A recent interesting study is the first I have seen to look at our effect on the planet holistically. The Planetary Boundaries study is also described in Nature, defines nine major effects we have on the globe, and attempt to set sustainable thresholds for each. The effects described are climate forcing, ocean acidification, chemical pollution, land use changes, freshwater use, biodiversity loss, stratospheric ozone depletion, atmospheric aerosols and our effect on the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles. While no thresholds were determined for chemical pollution or aerosols we are already over the thresholds for three of the nine and close to or on limit for another three. This study is important as it starts to quantify our species’ extraordinary effects on all aspects of our environment, rather than focusing on a single metric, and it shows quite clearly that we are pushing our luck on many fronts simultaneously. Worryingly the authors point out that many of the thresholds are connected, so that exceeding one makes it more difficult to keep within the others.
More optimistically there are a number of recent reports which seek to quantify the cost of making cuts in our greenhouse gas emissions, and they all conclude that the cost will at most be small, and might even save money overall.
From the UN Foundation is a report (well described by Climate Progress) which states that making three quarters of the cuts needed for stabilisation at 450ppm would save US$14 billion, with most of the cuts coming from reversing tropical deforestation and improving energy efficiency. Meanwhile the E3 network has published a report confirming that stabilisation at 350ppm has a low cost or might actually increase economic growth. The full report is here and Grist has a good summery here.
These latest reports confirm what the Stern Review and reports by McKinsey have already clearly demonstrated; that we have the methods to fix climate forcing, and that the cost will be minor at worst, and very much less than the cost of inaction. We are being held back by a vocal lobby supported by those existing companies who have most to loose. Should we put the welfare of companies like Exxon Mobil above that of our children?
Unfortunately this news comes against a backdrop of gloom, as the negotiations for Copenhagen bog down with countries seeking to avoid the cost (and responsibility) for their actions. It is shaping up as a fight between “developed” versus “developing” countries with US and China and India as the major players. The developing counties are calling for cuts of 25-40% by 2020 by developed economies, which is still less than the science suggests, while the US is insisting that the major developing counties accept binding limits. While my sympathies are mainly with the developing counties, both China and India are carbonising extremely fast, with some regions now emitting more per capita than some European countries. The low emissions of the bulk of their population is obscuring those of the fastest growing sector.
