Climate change: A burning topic

Climate change is in the news this year. Propelled by scientific evidence, the topic has risen in political geography from technocratic lowlands to presidential summits. Owing to its projected implications for the economy, energy, food production, water supplies, natural disasters and migration from climate-stressed regions, it has become a factor of national and global security.

Climate change is a fact. It results from the accumulation in the atmosphere of "greenhouse gases" (GHGs) produced by human activity, notably carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted by burning fossil fuels - coal, oil and gas - and by deforestation. These emissions are raising global mean surface temperature above normal and destabilising our climate, compared to historic trends over millennia. The evidence is unequivocal. The debate is about what to do, when and by whom.

There are three main trends in the debate among governments:

The European Union urgently seeks multilateral agreement, in a United Nations framework, on targets and timetables to limit and reduce GHG emissions, with timeframes to 2020 and 2050 and a global warming limit of 2°C.

The US Administration prefers voluntary partnerships among selected major economies, focusing on technological development while eschewing quantified emission limits. (Meanwhile, encouraged by initiatives from states, cities and corporations, Congress is considering approaches to a Federal law that would cap and reduce national emissions - for approval by the next President, if not by the incumbent.)

The emerging giants - notably Brazil, China and India - pursue emission limitation in the context of poverty reduction and insist on the primary responsibility of the rich countries to redress the atmospheric imbalance caused by their historical growth.

This diversity will colour next week's summit in Germany of the G8+5 - eight economic powers of the industrialised world plus five developing counterparts - that will try to forge common positions to advance a global climate strategy. Tensions have been rising. Will there be a positive result at all? Will the interest of departing leaders in enriching their political legacies produce a "quick and dirty" deal? Or will those with longer political life expectancy hold out for a better outcome when new players come to the table?

Before and after this summit, there will be no shortage of headlines, opinions and arguments about climate change. What pointers can help to interpret them?

1. Doomsday scenarios do not help. The impacts of warming unfold gradually over time, modifying patterns of temperature, rainfall and drought and raising sea levels, even though some effects can be fierce (like stronger hurricanes) and others may become irreversible (say, melting of glaciers and ice caps). These changes, however, are happening faster than foreseen. They justify effective preventive action in the next two or three decades.

2. Such action must be integrated in national development perspectives. All countries must assess the impact of climate change - negative or positive - on their welfare and development prospects, review their changing priorities and prepare for adaptation to change. All can look for win-win combinations of climate and development policies (like, say, use of climate-friendly energy results in cleaner air), (In Malta, for example, the likelihood of less rainfall and of contamination of the aquifer by rising sea level must put a new drive behind an effective water policy that will cut distribution losses, reduce stormwater run-off, re-use treated waste water, and fight water theft. The win-win: Serious promotion of wind and solar power will limit imports of energy for desalination.)

3. A strategy to contain global warming must address the power generation and transport sectors, improving economy and efficiency in the use of fossil fuels and boosting the share of renewable energy sources (hydro, wind, solar, bio-fuels and nuclear in the right conditions). Nevertheless, since coal - the "dirtiest" fuel - will remain a principal energy source for the US, China and India, among others, technologies to "clean" coal must be put on a fast track. Reducing deforestation emissions is also important.

4. It is estimated that it will cost less globally for us to invest now to protect the climate than to leave others to clean up our mess later in the century. Prevention is better than cure.

In the end, a global strategy to contain the growth of GHG emissions must be both effective and fair, and on both counts inclusive. The countries that are now on top of the world economy produced the bulk of historical emissions getting there, the US in the lead. These countries have accepted the political responsibility to lead the response; the US must take its rightful place at their head.

But the countries that are now climbing the economic ladder will account for the bulk of future emissions. China's current emissions will soon overtake those of the US. These countries are responsible for managing the future. Without their commitment, motivated by substantial transfers of capital and technology, effective and fair global action will remain out of reach.