Doing nothing over climate change means unmanageable consequences

OPINION: We must cut green house gas emissions and adapt to unavoidable, adverse changes, writes Frank McGovern

OPINION:We must cut green house gas emissions and adapt to unavoidable, adverse changes, writes Frank McGovern

TORRENTIAL RAIN, floods, bog slides and talk of drought. The common phrase used in a lot of recent news reports is "climate change". But what are the facts and how much of the pent-up energy unleashed by our recent weather can we really attribute to climate change?

Experts differ, and answers are often more complex than news reporters want. One of the reasons for this is that the answers have profound implications for all of us, and how we live - particularly in the way we use fossil energy, build houses and travel.

The UN established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to get authoritative answers to such questions. Its main task is to make sense of climate change and to inform governments about options to deal with its challenges; on Sunday it celebrates its 20th anniversary. Since forming, its detailed scientific assessment reports have been at the heart of international actions on climate change.

READ MORE

So what is the IPCC saying and what does it mean for you and me? The main message is that climate change is happening, the evidence is unequivocal. Carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas (GHG) responsible for climate change. Impact will increase in the coming decades and, while it is not too late to take action, time is rapidly running out.

What can we do? Two courses of action are needed: one, to reduce our GHG emissions; and two, to adapt to unavoidable adverse changes. This will require significant investment, but doing nothing would result in unmanageable environmental and economic consequences.

Interestingly, the IPCC points out some changes that we can make that will reduce emissions and save us money at the same time, but not even all of these are being taken up. One reason seems to be that we are creatures of habit and don't like to change. But change is not always necessary. Examples of so-called win-win options include using energy-efficient lighting, driving energy-efficient cars and insulating our homes.

As was the case with the plastic bag tax and coal ban, governments can lead such changes. The proposed ban on standard bulbs will result in widespread use of energy-efficient lighting. The recent changes in annual car tax and registration tax will incentivise the use of low carbon dioxide-emission cars. Energy labelling for houses will promote more energy-efficient homes, as happened with electrical appliances.

Many companies and retailers are getting in on the act. The ESB aims to become carbon neutral; offsetting schemes are also available to counter unavoidable emissions, for example through afforestation.

Information is key to action. The Government's climate change campaign provides tools to check your carbon rating and tips on how to reduce this at www.change.ie.

This Sunday, the IPCC meets in Geneva to celebrate 20 years of achievement. UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon will address the body. The IPCC was jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore last year following publication of its Fourth Assessment Report. Three Irish researchers worked on the report, facilitated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) climate research programme.

The IPCC's achievements include prompting world governments to agree that GHG levels must be stabilised to prevent dangerous climate change, as was agreed following publication of the first IPCC assessment report in 1990. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was established to do this. The second IPCC report, in 1995, led to the Kyoto Protocol, which set GHG emissions targets for developed countries, including Ireland. This report also convinced the EU that the most dangerous climate impacts could be avoided if global temperatures did not increase by more than two degrees above pre-industrial levels.

The third IPCC report, in 2001, strengthened the finding of previous reports, but was given a frosty reception by the US, who viewed actions on climate change as being negative for the US economy. However, the report is credited with helping the Kyoto Protocol enter into legal force and advancing work on adaptation.

The IPCC reports are based on material published in scientific literature. The assessment task involves thousands of scientists across a range of disciplines. Scientific rivalries are not set aside in the reports - instead, the IPCC puts a large effort into the terminology that grades the level of knowledge or scientific agreement for a particular issue.

The reports are also subject to government reviews. Critics suggest that this waters down the findings, but the lead authors do not agree. Rather, they point to the need for clarity and the importance of communicating the science to the public and to policy-makers, which is helped by this process.

As well as celebrating its achievements, the IPCC meeting in Geneva will advance preparations for the next assessment report, to be published in 2013. At that time the success of its fourth report will be evident from agreement on future GHG emissions-reduction targets, which are being negotiated.

Dr Frank McGovern is a senior scientific manager with the EPA's Climate Change Unit and will represent the Department of Environment, Heritage, and Local Government at the IPCC plenary meeting in Geneva