As the fraught negotiations in the Danish capital ended in chaos, acrimony and recriminations yesterday, experts agreed there was now little hope of keeping the average rise in global temperatures below 2°C.
They predicted instead that temperatures would increase by 3°C or more, bringing widespread flooding, major droughts and mass migrations, along with serious food and water shortages.
“It really couldn’t be any more serious,” said James Curran, the director of science at the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and one of the Scottish government’s top advisors on climate change.
“It’s staggeringly frightening and deeply disappointing that Copenhagen has failed. This is extremely dangerous for Scotland and the world.”
A temperature rise of 3°C could trigger runaway climate change that will be impossible to reverse, he argued.
“That deeply worries me, because the effects could be catastrophic and unpredictable,” he told the Sunday Herald.
“This puts half the species on the planet at risk of extinction, and takes us into the zone where whole ecosystems begin to break down.
“It will cause coastal and river flooding, endanger hundreds of millions of people, cause serious water supply problems, and the complete breakdown of food supply.”
His predictions were backed up by expert climate consultants, Michiel Schaeffer and Niklas Hoehne, in Copenhagen. He was also supported by a leaked United Nations report and an analysis from the environmental group, WWF.
After the third all-night session in a row, 193 countries agreed yesterday to simply “note” a Copenhagen Accord drawn up on Friday by the US, China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Ethiopia in private talks brokered by US president, Barack Obama.
Many developing countries felt betrayed by the accord, because it lacked any legally-binding targets or timetables for cutting pollution.
But they were forced to endorse it because it offered them $30 billion (£18 billion) from 2010 to 2012 and $100bn (£61bn) a year from 2020 onwards to help combat the effects of climate change.
The summit exposed “a failure of leadership”, according to the Scottish first minister, Alex Salmond.
“Copenhagen was a tiptoe forward when what the world required was a giant leap,” he said.
The Green MSP, Patrick Harvie, who was in Copenhagen as convenor of the Scottish Parliament’s climate change committee, blamed Obama and the UK prime minister, Gordon Brown.
“They should be ashamed of this disgraceful betrayal of the world’s hopes,” he said.
But Obama, Brown and other leaders did their best to sound positive about the accord, though they all accepted that it would not be enough to prevent dangerous climate change.
“We have much further to go,” stated Obama, though he claimed the accord was a “meaningful breakthrough”.
The Stop Climate Chaos Scotland coalition, which involves 60 organisations and represents 40% of Scotland’s population, dismissed claims that Copenhagen Accord was a success as “empty rhetoric”.
The coalition’s chair, Mike Robinson, pointed out that its promises were vague, its targets inadequate and it had no legal framework or timetable for future talks.
“It’s hardly the leadership we had all been hoping for and we have a right to be disappointed,” he said.
US-led Copenhagen deal:
No reference to legally binding agreement.
Recognises the need to limit global temperatures rising no more than 2C above pre-industrial levels.
Developed countries to “set a goal of mobilising jointly $100 billion a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries”.
On transparency: Emerging nations monitor own efforts and report to UN every two years. Some international checks.
No detailed framework on carbon markets -- “various approaches” will be pursued.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article