George Bush and Climate Change

So, straight to the $64,000 question: is George Bush serious about addressing climate change or is he trying to derail European efforts to address it?

His previous record suggests great scepticism is due him. As the latest report from the IPCC has laid out in great detail, there are serious time constraints on us to achieve stabilisation of greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere. If we fail to achieve this then the likelihood of severe climate change impacts is increased.

This is from Chapter 3 of the latest IPCC report:

"Decisions to delay emission reductions seriously constrain opportunities to achieve low stabilisation targets (e.g. stabilising concentrations from 440 to 535 ppmv CO2-eq), and raise the risk of progressively more severe climate change impacts and key vulnerabilities occurring. For example, if the time when global emissions peak is postponed beyond the next 15 years category, constraining global temperature rise to below 2.6°C above the pre-industrial level (2.0°C above 1990), at equilibrium, would be out of reach using 'best estimate' assumptions of climate sensitivity. Once this temperature threshold is breached, climate impacts accrue significantly in the earth and human system."

As I pointed out in this blog on the latest IPCC report - "Delayed emissions reduction lead to investments that lock in more emissions-intensive infrastructure and this constrains the opportunities to achieve lower stabilisation levels and increases the risk of more severe climate change impacts." So, time is critical in addresing climate change and GHG emissions.

The European Union has agreed to a goal of preventing a temperature rise of more than 2C and to that end is promising to cut GHG emissions by 20% by 2020 (and by 50% by 2050). Some member states, including the UK are proposing to go further.

George Bush seems intent on refusing to commit to carbon reduction goals or timeframes. Instead he seems to be pinning his hope on technology to bail us out. But by ruling out carbon trading and refusing to accept a carbon tax this is unlikely to happen because for technology to be cost effective there needs to be a realistic carbon price (against which the technology can save money). This is at odds with the wishes of many of the states, including California, which want carbon trading systems and with much of US business which would like to operate under one set of rules.

So, the likelihood is that George Bush will seek to play for time, by insisting that China and India have to sign up for emissions cuts before the US will, and push the whole issue onto the next President in 2009.