THE greenhouse backlash is in full swing.
Next week, the first formal meeting of signatories to the Climate Change Convention begins in Berlin. It comes three years after the convention was agreed in a frenzy of negotiations before the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. But somewhere along the road from Rio the urgency has been lost. Most industrialised nations now seem likely to miss the target, agreed in Rio, of stabilising emissions of carbon dioxide at 1990 levels by 2000. They are also under pressure from industrial and power companies to reject further cuts in emissions. The convention鈥檚 independent scientific advisory body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is also under attack for alleged bias. So what has gone wrong?
One factor, according to Joel Darmstadtler of Resources for the Future, a think-tank based in Washington DC, is that the world economy has conspired against the convention. Oil prices have remained low, reducing the incentives for saving energy and spurring growth in the global economy, he says. Secondly, political opposition to government regulation has reasserted itself, especially in the US with its new Republican Congress. All this is a far cry from Rio, where the need for governments to act in the face of rising concern about global warming looked to have won the day.
Advertisement
Another change is that the green message has slipped down the political agenda. Among journalists and commentators a scepticism about global warming, or 鈥済reenhouse fatigue鈥�, has set in. In 1990, the IPCC said that the world had warmed over the past century and that climatic upheavals would follow if greenhouse gases continue to be pumped into the atmosphere at the present rate (see 鈥淏attered by the Storm鈥�). Today, these warnings are no longer news, and journalists seek out the handful of scientists prepared to criticise the IPCC鈥檚 message in order to grab the headlines.
In February in New York, at negotiations leading up to the Berlin conference, the IPCC鈥檚 chairman Bert Bolin acknowledged the problem: 鈥淭he press is anxious to seize on scientific controversies.鈥� But, he added, 鈥淎n increasing polarisation of the public debate 鈥� is not a reflection of a similar change among experts.鈥�
A common device among sceptics is to exaggerate the scientific uncertainties in the debate. In Britain, one of the most prominent sceptics has been the journalist Matt Ridley, who writes a column debunking greens in the Sunday Telegraph and has just had a volume of his work published by the right-wing Institute of Economic Affairs. In an article earlier this month, Ridley compared estimates of how much the sea level would rise over the next century. He quoted a 1980 estimate by 鈥渆xperts鈥� of 8 metres, the 鈥渂est guess鈥� of the IPCC, made in 1990, of 65 centimetres and a current 鈥渁uthoritative estimate鈥� of 20 cm. 鈥淚n other words,鈥� he concluded, 鈥渢hey don鈥檛 know.鈥�
Cashing in on confusion
He does not say who made the 8-metre estimate, but it did not come from a main-stream source. The first major international conference on the greenhouse effect in 1985 noted five estimates over the preceding five years for the rise in sea level. These ranged from 12 cm to 30 cm. The conference itself put the figure at 80 cm. In addition, in putting forward the estimate of 65 cm, the IPCC acknowledges that the true figure could fall between 31 and 110 cm. And Ridley acknowledges later in his article that the 鈥渁uthoritative鈥� estimate of 20 cm refers only to thermal expansion of the oceans and not the likely rise of melting continental ice.
Campaigners from the energy industry have also tried to cash in on uncertainty. At the negotiations in New York, a weather forecasting company called Accu-Weather published a report claiming that global warming over the past century had been 鈥渟light鈥� and there was 鈥渘o convincing observational evidence that 鈥� extreme temperature and precipitation events are on the rise鈥�. It turned out that the latter assertion was based on temperature readings from just three American weather stations and precipitation data from one. Accu-Weather 鈥渟hot themselves in the foot鈥�, according to Bruce Callander, head of the IPCC scientific unit at the Meteorological Office鈥檚 Hadley Centre in Britain.
The Accu-Weather report was commissioned by a lobbying organisation called the Global Climate Coalition, which was set up in 1989 鈥渢o coordinate business participation in the scientific and policy debate on the global climate change issue鈥�. Its members include many big American producers and consumers of coal, oil and electricity 鈥� such as Dow Chemicals and the National Coal Association 鈥� all of whom might suffer from controls on emissions of carbon dioxide.
The coalition鈥檚 agenda mirrors the increasingly anti-regulatory tone of American political debate. Once it backed measures for the transfer of American energy-saving technology round the world. Now it warns that control of greenhouse gas emissions 鈥渨ould create a competitive advantage for our international trading partners at the expense of US jobs鈥�.
Three years ago, the coalition appeared to support much of the IPCC鈥檚 case that global warming was imminent, if not already here. It listed among its aims 鈥渋ncreasing scientific knowledge on climate change鈥� and supporting research to 鈥渋mprove climate models鈥�. Now it appears hostile to the IPCC and climate models.
