"A confidential UN analysis obtained by the Guardian reveals that the emissions cuts offered so far at the Copenhagen climate change summit will lead to global temperatures rising by an average of 3C.
The analysis seriously undermines the statements by governments that they are aiming to limit emissions to a level ensuring no more than a 2C temperature rise over the next century, and indicates that the last 24 hours of negotiations will be extremely challenging.
A rise of 3C would mean up to 170 million more people suffering severe coastal floods and 550 million more at risk of hunger, according to the 2006 Stern economic review of climate change for the UK government - as well as leaving up to 50% of species facing extinction. Even a rise of 2C would lead to sharp decline in tropical crop yields, more flooding and droughts."
It is interesting to compare the tone of this post with the previous one. Here there is lots of emotion generated, but the claim is that the temperatures will be held to around a 3 degree C rise. In contrast, the Climate Interactive Scoreboard of current proposals from the previous post indicates a much more dire outcome -- a rise of 3.9 degrees C rather than 3 degrees -- but has none of the emotionality attached to it.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt's one thing for an external organization to claim that the UNFCC's policy proposals exceed 2 degrees C, by as much as 3.9 degrees C, and I do appreciate that analysis. It's entirely another story when the UNFCC, BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION, states that their own proposals violate their own stated objectives for climate negotiations. Furthermore, it's very telling when this admission is covered up in "secret documents" that have to be leaked by the press. As I understand it, the story of this leaked document was broken by Democracy Now. I don't understand your characterization of the Democracy Now story as "emotional". It is entirely factual and is no more emotional than the follow up story in the Guardian UK.
ReplyDeletePerhaps 'emotional' isn't the right word, maybe I was looking more for sensational. My point being that the stories focus as much or more on the release of 'confidential' information as they do on the facts involved. They are using that as a mechanism to pump the story, their circulation, etc. But the facts themselves weren't news to anyone who was informed or had been paying attention previously.
ReplyDelete