Ian Axford: Natural disasters warnings of worse to come

James Lovelock's apocalyptic vision (see link to article below) of a vengeful Gaia wreaking havoc on the climate in response to humankind's careless injection of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere reads like an extract from the Book of Revelations.

He is right in general, except perhaps for introducing the unnecessary hypothesis of the Gaia.

At the current rate of increase, with the present atmospheric content of such gases (particularly carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and CFCs) equivalent to about 450 parts per million of CO2, most conservative estimates indicate an average global temperature increase of 2C by about the year 2050.

Average, however, does not mean uniform. At this point, regions with continental climates will suffer much larger increases - for example up to 10C in sub-Arctic regions such as Alaska, northern Canada and Siberia, where the Eskimos are already complaining.

There will be smaller but uncomfortable average temperature increases in southern Europe, north Africa, Asia generally, Australia and the northern parts of South America.

Even with the present average global increase of about 0.8C, the effects of warming have been clear in southern Europe (the heatwave of 2003 which resulted in about 25,000 deaths in France), the Gulf of Mexico (the increase in the number of class three to five hurricanes over the past 20 years) and the devastating monsoon in India last year.

These few examples must be considered as warnings of worse to come.

New Zealand, in contrast, is protected by its isolation, so the increase should be tolerable, perhaps an average of just 2C, although we're likely to suffer from more frequent extreme weather events and more prevalent drought in some regions.

It is to be expected that this global situation will lead to large-scale and rather aggressive migration affecting billions of people, and New Zealand would be a tempting target - something for our Government to consider seriously.

Lovelock makes the valid point that the prognosis is much worse. There are feedback effects that exacerbate the situation, notably the shutting down of forests and, to some extent, the ocean as absorbers of CO2, and the emission of methane from melting peat bogs in sub-Arctic regions.

These could appear relatively abruptly, offering no possibility for counter-measures. The level of warming in Siberia already corresponds to about 3C and the effects of melting are apparent.

For these reasons we must be prepared for some uncomfortable changes in the next few decades - well before 2050.

What should we do in New Zealand? If the answer is "nothing", it might not affect global developments much - except for the voice we have on the international scene. Our climate could be warmer and perhaps less pleasant but otherwise tolerable.

However, we are likely to be more isolated than ever, since aircraft and coal and oil-driven shipping will become unacceptable - leaving nuclear-powered and wind-driven ships to convey our imports and exports.

I believe we must follow the philosophy of the Kyoto Treaty and reduce our greenhouse emissions. This is not a difficult task since ruminant-produced methane is our biggest problem, and it seems we may be able to eliminate at least 70 per cent of these emissions.

Carbon dioxide is more difficult, but by concentrating on water and wind power and reducing the use of fossil fuels for transportation, we could produce a marked change in our emissions in 10 to 20 years.

We would then be in a position to complain about others who like to pretend there is no real problem or that it will ultimately be solved by "technology".

We have to hope that such recalcitrants will develop their nuclear power resources before they do much further damage to the climate - as recommended by Lovelock - whether we like it or not.

For New Zealand this is not an option: we have no nuclear technology and the cost of developing it or buying everything abroad would be well beyond our pocket when we are already suffering from a deficit in our current account and have a large external debt.

In Tuesday's Herald, Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, argued that it is not too late to act over climate change (see link to article below).

Given the expected developments in China and India and the foot dragging of Australia and the United States, I find it hard to be quite so optimistic.
We will have to consider ourselves lucky if these countries do not burn all the fossil fuel they can lay their hands on, which would double or triple the amount of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere.

As Lovelock argues, nuclear power is a more acceptable option than the vengeance of the Gaia.

* Ian Axford is a member of the Academies of Sciences of the US and Europe, and of the Royal Societies of London and of New Zealand, and is a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union. He was director of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research for 27 years, president of COSPAR, the Space Research Committee of the International Council of Scientific Unions, and of the European Geophysical Society, and vice-president of the Asia-Oceania Geophysical Society.