In its present briefing material, the coalition claims that: 鈥淚t is an open question whether man-made contributions of greenhouse gases have contributed, or will ever contribute, to an 鈥榚nhanced greenhouse effect鈥�.鈥� Climate models, it says, 鈥渃an neither confirm that global warming is occurring now, or predict future climate changes鈥�, and yet 鈥渉ave been used to frame the debate鈥�. In January, in a letter to the US Secretary of State Warren Christopher, the coalition鈥檚 executive director John Schlaes accused the IPCC of conducting 鈥渁dvocacy under the guise of science鈥�. He told New 杏吧原创: 鈥淚 am no scientist, but we believe they don鈥檛 know enough to drive forward new measures.鈥�
Amid this criticism, John Houghton, chairman of the IPCC scientific working group and former head of Britain鈥檚 Met Office, insists that all interested researchers have access to the group. The group鈥檚 most recent report, for example, published at the end of last year, had 25 main authors from 11 countries. It drew on draft text from 120 authors, whose work was reviewed by more than 230 people from 31 countries.
But open access for scientists does not ensure that all nations and views get an equal hearing. Of those 380 reviewers, more than half were from the US and Australia. Africa fielded just 23 reviewers.
To some national delegations, the IPCC appears to be a Western-dominated body over which they have little control. In New York, for example, the Chinese delegation refused to accept the objectivity of the IPCC and called for a 鈥渢ruly scientific鈥� report. China has vast reserves of coal that it wants to burn. And according to Michael Oppenheimer, chief scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund in New York, China鈥檚 attack was part of an effort to 鈥減rovide a back-door method to place [scientists] under political control鈥�.
The IPCC, however, stands by its role as an assessor of scientific evidence and not an advocate for particular policies. It refused, for example, to back the call of scientists in Toronto in 1988 for carbon dioxide emissions to be cut by 20 per cent by 2005 鈥� a target tabled in Berlin by the Alliance of Small Island States.
But, if opposition to the IPCC has increased in volume, there is also evidence that the panel鈥檚 message is being heeded in some areas of business. Early last year a new organisation, the Business Council for a Sustainable Energy Future, surfaced in international negotiations. Its members include companies that stand to benefit from controls to head off global warming, such as solar panel manufacturers and energy conservation equipment.
More significant, though, is that the council members include many American gas companies and the American Gas Association, which used to side with the coalition. 鈥淭he defection of the gas companies means that the fossil fuel lobby has split,鈥� says Jeremy Leggett, scientific director of Greenpeace鈥檚 climate campaign. 鈥淕as companies realise that the greenhouse is good for business.鈥� Burning gas emits less carbon dioxide than burning other fossil fuels.
Threat or opportunity?
The emergence of the council has created a crisis for the commercial sector at climate negotiations, says Leggett. 鈥淭he coalition can no longer speak for business alone. There have been huge rows between the two organisations.鈥� John Hemphill, director of the council, agrees that a divide has opened within the commercial sector. 鈥淲e鈥檝e abandoned trying to reach a common position with the coalition,鈥� he says. 鈥淲e don鈥檛 have much in common with them. The coalition is fighting the process at every turn. They see it as a threat to their members. We see it as an opportunity.鈥�
Another business group to realise that it has an interest in encouraging action to halt global warming is the insurance industry. In Berlin, the world鈥檚 two largest reinsurance companies, Munichre of Germany and Swiss Re-insurance will be advocating tougher restrictions on emissions of greenhouse gases. The companies, which in effect insure the insurance industry, fear a rising tide of claims for climatic catastrophes. They heed Houghton鈥檚 warning that the period since 1980 鈥渉as been remarkable for the frequency and intensity of extremes of weather and climate鈥�. They fear storms ripping through the Caribbean, floods in Europe, and crop failures in the US.
Munichre claims that this year鈥檚 floods, Europe鈥檚 worst ever, might have been caused by global warming. It will never be possible to substantiate such a claim about an individual climatic event, but most climate models predict that the frequency and intensity of such events will increase as the world warms. Last year, the president of the Reinsurance Association of American, Franklin Nutter, warned that the insurance industry is 鈥渇irst in line鈥� to be effected by climate change. 鈥淚t could bankrupt the industry,鈥� he said. Two days before the climate conference begins, Nutter and others are due to speak at a meeting in Berlin.
The alliance of the insurance and banking industries with the greens may seem unlikely. But both want to head off potential disasters. 鈥淲e fear the greenhouse effect itself,鈥� says Leggett. 鈥淭hey fear a greenhouse Barins.鈥� (see Diagram).
Battered by the storm
AT THE centre of the greenhouse backlash are the scientists whose research persuaded the world to sign the Climate Change Convention. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up in 1988 by the UN to report on the risks of global warming. It assesses research and policy options and its key scientific working group draws on contributions from hundreds of researchers.
In 1960 they reported that the greenhouse threat was real and would worsen seriously unless strong action was taken to halt the rise in emission of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels.
The panel said that the world has warmed by around 0.5 掳C in the past century. The 1980s was easily the warmest decade on record and exhibited an unprecedented number of extreme climatic events, such as storms and droughts. None of this proves that global warming is under way, said the IPCC. But at least it suggested what we might be in for.