Apocalypse Now:

HOW MANKIND IS SLEEPWALKING TO THE END OF THE EARTH
The Independent February 6, 2005

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=608209

Floods, storms and droughts. Melting Arctic ice, shrinking glaciers,
oceansturning to acid. The world's top scientists warned last week
that dangerousclimate change is taking place today, not the day
after tomorrow. You don't believe it? Then, says Geoffrey Lean, read this...

Future historians, looking back from a much hotter and
less hospitable world, are likely to pay special attention
to the first few weeks of 2005. As they puzzle over how
a whole generation could have sleepwalked into
disaster - destroying the climate that has allowed
human civilisation to flourish over the past 11,000 years -
they may well identify the past weeks as the time when
the last alarms sounded.

Last week, 200 of the world's leading climate scientists -
meeting at Tony Blair's request at the Met Office's new
headquarters at Exeter - issued the most urgent warning
to date that dangerous climate change is taking place,
and that time is running out.

Next week the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty
that tries to control global warming, comes into force after
a seven-year delay. But it is clear that the protocol does not
go nearly far enough.

The alarms have been going off since the beginning of
one of the warmest Januaries on record. First,
Dr Rajendra Pachauri - chairman of the official Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - told a UN conference in
Mauritius that the pollution which causes global warming has
reached "dangerous" levels.

Then the biggest-ever study of climate change, based at
Oxford University, reported that it could prove to be twice
as catastrophic as the IPCC's worst predictions. And an
international task force - also reporting to Tony Blair, and
co-chaired by his close ally, Stephen Byers - concluded that
we could reach "the point of no return" in a decade.

Finally, the UK head of Shell, Lord Oxburgh, took time out -
just before his company reported record profits mainly
achieved by selling oil, one of the main causes of the problem -
to warn that unless governments take urgent action there
"will be a disaster".

But it was last week at the Met Office's futuristic glass
headquarters, incongruously set in a dreary industrial estate
on the outskirts of Exeter, that it all came together. The
conference had been called by the Prime Minister to advise
him on how to "avoid dangerous climate change". He needed
help in persuading the world to prioritise the issue this year during
Britain's presidencies of the EU and the G8 group of economic powers.

The conference opened with the Secretary of State for the
Environment, Margaret Beckett, warning that "a significant
impact" from global warming "is already inevitable". It continued
with presentations from top scientists and economists from
every continent. These showed that some dangerous
climate change was already taking place and that catastrophic
events once thought highly improbable were now seen as likely.
Avoiding the worst was technically simple and economically cheap,
they said, provided that governments could be persuaded to take
immediate action.

About halfway through I realised that I had been here before.
In the summer of 1986 the world's leading nuclear experts gathered
in Vienna for an inquest into the accident at Chernobyl. The head of
the Russian delegation showed a film shot from a helicopter, and we
suddenly found ourselves gazing down on the red-hot exposed reactor
core.

It was all, of course, much less dramatic at Exeter. But as paper
followed learned paper, once again a group of world authorities were
staring at a crisis they had devoted their lives to trying to avoid.

I am willing to bet there were few in the room who did not sense
their children or grandchildren standing invisibly at their shoulders.
The conference formally concluded that climate change was "already
occurring" and that "in many cases the risks are more serious than
previously thought". But the cautious scientific language scarcely
does justice to the sense of the meeting.

We learned that glaciers are shrinking around the world. Arctic sea ice has
lost almost half its thickness in recent decades. Natural disasters are
increasing rapidly around the world. Those caused by the weather - such as
droughts, storms, and floods - are rising three times faster than those -
such as earthquakes - that are not.

We learned that bird populations in the North Sea collapsed last year, after
the sand eels on which they feed left its warmer waters - and how the number
of scientific papers recording changes in ecosystems due to global warming
has escalated from 14 to more than a thousand in five years.

Worse, leading scientists warned of catastrophic changes that once they had
dismissed as "improbable". The meeting was particularly alarmed by powerful
evidence, first reported in The Independent on Sunday last July, that the
oceans are slowly turning acid, threatening all marine life (see panel).

