This coming week the Copenhagen summit will be going on, from December 7-18.  The goal of this summit is to follow up on the work done during the Kyoto agreements, and to try and limit global warming.

The stakes are incredibly high.  Pressure, slander and huge amounts of money and disinformation are being thrown in the way of any binding agreements, as oil companies and their allies try again to introduce doubt into the debate (hacking into scientists’ private email and distorting what they said is just part of it).

The science is clear, settled, and overwhelming. If drastic cuts are not made in global emissions of CO2 and other gasses that contribute to global warming, we are headed towards a global catastrophe. We are already seeing massive changes due to anthropogenic climate change, and it is only going to get worse.  Feedback loops in climate are making even the worst case scenarios of only a couple of years look like underestimates of how bad it can get.  And it will get very very bad.

If we can get back to 350 ppm CO2 (we’re around 384 now), there is hope.  It will be a benefit to our economies to move away from oil, and the opportunity for business for clean and renewable energy and technologies are huge.

But the challenge is significant.

I’ve included here a tracker showing real time what the negotiations are working towards. Below that are some good links to learn more.

Let’s hope history is made in the next few days, or future generations will point to this time as an opportunity lost.

Homepage for the conference: http://en.cop15.dk/

One of our students coming in the spring, Taylor Cantril, is at Copenhagen.  He mentioned in the comments several blogs worth noting, especially deppcopenhagen.wordpress.com and thecopenhagenquestions.wordpress.com

Good summary and detailed current report on the state of the science and current situation: Copenhagen Diagnosis

The best online discussion of the science is at Real Climate.  This includes links to basic science information (see these lectures which are particularly good).

The best discussion of the politics around climate change from the perspective of an engaged and passionate scientist is at Climate Progress.

Scientists need a listening public

A sobering post up by Joseph Romm on the failure of scientists to communicate the realities facing us due to global warming, Publicize or perish: The scientific community is failing miserably in communicating the potential catastrophe of climate change. His post is a reprint from a special issue of Physics World on Energy, Sustainability and Climate Change. (emphasis mine)

The fate of the next 50 generations may well be determined in the next few months and years…

The International Scientific Congress on climate change held in Copenhagen in March, which was attended by 2000 scientists, concluded that “Recent observations confirm that, given high rates of observed emissions, the worst-case Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realized.” That would mean that by 2100 there would be atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide of more than 1000 ppm, total planetary warming of 5 °C and sea-level rises probably on the high end of recent projections of 1–2 m followed by a rise of as much as 2 cm per year or more for centuries. We would also see one-third of inhabited land reaching dust bowl levels of aridity, half or more of all species becoming extinct, and the oceans increasingly becoming hot, acidic, dead zones. And if we do not change course quickly, the latest science predicts that these impacts may be irreversible for 1000 years.

That’s not good.  The problem is:

In short, the fate of perhaps the next 100 billion people to walk the Earth rests with scientists (and those who understand the science) trying to communicate the dire nature of the climate problem (and the myriad solutions available now) as well as the ability of the media, the public, opinion-makers and political leaders to understand and deal with that science.

Given the money being poured into denying climate science to protect the profits of carbon intensive industries (coal, oil, etc.), and their exploitation the false idea of “there are always two sides to every issue” we’ve got a serious problem. The same dynamic existed with the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer (money poured into creating doubt, insisting on “balance” when the science was clear there as a link, etc.).  The big difference here, however, is that the changes taking place are occurring over generations, rather than an individual’s lifespan.

People who smoke die of lung cancer at higher rates, and it is easy to see and observe first hand, even by people who don’t understand the science. You can see an uncle who you remember being young and healthy coughing, getting ill, and finally dying from lung cancer in only a few years.  The end point — death — was something that anyone could see, and see multiple times from multiple cases.

We have, however, only one earth, and it is dying. Part of dealing with a terminal illness is getting over the denial that it is really happening, because denying in some ways makes you feel superior. “The doctor’s wrong!” “I’m as strong as an ox!” “The tests aren’t reliable!”

Another stage in dealing with a terminal illness is bargaining: “It won’t be that bad!” “There will be a cure soon.” “We can deal with it once technology gets better…”

The problem isn’t just that scientists are poor communicators.  The problem is that we don’t want to listen.

(See also The Invention of Lying about Climate Change)

Patagonia's Footprint Chronicles

One of the big issues facing a transition to sustainability is for businesses to figure out how to run more ethnically and be environmentally sustainable.  No one, of course, is all the way there yet, and most businesses are aware of that.  There are a lot of different approaches, and that’s great — we need a lot of different ways to figure this out.

Two interesting examples are Apple and Patagonia.  Both take very different approaches to sustainability, as they deal with different industries and products.  By their own admission, neither one is perfect, but I think they serve as good thought provoking approaches.  Rather than focusing on a critique of their efforts, here are some of the good things they are doing.

Patagonia’s Footprint Chronicles

Patagonia is one of my favorite companies.  They have done so much to advance sustainability in business, from developing recycled fleece to starting 1% for the Planet.  They’ve really worked on being ethical and sustainable on a number of levels, and it is worth jumping over to their website to see all the different environmental initiatives they have going.

One of the more recent initiatives they have started is The Footprint Chronicles.  In their own words,

Build the best products and cause no unnecessary harm. This is our mission. Yet we’re keenly aware that everything we do as a business — or have done in our name — leaves its mark on the environment. There is still no such thing as sustainable business but every day we take steps to lighten our footprint and do less harm. The Footprint Chronicles allows you to track the impact of a specific Patagonia product from design through delivery.

When you choose a product, a map of the world show you how it travels — from factory to warehouse. There is a discussion of each element of the product (including energy use, CO2, water, etc.) as well as “The Good” and “The Bad” — essentially what they’ve got done so far, and what they are still trying to do.

