20060414_R4
Source: BBC Radio 4: Today Programme
URL: N/A
Date: 14/04/2006
Event: Sir David King on climate change and the UK Government
People:
- Roger Harrabin: BBC's Environment Analyst
- John Humphrys: Presenter, BBC Radio 4 Today programme
- Sir David King: Former Chief Scientific Adviser to H.M. Government, UK
John Humphrys: The Government's chief scientist, Sir David King, has been talking about climate change again, in pretty apocalyptic terms, too. Talking to our environment correspondent Roger Harrabin, who's with me. Roger, immensely confusing, this, because we have the Kyoto Protocol, which seems to be effectively dead, doesn't it? That's to say, we're not even going to meet our own targets, under it.
Roger Harrabin: We're going to meet our Kyoto targets, we're not going to meet our own domestic targets. Kyoto isn't dead but it will not bring about the reductions we need, so Mr Blair is launching on some sort of global initiative, or hoping to, in order to say: let's think about this differently. Kyoto asks us to cut, specifically, each country's emissions. Each country has a target. The United States are not interested in this, the Chinese and the Indians don't want to take part, because they're still growing. So Mr Blair's trying to think: okay, maybe we'll approach this from the other end. What would be a safe limit for climate change, beyond which we should not go? Maybe we can get international agreement on this.
John Humphrys: And is this where we get the 2% or - 2 degrees or 3 degrees - 2 degrees or 3 degrees Celsius - increase, that they are now talking about as being either acceptable or catastrophic. And I am utterly confused as to what it is.
Roger Harrabin: Well, that's right. I mean, the problem is, John, the scientists really don't know. It's an extremely complicated science. If you imagine every ecosystem in the world, you know, all human activities, all activities of plants and animals, and the Sun of course, which plays a huge part in this, all bundled in together, and trying to put them into a computer program and come out with some results, you're talking about rather a difficult calculation. But the best science on this, according to the UK Government, came out from its own conference at Exeter last year. And the results were recently published. Now that suggests that if we want to be certain of avoiding huge, catastrophic consequences on Earth, we should stick below - if we can - 400 parts per million carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I'm sorry to go with these numbers, but we have to talk about them. And they say if we do that, we are reasonably certain to stay below 2 degrees Celsius increase. That's on pre-industrial levels, from before when we started burning the fossil fuels. Now this, theoretically, is the Government's position, that we shouldn't go above 2 degrees. It's also the EU's position. But I spoke to Dr King, recently, and I said to him, you know: do you agree that we can stick to this? And also: do you agree to the science that suggests that 3 degrees is going to take us to some pretty catastrophic consequences, if we go there?
* * *
David King: There are no certainties here, in terms of predictions. But if you asked me where do we feel the temperature is likely to end up, if we move to a level of carbon dioxide of 550 parts per million, which is roughly twice the pre-industrial level, and the level at which we would be optimistically hoping we could settle, the temperature rise could well be in excess of 3 degrees Centigrade. And yet we're saying 550 parts per million in the atmosphere is probably the best we can achieve through global agreement.
Roger Harrabin: Well, let's look at what your own paper, on your own website suggests would happen at 3 degrees Celsius. It says "Few ecosystems can adapt. Up to 400 additional millions of people are at risk to hunger, and between 20 and 400 million tonnes of global cereal production is lost." Now you're saying, according to the current science, that's where we're heading.
David King: Let me just put a proper interpretation on that. What you're reading out is correct, but it assumes that we, that is the population on the planet, don't manage the process, that we don't introduce major adaptation measures. And the British Government's position is that we must introduce adaptation measures. In other words, there are two parts to dealing with climate change. One is reduce our emissions. But the second is that we must begin now that whole process of adaptation. So, for example, in the United Kingdom, all of the indications are that our major threats are not only temperature rise but from flooding and coastal attack, as the sea levels rise -
Roger Harrabin: Well, that depends whether we can, as a society, afford to manage those risks. I mean, it's okay for the UK to increase its coastal defences, but India's in no position to do it. The Maldives will almost certainly disappear, under - the -
David King: That's my point.
