Climate change and the Paris conference

The Paris conference on climate change led to immense relief simply because the nearly 200 countries involved agreed on a deal to keep global warming under control. A target of two degrees Celsius, preferably less, compared with pre-industrial levels, might just do that. Anything above two degrees is likely to do i

eversible damage to our planet. Even with the voluntarily agreed emission reductions, the planet is likely to warm by 2.7 degrees, which is not very hopeful. But with periodic reviews of progress every five years, with provision only for further reductions, a process is set up to keep a handle on global warming. However, there is no enforceable mechanism in the deal.
In a world with different levels of economic development, it is not possible to expect developing countries to suddenly make a significant contribution to reducing carbon emissions already way below, on a per capita basis, of the rich countries that have contributed in a big way to the present mess and still continue to do so. And despite wanting to make their fair contribution, developing countries do not have the necessary resources, both financially and in technological terms, to do their bit. At the same time, they are keen to lift the social and economic conditions of their people but their capacity to do so with renewable alternative energy sources is severely constrained. And they are sometimes made to look like they are a major impediment to progress.
The climate deal makes provision for $ 100 billion a year in funding from rich industrialised countries to help poorer nations to cope with the change. As The New Yorker has pointed out in a commentary: “The Obama administration has pledged three billion dollars [pathetic as it is], but….Senate Republicans have vowed to block any US contribution.” There are, however, no specified figures for the donor countries, and there is no knowing how the inevitable gap between pledges and actual funding will be met. The promised $ 100 billion a year for developing countries looks like a notional figure.
All in all, the Paris climate deal is lacking in specifics, apart from five yearly reviews of voluntary emission targets. Which is not to say that the deal is insignificant. It is important that most, if not all, the countries in the world now accept that global warming is happening and that humans are responsible for much of it by emitting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, much of it by burning fossil fuels like coal and oil. This has led to the recognition that the world needs to reduce/stop the use of these dirty fuels and replace them with renewables like solar and wind power. But there is not much time to lose if our planet is not i

eversibly damaged.
As earlier pointed out, even with the Paris deal and if it is ca

ied out with agreed emission reduction targets, the world will still be warmer by 2.7 degrees Celsius, beyond the preferably less than desired two degrees. According to climate scientists, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has already reached a level of carbon concentration of above 400 parts per million. A 350-ppm is considered safe. In other words, we are already in the danger zone.
The question then is: how and in what way global warming is affecting our planet? The most obvious is that fossil fuel burning is choking our cities and polluting our rivers. And we can also see it from rising temperatures and unusual weather patterns with increased frequency of cyclones, tornadoes, bush fires, floods etc. It is causing the sea level to rise and if the warming of the atmosphere is not kept under two degrees Celsius, the sea-level rise will become a serious threat to low lying parts of the world, possibly submerging some of the small island countries and te

itories, and coastal regions of the world. This would cause large-scale displacement of populations and a flood of environmental refugees. That is why it is also regarded as a major security challenge, turning the world upside down.
The rising sea level due to warmer temperature affects it in three ways. First, warmer temperatures cause the water in the seas to expand. At a conservative estimate of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the sea will rise between half a metre and a metre by the end of the century. That is if global warming is kept under two degrees. The picture of melting glaciers and ice sheets is te

ibly wo

ying. The world’s 200,000 or so mountain glaciers are said to be rapidly melting and draining into the seas. In the same way, the Greenland ice sheet is melting and the same process is under way in Antarctica. How far and fast the seawater rises depends upon the thawing/melting of glaciers and the ice sheet, which is connected to the rising of temperatures in the atmosphere from global warming. There is nothing mysterious now about the process of global warming. It is happening and is caused mostly by human beings and the burning of fossil fuels. There is still a small minority of climate change deniers. They deny the climate change science and global warming. In their view, if it is happening at all, it is a natural phenomenon unconnected with human activity.
There are, of course, a range of views about the speed and intensity of this. One view, at the extreme end, is that if the ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica were to melt entirely, it could mean a sea-level rise of several metres, turning the world into a vast expanse of sea. But that is considered unlikely. In between, still on the side of disaster on a relatively smaller scale, is an estimate of two to three degrees Celsius. Professor Eric Rignot of earth sciences at the University of California, Irvine, is quoted as saying that, “You can fiddle around and say, ‘It is going to take a long time. [But if] We warm the climate by two or three degrees Celsius, Greenland’s ice is gone.’” This is a roundabout way of saying that even the Paris target of two degrees is not going to avert the thawing/melting of ice sheets and glaciers, and the impending disaster. In other words, there is a need to set the Paris target at less than two degrees to get really serious about saving the only planet that we have.

The writer is a senior journalist and academic based in Sydney, Australia. He can be reached at sushilpseth@yahoo.co.au