Global warming is getting worse - but the message is getting through

In a Guardian article a year ago, I called Global Warming a weapon of mass destruction. I warned that events such as heat waves, floods and droughts will be more frequent and destructive as more carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels - coal, oil and gas. But even in the absence of global warming, extreme events occur. Climate is notoriously variable. So can any event yet be labelled unequivocally as due to global warming? Last summer's heat wave in central Europe has provided the first example. Over 20,000 people died prematurely. It was far outside anything that had been observed before. From 1864 when instrumental records began until 2003 the average temperature in Switzerland during June, July and August had varied from 15.4C (in 1909) to 19.9C (in 1947). In 2003 it was 22.3C, 2.4C higher than the previous record (no less than 5 standard deviations from the mean). Recent scientific analysis confirms that its cause is extremely unlikely to be natural variability alone and that human influence must have played a large part in bringing it about. Projections for Europe into the future suggest that summer temperatures like 2003 could be the norm by 2050 and will be at the colder end of the range by 2100. Flood disasters are also more frequent. This summer, like recent years in southern Asia, has seen another early and intense monsoon. Severe floods have occurred in Assam and Bihar in India and at present over half of Bangladesh is flooded affecting 30 million people. But is the imperative of urgent action a message that is getting through? In January, I attended the World Economic Forum in Davos which included a debate on climate change as a weapon of mass destruction. I did not encounter the denial I expected. Virtually everyone accepted the fact of climate change. But sadly, worse than denial, they saw it as a problem for the future - no need to do anything now. Another way of procrastinating has been publicized by Bjorn Lomborg who has asked the question, "Suppose 50 billion dollars are available for helping poorer countries; should it be spent on combating global warming or on providing access to clean water?" Given the form of the question, the immediate need and the available technology we feel bound to give priority to clean water provision. But that provides no reason to duck the global warming issue. In the developed world, we have benefited enormously from energy from fossil fuels. Unknown until recently is the damage this has inflicted especially on poorer countries. I believe therefore we have direct responsibility and a moral obligation to mitigate further damage. To provide clean water is not an alternative. We have the resources to do that as well.

But during the past year there have been encouragements too. Christian churches that between them make up the largest of non-governmental organizations have not on the whole had green issues high on their agendas. But big changes are afoot in their attitudes to environmental issues. In June I attended a meeting in the United States of 35 Christian leaders who have the potential to influence churches with 45 million members. They recognized caring for creation as an important and urgent Christian imperative and covenanted together to spread the message about global warming amongst their communities. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury has also recently spoken about the seriousness of global warming. Religious conviction has potential to change attitudes more fundamentally than political messages. I am also encouraged by UK leadership on the global warming issue. Tony Blair is giving it top priority in his plans for the G8 and Europe next year. John Browne, BP's Chief Executive, is the first top industrialist to support a target to limit carbon dioxide concentration to about 500 parts per million so as to prevent continuing climate change - also spelling out what this might mean for the world's energy industries. But the UK still needs to catch up - and overtake - what others are doing regarding energy efficiency and carbon-free energy generation. Reducing energy use in new buildings and in existing housing stock should have much greater priority. For promising new energy sources, government needs to ensure adequate resources for research, development, demonstration and investment. Wind power has made large strides but cannot be the only solution. Tidal and wave power around the shores of the UK have great potential. Energy from biomass (including waste) and carbon sequestration technologies also need development. Nuclear power also should be considered for the medium term. In particular, the large amount of plutonium in the world no longer required by the military could be used to provide energy. Being degraded in that process the risk of its use by terrorists would be reduced. Further, as it already exists there would be no additional nuclear waste. BBC programmes over three days at the end of July have helped to inform the public about global warming and explain actions individuals can take (about one third of energy use is domestic). Joint action by government, industry and NGOs is being planned for further awareness-raising. Public commitment to finding the best solution is essential if politicians are going to have confidence to take the action required.