It's time for consensus on climate change

The international community is trying to create a new climate regime for the period after 2012 — either by continuing with the Kyoto Protocol, which puts binding emissions caps on developed countries, or by creating a new agreement involving developing countries (or at least the major emitters among them).

So the question is not so much whether the next regime is binding or not but whether the next regime should enlist all major emitters, developed and developing, in the global battle to keep global warming at a level that is acceptable to humanity.

Many agree that the Copenhagen accord, which came out of the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 15) in Copenhagen in December 2009, represents the most comprehensive climate consensus among the largest number of world leaders.

Yet, despite the consensus, individual national interests are still competing against each to such a degree that it is now thought that an ambitious and binding framework for global climate action will have to be built over time.

The goal of COP 16, scheduled to be held in Cancun, Mexico, from November 29 to December 10, should be a comprehensive deal. This will be the first round of formal UN climate talks since the Copenhagen conference last December.

In the past few months, battle has been waged between developed and developing countries on emissions, among other issues. However, in the past few weeks, many reports and articles questioning the approach and results of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have been published.

These reports said that the UN body that advises governments on climate change had failed to make it clear that its landmark report on the impact of global warming largely presented the worst-case scenario.

Allegations of bias

A summary report by the IPCC on the regional impacts of climate change focused on the negative consequences and failed to make clear that there would also be some benefits to rising temperatures. Examples of benefits include the ability to grow new crops in some parts of the world, and the emergence of shorter Arctic sea routes.

It is a basic reality of life that every action, programme or activity has merits and demerits. Nothing on earth is solely positive or negative. So, we always weigh both sides and come down on one side or the other. In the case of climate change, of course, the consequences are mostly negative.

Basic principle

Again, it is one of the basic principles of sustainability (the precautionary principle) that in order to be on the safe side we have to concentrate on the negative consequences of climate change.

The media have claimed that the IPCC report wrongly suggested that climate change was the main reason communities have faced severe water shortages while neglecting to mention that population growth was a much bigger factor.

Scientifically, there is enough water for every living creature on earth. Thus, population growth does not really represent the main reason for water shortages. It is agreed between water specialists and policymakers that water management issues and misuse are the main reasons for water shortages.

However, nobody is 100 per cent sure about the impact of climate change on water and, in order to be on the safe side, the report had to highlight the negative consequences of this issue.

However, I believe the IPCC must clarify the full range of possible outcomes, with sufficient focus on negative consequences, and not limit itself to only mentioning them. Even if there are a few errors, the IPCC's conclusions would be, by and large, valid and correct.

In fact, climate change is not only about global warming. It relates to changes in the whole eco-system (‘eco' here may refer to either economy or ecology). It is about creating a new civilisation, a civilisation that depends on clean energy and creates a green economy.

Despite the recent setbacks regarding the IPCC climate-change report, there is still some time left before the climate-change conference in Cancun, and there is hope that the international community will be able to come up with a active climate-change pact which will guarantee that man's quest for achieving development does not disrupt the natural ecological balance.

Dr Mohammad Abdel Raouf is in charge of environment research at the Gulf Research Centre in Dubai.