London, 4 December 2009 

In the beginning was the word…and then came the nonbelievers. For as long as anthropogenic greenhouse 

There are many eminent people on both sides of this argument and much of it is politically

 driven. Saudi Arabia, in an effort to protect its oil interests, recently seized on to the global warming email scandal at the University of East Anglia to argue that the Copenhagen summit should be abandoned.

Most of us are laymen in environmental science and for us it is quite impossible to determine one way or another, with any degree of certainty, who is right and who is wrong. However, something that is abundantly clear is that our atmosphere is warming up at an alarming rate and that this trend coincides perfectly with the industrial revolution. Since science is able to explain how greenhouse gas emissions contribute to global warming it is fair to surmise that the human race is contributing to some extent.

Even if the greenhouse gas emissions that mankind created historically have not yet contributed significantly to global warming, then based on our scientific knowledge it is clear that they will in the near future. We have patently taken an unsustainable path in our evolutionary progression.

The consequences of global warming will include flooding in some areas and severe droughts in others, human health problems, food shortages, displaced communities and ultimately death (please see notes below on “The Scientific Case” below).

In the best case scenario, the environmental scientists will be seen to have overstated the situation. In such a case, any actions taken now will serve to avoid an otherwise inevitable situation arising in the future. Our actions will then be deemed to have been preventative rather than mitigatory but no less worthy.

Alternatively, if the environmental scientists are proven correct but as a result of having taken decisive action now we manage to substantially mitigate the damage, then hopefully the devastating consequences of climate change will have been averted.

In the worst case scenario, the environmental scientists will be proven correct and as a result of taking insufficient action now we would have crossed the Rubicon and the damage will be both devastating and irreversible.

No reasonably objective man could argue that doing nothing is the best course of action.

Are you prepared to take the risk that the scientists are wrong?

In the immortal words of Abraham Lincoln, “You cannot avoid the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today”.

How much evidence do we need before we deem it to be the right time to act?

Is it sufficient to show that on the balance of probability that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are damaging our environment before we act?

Is it necessary to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that mankind is damaging the planet before action is taken?

Or do we wait until we are absolutely certain as a result of witnessing the devastating damage that we have caused, by which time it may be too late to do anything about it?

The Environment Protection Agency’s dramatic Endangerment Findings pertaining to anthropogenic emissions in April of this year came with an admission that varying degrees of uncertainty exist across many of these scientific issues. Lisa Heinzerling, President Obama’s new head of policy at the EPA, is an advocate of turning precaution into standard policy. In a law-review article titled "Law and Economics for a Warming World," Ms. Heinzerling wrote, "Policy formation based on prediction and calculation of expected harm is no longer relevant; the only coherent response to a situation of chaotically worsening outcomes is a precautionary policy..."

Long live common sense!

One could take a counter view and argue that a more important sustainability issue is the rate of world population growth. We are all living longer healthier lives and we are reproducing at an alarming rate. In 1798, Thomas Malthus forecast that population growth would eventually outrun food supply. At that time world population was a mere 978 million. Today the population is more than seven times larger at just under 7 billion and this is forecast to reach 10 billion by 2050. While Malthus may have been premature in his forecasts, he was clearly only stating the inevitable.

Nature has an uncanny knack of dealing with such issues. Anthropogenic global warming may be the trigger that sets natural events in motion to remedy this problem. In the interests of the planet, perhaps it is indeed best to do nothing about our emissions and to simply let nature take its toll on the human race.

Noah, build an Ark!

The Scientific Case:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a Nobel prize winning body of politically independent scientists, in whom the governments of the world seem to place their trust, state unequivocally in their most recent report (the fourth assessment report published in 2007 that global warming is being accelerated at a disturbing rate as a direct consequence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

Following the publication of the IPCC report in 2007, even the sceptical Bush administration capitulated when presented with the overwhelming scientific evidence.

The acceleration in global warming is quite profound. Twelve of the hottest years on record have occurred in the past fifteen years.  The consequences of allowing this phenomenon to continue unabated will be devastating.

The impacts of climate change include, but are not limited to:

• Flooding ~ Rising sea levels will result in flooding and the erosion of the coast line. Entire communities will be displaced as a result. Based on the current trend, sea levels are expected to rise by more than half a metre by the end of this century. The number of people at risk will be approximately 30 million by 2080, concentrated in a few regions, particularly the southern Mediterranean, Africa, southern Asia and South East Asia. In addition, 40-50% of the world's coastal wetlands could be lost by 2080. Loss of wetlands will impact many sectors including food production.

• Killing natural vegetation ~ Under the latest climate scenario tropical forests will die back in many areas of the world before 2050. In other areas of the world, tropical grasslands will be transformed into desert due to increasing levels of drought. There will be an increased risk of extinction for many flora and fauna species and an increase in the frequency and extent of forest fires.

• Shortage in water resources ~ Water shortages in many of the poorest countries are already expected to increase, but will be exacerbated further by climate change. Due to climate change alone, some 250 million people will live in countries which are subject to severe droughts threatening their very existence. Freshwater availability will decrease from 1820m3/year in 2001 to 1140m3/year in 2050 which, when combined with  population growth and a rising standard of living (leading to a greater per capita demand for water), will result in up to 1.2 billion people experiencing increased water stress before 2020. Additionally, accelerated glacier melt will increase melt-related floods in the short term, leading to slope destabilisation and a medium term decrease in river flows.

• Food supply problems ~ Some regions, particularly in the Tropics, will experience marked reductions in yield and higher risk of hunger. A combination of flooding and drought will lead to a decrease in crop yields of up to 10% by 2020 and up to 30% by 2050. Additionally, sea water intrusion will seriously affect the aquaculture industry particularly in heavily populated mega-deltas. Over 266 million people will be at risk of hunger.

• Human health problems ~ Climate change will increase the proportion of the world population at risk of diseases, including malaria, which will spread due to the increased migration of carriers of such diseases, for example mosquitoes, particularly in areas where currently the diseases are not endemic. Increases in endemic morbidity and mortality due to diarrhoeal disease are inevitable. Increases in coastal water temperatures will exacerbate the abundance and toxicity of cholera. Natural habitats of vector-borne and water-borne diseases are likely to expand.

Are we prepared to take the risk that they are wrong?

Ends -- 

By James Emanuel, Commercial Director at CantorCO2e Ltd