Met Office's bleak forecast on climate change
The head of the Met Office centre for climate change research explains why the momentum on emissions targets must not be lost
When it comes to climate change, the scientific evidence has to be at the core of any decision-making. Governments need to understand the consequences of choosing particular targets, but they also need to understand what will happen if targets are missed or if they cannot be agreed on by all countries. Failures could have far-reaching consequences.
The latest climate model projections from the Met Office Hadley Centre show clearly that such failures could have worrying and significant consequences for the world's climate. Even with large and early cuts in emissions, these projections indicate that temperatures are likely to rise to around 2C above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century. If action is delayed or is slow, then there is a significant risk of much larger increases in temperature. The uncertainties in the science mean that even if the most likely temperature rise is kept within reasonable limits, we cannot rule out the possibility of much larger increases. Adaptation strategies are therefore needed to deal with these less likely, but still real, possibilities.
Temperature rises
Jason Lowe, a climate scientist, and other colleagues at the Hadley Centre have conducted a series of "what if" climate projections, to give a better understanding of the temperature rises we could expect if action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions is slow or delayed.
In the first scenario, emissions continue to rise throughout the century. In the other scenarios, emission reductions have been imposed at various times and at various rates.
In the most optimistic scenario, emissions start to decrease in 2010, and reductions quickly reach 3% per year. This contrasts sharply with current trends, where the world's overall emissions are increasing at 1% per year - faster than even the worst cases used in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) emissions scenarios.
What is very clear is that some increase in temperature is inevitable in the next century, and that the decisions and actions that the world takes now will have a profound impact on the climate later this century.
Even if emissions start to decrease in the next two years and reach a rapid and sustained rate of decline of 3% per year, temperatures are likely to rise to 1.7C above pre-industrial levels by 2050 and to around 2C by 2100. This is because carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere will be around for many years to come and the climate takes some time to respond to these changes. Only an early and rapid decline in emissions gets anywhere close to the target of 50% reduction in emissions by 2050 put forward by the G8.
Contrast that with a world where no action is taken to curb global warming. Then, temperatures could rise as high as 7C above pre-industrial values by the end of the century. This would lead to significant risks of severe and irreversible impacts.
Lowe's two other scenarios are also significant. The consequences of a late decline in emissions are apparent by 2050. Delaying reduction of emissions until 2030, results in a further 0.5C of warming by 2050 compared with early, if slow, reduction from 2010. By the end of the century the differences are even greater - more than 1C.
The consequences of an early but slow decline in emissions of 1% per year, compared with a rapid decline, appear to be small in 2050. However, they increase to 0.8C by the end of the century.
Overall, a delayed and slow decline in emissions would probably lead to nearly 2C more warming than an early and rapid decline in global emissions - a total temperature rise of 4C above pre-industrial levels.
The implications of these levels of temperature change are very serious, but the central projections are not the only things we should be worried by. When commentators look at these projections, they tend to concentrate on the most likely temperature rises. However, if we are concerned about keeping to a minimum the risks of avoiding dangerous climate change, we should also consider the worst case outcome. This will occur if the climate turns out to be particularly sensitive to increases in greenhouse gases and the Earth's biological systems cannot absorb very much carbon.
Dangerous impacts
The risks for worst case outcomes amplify much more quickly than the risks for most likely outcomes. For an early and rapid decline in emissions, the worst case outcome is around 0.7C higher than the most likely temperature rise. With much slower action taken much later, the difference between the most likely and worst case outcome is almost twice as wide, at 1.2C. This takes a worst case temperature rise of less than 3C to one just above 5C by the end of this century, bringing with it significant risk of dangerous impacts to our environment, society and economy.
A major reason for this amplification is the so-called "carbon cycle effect". Plants, soils and oceans currently absorb about half of the carbon dioxide emitted by humankind's activities, limiting rises in atmospheric CO2 and slowing global warming. As temperatures increase, this absorption is very likely to decrease.
For example, plant matter in the soil breaks down more quickly at higher temperatures, releasing carbon more quickly, and amplifying the warming trend. Methane released from the thawing of permafrost will add to the warming. This methane release is currently not included in the calculations, and becomes more of a risk for larger temperature rises.
Hence, the risks of dangerous climate change will not increase slowly as greenhouse gases increase. Rather, the risks will multiply if we do not reduce emissions fast enough.
• Vicky Pope is head of climate change for government at the Met Office's Hadley Centre
Revealed: oil-funded research in Palin's campaign against protection for polar bear
• Paper authored by known climate change sceptics
• Governor suing over threatened species ruling
The Republican Sarah Palin and her officials in the Alaskan state government drew on the work of at least six scientists known to be sceptical about the dangers and causes of global warming, to back efforts to stop polar bears being protected as an endangered species, the Guardian can disclose. Some of the scientists were funded by the oil industry.
In official submissions to the US government's consultation on the status of the polar bear, Palin and her team referred to at least six scientists who have questioned either the existence of warming as a largely man-made phenomenon or its severity. One paper was partly funded by the US oil company ExxonMobil.
The status of the polar bear has become a battleground in the debate on global warming. In May the US department of the interior rejected Palin's objections and listed the bear as a threatened species, saying that two-thirds of the world's polar bears were likely to be extinct by 2050 due to the rapid melting of the sea ice. Palin, governor of Alaska and the Republican nominee for US vice-president, responded last month by suing the federal government, to try to overturn the ruling. The case will be heard in January.
Though the state of Alaska has no polar bear specialists on its staff, the governor's stance has pitted it against the combined scientific fire-power of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the US Geological Survey, and world experts on the mammal.
In its lawsuit, Alaska said it opposed the endangered label partly because the listing would "deter activities such as ... oil and gas exploration and development". Oil companies recently bid $2.7bn (£1.5bn) for rights to explore the Chuckchi sea, an established polar bear habitat.
The threatened species status might also impede the building of an Alaskan natural gas pipeline, which Palin has called the "will of God". In a letter last year to the US interior secretary, Dirk Kempthorne, she said she believed the polar bear population was "abundant, stable and unthreatened by direct human activity". She opposed the call for the listing because it "did not use the best available scientific and commercial information".
