Climate change still a central issue

David Jessop, THIS WEEK IN EUROPE

Despite scientific evidence to the contrary, scepticism about climate change appears to be gaining wider global credence. This, in part, has been fuelled by the discovery in 2009 that a very small number of scientists manipulated evidence to exaggerate the extent of climate change and, more recently, by the issue having become highly politicised in the United States (US).

In the US, Republican candidates for the Presidential nomination have felt it necessary to question the veracity of global warming. For example, Mitt Romney, one of the leading Republican candidates, who had previously demonstrated a strong pro-science approach, recently declared that he was uncertain about climate change. He is reported to have done so after seeing his support diminish as a result of his earlier declaration that the earth is warming, that human activities may contribute towards this and that a reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions was necessary.

Other Republican candidates have expressed more extreme views: the belief that the Kyoto Protocol was designed to weaken the US economy, that there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so to enable funding for research (Texas Governor, Rick Perry) or that the issue is voodoo, nonsense, hokum and a hoax (Michele Bachmann).

While some suggest this is simply electoral politics, is not representative of much of mainstream America, and privately horrifies senior Republicans figures, climate change has, as a consequence, become as politically divisive an issue in the US as immigration, abortion and health care.

The effect of this and the influence of the Tea Party faction in Republican politics is to draw a line between the US and Europe and much of the rest of the world and create concern about quite how fundamentalist, Republican policy would be if any one of the currently declared candidates were to take the White House in 2012.

For his part, President Obama remains committed to addressing climate change, recently mocking Governor Perry for questioning the human causes behind global climate change. Despite this, a polarised Senate has failed to enact climate-change legislation that the president would like to see and the administration has come to accept that there are political limits to what it can achieve.

Unfortunately, in the Caribbean, citizens have been able to observe first-hand the ways in which coral reefs are being bleached and beaches eroded by tidal surges as water temperatures warm, sea levels change, and weather patterns become less predictable across the year.

Whether created by cyclical change, human intervention, or both, there is sufficient scientific evidence produced by the Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre (CCCCC) in Belize and others that Caribbean sea temperatures are already showing a 0.8°C increase. There is also widespread acknowledgement that this will rise much further by the end of the century.

The potential economic impact of climate change on the Caribbean is substantial. Of the region's 40 million population, 70 per cent live in coastal areas. Tourism, which almost entirely depends on coastal resources, represents for many states up to 70 per cent of GDP and commercial agriculture, which accounts for much of the rest, is equally dependent on climate.

According to the CCCCC, farmers would experience a reduction in production of rice, beans and maize of between 12 and 20 per cent if there were to be a 2°C rise in atmospheric temperature.

Speaking about this recently, the CCCCC director, Dr Kenrick Leslie, suggested that low-lying countries like Guyana and Belize would most likely suffer the greatest losses in absolute terms, while the costs within Caribbean small island developing states could run to 14 per cent of their GDP by 2025, increasing to 39 per cent by 2050 and 63 per cent by 2100.

Rising sea levels and temperatures may present, in some cases, he said, insurmountable challenges to food security, tourism, and health

In response, Caribbean heads of government have endorsed a regional framework that aims to make the region more resilient to climate change. This encourages member states to adapt by regulating land use, conserving energy, investing in resilient infrastructure and expanding forest resources. The framework also includes plans for the region to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by developing renewable energy, improving energy efficiency and conserving standing forests.

consensus dubious

Meanwhile, it is far from clear in the world of climate-change diplomacy, in the run-up to the next UN summit on climate change to be held in Durban, South Africa, this December, whether consensus on a single legally binding agreement is achievable.

For its part, the US continues to maintain the position that it will not commit itself to a binding treaty on reducing greenhouse- gas emissions if large emerging economies such as Brazil, China and India are excluded, or if such nations' commitments are conditional upon financial support from developed countries.

According to Todd Stern, the US climate-change envoy would only back an agreement that applies equal legal force to major developing countries.

The implication is that when the meeting takes place in Durban, something close to a mirror image of the stalemate that currently exists at the World Trade Organization will occur. That is to say there will be an irreconcilable divide between developed nations and advanced developing nations reflecting the changing global balance of power and the desire of the BRICS - Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa - to ensure their economic rise continues.

While the meeting may finalise the structure of a green fund, from which developed nations will collectively pay US$100 billion a year to help the developing world address climate change and is expected to establish guidelines for transparent reporting and monitoring of emissions and emissions-reduction pledges, it is far from clear whether a legally binding global agreement will be achieved on levels of emissions reduction.

For the Caribbean, a low carbon emitter, dependent on the environment for its future prosperity and most at risk from climate change, all of this is not good news.

David Jessop is director of the Caribbean Council. david.jessop@caribbean-council.org.