The three-day International Scientific Conference on Climate Change will take place in Copenhagen, Denmark, from tomorrow, when scientists will outline their latest findings. Writers give their take on the state of debate on global warming, as we move towards December's international climate talks.
Michael Richardson, Straits Times 9 Mar 09;
Governments can run - but they can't hide
RESEARCHERS from around the world will meet in Denmark tomorrow to discuss the latest scientific findings on climate change.
The three-day international gathering at the University of Copenhagen is sponsored by a consortium of 11 research universities in Europe, the United States, Asia and Australia, including the National University of Singapore. It is part of the lead-up to a conference in Copenhagen in December to try to agree on a global framework to replace the Kyoto Protocol.
One of the questions the conference will consider is whether the evidence on the pace, scope and consequences of climate change presented to governments less than two years ago is already significantly out of date, and whether there should be more frequent reports.
The present process is cumbersome and lags well behind advances in research. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), established by the United Nations in 1988, brought together hundreds of experts from around the world to assess the science and policy implications of global warming.
Since 1990, the IPCC has published four assessment reports. The next is not due until 2014. The most recent, in November 2007, concluded that the Earth's temperature is likely to rise by between 1.1 deg C and 6.4 deg C by 2100, depending on how much greenhouse gas is released into the atmosphere in coming decades.
One of the lead authors of that report said last month that it had probably seriously underestimated the consequences of climate change. Professor Chris Field of Stanford University said: 'We now have data showing that from 2000 to 2007, greenhouse gas emissions increased far more rapidly than we expected, primarily because developing countries...saw a huge upsurge in electric power generation, almost all of it based on coal.'
He said that he was particularly concerned about new evidence that tropical forests would dry out and catch fire, and that permafrost in the Arctic would thaw, releasing enormous amounts of carbon dioxide and methane, an even more potent global warming gas, into the atmosphere.
Meanwhile, other recent studies forecast that sea levels will rise substantially higher by 2100 than the IPCC had projected and that the capacity of oceans to soak up excess carbon dioxide is declining. The oceans, forests, vegetation and soil absorb about half of all man-made carbon dioxide emissions.
In January, a team of US and European scientists published a study demonstrating how changes in surface temperature, rainfall and sea level would be largely irreversible for more than 1,000 years after carbon dioxide emissions are completely stopped. Dr Susan Solomon of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said: 'Our study convinced us that current choices regarding carbon dioxide will have legacies that will irreversibly change the planet.'
Not all the recent research on climate change have dire conclusions. One study suggests that the tropical forest in the Amazon basin may be less vulnerable to temperature rise than previously believed. Another concludes that the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, which accelerated in the early part of this decade, has slowed again.
Dr Vicky Pope of Britain's Meteorological Office says that there will always be natural variations in climate trends. However, she adds that the implications of climate change are profound and will be severe if greenhouse gas emissions are not cut 'drastically and swiftly'. The message from scientists to political leaders trying to focus on the global recession is this: You may try to run from the costs of the climate change challenge, but ultimately, there is nowhere to hide.
The writer is a visiting senior research fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Tackling the challenges to trade
Barry Desker & Deborah Kay Elms, Straits Times 9 Mar 09;
THE Copenhagen Summit in December will discuss the replacement for the Kyoto Protocol. Whatever comes out of Copenhagen will likely involve more states following more stringent rules designed to mitigate the environmental damage from global warming. Copenhagen will have a direct impact on trade policy. Three inter-linked challenges face us in tackling the relationship between climate change and trade.
# First, the impact of climate change is not evenly distributed across states.
The poorest people and the poorest countries may end up suffering the most. Developing regions are already warmer, on average, than the developed world. They rely heavily on agriculture. Changes to the climate that negatively affect the ability of farmers in the developing world to grow crops will have many trade-related impacts.
# Second, the contribution of each state to the problem is different. Hence, any post-Kyoto regime will have different rules for different categories of states.
But these distinctions may give rise to potentially unfair outcomes. For instance, there may be an environmental 'race to the bottom' as firms relocate to states with relatively lax policies. To offset this trade advantage, many states are planning a range of interventions for climate-related trade businesses, including subsidies.
# Finally, the ability to develop, deploy and pay for mitigation strategies varies across states.
Take, for example, the prospect of more extreme weather events. Some states will simply be unable to prepare adequately for such calamities as floods or droughts. Others will be overwhelmed by events when they occur.
Three other issues should also be considered in discussing the nexus between climate change and international trade. First, some observers have suggested that climate change disputes could be handled by the World Trade Organisation (WTO). After all, the WTO has the best mechanisms already in place for addressing disputes. Since many of the disputes will have trade implications, the WTO might be well-positioned to resolve many of these state-to-state disagreements.
Yet the attempt to do so might well overwhelm the WTO system. Its dispute settlement mechanism may be overloaded precisely because member states and customs territories recognise that it is effective and will result in legally enforceable decisions. Some new mechanism will need to be created to resolve climate change disputes.
A second area of concern is that climate change negotiations are increasingly being led by trade negotiators. There is a risk that mercantilist approaches and an insistence on package deals may take hold in Copenhagen. If we export the concept that 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed' - a staple of WTO negotiation - we will set the stage for failure in Copenhagen.
Most governments have traditionally regarded attention to climate change as imposing a cost on economies and an impediment to economic growth. With the global economy heading into recession, governments will increasingly focus on immediate threats rather than those that appear over the horizon. The ability to reach significant binding agreements in Copenhagen may be threatened by the current gloomy global economic outlook.
Barry Desker is dean of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), NTU. Deborah Kay Elms is the head of the Temasek Foundation Centre for Trade and Negotiations, RSIS.
