By Steve Painter
SYDNEY — Despite the fact that the vast majority of scientific opinion accepts the reality of global warming, there is a backlash in the corporate sector says Dr Jeremy Leggett, Greenpeace International's director of science and an invited non-government scientist on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
A common corporate response, both in Australia and internationally, is to deny the problem and cling to a few minority opinions, Leggett told a press briefing here on April 3.
However, the corporate sector is by no means unanimous. Insurance companies are preparing to restructure policies in anticipation of expected sea level rises. One Swiss company is considering special premiums on coastal property up to five metres above present sea levels. On the other hand, fossil fuel industries and those heavily dependent on fossil fuels are most resistant to change.
Normally based in Britain, Leggett was in Australia to brief government, corporate and union representatives on the latest developments in the study of greenhouse warming. He lectured in earth sciences for 11 years before joining Greenpeace.
He says graphs produced by every major climate forecasting institution point to temperature rises not experienced for the past 120,000 years. Historically, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have never risen above 300 parts per million until recent times. Now they are around 450 ppm and heading rapidly for 600 ppm if nothing is done.
Leggett says scientific bodies internationally are generally pulling their punches in reports on global warming in an attempt to achieve consensus. The situation is further confused by dishonest corporate lobbying, which attempts to present minority opinions as having equal weight to IPCC papers, which are the result of rigorous research and intensive debate and discussion among the 300 scientists representing governments on the body.
The coming Earth Summit is likely to be just a stage in the development of solutions to world environmental problems as governments, particularly the US government, are reluctant to set emission control targets. This leads to a danger that countries which have already set targets might withdraw them.
Leggett says it is generally accepted that targets should be set in the developed countries first, since these generate the vast majority of greenhouse gasses. Developing countries should be assisted to move along alternative energy paths. There is discussion of an international fund for this, but some large developing countries such as India, China and Brazil are holding out against any conditions on such a fund, though this may be just a negotiating position.
He says a first step in developed countries should be a move to greater energy efficiency. According to international estimates, between 25% and 80% of electricity can be saved through greater efficiency, such as insulation of buildings. Trade unions have little e energy strategies, because these rely on more labour-intensive power generation.
There is a large body of scientific opinion that greenhouse warming could reach a point of no return if action is not taken. After that, warming would continue to increase no matter what was done.