Deciding How Much Global Warming Is Too Much

NYTimes: "Under the first treaty addressing global warming, 193 countries, including the United States, pledged to avoid "dangerous" human interference with the climate.

There was one small problem with that treaty, enacted 11 years ago. No one defined dangerous. With no clear goal, smokestack and tailpipe emissions of gases linked to rising temperatures relentlessly climbed.

On Feb. 16, a stricter addendum to that treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, enters into force, requiring participating industrialized countries to cut such emissions.

But its targets and timetable were negotiated with no agreement on what amount of cuts would lead the world toward climatic stability. The arbitrary terms were cited by President Bush when he rejected the Kyoto pact in 2001, leaving the world's biggest source of such gases on the sidelines.

After a decade of cautious circling, some scientists and policy makers are now trying to agree on how much warming is too much. One possible step toward clarity comes today, as 200 experts from around the world meet at the invitation of Prime Minister Tony Blair in Exeter for three days of talks on defining "dangerous climate change" and how to avoid it...

"Some scientists have criticized this approach, saying understanding of the impact of greenhouse gases on the atmosphere remains far too primitive to manage emissions and thus avoid a particular temperature target.

Others say the most logical response to the problem is to make societies more resilient to inherent extremes of climate. 'If we just significantly minimize our vulnerabilities to the extremes which occurred during the last 250 years, we'll be O.K. for the next 100,' said Dr. John Christy, a climate scientist at the University of Alabama who has long opposed cuts in emissions. As for rising seas, he said, 'You've got 100 years to move inland.'

Dr. Michael Schlesinger, who directs climate research at the University of Illinois, will contend at the meeting that the persistent uncertainty itself about big climate perils is precisely the reason to invest now in modest mandatory curbs on greenhouse-gas emissions. Only with such a prod will societies move toward less-polluting choices, even as research continues on energy options that could in a few decades sharply reduce the human contribution to the greenhouse effect.

Without global participation in such emission curbs, though, the shared atmosphere will essentially remain a dump with no gate or tipping fee for countries rejecting action.

Any consensus on climate risks will likely intensify pressure on the Bush administration to shift from its current opposition to any cuts in the gases. [...]"
Click here to read the full text (free registration required)