The climate change debate has been rocked by yet another scandal. This time it hits the very foundation of it. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), mostly known for its Assessment Report on climate change every few years, is in the limelight. This comes few months after the “email leakage” scandal at Tyndall Climate Research Centre. Doomed is climate change science, the flat earth climate change sceptics are shouting.
"Himalayan Glaciers could be gone by 2035" - this is what the IPCC said in its Assessment Report 2007. An alarm was raised in most academic and policy circles. The implications could be catastrophic. These glaciers provide water to some of the most densely populated regions of the world, like the Indian Gangetic plains, and also feed into the water systems in South China. Turns out that IPCC was wrong. A hot debate and inquiry is now underway to detect as to how the error crept in the "peer reviewed" process of the IPCC that often labels its results superior and rubbishes anything against it as "voo-doo" science. Were they talking about 2350 or 2035? Were they looking at entire glaciers of world or just Himalayan glaciers? Where did the first figure come from - a WWF report or the Down to Earth Indian magazine? The blame game, so typical of climate change politics, has started.
More dangerous is the thought that IPCC came to know about this blunder before Copenhagen conference last December and yet did not immediately act on it. The jury is still out if this was actually the case. At time of writing this article, Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC's boss has categorically denied that he knew about the discrepancy before the conference – that’s what the media is coming out with. There is pressure on him to resign, something he is resisting. If he does, it will serve as a massive blow to the credibility of the IPCC and climate change scientists in general and give more fodder to climate change sceptics.
The real problem in these developments is the unfortunate timing of all these events. It comes just after Copenhagen jamboree that did not meet most people's overly optimistic expectations. It comes before the likely voting on climate change bill in US Senate - and this IPCC fiasco may prove detrimental to passage of the bill. The passage of bill will be a historic moment in climate change history with the USA, once and forever, firmly deciding to cap its emissions growth. The simple passage, that is struggling anyhow, is in even greater danger now. A recent report by Yale University regarding American's perception of climate change came out with the following facts:
· The percentage of Americans who think global warming is happening has declined 14 points, to 57 percent.
· The percentage of Americans who think global warming is caused mostly by human activities has dropped 10 points, to 47 percent.
· Only 50 percent of Americans now say they are “somewhat” or “very worried” about global warming, a 13-point decrease.
Now what? Will it drop down further? The answer is probably yes. But what are the implications? We need to analyse the implication for various players, including the Obama administration on this – it may not be as disastrous as it looks. No doubt most visible stakeholder blocks involved in crafting a long term climate policy will be impacted by the IPCC fiasco. The greens and NGO community; the European Union, till now the frontrunner on climate change policies; the developing country bloc lead by BASIC countries; and, of course, the private carbon market investors. The last and most important one will be the Obama administration.
Greenpeace and other activists who tried their best do create chaos, and rightly so, at Copenhagen should be worried - a nightmare scenario is playing out here. With science being termed as dubious, their arguments hold lesser weight. With Americans waning away from climate change, the need to find extreme and creative ways to attract attention on climate issues increases. All in all, they will have to work harder in even more challenging circumstances. More opportunities to climb chimneys and chain themselves to polluting cars? Probably yes.
The EU 27 bloc that has already set their clear climate policy upto 2020 comes next. Staunch supporters of the US$ 125 Billion carbon market and increased cuts by 2020 to halt emissions growth, without a strong American support, their sole political actions won't matter much for the climate. Their own people who have been asked to replace all incandescent bulbs by energy efficient CFLs this year may eventually question the science behind climate change. However, we shouldn't forget that Europeans have been exposed to an overdose of climate change horror scenarios. The UK has the vested interest of making London the carbon trading capital of the world, France is looking at lucrative contracts for its nuclear industry while the Germans and Danes would continue to bank on export oriented innovation in traditional renewable sectors such as wind and solar. Europe has invested massive amounts in trying to a leader in climate change research, policies and markets. Europe has too much at stake to question the science now and hence it never would.
What about the developing world? Will they now use this new found controversy to further delay climate change mitigation actions? Unlikely. China is leapfrogging its western counterparts to become the renewable energy equipment manufacturer of the world. Low government supported interest rates, the ever present energy security and job creation incentive has prompted the renewable boom. Last year it installed more wind turbines than any other country. China is expected to announce a target soon for about 150 gigawatts of wind power by 2020. While dwarfed in comparison to China, India with its solar missions and Brazil with its Amazon rain forest preservation programmes have their own incentives. All in all, these countries have realised the non climate benefits of climate change polices and will pursue them aggressively no matter what.
Besides the governments, its the private sector investors in clean technology industries and carbon markets that may be hit by the negative climate science publicity. Really? Many people would argue that the image of greedy investor expecting unrealistic returns from any boom had already taken a massive hit during the recession and recently again for supporting sleazy bonuses from public money. They don’t care. Be it clean tech or horses; be it carbon or uranium – they will invest in it as long as it makes money. Image doesn’t yet impact the bottom line in climate change.
The real player that has to handle this IPCC fiasco most carefully is the Obama administration. After getting the American Clean Energy and Security Act passed in House of Congress last year that had definite provisions for a cap and trade system, hopes were high for a global carbon market. However, the recent loss in Massachusetts has the democrats worried about a similar result in the Senate. IPCC’s false claim has given yet another gun in anti global warming (and do nothing) camp that mostly consists of Republicans and they will fire it in the Senate sessions. However, the real problem in front of America isn’t science of climate change, but recession and jobs. And that’s the precise reason President Obama did not mention carbon markets in his State of Union address delivered on January 28. And now with science being questioned, he will further avoid mention about climate change or carbon markets in public and while lobbying for the bill to be passed in Senate. This is good and fits with what is realistically required. Americans haven’t reached the same point on learning curve like Europe to throw their weight behind climate change. They understand simple things – build a wind mill, secure your energy supply by biofuels and in the process create jobs. The eventual result will be the same as an efficient carbon market would have delivered in terms of climate change mitigation. Though, now the costs will be higher and process lot more different. IPCC glacier “prophecy” will push Obama to exploit the non climate angle to the extreme – something that should be done anyways to get any clean tech revolution going in America. It thus may be seen as blessing in disguise.
IPCC has committed a mistake and it should be corrected. But the implications would not be as grave as many people might think at first instance. This is mostly due the non climate benefits stakeholders now see in climate change mitigation – jobs, economic growth and money. Debate has now shifted away from climate change. IPCC blunder just helps the process further.
No comments:
Post a Comment