Dried-up riverbeds like this one in I photographed in Australia could be a common sight by 2050

There seems to be no shortage of warnings that we need drastic emissions cuts soon to halt climate change. This week the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) brought out its Environmental Outlook to 2050. It confirms that if emissions keep rising as they forecast, the rise in the global temperature will be way above the two degrees target. This would spell disaster for a lot of low-lying coastal areas around the globe.

The trouble is people could get so used to hearing the warnings that they just switch off, especially if you’re living in an area where you don’t sense any immediate threat. But if you live in one of the Pacific island states like Kiribati, which has been in the news recently with its government considering moving the population to Fiji, this is already an existential problem. The highest point on these islands is just three metres above sea level.(See Climate Change and Kiribati).

The report also warns of acute water shortages in many regions of the world.

The prospects for the not-too-distant future are anything but confidence-inspiring, unless we make some drastic changes to our lifestyle and consumption – fast.

Young climate change activists calling for composting, home insulation and smart energy management

Listening to the radio earlier today I heard a report about Arnold Schwarzenegger supporting a campaign to encourage people, companies, towns, regions etc. to move ahead and take action to work against climate change in their own everyday lives or spheres of action. The tenor seems to be: if we wait for the international negotiations to reduce emissions and halt climate change – we could wait a very long time. But action at a personal/local/regional level might have an impact, if enough of us get involved. Nothing new about that, you might think– but it often depends who’s saying it.This reminds me of a debate I was involved in about how to get people interested in halting climate change. One of the things we established was that celebrities can help. Film and pop stars have a huge influence on masses of people. If they indicate it’s cool – and maybe even economically sensible – to do things that reduce emissions and pollution, a lot of people might think about it who would otherwise show no interest. The combination of movie-star and ex-governor of California seems to attract plenty of public interest. Anything for publicity? The reporter on the station I was listening to finished up by saying the Schwarzenegger campaign wouldn’t do any harm, whatever the chief motivation.

The Hamburg scientists say there is a direct connection between the melting of the Arctic sea ice and global warming

Scientists from the  Hamburg-based Max-Planck-Institute of  Meteorology and the German Climate Computing Centre have calculated that the 2° limit for global warming could still be kept to. However, it would require immediate drastic reductions in carbon dioxide emissions.  So what’s new? I hear you say. The new element is the model the scientists are using. The  new model developed by the Max-Planck-Institute using the high-powered computer capacity of the Hamburg centre integrates additional factors into its simulations for the 21st century, including the complex carbon cycle and dynamic role of vegetation, and compares numerous climate models from around the world with each other.The simulations indicate that if the CO2 concentration continues to rise as it is doing, we will be facing not only a considerable rise in temperature, but also an increase in the speed of ocean acidification.

Global warming - no need to panic?

I have been following with interest the coverage in the media here – and discussions amongst friends and neighbours – of a highly controversial book published in German this month: “The Cold Sun: Why the Climate Catastrophe is not taking place”. The authors, Fritz Vahrenholt and Sebastian Lüning talk down climate change and say there is no need for all the fuss. The authors suggest global temperatures are only influenced to a very small extent by CO2 emissions.  They blame “more than half” on solar activity. Now this argument is not new and has been refuted by many respectable scientists – but the hype surrounding the book might lead a lot of people to think it is.

(Climate change video shoot Alaska 2008)

The 2°C limit for global temperature rise seems to have slipped a bit further into the realm of impossibility. Figures published by the International Energy Agency indicate that CO2 emissions from energy reached a record high during 2010. This probably reflects the economic recovery.