"The science on global warming is now incontrovertible: the climate is changing, man is helping to make that happen, and the damage could be irreversible", Financial Times, 30 October 2006. A study on climate change carried out by the former chief economist of the World Bank, Nicholas Stern, has highlighted the potential disaster facing humanity.

In the 579 page report Stern outlines the potential impact that human activity can have on the earth’s climate by pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The report outlines the potential consequences if a "business as usual" approach is maintained (as argued for by the Bush administration). Increases in world temperatures of only 3oC would threaten up to 50% of land species with extinction and the Amazon River could dry up. Sea levels could rise by three feet, and combined with extreme weather conditions, a dramatic increase in wind speeds of tropical storms, hurricanes and typhoons could force hundreds of millions of people to permanently migrate from coastal regions due to flooding. Areas at risk include Bangladesh, Vietnam, Tokyo, New York, Cairo and London. 

Rising temperature

The impact on the water cycle would mean that droughts and floods would be more severe in many areas. It would only take a 2oC increase in temperature for areas like the Mediterranean, southern Africa, and South America to lose 30% of their water. Changes in weather conditions would also have a dramatic impact on food production threatening billions with starvation. Diseases such as malaria would be more widespread and a 4oC temperature rise could expose 1.5 – 2.5 billion more people to dengue fever.

The main factors contributing to climate change are carbon emissions combined with the reduction in carbon sinks (through deforestation) that absorb greenhouse gases. The current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 380 parts per million (ppm) – it was 280ppm prior to the industrial revolution. If carbon emissions continue as they are, the level will reach 550ppm by 2050 and 750ppm by 2100, which would have catastrophic implications.

Whilst the Stern report has raised alarm bells in some quarters, its conclusions are fundamentally flawed in both the solutions it proposes and possibly also in the timescale for climate change and its consequences. The report recognises that urgent action is needed to reduce carbon emissions and that a "tipping point" could be reached within 10 – 15 years beyond which nothing could be done to reverse the process. However its analysis is schematic.

The world’s climate is extremely complex and is created and affected by many variables, a myriad of interdependent processes that science does not yet have the capacity to fully understand and explain. This report is extremely valuable but it does not take into account the real potential for abrupt climate change. Stern talks of the impact of changes, in a very formalistic fashion, over time periods of 50 to 100 years. However, what is not dealt with is that a combination of: increased carbon emissions, decreasing carbon sinks, the melting of the polar icecaps, the release of vast quantities of methane from the oceans, disruption to the circulation of the oceans and global weather systems could have a qualitative impact on the climate thus triggering an abrupt climate change.

Approximately 11,000 years ago floods of fresh water from the melting ice cap over North America (caused by increased temperatures) triggered what is known as the Younger Dryas period. Analysis of the Greenland ice cores shows that in a space of only three years a massive increase in the flow of fresh water into the North Atlantic stalled the thermohaline circulation – the Gulf Stream or the Atlantic conveyor stopped. An ice age began that lasted between 1,000 – 1,300 years. The global climate changed from warm – wet, to cool – dry – windy. This has lead climatologists to the idea that there can be non-linear tipping points in the global climate that can lead to abrupt climate change. 

Evidence already exists that the Gulf Stream is weakening and in 2004 it came to a halt for 10 days! The Gulf Stream raises temperatures in Europe by as much as 10oC and even a weakening of the current over a few decades would have profound consequences. Lloyd Keigwin, a scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution described the temporary shutdown as "the most abrupt change in the whole [climate] record", "It only lasted 10 days. But suppose it lasted 30 or 60 days, when do you ring up the prime minister and say let’s start stockpiling fuel? How can we rule out a longer one next year?" - The Guardian 27 October 2006.

Economic impact

The Stern report focuses on the economic impact of climate change and talks of how money invested now (approximately 1% of world GDP) could prevent a future 25% global drop in GDP. The report concludes that the solution to the problem lies in convincing multinational capitalism to reduce its carbon emissions. It proposes that this can be done through taxation and trade agreements. However the Kyoto protocol which only proposed modest (and inadequate) reductions in carbon emissions has been a complete failure. The US, the greatest producer of carbon emissions, refused to sign up to Kyoto and no country has come anywhere near reaching their targets. One scientist has claimed it would take the equivalent of 30 Kyotos to deal with global warming.

The Financial Times unintentionally exposed the inability of capitalism to deal with climate change when it said: "Urgent negotiations are needed to prolong the Kyoto protocol beyond 2012; investors require the certainty of a longer term framework if they are to sink their money in low-carbon capital equipment that may last decades", 30 October 2006. This sums up the madness of the capitalist market – multinational companies need to be certain of making a profit before they will be prepared to take action to stop global warming.

Humanity has the capacity to switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy that would have a dramatic impact on lowering carbon emissions. Wind, tidal and solar power can meet most of our energy requirements. Biomass fuels could be substituted for fossil fuels. The growing of plants for biomass fuels draws down carbon from the atmosphere and when it is "burnt" as fuel it releases that carbon which is then drawn down again by growing more plants – it creates a closed loop-system. Whereas burning fossil fuels just emits carbon into the atmosphere creating greenhouse gases. Does anyone believe that the oil and gas multinationals or the imperialist governments such as the US that back them by fighting wars in Iraq for oil will voluntarily go down this road?

Within the constraints of the anarchy of the capitalist market, where profit comes, before everything, including the planets ecological future, it is not possible to solve this critical problem. Dramatic climate change that threatens the existence of life on earth can only be prevented if a global plan of action is implemented that puts the needs of people and the planet before the profits of the billionaire capitalist elite. This can only be achieved on the basis of socialism, when the majority of people own and control the world’s resources and can decide to make the important shift to renewable energy, reforestation and whatever other changes are necessary to stop this global catastrophe unfolding.