Professor Chris Rapley, director of the British Antarctic Survey, presented
new evidence that the West Antarctic ice sheet is beginning to melt,
threatening eventually to raise sea levels by 15ft: 90 per cent of the
world's people live near current sea levels. Recalling that the IPCC's last
report had called Antarctica "a slumbering giant", he said: "I would say
that this is now an awakened giant."

Professor Mike Schlesinger, of the University of Illinois, reported that the
shutdown of the Gulf Stream, once seen as a "low probability event", was now
45 per cent likely this century, and 70 per cent probable by 2200. If it
comes sooner rather than later it will be catastrophic for Britain and
northern Europe, giving us a climate like Labrador (which shares our
latitude) even as the rest of the world heats up: if it comes later it could
be beneficial, moderating the worst of the warming.

The experts at Exeter were virtually unanimous about the
danger, mirroring the attitude of the climate science community
as a whole: humanity is to blame. There were a few sceptics at
Exeter, including Andrei Illarionov, an adviser to Russia's President
Putin, who last year called the Kyoto Protocol "an interstate Auschwitz".
But in truth it is much easier to find sceptics among media pundits
in London or neo-cons in Washington than among climate scientists.
Even the few contrarian climatalogists publish little research
to support their views, concentrating on questioning the work of
others.

Now a new scientific consensus is emerging - that the warming
must be kept below an average increase of two degrees centigrade
if catastrophe is to be avoided. This almost certainly involves
keeping concentrations of carbon dioxide, the main cause of
climate change, below 400 parts per million.

Unfortunately we are almost there, with concentrations
exceeding 370ppm and rising, but experts at the conference
concluded that we could go briefly above the danger level so
long as we brought it down rapidly afterwards. They added that
this would involve the world reducing emissions by 50 per cent by
2050 - and rich countries cutting theirs by 30 per cent by 2020.

Economists stressed there is little time for delay. If action is
put off for a decade, it will need to be twice as radical; if it has
to wait 20 years, it will cost between three and seven times as
much.

The good news is that it can be done with existing technology,
by cutting energy waste, expanding the use of renewable sources,
growing trees and crops (which remove carbon dioxide from the air)
to turn into fuel, capturing the gas before it is released from power
stations, and - maybe - using more nuclear energy.

The better news is that it would not cost much: one estimate
suggested the most would be about 1 per cent of Europe's GNP
spread over 20 years; another suggested it meant postponing
an expected fivefold increase in world wealth by just two years.
Many experts believe combatting global warming would
increase prosperity, by bringing in new technologies.

The big question is whether governments will act.
President Bush's opposition to international action remains
the greatest obstacle. Tony Blair, by almost universal agreement,
remains the leader with the best chance of persuading him to
change his mind.

But so far the Prime Minister has been more influenced by the
President than the other way round. He appears to be moving away
from fighting for the pollution reductions needed in favour of
agreeing on a vague pledge to bring in new technologies
sometime in the future.

By then it will be too late. And our children and grandchildren
will wonder - as we do in surveying, for example, the drift into
the First World War - "how on earth could they be so blind?"

WATER WARS

What could happen? Wars break out over diminishing water
resources as populations grow and rains fail.

How would this come about? Over 25 per cent more people than
at present are expected to live in countries where water is scarce
in the future, and global warming will make it worse.

How likely is it? Former UN chief Boutros Boutros-Ghali has
long said that the next Middle East war will be fought for water,
not oil.

DISAPPEARING NATIONS

What could happen? Low-lying island such as the Maldives
and Tuvalu - with highest points only a few feet above sea-level -
will disappear off the faceof the Earth.

How would this come about? As the world heats up, sea levels
are rising, partly because glaciers are melting, and partly
because the water in the oceans expands as it gets warmer.

How likely is it? Inevitable. Even if global warming stopped
today, the seas would continue to rise for centuries. Some
small islands have already sunk for ever. A year ago,
Tuvalu was briefly submerged.