They don’t have every product on the site, but enough diversity to give you a good idea of the type of manufacturing they do. Doing all the products would be close to impossible, and be so overwhelming it would actually be difficult to sort through.  They’ve done the hard work of sorting out what matters, and how it all fits together.  The product profile is supported with photos, videos (including interviews in the factories) and other information.  You could spend a lot of time clicking through what they are doing with each product, and come away with a really good understanding of the challenges and struggles it takes to be a sustainable business.

Apple

Life cycle impact and energy use.

Apple has taken a somewhat similar approach with Apple and the Environment. They lay out their overall approach to the environment and sustainability, and you can download a report on each currently shipping product.

We account for everything.  Including our products. Apple reports environmental impacts comprehensively. We do this by focusing on our products: what happens when we design them, what happens when we make them, and what happens when you take them home and use them.

Apple has been criticized in the past for not communicating well about what they are planning on doing for the environment.  Now they are communicating, and are trying to focus the discussion on what they are actually doing, not what they are promising to do.  A lot of companies come up with great plans for being more sustainable, but Apple in this case is focusing on what they are doing and have done.  They’ve got some great comparative data on their site, looking at past products and how things like changing packaging impacts their carbon footprint, etc.  Clearly they’ve been working on these initiatives for a long time, and it is good to finally see them doing a good job communicating about it.

They do a good job working through their carbon footprint, looking at manufacturing, shipping, facilities (including retail spaces), recycling, and the impact of consumer use. They deal with the issues of toxic substances in manufacturing, and are open about what they still need to do.  The focus on the life cycle is especially good, as they are thinking about and taking into account the product once it leaves their stores — working toward cradle to cradle accounting, including the environmental impact of consumer use and taking products back for recycling.

There is still a long way to go for both, and neither Patagonia nor Apple is all the way there yet.  However, it is very encouraging that two very different companies care enough about sustainability to put the resources behind not just doing it, but communicating well about what they are doing.

If you’re interested in sustainability, both of their websites are a good place to start to understand how it can happen in the real world!

Larson B Ice Shelf collapse in 2002. (Science Daily, Oct. 16, 2006)

An important conference, Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions just concluded in Copenhagen (March 10-12), focusing on climate change and updating the most current thinking on what is going to happen.  Some other related reports and information just came out as well that are worth highlighting.

The news is not good.

Consistently as I’ve been reading and studying climate change over the last few years, it seems that the worst case scenarios are usually what happens, or in some cases are underestimates of what ends up actually happening—from open water at the North Pole to rates of glacier melt to extinction rates among vulnerable populations.  Maddeningly we’ve already lost 8 years of the United States doing nothing, and actively undermining the science and confusing the issue.  We don’t have much time left to make some radical changes.

Here are some recent headlines and a few quotes of note:

Sea levels to surge at least a metre by 2100, scientists warn at Copenhagen meeting (Grist, March 10)

“A few years ago, those of us who talked about the impact of the ice sheets were seen as extremists. Today it is recognized as the central issue,” said glaciologist Eric Rignot of the University of California at Irvine.

“The world has very little time,” IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri told the meeting after the new findings were presented.

Carbon cuts ‘only give 50/50 chance of saving planet (The Independent, March 9)

The key aim of holding the expected increase to 2C, beyond which damage to the natural world and to human society is likely to be catastrophic, is far from assured, the research suggests, even if all countries engage forthwith in a radical and enormous crash programme to slash greenhouse gas emissions – something which itself is by no means guaranteed.

If action is sluggish or non-existent, the model suggests that climate change is likely to cause almost unthinkable damage to the world; under a “business-as-usual” scenario, with no action taken at all and emissions increasing by more than 100 per cent by 2050, the end-of-the-century rise in global average temperatures is likely to be 5.5C, with a worst-case outcome of 7.1C – which would make much of life on earth impossible. “Even with drastic cuts in emissions in the next 10 years, our results project that there will only be a 50 per cent chance of keeping global temperatures rises below 2C,” said Dr Vicky Pope, the Met Office’s Head of Climate Change Advice.

Global temperatures ‘will rise 6C this century’ (Times Online, March 10)

“There is not a lot, if any, good news,” said Richardson of the emerging science. “What we know now is that we are we facing the worst case scenario.”

The warnings on temperature rise are linked to the surge in greenhouse gas emissions over the last decade. Currently humanity generates the equivalent of about 50 billion tonnes of CO2 a year through burning fossil fuels, agriculture, deforestation and other processes.

In its last report the IPCC made over-cautious assumptions about how these emissions would rise in future – and concluded it would be possible to prevent a total global temperature rise of more than 2C compared with pre-industrial times.

… John Ashton, a senior civil servant at the British Foreign Office, launched a startling attack – for a government official – on the ability of politicians to deal with climate change, or even understand it.

He said he believed politicians had still failed to grasp the seriousness of climate change – or were even prepared to bend scientific findings to purely political ends.

“Policymaking is not adapted to deal with the problem of climate change, ” said Ashton. “Politiicans often see science as just another group and that opinions based on science are just another lobby. There are also plenty of people who due to ignorance or mischief are willing to confuse the issue.”

Why the world’s top scientists underestimated how fast we’re destroying the climate (Climate Progress, March 16)

The overly optimistic predictions in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment, released in 2007, appear to have been driven, in part, by the political dynamics involved in the international effort.

“We’re looking at future climate beyond anything we’ve considered,” Chris Field, director of the global ecology department at the Carnegie Institution for Science, told the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) annual meeting in Chicago last month. “Actual emissions are at or above the total range of possibilities considered in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment.”

“We were too optimistic,” Field said. “There was no decrease in emissions from developed countries and the sharpest increases and overall intensity came from China and India that rely heavily on coal.”