Her own Alaskan review of the science drew on a joint paper by seven authors, four of whom were well-known climate- change contrarians. Her paper argued that it was "certainly premature, if not impossible" to link temperature rise in Alaska with human CO2 emissions.
The paper, entitled Polar Bears of Western Hudson Bay and Climate Change, has been criticised for relying on old research and ignoring evidence that Arctic sea-ice is melting at a quickening pace. Walt Meier, a world authority on sea ice, based at the National Snow and Ice Data Centre, said: "The paper doesn't measure up scientifically."
One co-author of the paper, Willie Soon, completed the study with funding from ExxonMobil - which has oil operations in Alaska's North Slope - as well as from the American Petroleum Institute. Soon was a former senior scientist with the George C Marshall Institute, which acts as an incubator for climate-change scepticism. The institute has received $715,000 in funding from ExxonMobil since 1998.
In May, ExxonMobil announced that it was no longer funding Marshall and other groups linked with contrarian views. It said this was to avoid "distraction from the need to provide energy while reducing greenhouse gas emissions" and stressed that the company did not "control the research itself".
Another co-author of the document was Sallie Baliunas. In 2003 she and Soon were criticised when it was revealed that a joint paper had been partially funded by the American Petroleum Institute. Thirteen scientists whom they cited issued a rebuttal and several editors of the journal Climate Research resigned because of the "flawed peer review". A third co-author of the polar bear study, David Legates, a professor at Delaware University, is also associated with the Marshall Institute.
The citation by Palin and her officials prompted complaints from Congress. One member, Brad Miller, dubbed the polar bear study phony science.
Palin told Miller: "Attempts to discredit scientists ... simply because their analyses do not agree with your views, would be a disservice to this country." Miller now says that Palin's use of the paper shows she differs greatly from John McCain, the Republican presidential contender, who has pressed for scientific integrity. "Turning to the cottage industry of scientists who are funded because they spread doubt about global warming is not integrity," Miller said.
Palin's submission consulted J Scott Armstrong, a specialist in forecasting, who regards the global warming issue as "public hysteria".
Two other contrarian scholars were cited. One was Syun-Ichi Akasofu, formerly director of the International Arctic Research Centre, in Alaska, who argues that climate change could be a hangover from the little ice age. He is a founding director of the Heartland Institute, a thinktank that has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Timothy Ball, a retired professor from Winnipeg, is cited for his climate and polar bear research. He has called human-made global warming "the greatest deception in the history of science". He has worked with both Friends of Science, and the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, which each had funding from energy firms.
Kert Davies, research director at Greenpeace US, said the state of Alaska under Palin's leadership had relied on scholars who argue the opposite view to that of the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community. "It shows that she is completely out of touch with the urgency of the climate crisis."
Last month Palin agreed that the Alaskan climate was changing but added: "I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made." She later tried to retract the statement.
Brazilian officials face charges over Amazon destruction caused by logging
Top 100 illegal loggers set to be sued after evidence shows 292 square miles of forest were chopped down in August
Forests in Brazil have been cut down to make way for crops such as soya. Photographer: Rodrigo Baleia/Greenpeace
Illegal logging has sharply accelerated destruction of the Amazon and the biggest culprit is the Brazilian government, according to new evidence.
Officials are expected to face criminal charges after satellite imagery revealed the worst-hit regions belonged to the Institute of Colonization and Agrarian Reform, or Incra, a state agency which distributes land.
The top 100 illegal loggers, with Incra at the top, would be sued, the environment minister, Carlos Minc, told a news conference. "It was a terrible result. We're going to blow all 100 of them out of the water and then some."
Official data released on Monday showed that 292 square miles of rainforest were chopped down in August, more than twice the rate for the same month last year. The National Institute of Space Studies said its findings would probably have been even worse had it obtained images of a quarter of the forest covered by dense clouds in August.
Until recently Brazil's government highlighted an apparent slowdown in the rate of deforestation as proof of conservation success. This week's announcement was all the more embarrassing because the six largest deforested areas since 2005 were owned by Incra.
Officials tasked with distributing land to the poor, along with vote-chasing mayors and other politicians in the Amazon, were accused of turning a blind eye to the tree-felling by peasants, big landowners and logging companies.
Upcoming elections aggravated the trend, said the environment minister, who blamed expanded agricultural activity as well as land theft through the falsification of property titles.
"When you have elections, the appetite of authorities to enforce laws is reduced," said Paulo Adario, of the advocacy group Greenpeace. "But the federal government has to step in and do its job."
Adario also blamed the dramatic global food price increases for encouraging cattle ranchers and soy farmers to push deeper into the forest and clear land. "The tendency of deforestation rising is deeply related to the fact that food prices are going up."
Big landowners have long argued that poor peasants resettled by Incra were driving the deforestation, a view bolstered by the estimates that since 2005 some 223,000 hectares (550,000 acres) of forest were destroyed on six Incra properties.
Incra's president, Rolf Hackbart, defended his agency by saying the affected areas had in fact been legally settled between 1995 and 2002. It was not immediately possible to verify the conflicting claims.
Other figures released by the environment ministry showed that private land holders deforested more than three times as much as Incra between January and August of this year, suggesting soy and cattle barons are still causing far more damage.
The government's green credentials have been under intense scrutiny since Marina Silva, a high-profile champion of the rainforest, quit as environment minister in May following bruising battles with cabinet colleagues.
Minc, her successor, said the government will create an environmental police force with 3,000 heavily armed and specially trained officers to help protect the Amazon.
Meat must be rationed to four portions a week, says report on climate change
• Study looks at food impact on greenhouse gases
• Return to old-fashioned cooking habits urged
People will have to be rationed to four modest portions of meat and one litre of milk a week if the world is to avoid run-away climate change, a major new report warns.
The report, by the Food Climate Research Network, based at the University of Surrey, also says total food consumption should be reduced, especially "low nutritional value" treats such as alcohol, sweets and chocolates.