FLOODING

What could happen? London, New York, Tokyo, Bombay,
many other cities and vast areas of countries from Britain
to Bangladesh disappear under tens of feet of water, as the
seas rise dramatically.

How would this come about? Ice caps in Greenland and
Antarctica melt. The Greenland ice sheet would raise sea
levels by more than 20ft, the West Antarctic ice sheet by
another 15ft.

How likely is it? Scientists used to think it unlikely,
but this year reported that the melting of both ice caps had
begun. It will take hundreds of years, however, for the seas
to rise that much.

UNINHABITABLE EARTH

What could happen? Global warming escalates to the point
where the world's whole climate abruptly switches, turning
it permanently into a much hotter and less hospitable planet.

How would this come about? A process involving "positive
feedback" causes the warming to fuel itself, until it reaches a
point that finally tips the climate pattern over.

How likely is it? Abrupt flips have happened in the prehistoric
past. Scientists believe this is unlikely, at least in the foreseeable
future, but increasingly they are refusing to rule it out.

RAINFOREST FIRES

What could happen? Famously wet tropical forests, such
as those in the Amazon, go up in flames, destroying the world's
richest wildlife habitats and releasing vast amounts of carbon
dioxide to speed global warming.

How would this come about? Britain's Met Office predicted in
1999 that much of the Amazon will dry out and die within 50 years,
making it ready for sparks - from humans or lightning - to set it ablaze.

How likely is it? Very, if the predictions turn out to be right.
Already there have been massive forest fires in Borneo and
Amazonia, casting palls of highly polluting smoke over vast areas.

THE BIG FREEZE

What could happen? Britain and northern Europe get much
colder because the Gulf Stream, which provides as much heat
as the sun in winter, fails.

How would this come about? Melting polar ice sends fresh water
into the North Atlantic. The less salty water fails to generate
the underwater current which the Gulf Stream needs.

How likely is it? About evens for a Gulf Steam failure this century,
said scientists last week.

STARVATION

What could happen? Food production collapses in Africa, for
example, as rainfall dries up and droughts increase. As farmland
turns to desert, people flee in their millions in search of food.

How would this come about? Rainfall is expected to decrease by
up to 60 per cent in winter and 30 per cent in summer in southern
Africa this century. By some estimates, Zambia could lose almost
all its farms.

How likely is it? Pretty likely unless the world tackles both global
warming and Africa's decline. Scientists agree that droughts will
increase in a warmer world.

ACID OCEANS

What could happen? The seas will gradually turn more and
more acid. Coral reefs, shellfish and plankton, on which all life
depends, will die off. Much of the life of the oceans will become
extinct.

How would this come about? The oceans have absorbed half the
carbon dioxide, the main cause of global warming, so far emitted
by humanity. This forms dilute carbonic acid, which attacks corals
and shells.

How likely is it? It is already starting. Scientists warn that the
chemistry of the oceans is changing in ways unprecedented for
20 million years. Some predict that the world's coral reefs will die
within 35 years.

DISEASE

What could happen? Malaria - which kills two million people
worldwide every year - reaches Britain with foreign travellers, gets
picked up by British mosquitos and becomes endemic in the warmer
climate.

How would this come about? Four of our 40 mosquito species
can carry the disease, and hundreds of travellers return with it
annually. The insects breed faster, and feed more, in warmer
temperatures.

How likely is it? A Department of Health study has suggested
it may happen by 2050: the Environment Agency has mentioned
2020. Some experts say it is miraculous that it has not happened
already.

HURRICANES

What could happen? Hurricanes, typhoons and violent storms
proliferate, grow even fiercer, and hit new areas. Last September's
repeated battering of Florida and the Caribbean may be just a
foretaste of what is to come, say scientists.

How would this come about? The storms gather their energy
from warm seas, and so, as oceans heat up, fiercer ones occur
and threaten areas where at present the seas are too cool for
such weather.

How likely is it? Scientists are divided over whether storms
will get more frequent and whether the process has already begun.