Many people ask how sure we are about the science of climate change. The most definitive examination of the scientific evidence is to be found in the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its last major report published in 2007. I had the privilege of being chairman or co-chairman of the Panel’s scientific assessments from 1988 to 2002.
Many hundreds of scientists from different countries were involved as contributors and reviewers for these reports, which are probably the most comprehensive and thorough international assessments on any scientific subject ever carried out. In June 1995, just before the G8 summit in Scotland, the Academies of Science of the world’s 11 largest economies (the G8 plus India, China and Brazil) issued a statement endorsing the IPCC’s conclusions and urging world governments to take urgent action to address climate change. The world’s top scientists could not have spoken more strongly.
Unfortunately, strong vested interests have spent millions of dollars on spreading misinformation about climate change. First, they tried to deny the existence of any scientific evidence for global warming. More recently, they have largely accepted the fact of man-made climate change but argue that its impacts will not be great, that we can “wait and see” and that in any case we can always fix the problem if it turns out to be substantial.
The scientific evidence does not support such arguments. Urgent action is needed both to adapt to the climate change that is inevitable and to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, to prevent further damage as far as possible.
At the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the world’s nations signed up to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, the objective of which is “to stabilize the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a level that does not cause dangerous interference with the climate system ... , that allows ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, that ensures food production is not threatened, and that enables economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.”
Such stabilization would also eventually stop further climate change.
It is now recognized that widespread damage due, for instance, to sea level rise and more frequent and intense heat waves, floods and droughts, will occur even after small increases of global average temperature. Therefore, it is necessary that very strong efforts be made to hold the average global temperature rise below 2˚C relative to its pre-industrial level.
If we are to have a good chance of achieving that target, the concentration of carbon dioxide must not be allowed to exceed 450 parts per million (ppm), though it is now nearly 390ppm. This implies that before 2050 global emissions of carbon dioxide must be reduced to below 50 percent of the 1990 level (they are currently 15 percent above that level) and that average emissions in developed countries must be reduced by at least 80 percent of the 1990 level.
The UK has already committed itself to a binding target to reduce emissions by that amount and US President Barack Obama has expressed the intention that the US should also set that target.
One clear requirement is that tropical deforestation, which is responsible for 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, be halted within the next decade or two. Regarding emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, the International Energy Agency (IEA) in its “Energy Technology Perspectives” has set out in detail the technologies and actions that are needed in different countries and sectors to meet these targets.
For the short term, the IEA points out that very strong and determined action will be necessary to ensure that global carbon dioxide emissions stop rising (the current increase is more than 3 percent per year), reach a peak by about 2015, and then decline steadily toward the 2050 target. The IEA also points out that the targets can be achieved without unacceptable economic damage. In fact, the IEA lists many benefits that will be realized if its recommendations are followed.
What is required now is recognition that man-made climate change will severely affect our children, grandchildren, the world’s ecosystems and the world’s poorer communities, and that the severity of the impact can be substantially alleviated by taking action now.
John Theodore Houghton is a former professor of atmospheric physics at the University of Oxford and founder of the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
A chip made by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) was found on a Huawei Technologies Co artificial intelligence (AI) processor, indicating a possible breach of US export restrictions that have been in place since 2019 on sensitive tech to the Chinese firm and others. The incident has triggered significant concern in the IT industry, as it appears that proxy buyers are acting on behalf of restricted Chinese companies to bypass the US rules, which are intended to protect its national security. Canada-based research firm TechInsights conducted a die analysis of the Huawei Ascend 910B AI Trainer, releasing its findings on Oct.
Pat Gelsinger took the reins as Intel CEO three years ago with hopes of reviving the US industrial icon. He soon made a big mistake. Intel had a sweet deal going with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), the giant manufacturer of semiconductors for other companies. TSMC would make chips that Intel designed, but could not produce and was offering deep discounts to Intel, four people with knowledge of the agreement said. Instead of nurturing the relationship, Gelsinger — who hoped to restore Intel’s own manufacturing prowess — offended TSMC by calling out Taiwan’s precarious relations with China. “You don’t want all of
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.
In a recent essay in Foreign Affairs, titled “The Upside on Uncertainty in Taiwan,” Johns Hopkins University professor James B. Steinberg makes the argument that the concept of strategic ambiguity has kept a tenuous peace across the Taiwan Strait. In his piece, Steinberg is primarily countering the arguments of Tufts University professor Sulmaan Wasif Khan, who in his thought-provoking new book The Struggle for Taiwan does some excellent out-of-the-box thinking looking at US policy toward Taiwan from 1943 on, and doing some fascinating “what if?” exercises. Reading through Steinberg’s comments, and just starting to read Khan’s book, we could already sense that
RSS