It urges people to return to habits their mothers or grandmothers would have been familiar with: buying locally in-season products, cooking in bulk and in pots with lids or pressure cookers, avoiding waste and walking to the shops - alongside more modern tips such as using the microwave and internet shopping.
The report goes much further than any previous advice after mounting concern about the impact of the livestock industry on greenhouse gases and rising food prices. It follows a four-year study of the impact of food on climate change and is thought to be the most thorough study of its kind.
Tara Garnett, the report's author, warned that campaigns encouraging people to change their habits voluntarily were doomed to fail and urged the government to use caps on greenhouse gas emissions and carbon pricing to ensure changes were made. "Food is important to us in a great many cultural and symbolic ways, and our food choices are affected by cost, time, habit and other influences," the report says. "Study upon study has shown that awareness-raising campaigns alone are unlikely to work, particularly when it comes to more difficult changes."
The report's findings are in line with an investigation by the October edition of the Ecologist magazine, which found that arguments for people to go vegetarian or vegan to stop climate change and reduce pressure on rising food prices were exaggerated and would damage the developing world in particular, where many people depend on animals for essential food, other products such as leather and wool, and for manure and help in tilling fields to grow other crops.
Instead, it recommended cutting meat consumption by at least half and making sure animals were fed as much as possible on grass and food waste which could not be eaten by humans.
"The notion that cows and sheep are four-legged weapons of mass destruction has become something of a distraction from the real issues in both climate change and food production," said Pat Thomas, the Ecologist's editor.
The head of the United Nations intergovernmental panel on climate change, Rajendra Pachauri, also sparked global debate this month when he urged people to have at least one meat-free day a week.
The Food Climate Research Network found that measured by production, the UK food sector produces greenhouse gases equivalent to 33m tonnes of carbon. Measured by consumption - including imports - the total rises to 43.3m tonnes. Both figures work out at under one fifth of UK emissions, but they exclude the indirect impacts of actions such as clearing rainforest for cattle and crops, which other studies estimate would add up to 5% to 20% of global emissions.
The report found the meat and dairy sectors together accounted for just over half of those emissions; potatoes, fruit and vegetables for 15%; drinks and other products with sugar for another 15%; and bread, pastry and flour for 13%.
It also revealed which parts of the food chain were the most polluting. Although packaging has had a lot of media and political attention, it only ranked fifth in importance behind agriculture - especially the methane produced by livestock burping - manufacturing, transport, and cooking and refrigeration at home.
The report calls for meat and dairy consumption to be cut in developed countries so that global production remains stable as the population grows to an estimated 9bn by 2050.
At the same time emissions from farms, transport, manufacturing and retail could be cut, with improvements including more efficient use of fertilisers, feed and energy, changed diets for livestock, and more renewable fuels - leading to a total reduction in emissions from the sector of 50% to 67%, it says.
The UN and other bodies recommend that developed countries should reduce total emissions by 80% by 2050.
However, the National Farmers' Union warned that its own study, with other industry players, published last year, found net emissions from agriculture could only be cut by up to 50% if the carbon savings from building renewable energy sources on farms were taken into account.
The NFU also called for government incentives to help farmers make the changes. "Farmers aren't going to do this out of the goodness of their hearts, because farmers don't have that luxury; many of our members are very hard pressed at the moment," said Jonathan Scurlock, the NFU's chief adviser on renewable energy and climate change.
The mother of all rip-offs
'Could there be a finer reward for failure?
Hank Paulson has got to be kidding. He wants American taxpayers to hand a cool $US700 billion ($840 billion) to his pals on Wall Street in return for a gigantic bundle of their delinquent assets ... without his pals taking a pay cut.
Could there be a finer reward for failure? Could there be a worse deal for taxpayers?
No stake in the upside, no ceiling on extortionate Wall Street salaries, no guarantee the system will be stabilised. Just the mother of all rip-offs: a deal to privatise Wall Street's profits and socialise its losses.
How about this bit: "Decisions by the (Treasury) Secretary (Paulson) pursuant to the Authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to Agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency''.
Paulson and his pals get an explicit protection against any review by the courts and Congress while taxpayers fork out top dollar for rubbish the banks can't sell. It is the quintessential dudding.
If the Paulson "cash for trash'' plan could avert systemic failure and this is by no means assured - it could have legs but Congress is jacking up at the ample "trust me'' element. And rightly so.
There is no reason to trust Wall Street, or the regulators. As House Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it, Congress would not "simply hand over a $US700 billion blank cheque to Wall Street and hope for a better outcome."
Until now Americans have been mostly apathetic when it came to the excesses of their investment banks. But now that Main Street is being asked to bail out Wall Street, again, and in huge measure, the temperature is rising.
Congress wants a brake on salaries, some kind of guarantee that Paulson's pals won't simply load up the truck with billions in bonuses again, this time funded by Ma and Pa Kettle.
The four biggest investment banks on Wall Street, which included Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, shelled out $US30 billion in bonuses last year. Lehman just went under and Bear Stearns was bailed out earlier in the year.
While pushing through his emergency deal, Paulson says he wants to defer the debate on salaries. Someone should take him aside and tell him, "Pal, it's over''. The moral and philosophical underpinning for $US50 million salaries is gone, let alone $US10 million salaries care of government.
These remuneration structures were struck on the basis of a compact with the market, that is that pay is "at risk'' and should reflect performance. That compact is finished. What is the risk if the losses are nationalised?
And what is the performance? The fancy deals and the structured finance rubbish brewed up by this crew gave the world CDOs, CDOs squared and cubed, RMBS, CLOs, ABS, CDS and all manner of noxious excuses for a fee.
From the sub-prime to the ridiculous, this orgy of leverage on leverage mimicked in financial centres as far afield as Australia has whipped the world to the edge of recession and destroyed faith in the entire system.
And now here is another $US1 trillion ($US700 billion is just for starters) to add to Bush's $US9.6 trillion national debt. Where will the money come from? The issue of Treasury bonds. Who will buy them?
Good question. Anyone for some bonds in an entity which can't pay off its debt but has just taken a trillion dollars worth of delinquent assets on its balance sheet?
The US dollar has been sinking thanks to the daunting prospect of a bond market deluged with bits of paper nobody wants: more US Government debt. The more paper on issue the lower the price.
Either the US defaults on its obligations an outcome many regard as "unthinkable'' or taxes will have to go up. Higher taxes, deeper recession. Thanks Wall Street.
All this makes it critical that Paulson and his pals demonstrate to the world that they understand the jig is up. The world changes.
People and pay are central to this understanding. Industrialists or entrepreneurs with their own businesses can pay whatever they like but the failed managers of licensed institutions on corporate welfare can hardly expect a blank cheque from those they have blown up. The contract is finished. Wall Street has not fulfilled its obligations.
As Paulson tries to shove his plan through in the face of congressional opposition the rewards for failure have already shamed the principal of pay for performance.
Fannie Mae boss Daniel Mudd and his opposite number at Freddie Mac, Richard Syron, walked last month with $US9.43 million in retirement and pension benefits on their way out the door. Failed, sacked and showered with money as their two giant mortgage operations were nationalised.
Lehman Brothers chairman and CEO Richard Fuld picked up $US22 million for 2007, the year thousands of his staff found themselves on the street. He took $US35 million the year before.
Merrill Lynch boss John Thain took a $US200 million payout with two offsiders for less than a year's work. Merrill was so close to obsolescence it sold itself to Bank of America for $US50 billion in scrip few days ago just as Lehman was biting the dust.
Thain was given a $US15 million bonus for signing on. Two former Goldman Sachs executives hired by Thain may do even better. Head of global trading, Thomas Montag, has already received a $US39 million bonus since signing on in August. With stock options accelerated by the buyout, he could finish up with $US76 million.
The bank's head of strategy, Peter Kraus, was bestowed with a $US95 million package just to beat what he was on at Goldman.
Paulson himself has shares in Goldman whose value was estimated at $US700 million. He is a direct beneficiary of his own bail-out proposal blind trust or no blind trust.
On the positive news front, the former head of broken insurance company AIG, Robert Willumstad, voluntarily forfeited a $US22 million severance package after he was giving his marching orders. He was only appointed in June.
"I prefer not to receive severance while shareholders and employees have lost considerable value in their AIG shares," wrote Willumstad in an email to his successor Edward Liddy.
Goldman boss Lloyd Blanfein took home $US54 million last year and Morgan Stanley's John Mack $US42 million.
The list goes on. Some of the investment bank's hedge funds clients have even been paying themselves more than $US1 billion.
Regulatory oversight and the ramifications of Bush's tax-cuts-for-the-rich policy alongside his catastrophic jaunt in Iraq have come home to roost.
On top of its $US9.6 trillion national debt, America is heading for its first $US1 trillion deficit this year. Paulson's bailout will add another $US1 trillion to the bill.
America is in trouble.
mwest@fairfax.com.au
BusinessDay
Arctic sea ice at second lowest extent ever recorded
The area of ice at least five years old has fallen by more than half since 1985 and the Northwest and Northeast Passages are now navigable by sea
Sea ice limits ... red shows this year's limit, while yellow shows the average summer extent from 1979 to 2000. Click for a larger version
Arctic sea ice has reached the second lowest extent ever recorded, according to the US national snow and ice centre, and a new map shows how far the 2008 melt has receded compared to the historical average.
The map, produced by Collins, illustrates that the area of ice that is at least five years old has fallen by more than half since 1985. It comes as the Northwest Passage, above north America, and the Northeast Passage, over the top of Russia, are both free of ice for the first time.
"While slightly above the record-low minimum set last year, this season further reinforces the strong negative trend in summer sea ice extent observed during the past 30 years. Before last year, the previous record low for September was set in 2005", said a spokesman for the Snow and Ice center based at the University of Colorado.
A spokesman for WWF International said: "This means two years in a row of record lows. The trend of melting Arctic sea ice is alarming for the rest of the world. The Arctic is a key factor in stabilising the global climate so this is a global problem that demands an immediate and global response."
The daily rate of ice loss usually starts to slow in August as the Arctic begins to cool. But in August 2008, the daily decline rate remained steadily downward and strong.
The average daily ice loss rate for August 2008 was 78,000 square kilometers (30,000 square miles) per day. This was the fastest rate of daily ice loss that scientists had observed since satellite photographs were started in 1979
Rubber Dodo award for governor
Sarah Palin may have seen the light - sort of - on climate change but that did not spare her from being singled out yesterday as America's environmental enemy of the year.
The Centre for Biological Diversity awarded Palin its Rubber Dodo award for her insistence - despite evidence to the contrary - that the polar bear population was rising across the Arctic. The Arizona thinktank condemned the Alaska governor as a "global warming denier".
"Governor Palin has waged a deceptive, dangerous, and costly battle against the polar bear," Kieran Suckling, the centre's director, said. "Her position on global warming is so extreme, she makes Dick Cheney look like an Al Gore devotee."
The slap comes less than a week after Palin belatedly admitted the possibility of a human factor in climate change, in her first television interview since she was chosen as John McCain's running mate.
The conversion was followed by further revelations of Palin's tenuous relationship with scientific fact. News reports yesterday said that Palin bought a tanning bed and moved it into the governor's mansion soon after her election. A few months later, in May 2007, she issued a proclamation during skin cancer awareness month urging Alaskans to take preventive measures. "Skin cancer is caused, overwhelmingly, by overexposure to ultraviolet radiation from the sun and from tanning beds," she said in a press release.
McCain had skin cancers removed in 1993 and 2000, and is religious about using sun screen and wearing a hat outdoors.
Roll back time to safeguard climate, expert warns
A return to pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide urged as the only way to prevent the worst impacts of global warming
Scientists may have to turn back time and clean the atmosphere of all man-made carbon dioxide to prevent the worst impacts of global warming, one of Europe's most senior climate scientists has warned.