Roger Harrabin: - Bangladesh -
David King: Yes. I think what I want to stress is that we don't have to succumb to a state of despondency, where we say there's nothing we can do, so let's just carry on living as per usual. It is very important to understand that we can manage the risks to our population, and around the world, country by country. Because what we're talking about here is something that will play through over decades, we're talking about a hundred years or so. We need to begin that process of investment, and yes it is going to be a major challenge for the developing countries.
Roger Harrabin: Mr Blair spoke in New Zealand, recently, about the need to get a global agreement on what would be a wise threshold, beyond which we should not pass, in terms of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. Was he talking abut the 550 parts per million, to which you refer?
David King: So the British Government's position has been since the 2003 White Paper, the objective to reduce our emissions by 60% by 2050, which is based on our intention to stay below 550 parts per million. So that is the British Government's position. But of course, the Prime Minister, in going into international negotiations, is saying: this is our position, but let's talk about it.
Roger Harrabin: Well, so far the Americans are not willing to enter a dialogue about what would be a safe level. The man who advises Mr Bush, James Connaughton, the head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, came to the UK recently and said: "Well, you know, maybe 550 would be, you know, a safe limit, or maybe 750, maybe a 1000, maybe 1500", he said. "You know, I'm a policy wonk, I don't know."
David King: And I'm a scientist, and the scientists have got some very serious information to feed into James Connaughton. And that is, that if we go beyond 550 parts per million, we reach levels of temperature increase and sea level rises, over the coming century, which would be extremely difficult for world populations to manage.
Roger Harrabin: Well, how are you going to persuade people like Mr Connaughton that we have to set a limit? Because, at the moment, the Bush administration is not willing to talk about limits. Maybe their approach is right - we'll keep growing the economy, the technologies will come through. Perhaps that optimistic approach is the right -
David King: There's a difference between optimism and head-in-the-sands. And quite clearly, what we have to do, as we move forward with these discussions, is see that this consensus position of the scientific community is brought right into the table where the discussions are taking place.
Roger Harrabin: Mr Blair is not setting much of an example on this, is he. He talks a very good talk on climate change, but we've seen recently, in the publication of the Government's own climate change strategy, that we are failing to cut emissions as the Government has promised.
David King: And what we need to do, is to focus on the shorter term, absolutely right, but also on the longer term.
Roger Harrabin: But you must be very disappointed by that, as his chief scientist. You advise him, he takes your advice seriously, he tries to persuade world leaders. And when faced with a difficult decision at home, he turns away from it.
David King: I don't believe that the Government is turning away from it. There is a much greater commitment today to dealing with the climate change issue. And it is seen to be an issue that has impacts right across [inaudible].
Roger Harrabin: You say that, but they still have fail- or they are failing in their objective to cut CO2 20% by 2010.
David King: Roger, we would all like to see, myself not least, a significant reduction in carbon dioxide level. And as we move forward to 2010, the Government hasn't removed the intention to reduce emissions by 20%. They have simply highlighted the difficulties.
Roger Harrabin: You're working closely with politicians. Do you have faith that politicians have the courage to make decisions which may be unpopular in the short term for the benefit of future generation
David King: I believe that commitment is there. Yes.
Roger Harrabin: The Archbishop of Canterbury, on our programme, said "Climate change is a moral issue". Do you think there is room for religious leaders in a scientific and political debate like this?
David King: I've little doubt in my own mind that this is a major cultural issue, and if you like, a moral issue. So I don't believe that any of us stand by and say "We're not part of this."
* * *
John Humphrys: That was Sir David King. Roger, a quick final thought. Is the Government and - are the Government and the scientists in agreement? Or are we hearing two different kinds of story?
Roger Harrabin: I'm not sure that that interview you've just heard will be totally welcomed by Government. The official Government position, as announced yesterday by, or confirmed yesterday, by Defra and by No.10 is that we shouldn't go above 2 degrees. And what Mr King [sic] has just said actually will challenge the Government's own policies on cutting CO2 and I suspect force them into a review of all our own domestic long-term targets for cutting CO2.
John Humphrys: Roger, thank you.