Climate Change - Outlook

Throughout 2007, an increasing number of reports from scientists and commentary from observers and the media took on a rather alarmed/pessimistic note regarding the trajectory of our greenhouse gas emissions and the observed effects of climate change.

Basically that:

• our emissions are tracking ABOVE the worst case scenarios of business as usual (BAU);
• we are seeing greater environmental impacts much sooner than expected;
• it's looking like the 2 degrees Celsius (previously a target to avoid the worst impacts of climate change) is not only too high, but we look like we are set to overshoot it anyway
• the window of opportunity to correct our course is closing rapidly;
• we have to start some serious WORK on this issue right now to have a reasonable chance of turning things around.

The conundrum (well, one of them) in the climate change debate is how to effectively communicate the message so that people will realise the urgency and importance of the issue, without turning them off. Start talking about doomsday scenarios and you risk being labelled an extremist crank. Water down the language to make the message politically (or humanly) acceptable and you risk that people will not see the urgency and think it can be put off another day.

As George Monbiot so succinctly puts it; "When you warn people about the dangers of climate change, they call you a saint. When you explain what needs to be done to stop it, they call you a communist."

Scientists often see their professional role is to inform on the facts and let people decide for themselves what action is required. They are naturally reticent about making predictions which are less than certain and climate change prediction is fraught with uncertainty. Privately (sometimes publicly) they may talk of what they see as the likely outcomes and what needs to be done. Publicly, it is left to the IPCC to report to the world on the scientific consensus on climate change.

As a result of the scientific (and political, in the case of the Summary for Policymakers) consensus building and the time constraints around the reporting process, the IPCC reports have often been described as conservative and representing outdated science. For example, scientific research considered for the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report may have been conducted as far back as 2000.

So these latest developments in observation and research (two examples, the unprecedented levels of melting polar ice in summer 2007 and; the discovery that the worlds oceans may already be absorbing less carbon dioxide) are causing concern because:

• they are impacts beyond the worst predicted by the definitive and respected IPCC report released only last year;
• there will not be another report for another three years;
• in the meantime, governments and other bodies will use the 2007 report as a guide towards their policies and actions;
• the next few years are crucial to the outcomes of climate change.

Global warming/heating and climate change are complex issues. There are many aspects to consider, many sources of information and even more opinions. Too much for the average person to have to read and understand before coming to an informed opinion.

To understand the broad issues and stay up to date on developments, aside from reading daily news releases, I consider it a worthwhile exercise to read reports which consolidate current science, thinking and opinion.

Two such recent reports, which I would recommend, are:

• The (Interim) Garnaut Climate Change Review
• The Climate Code Red: the case for a sustainability emergency

They may not be the best bedtime reading, but they are a great way to gain an education on the topic and understanding of what's in store and what we can do about it.