Professor John Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, told the Guardian that only a return to pre-industrial levels of CO2 would be enough to guarantee a safe future for the planet. He said that current political targets to slow the growth in emissions and stabilise carbon levels were insufficient, and that ways may have to be found to actively remove CO2 from the air.
Schellnhuber said: "We have to start pondering that it might not be enough to stabilise carbon levels. We should not rule out that it might be necessary to bring them down again."
Carbon levels have fluctuated over the last few hundred thousand years, but have rarely gone much beyond 280 parts per million (ppm), which is commonly referred to as the pre-industrial concentration. Over the last few centuries, human emissions of greenhouse gases have forced that concentration up as high as 387ppm, and it is rising at more than 2ppm each year.
World governments are currently trying to agree a deal that would restrict emissions and stabilise carbon levels at 450ppm, in an effort to limit global temperatures to 2C warmer than pre-industrial times.
Schellnhuber, who has advised the German government and European Commission on climate, said: "It is a compromise between ambition and feasibility. A rise of 2C could avoid some of the big environmental disasters, but it is still only a compromise."
He said even a small increase in temperature could trigger one of several climatic tipping points, such as methane released from melting permafrost, and bring much more severe global warming.
"It is a very sweeping argument, but nobody can say for sure that 330ppm is safe," he said. "Perhaps it will not matter whether we have 270ppm or 320ppm, but operating well outside the [historic] realm of carbon dioxide concentrations is risky as long as we have not fully understood the relevant feedback mechanisms."
He calls the plan to remove man-made emissions "atmospheric restitution" and has discussed it at recent seminars, but not written it up for a scientific journal. "It's such a bold idea and sounds very desperate," he said.
Schellnhuber said the most severe long-term impact could be sea-level rise. Over several centuries or more, a 1C global rise would correspond to a 15-20m rise in sea level. "Since we have built all our coastal zones for the current sea level we should not change [it] by tens of metres."
If CO2 levels are stabilised over the next decades, he said, then "science fiction" technology could be developed to bring the level down again by 2200. He suggested the large-scale burning of plant material for energy, with the resulting carbon dioxide captured and stored, could reduce CO2 levels by about 50ppm. Other techniques would be needed as well, he said.
Scientists in the US, led by Klaus Lackner at Columbia University, are developing a device that could scrub carbon dioxide from the air using absorbent plastic strips. Richard Branson has promised $25m (£14m) to the inventor of a machine that could take CO2 from the air on a large scale.
Schellnhuber's warning comes as climate experts say current emissions trends show the world is unlikely to stabilise carbon dioxide levels below 650ppm, which could see a 4C rise. Alice Bows and Kevin Anderson, of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Manchester, say carbon pollution is rising faster than officially admitted. They say emissions would need to peak by 2015 and then decrease by up to 6.5% each year for atmospheric CO2 levels to stabilise at 450ppm.
Even a goal of 650ppm – way above most government projections – would need world emissions to peak in 2020 and then reduce 3% each year. They say this year's G8 pledge to cut global emissions 50% by 2050, in an effort to limit global warming to 2C, has no scientific basis and could lead to "dangerously misguided" policies.
September 12, 2008
The Gulf is angry
; Stu Ostro, Senior Meteorologist
Daniel Gallegos watches as a wave crashes into the seawall as Hurricane Ike approaches the Texas coast, Friday, Sept. 12, 2008, in Galveston, Texas. (AP Photo/Matt Slocum)
Fire destroys homes along the beach on Galveston Island, Texas as Hurricane Ike approaches. (AP Photo/David J. Phillip)
Bobby Taylor uses a kayak to evacuate as his neighborhood was overtaken by water in Surfside Beach, Texas. Taylor had planned to remain at his home despite Hurricane Ike, but later changed his mind. (AP Photo/Eric Gay)
Matthew Davis and John Bennett use a bass boat to get out of their flooded neighborhood on Central Avenue in Bay St. Louis, Miss. (AP PhotO /William Colgin, Sun Herald)
As I sit here late this Friday afternoon, many thoughts are swirling through my head.
What was it like for Isaac Cline as he, without today's technology, saw the waves coming onshore on Galveston, an initial sign on that morning 108 years ago that something was really, really wrong? Were they as big as far in advance of the arrival of the center of the 1900 hurricane as they were this morning in advance of Ike?
With today's modern meteorological technology and the ability to know that the hurricane is gigantic and the water is already rising, and with hurricane warnings long since having been issued along with forecasts of an exceptionally high water rise along the coast, how many people that needed to evacuate have done so?
What about the freaky coincidence with respect to Ike and IKE? IKE is an acronym for "Integrated Kinetic Energy," which as readers noted in comments to my last blog is a measure of the overall destructive potential of a tropical cyclone, and whose values, as it turns out, have been exceptionally high for the hurricane of the same name.
Or the coincidence that on the day of the approach of a massive hurricane, The Weather Channel is sold?
Speaking of The Weather Channel, on Wednesday evening my boss walked into my office and I started exclaiming and gesticulating, and he took note of my agitated state. Don't worry, everything was cool between us. I wasn't all hot and bothered about the sale or anything else to do with TWC. What I was bouncing off walls about was that the water level had already risen quickly to two feet above normal astronomical tides at Waveland, Mississippi. Two days before the hurricane would even approach the GulfCoast. It was the "uh-oh" moment when all that stuff I wrote in my last entry about the size of Ike and model forecasts and so on suddenly became not only a stark reality but one which was the tipoff that something extraordinary and frightening was unfolding.
Waveland is very surge-prone; it was the site of the highest surge from Katrina, upwards of 28 feet with some estimates putting it at more than 30'. Then Gustav brought a surge of nearly 10 feet, and since Wednesday evening it topped out just shy of six. What's remarkable about the coastal flooding the past few days from the Florida Panhandle to Alabama and Mississippi is simply that it occurred to the degree it did when Ike was so far away and not directly headed toward there.
I hope that there is no loss of life from people not having taken Ike seriously enough despite it "only" being a Category 2. Ike is extremely dangerous whether or not there's a last-minute intensification into a higher Category, although the fact that that's what Ike is trying to do means that any hope of a substantial last-minute weakening is evaporating. The Gulf is angry and so is the atmopshere overhead.
Even if we'd be fortunate enough to have no loss of life, that won't prevent damage which is widespread and severe, and in some places catastrophic. Although some would beg to differ, I'm not prone to alarmism, in fact I've only used that "c" word in TWC's tropical cyclone "bottom line" graphics I'm responsible for once before today, and that was as Katrina was approaching the coast.
If the tide level at Waveland earlier this week was the first "uh-oh" moment, what really brought home the gravity of the situation was seeing the images on TV this morning of the inundation of portions of the upper Texas coast. The Galveston seawall so far is fending off the seething Gulf, but even there the water by sunrise was spalshing over the wall, and parts of the south end of the island, where there is no seawall, are under water. Ditto at Surfside Beach, just down the coast from Galveston. We're received reports of rescues on the Bolivar Peninsula, just up the coast, and of flooding on the shores of Galveston Bay in the Houston area. And all of this has been long before the core of the hurricane arrives.
To give you a further flavor of what's unfolding, here are reports from a little farther up the coast from as early as late this morning; I want to make sure people understand that although much of the focus has been on Texas, southwest Louisiana is also feeling the fury of Ike.
09/12/2008 1023 AM STORM SURGE SABINE PASS
E6.70 FT JEFFERSON TX
THE TIDE GAGE AT SABINE PASS IS NOW 6.7 FEET. INUNDATION IS OCCURRING THROUGH MUCH OF SOUTHERN JEFFERSON AND ORANGE COUNTIES.
09/12/2008 1016 AM STORM SURGE 10 SE PECAN ISLAND
M8.30 FT VERMILION LA
THE WATER LEVEL AT FRES WATER LOCK IS 8.3 MLLW. FLOODING NOW HAS CUT OFF BURNS AND CYPREMORT POINT. FLOODING IS ALSO COMMING INTO FRANKLIN.
09/12/2008 1029 AM STORM SURGE CAMERON
M7.50 FT CAMERON LA
THE WATER LEVEL AT THE CAMERON TIDE GAGE IS ALREADY 7.5 FEET MLLW. SIGNIFICANT INUNDATION IS OCCURRING IN CAMERON PARISH AND WATER CONTINUES TO RISE RAPIDLY.
The center of Ike is coming toward Galveston and will make landfall overnight either over the island or nearby. To some extent, the exact landfall location matters, because that will determine the precise number of feet the water rises in any given location near where the center tracks in the Houston/Galveston area. But regardless, because of Ike's size, a vast area will experience the full force of the hurricane, with the Gulf and bays surging onshore, and winds causing widespread power outages and structural damage including inland. And, if that wasn't enough, heavy rain and potential flooding will occur not only in Texas and Louisiana but even in states to the north as deep tropical moisture interacts with a non-tropical system, which, by the way, resulted in Lubbock's one-day rainfall record being broken yesterday.
This hurricane has attributes that are reminiscent of the 1900 hurricane and Carla in 1961 (not a Category 4 like those hurricanes, but similar in track to the former and size of the latter), and Katrina and Rita in 2005 ... or maybe the March 1993 Superstorm on steroids. These NOAA satellite images show that this afternoon Ike, albeit moving in a different direction (northwest not northeast), took on somewhat of a similar appearance to that infamous non-tropical system of the past which, prior to its epic blizzard, produced a serious storm surge on the other side of the Gulf as well as a tornado outbreak. The difference is that Ike has a much stronger and larger wind field.
Since Katrina was probably the biggest hurricane in terms of size up until now to make landfall in the U.S. during the era of modern observation technology, here's a NOAA analysis of the size of tropical storm force winds (starting with light blue and on in toward the center from there) and hurricane force winds (yellow) for Katrina and a recent one of Ike. The size of these two hurricanes over the Gulf has been comparable; in fact at times the maximum radius of tropical storm force winds has been bigger with Ike. For contrast, also included is the same map for Charley in 2004, which had vicious winds but a much lower and more confined surge than Ike has already had before it even makes landfall. The geographic scale of all these maps is the same.
The zone of stronger winds is approaching the coast now and with it will come the main surge of water and the destructive winds. Though landfall, defined as when the center of the eye crosses the coast, won't be till later tonight, things are about to go downhill rapidly in advance of that.
I won't be able to give the details for every single location and answer all your questions, but will provide updates with as much information and frequency as possible.
The folks on northwest Gulf Coast are in our thoughts ...
[Image source: GRLevelX]
New Orleans disaster warning as Gustav death toll reaches 68
Tropical Storm Gustav today drenched Jamaica and threatened the Cayman Islands as the US Gulf coast made preparations to be hit by a possible hurricane next week.
Gustav ripped off roofs, downed power lines and pounded rain into Jamaica, triggering landslides and flooding but no reported deaths. At least 68 people died earlier when the storm hit Haiti and the Dominican Republic.
If Gustav continues its current trajectory, the storm could hit Louisiana — perhaps as a major hurricane — by next Tuesday, although it could wind up almost anywhere in the Gulf of Mexico, the US National Hurricane Centre in Miami said today.
The storm was centred near Jamaica's western coast today, with its maximum sustained winds clocked at almost 65mph (100 kmph), the hurricane centre said.
Forecasters said Gustav could reach hurricane strength before slamming into Grand Cayman later today and into the western tip of Cuba tomorrow.
In the Cayman Islands, some hotels closed and those that remained open encouraged guests to leave. Theresa Foster, one of the owners of the Grand Caymanian Resort, said Gustav did not look as threatening as Hurricane Ivan, which destroyed 70% of Grand Cayman's buildings four years ago.
"Whatever was going to blow away has already blown away," she said.
Jamaica has evacuated low-lying areas, closed the capital's main airport and halted bus services even as people streamed into supermarkets for emergency supplies.
Fears that Gustav could hurt Gulf oil production sent oil prices soaring above $120 a barrel this week, before settling at US$115.59 yesterday. But they were creeping up again today, jumping past $116 a gallon.
The Gulf has 4,000 oil rigs and half of America's refining capacity. Hundreds of offshore workers have already been pulled out and analysts said the storm could send US gas prices back over $4 a gallon.
"You're going to see increases by 5, 10, 15 cents a gallon," said Tom Kloza, publisher of the Oil Price Information Service in Wall, New Jersey. "If we have a Katrina-type event, you're talking about gas prices going up another 30%."
Meanwhile, still well out in the Atlantic, Tropical Storm Hanna continued to head westward, with forecasters warning it might pose a threat to the Bahamas by the middle of next week. It had sustained winds near 50 mph (85 kmph). Little change in strength is expected today, but the hurricane centre said Hanna could become a hurricane in the next few days.
Forecasters cautioned that the path of Gustav — like that of most hurricanes — remained uncertain.
"It is simply impossible to determine exactly where and when Gustav will make final landfall," said Richard Knabb of the hurricane centre. "The chances of hurricane-force winds within the next five days are essentially the same at each individual location from the Florida Panhandle coast westward through the entire coastline of Louisiana."
But with Hurricane Katrina's third anniversary falling today, Louisiana was not taking any chances and governor Bobby Jindal declared a state of emergency. Texas Governor Rick Perry issued a disaster declaration, and both men put 8,000 National Guard troops on standby.
New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin said he would order a mandatory evacuation of the city if forecasters predict a Category 3 strike — or even a Category 2 — within 72 hours. Both Jindal and Nagin were meeting with the US homeland security secretary, Michael Chertoff, later today.
John McCain's spokesman said yesterday that Republican presidential candidate might postpone his party's national convention, due to start on Monday in St Paul, Minnesota, if the Gustav hit the US Gulf coast as a hurricane.
At least 59 people died in Haiti from floods, mudslides and falling trees, including 25 around the city of Jacmel, where Gustav first struck land on Tuesday. Eight more people were buried when a cliff gave way in the Dominican Republic.
Gustav is the first serious Atlantic storm since the 2005 hurricane season to threaten New Orleans and the 4,000 US energy platforms in the Gulf.
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed 124 platforms and severed pipelines when they swept through the Gulf of Mexico. Katrina came ashore near New Orleans on August 29, 2005, as a Category 3 hurricane and flooded the city. It killed 1,500 people along the Gulf Coast and caused $80bn in damage.
"I'm panicking," said Evelyn Fuselier of Chalmette, whose home was submerged in 14 feet (4 meters) of Katrina's floodwaters. "I keep thinking, 'Did the Corps fix the levees?,' 'Is my house going to flood again?' (...) 'Am I going to have to go through all this again?"'
2,000 feared dead in India flood
Indian government accused of playing down Bihar flooding with an official death toll of 65
Two thousand people are now feared dead in the floods caused after a river changed course, submerging hundreds of villages in northern India and sparking claims that the Indian government is playing down the scale of the tragedy.
Although the official death toll in India's Bihar state is just 65, aid agencies claim thousands are missing in the flooded area. The Kosi river breached its banks 11 days ago on the border with Nepal, flowing through a channel 75 miles (120km) east of its natural route.
ActionAid's emergencies adviser for Asia, Dr PV Unnikrishnan, said that by omitting those feared dead the authorities could 'underplay' the need for massive relief operations in the area.
"By not counting those gone missing, the government estimates not only result in inadequate compensation and rehabilitation processes, but also underplay the need for rescue and relief," said Unnikrishnan.
India's Disaster Management Division said more than 2.6 million people in 16 districts have been affected by the flooding.
A spokesperson for Britain's Department For International Development in Delhi said, although the Indian monsoon saw heavy rains every year, this summer it devastated an area that had historically never been under water.
"Last year 20 million people were affected. This year it's far less but they are in a region that does not have the capacity to deal with floodwaters like this," said the spokesperson.
Television pictures from the region showed a woman crying and waving at her husband, who could not find a place in a boat that was evacuating villagers. Another sequence showed a man in tears as he looked in vain for the rest of his family in a camp.
One major worry is about the loss of agricultural output. Bihar is the least urbanised state in India and more than 70% of its 90 million people rely on the land. The government says almost 101,200 hectares (250,000 acres) of farmland is now under water, destroying precious wheat and rice stocks.
Yesterday, the Indian prime minister, Manmohan Singh, announced a £115m relief package and released 125,000 tonnes of emergency grain stocks. Officials in Bihar say large parts of the state are completely cut-off and aid agencies say there is a shortage of boats.
Although 400,000 have been moved to relief camps, ActionAid says people have been forced to drink unsafe water. There are concerns about the spread of diarrhoea and other water-borne diseases.
Although the Indian army has been drafted to airlift stranded villagers, many aid agencies complained that relief efforts were inadequate. "The camps are not organised yet and we are receiving reports of diseases," said Mukesh Puri of Unicef told Reuters.
Don't hide from the truth
- Many ethical consumers excuse their leather purchases on the grounds that skins are simply a byproduct of the meat industry. The reality is not so simple, as Kate Carter reveals
Models wearing leather hats at a Giorgio Armani show. Photograph: Prestige/Getty Images
Whether or not you chose to wear leather usually depends on your stance towards meat, be it vegan, vegetarian or carnivore. The issue of whether or not you are at ease with the practices of the meat industry is one for your own conscience: this column aims merely to provide some facts in an area where there is frequent misconception.
Many people happily wear leather on the grounds that it's a byproduct of animal slaughter for meat and therefore a form of recycling - waste not, want not. But is leather really a byproduct? Yes and no. It might be more accurate to describe it as a subsidy. It's very hard to get any statistics as the big meat companies are under no obligation to release figures, but the selling of skins can certainly be very profitable for farmers (while meat is not always so). You could therefore argue that by buying leather, you are supporting the meat industry.
Farmers don't sell hides for tuppence ha'penny out of the kindness of their hearts or from a desire to minimise waste. They are in a moneymaking business and need to maximise profits, and the leather industry is worth billions, if not trillions, of dollars annually. The profit depends on the animal involved: while cows, of course, provide most of the leather we use, there's an increasing demand for more exotic varieties.
Take ostrich, for example - in South Africa, ostrich farms are a developing industry. But there, the conventional picture is reversed: the skins account for some 80% of the slaughtered bird's value, and it is the meat that is sold as a byproduct. Again, if the bird's death doesn't bother you there's no moral problem, but don't kid yourself that the leather would have gone to waste if someone didn't buy it.
Another oddity is that demand is rising for organic or free-range meats, as an increasing number (though still a tiny minority) of people try to source their food as ethically as possible. Yet many of these same people will happily buy cheap leather. This makes no sense: if you won't tuck into a steak that came from a miserable animal, why buy its skin? Given much of the leather we use comes from countries where animal welfare is firmly at the bottom of the list of priorities, don't imagine your handbag previously led a happy life.
The softest, most luxurious leather comes from the skin of newborn or even unborn calves, cut prematurely out of their mother's wombs. Sometimes it will be from the same veal calves whose lives of misery are well documented. Many committed carnivores draw the line at veal: why then wear calfskin?
As I have tried to emphasise, if none of this troubles you then buying leather goods poses no problem. Clearly it would be hypocritical to happily devour a veal escalope but balk at buying a soft leather bag. But if it makes you slightly squeamish, consider cutting down on your leather purchases. If you feel sick, cut out leather altogether. It's your choice.
You may want to consider the environmental issues before making a decision. The process of tanning leather is incredibly toxic. Most is chrome tanned, which results in carcinogenic chromium (VI) being pumped into the water table. While most factories in Europe and America can no longer get away with this practice, the same cannot be said of the vast leather industry in China, where many bags, jackets, and shoes begin life - including many bound for the luxury market. While leather can be tanned used non-toxic vegetable dyes, chrome tanning is faster and produces a flexible leather that's better for high-end bags and coats, so there's no incentive for factories to switch.
Suffocating dead zones spread across world's oceans
Critically low oxygen levels now pose as great a threat to life in the world's oceans as overfishing and habitat loss, say experts
With more than 400 oxygen-starved dead zones in global coastal waters, scientists are calling for such dead zones to be recognised as one of the world's great environmental problems
Man-made pollution is spreading a growing number of suffocating dead zones across the world's seas with disastrous consequences for marine life, scientists have warned.
The experts say the hundreds of regions of critically low oxygen now affect a combined area the size of New Zealand, and that they pose as great a threat to life in the world's oceans as overfishing and habitat loss.
The number of such seabed zones – caused when massive algal blooms feeding off pollutants such as fertiliser die and decay – has boomed in the last decade. There were some 405 recorded in coastal waters worldwide in 2007, up from 305 in 1995 and 162 in the 1980s.
Robert Diaz, an oceans expert at the US Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, at Gloucester Point, said: "Dead zones were once rare. Now they're commonplace. There are more of them in more places."
Marine bacteria feed on the algae in the blooms after it has died and sunk to the bottom, and in doing so they use up all of the oxygen dissolved in the water. The resulting 'hypoxic' seabed zones can asphyxiate swathes of bottom dwelling organisms such as clams and worms, and disrupt fish populations.
Diaz and his colleague, Rutger Rosenberg of the department of marine ecology at the University of Gothenburg, call for more careful use of fertilisers to address the problem.
Writing in the journal Science, the researchers say the dead zones must be viewed as one of the "major global environmental problems". They say: "There is no other variable of such ecological importance to coastal marine ecosystems that has changed so drastically over such a short time."
The key solution, they say, is to "keep fertilisers on the land and out of the sea". Changes in the way fertilisers and other pollutants are managed on land have already "virtually eliminated" dead zones from the Mersey and Thames estuaries, they say.
Diaz says his concern is shared by farmers who are worried about the high cost of fertilisers. "They certainly don't want to see their dollars flowing off their fields. Scientists and farmers need to continue working together to minimise the transfer of nutrients from land to sea."
The number of dead zones reported has doubled each decade since the 1960s, but the scientists say they are often ignored until they provoke problems among populations of larger creatures such as fish or lobsters. By killing or stunting the growth of bottom-dwelling organisms, the lack of oxygen denies food to creatures higher up the food chain.
The Baltic Sea, site of the world's largest dead zone, has lost about 30% of its available food energy, which has led to a significant decline in its fisheries.
The lack of oxygen can also force fish into warmer waters closer to the surface, perhaps making them more susceptible to disease.
The size of marine dead zones often fluctuates with the seasons. A massive dead zone, some 8,000 square miles across, forms each summer in the Gulf of Mexico as floodwater flushes nitrogen-rich fertiliser into the Mississippi River.
Experts said it was slightly smaller than expected this year because Hurricane Dolly stirred up the water. Dead zones require the water to be separated into layers, with little or no mixing between.
As well as fertilisers rich in nitrates and phosphates, sewage discharges also contribute to the problem because they help the algal blooms to flourish.
Diaz and Rosenberg say: "We believe it would be unrealistic to return to pre-industrial levels of nutrient input [to oceans], but an appropriate management goal would be to reduce nutrient inputs to levels that occurred in the middle of the past century," before the rise in added nutrients began to spread dead zones globally.
Climate change could be adding to the problem. Many regions are expected to experience more severe periods of heavy rain, which could wash more nutrients from farmland into rivers.
In May, scientists reported that oxygen-depleted zones in tropical oceans are expanding. They analysed oxygen levels in samples of seawater and found the effect was largest in the central and eastern tropical Atlantic and the equatorial Pacific. The increase could push oxygen-starved zones closer to the surface and give marine life such as fish less room to live and look for food.
The scientists, led by Lothar Stramma from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Kiel, Germany, say the change could be linked to warming seas. At 0C, a litre of seawater can hold about 10ml of dissolved oxygen; at 25C this falls to 4ml. Stramma said: "Whether or not these observed changes in oxygen can be attributed to global warming alone is still unresolved." The reduction could also be down to natural processes working on shorter timescales, he said.
Feed the Babies: 
