COPENHAGEN: Sealing a deal to kill off 50% of the species on the planet?

As the UN conference wraps up in Copenhagen, things are not looking particularly sunny. A leaked memo from The UN Secretariat is making its way around the web today, which adds up all the commitments made by the various governments around the world. The current best case scenario for a deal seems to leave the planet heading towards 550 parts per million (ppm) of CO2, with a related temperature rise around 3C.

A week ago, the debate was over whether to target 350 ppm (1.5 C) or 450 ppm (2 C). But when you do the math, as they did in the memo, it turns out that the commitments are a few gigatons off, a quantity so large that it is difficult to think of a creative way to express it. How about the equivalent of burning 80 Million acres of rainforest – an area the size of California?

You’ll probably be hearing many calls to acknowledge and celebrate that significant progress has been made in Copenhagen (after all, the ‘do nothing’ scenarios are 700 ppm or more.) But if you believe the predictions of what this 550 ppm scenario will mean (such as those published by Lord Stern in The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change ), the outcome is the possibility of massive rainforest collapse, extinction for 20-50% of the species on the planet, and a water crisis affecting up to a billion people. And that is if the delegates are able to get a deal done.

To think of this another way: Picture scientists identifying a large meteor hurtling towards earth, with an Impact date in the next 30 years or so. The longer they wait, the harder it will be to throw the meteor off course. Those who don’t believe the scientists will choose to do nothing. Those who do will start working on building rockets to knock the thing of course as soon as possible. What no one will do is to agree to work on a plan which simply chips off a piece, and lets the rest make impact (unless it is the best they can do.) But that is exactly what the delegates seem to be working towards in Copenhagen.

So, is what is on the table the best they can do? What is being put together now is a bizarre King Solomon like proposal to split the baby in two. In that tale, the proposal was a test to reveal the truth about the two women who came before the king. Either the UN delegates believe that greenhouse gasses are a planetary threat or they do not. Perhaps it is time for each of them to stand up and be counted.

Let’s all hope for more progress. And let’s also hope that Lord Stern is wrong.

Read more: global warming

Photo copyright: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bjaglin/ / CC BY 2.0

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

autla l.

7:24PM PST on Jan 9, 2010

Solutions need to be made now for a better future for the next generation and for the future of tomorrow.

send a green star

Eleni M.

8:09PM PST on Jan 4, 2010

If the nations of the world cannot come together to save our planet it just means that with all our so called progress we really still have an awful long way to go in learning how to be united to fight for a cause.

Although, I think in the long run out of this chaos order will finally come but not until our planet has suffered great loses and our lessons will be deep and binding. And maybe that will be the only way that we will finally be united, have morals, ethics and compassion for our animals, for each other and for the our beautiful home planet, or what will be left of it.

Humans seem to have to learn the hard way and this is what I see will to take place before good will prevail.

So, hey if this is the only way for human to learn, let the chaos begin the sooner the better.

Linda M.

1:13AM PST on Jan 1, 2010

it's really too bad we can't stick together on something

Marishka k.

2:59PM PST on Dec 28, 2009

this is troubling

Charles L.

11:58AM PST on Dec 22, 2009

well it's not like they actually did anything, maybe it's comforting that nothing came of this. Or maybe not.

Beth F.

10:56AM PST on Dec 22, 2009

I think it's weird I can't find my comment now. Hmm..too controversial?

Folks like Ina need to pull their heads out. What are you even talking about?!?

Maria F.

12:30PM PST on Dec 21, 2009

I´m here, with C2,cause I thought we could do something...but against these "fat fish"..who can do anything but cry higher and higher?..oh my!!...let us shout!!!! more and more.not even if they "write it", sign it..they seems to need more money....

Anita Z.

8:58AM PST on Dec 21, 2009

if it was not so sad we would all be.......... thanks for the article

Jack T.

6:25AM PST on Dec 21, 2009

SELWYN R:
As you seem to be too busy SHOUTING at people to do your own research, here are another couple of quotes for you to consider:
Myles Allen is Head of Climate Dynamics, Department of Physics, University of Oxford. Allen believes the current approach to tackling climate change is ill-conceived. Asked to say that unless emissions peak by 2015 we will pass a tipping point. He refused saying such claims are nonsense.
Carl Wunsch, Professor of Physical Oceanography, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He worries about what he considers overconfident predictions so he turned down the IPCC's invitation to participate. He believes the IPCC moves too fast for the available data and thinks they have played down some of the uncertainties to catch the eyes of politicians.

It is all about the AGW Industry getting grants to enable them to keep their jobs - and keep the ball rolling. At least they can look forward to another jolly next year in Mexico - and spend more millions of our money!

5:31AM PST on Dec 21, 2009

SELWYN R:
You asked for a credible paper showing AGW to be unfounded. There are shedloads of them but if you haven't bothered to read them, how about this quote for starters?
Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth is Head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. From New Zealand, he obtained his Sc. D. in meteorology in 1972 from Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was a lead author of the 1995, 2001 and 2007 Scientific Assessment of Climate Change reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize which went to the IPCC.
In one of his emails to fellow IPCC collaborators he said, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” Other emails confirmed this to be a fact for the past 10 years! No global warming for a decade and you panic! You chose to live in a desert. Deserts get hot. You'd better get used to it!