur even after small increases of global average temperature. Therefore, it is necessary that very strong efforts be made to hold the average global temperature rise below 2˚C relative to its pre-industrial level.
If we are to have a good chance of achieving that target, the concentration of carbon dioxide must not be allowed to exceed 450 parts per million (ppm), though it is now nearly 390ppm. This implies that before 2050 global emissions of carbon dioxide must be reduced to below 50 percent of the 1990 level (they are currently 15 percent above that level) and that average emissions in developed countries must be reduced by at least 80 percent of the 1990 level.
The UK has already committed itself to a binding target to reduce emissions by that amount and US President Barack Obama has expressed the intention that the US should also set that target.
One clear requirement is that tropical deforestation, which is responsible for 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, be halted within the next decade or two. Regarding emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, the International Energy Agency (IEA) in its “Energy Technology Perspectives” has set out in detail the technologies and actions that are needed in different countries and sectors to meet these targets.
For the short term, the IEA points out that very strong and determined action will be necessary to ensure that global carbon dioxide emissions stop rising (the current increase is more than 3 percent per year), reach a peak by about 2015, and then decline steadily toward the 2050 target. The IEA also points out that the targets can be achieved without unacceptable economic damage. In fact, the IEA lists many benefits that will be realized if its recommendations are followed.
What is required now is recognition that man-made climate change will severely affect our children, grandchildren, the world’s ecosystems and the world’s poorer communities, and that the severity of the impact can be substantially alleviated by taking action now.
John Theodore Houghton is a former professor of atmospheric physics at the University of Oxford and founder of the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers