Climate change will lead to a "fortress world" in which the rich lock themselves away in gated communities and the poor must fend for themselves in shattered environments, unless governments act quickly to curb greenhouse gas emissions, according to the vice-president of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Prof Mohan Munasinghe was giving a lecture at Cambridge university in which he presented a dystopic possible future world in which social problems are made much worse by the environmental consequences of rising greenhouse gas emissions. "Climate change is, or could be, the additional factor which will exacerbate the existing problems of poverty, environmental degradation, social polarisation and terrorism and it could lead to a very chaotic situation," he said.
The scenario, which he termed "barbarisation" was already beginning to happen, he said. "Fortress world is a situation where the rich live in enclaves, protected, and the poor live outside in unsustainable conditions.
"If you see what is going on in some of the gated communities in some countries you do find that rich people live in those kind of protected environments. If you see the restrictions on international travel you see the beginnings of the fortress world syndrome even in entering and leaving countries," he said.
The Sri Lankan-born expert on climate change and sustainable development was delivering the annual Clare College Distinguished Lecture in Economics and Public Policy. He said the IPCC's fourth assessment in 2007 predicted that developing countries would be hit hardest by climate change, especially rising sea levels.
"One of the most distressing aspects is that developing countries are the most vulnerable to climate change and the poorest people will be the hardest hit. This is in fact rather unfair because they had least to do with the problem – apparently they will pay the biggest costs," he said.
Bangladesh, for example, could lose 17% of its land – mostly highly populated areas – to rising seas, according to Munasinghe. But, he was positive about international efforts to tackle the problem. "I tend to be optimistic because I believe this can be done through rational processes, but I also feel that the consequences of failure are unimaginable and that's really the bottom line
Expert warns climate change will lead to 'barbarisation'
US loophole puts polar bears at risk
Environmental groups are claiming that a US decision to list polar bears as an endangered species would still leave them unprotected against their biggest threat; global warming caused by man-made pollution. Yesterday's decision announced by the US interior secretary, Dirk Kempthorne, ended a court battle over whether the animals should be protected from melting sea ice caused by climate change.
Greenpeace claim the move came with a big catch that undercut the ruling. A threatened listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is supposed to provide broad protection to polar bears. Greenpeace, however, noted an exemption (technically known as a 4d exemption) for global warming pollution contained in the ruling.
"Global warming is the biggest threat facing polar bears and this exemption eliminates any real protection the listing could have provided," the group said. "It specifically says federal agencies don't need to consider the impact of global warming pollution on the polar bear.
"This might look like a listing to protect the polar bear but it's really just a way for the administration to protect the interests of the oil and gas industry, as well as get away without taking action on global warming." Greenpeace accused the Bush administration of gutting any protections the ESA would have given the polar bear with the exemption.
The sea ice used by polar bears has receded significantly in recent years. While the polar bear population has doubled since the 1960s, US government computer models predict they will be endangered by 2050. The environmental movement views the threatened status of the bears as an opening to curb carbon emissions by oil companies, including BP and ExxonMobil, that are snapping up drilling licences in the offshore waters near the Arctic.
However, Kempthorne insisted that scientists working under him believe "the loss of sea ice, not oil and gas development" has put the bears in jeopardy. A decision to protect the species was first due in January and the delay led to a furious row over the politicisation of science by George Bush's government.
Polar bears were first considered for protected status a year ago. The Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC) also accused the administration of sleight of hand. "The polar bear is already on thin ice," the group said. "Protecting the polar bear under the endangered species act is a major step forward, but the Bush administration has proposed using loopholes in the law to allow the greatest threat to the polar bear – global warming pollution – to continue unabated.
"If the key threats are not addressed soon, zoos will be the only place our grandchildren will be able to see a polar bear." In remarks likely to exacerbate the concerns of campaigners, Kempthorne repeatedly called US endangered species law "inflexible".
He would apply separate rules for marine mammal protection to the polar bear that would permit the US "to continue to develop our natural resources in the Arctic in an environmentally sound way".
Mike Townley of Greenpeace International said: "At least there is the recognition of the causal effect of global warming on polar bears. "The Bush administration has identified the problem but what it has failed to do is to follow through."
Hollywood aiming for a neutral future
With the dangers of climate change top of the news agenda and a popular subject for the screen, Hollywood is making efforts to reduce its collective carbon footprint – just as long as it doesn't interfere with action on the screen. Yvonne Singh reports on Tinseltown's green makeover
Not so long ago the only footprints that Hollywood executives and their stars cared about were those immortalised in clay on the forecourt outside LA's Chinese theatre. Now though it's the carbon footprint of their shows that's causing producers' brows to furrow.
Last December, industry insiders - from fields as diverse as technology, film, television, IT - gathered at Hollywood Goes Green (HGG) in LA, the first conference to address environmental issues and sustainability in the industry, and there is another forum planned for later this year.
With sessions covering everything from the selection of utensils in organic catering to reducing the energy budget of the multimillion dollar IT services that the industry employs, the conference kickstarted a scramble among executives to get on the green bandwagon as well as secure lucrative green advertising deals.
This June, Discovery will launch Planet Green in the US – the first 24-hour channel dedicated to "green lifestyle programming" – with plans to reach more than 50m homes. Series seven of 24 which is currently in production - yes, the counter-terrorism drama, with special effects and stunts galore – is aiming for TV's first "carbon-neutral" finale.
Other Fox shows in production – My Name is Earl, The Unit, Futurama, Family Guy and King of the Hill - are hot on its "carbon-neutral" heels. Even Disney has got in on the act by launching Disneynature, a film production unit with an environmental conscience. Its first nature documentary - Earth – will be released in April next year. And heaping on the green guilt are blogs, such as ecorazzi.com, devoted to detailing celebrities' planet-friendly pastimes.
But with ethical living all about low-impact, simpler lifestyles, can the bright lights of Tinseltown really be dimmed? "I think people are bothered by the excesses that have gone on for many years in terms of travel, use of
resources – whether energy, paper or water – and they want to make a difference," says Zahava Stroud, president of iHollywood Forum, which organised HGG and has the car giant General Motors as one of its main sponsors. "There is a dedicated interest across the board in Hollywood to become more sustainable as an industry, and we live in a time where we have technologies that enable the reduction of the use of resources with very little financial cost.
"Films, cable and TV communicate with billions of people and impart a message so it's clearly a vehicle that can be used to impact public opinion about environmental issues."
This view is echoed at Discovery, a veteran of the green movement, with more than 20 years' worth of conservation programming under its belt.
"Green is part of our DNA. We saw a void in programming and content that connected people to the changes facing our environment in a way that is accessible, which is why we decided to launch the channel," says Eileen O'Neill, president and general manager of Planet Green, which will host round-the-clock, turn-your-junk-into-cash programmes such as Wrecklamation and Wa$ted. "There is a heightened sense of awareness in the US regarding the challenges facing the environment and people need a trustworthy and inspiring source of content to help them take the next step."
Jack Bauer goes green - up to a point
Certainly the green gospel, once thought of as a fad followed by Burning Man devotees, has entered the US mainstream, with news that Fox's hugely successful drama 24 is aiming for a "carbon neutral" finale. By printing scripts on recycled paper, switching to more-efficient LED lighting, recycling sets and using less carbon-intensive biodiesel generators, as well as scrutinising the energy efficiency in catering and travel, the series has made dramatic efforts to reduce its carbon footprint (which has been calculated by an independent consultant using measures such as fuel consumption etc).
Chris Alexander, spokesperson for the show, insists that it is no marketing gimmick, but is a philosophy that has come from the very top of the organisation: "Nearly two years ago Rupert Murdoch made the decision to make News Corp carbon neutral by 2010. He was inspired by Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, and because 24 is such an internationally successful TV show, and its executive producer Howard Gordon cares deeply about preventing climate change, it seemed like the perfect property to make the centrepiece of Fox's efforts.
"We've reduced our emissions by an impressive 44% compared with the first eight episodes of last season," says Alexander. "Our intention was to accrue enough savings throughout the season to render the season finale carbon neutral and we are already well ahead of schedule to achieve that – in fact, we've already saved enough to render the last three episodes carbon neutral and we're only a third of the way through the season."
Despite these cutbacks, Jack Bauer won't be chasing terrorists on a Greyhound bus. Mike Posey, manager of production on the show, is clear that there has been no creative compromise: "Everyone is looking at their own activities across the entire production to see what changes they can make. That said, we've made it very clear to our production staff that these efforts cannot jeopardise the creative excellence of the show.
"The car-crashes and explosions that are part of 24's creative fabric will not change. If we discover more environmentally friendly ways to stage and film these elements then we will utilise them," adds Alexander. "We won't be changing the show's content. Viewers can still expect all the trademark action."
But if all the TVs tuned in to the season finale are taken into account, surely the show's claim of carbon neutrality is a load of hot air? "It's very easy to be cynical and focus on what we can't achieve, or aren't doing, or to say that no television show should bother aspiring to reduce its carbon footprint," says Alexander. "We disagree and feel that what we are doing is meaningful and significant. This initiative has real costs and we're devoting significant energy, time and resources towards its success.
"We believe in it deeply. In fact, when you consider the millions of people around the world who consume entertainment, absorb its messages and invest emotionally in the stories we tell, we think our industry is best positioned to take the lead in this area."
Channel 4 to show DiCaprio documentary
Channel 4 is to broadcast The 11th Hour, the polemical documentary about the environment fronted by Leonardo DiCaprio.
In the documentary, which the channel will transmit on May 25, leading scientists, environmentalists, politicians and activists advance the argument that the Earth is facing environmental disaster, and ask what can be done.
Notable figures featured in The 11th Hour include professor Stephen Hawking, former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and Nobel Peace Prize winner Wangari Maathai speak about global warming, deforestation, mass species extinction and the depletion of the oceans' habitats.
The film also calls for restorative action to change global human activity through technology, social responsibility and conservation.
It lays responsibility for the warming of the planet mostly on the greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere and also makes the claim that not since a meteor hit the planet 55m years ago have so many forms of life become extinct.
The film, narrated and produced by DiCaprio, was written and directed by Leila Conners Petersen and Nadia Conners.
It received critical praise when it premiered at the Canned Film Festival last year, with Times film writer James Christopher describing it as "brilliant and terrifying".
However, it also attracted some criticism, with former Greenpeace member Patrick Moore branding the film as "Hollywood hype" in an article for the Vancouver Sun.
Channel 4 has bought the UK broadcast right to the documentary from Hollywood studio Warner Bros.
Warner Home Video UK has also scheduled a DVD release of the film for June
Engines of change
As the price of oil continues to rise, low-emission diesel cars are being seen as a cheaper, greener alternative, and demand is soaring. But there are fears that the fuel's health dangers are being ignored. John Vidal reports
Breathe deep outside Ford's new engine plant at Dagenham in east London and you are likely to choke on a mix of pollutants. Minute flecks of soot and ash from the clogged traffic on the nearby A13 get up your nose and down into your lungs; acrid whiffs of burning sulphur and nitrogen drift in from ships on the Thames and planes flying into City airport; and nearby sewage works and power stations all pitch in to make a foul atmospheric soup. Postcode RM9 6SA stinks.
But it is another world inside the factory. While Ford Dagenham makes Jeremy Clarkson-approved, gas-guzzling, V8 turbo-powered petrol engines for Land Rover and Jaguar cars in the traditional dirty way, a separate area of the factory, about the size of six football pitches, is quite spotless. Here, breathing only filtered air, 500 people wearing gloves, masks and special shoes turn out vast numbers of low-emission car engines for all Europe. "It's like a hospital, but without the MRSA," says one of the men on the factory floor. "We don't even have to start the engines. We simulate running them without any fuel."
Jim Austen, a test engineer, says: "In the old days, you used not to be able to see from one end of the line to the other for the fumes and dirt and the chimneys. It was very noisy, and you went home stinking of diesel. It's good to be on the side of the environment. It makes what you are working for more meaningful."
Europe's cleanest, and one of its largest, diesel engine factory can barely keep up with new orders. Ford, which sells one in six of all the vehicles in Britain, last year built 150,000 low-emission diesel engines for the European market. This year, it will be over 450,000, and in 2009 it expects to ship 575,000 of these sub-130 gram per kilometre (g/km) engines out of Dagenham to assembly works in Spain and Germany. Nearly one in four of the engines will come back to Britain as Ford Fiestas, Fusions and Focuses. Some already do 65 miles per gallon (mpg), but later this year there will be models that return 70-plus mpg. All will qualify for London's new low-emission zone, and an attractive government tax break.
The shift to diesel is a direct response by the car makers to climate change concerns, but especially to oil prices, which last week again set new records. "We are being overwhelmed by demand," says Oliver Rowe, communications officer for Ford Britain. "Sales [of 'green' cars] rose 33% last year and we expect the trend to accelerate. A major change is taking place in Europe, away from bigger engine petrol cars to smaller diesel cars. It's being driven by high energy prices, and budget changes in favour of small engines.
"The EU is driving manufacturers to get under 130g/km CO2 emissions. Competition from other companies and public demand all are making us improve fuel consumption and lower [carbon] emissions. People are downsizing. Small cars means small engines means small emissions. I cannot see it changing. It's a real race to get small."
War on traffic
Britain is leading the global rush to diesel, Rowe says, partly because it has always lagged behind Europe and is now catching up, and partly because Ken Livingstone, London's ex-mayor, waged a long war on traffic and emissions with the world's first congestion charge and now a low-emission zone. The westward extension to the London congestion charge and planned changes to penalise gas guzzlers will almost certainly be scrapped under new mayor Boris Johnson, but the soaring fuel price rises alone are expected to drive demand for small cars and diesels that can achieve 20% more miles to the gallon in particular.
"Diesel is getting as good as hybrids," says Rowe, who promises that later this year Ford Dagenham will start building one of Europe's "cleanest" mass produced engines, which will produce CO2 emissions of less than 100g/km and do more than 70 mpg. By comparison, the Toyota Prius, widely billed as the world's greenest mass production car, switching from electric to petrol, clocks around 105g/km of CO2. The Smart car, with limited production runs, is lower at 90g and the average of cars in the UK is 164g.
Britain expects diesel emissions to grow by about 50% between 2002 and 2020, but the relentless drive away from petrol has one major downside, overlooked by the government, ignored by many environment groups and barely known by the public. A written answer last year by then transport minister Stephen Ladyman showed that diesel engines for passenger cars produce 16.9 times more particulate matter and over 83% more nitrogen oxides than the petrol equivalents, albeit with 4.3% less carbon dioxide.
Indeed, the rise of diesel engines is the principal reason why London and possibly other UK cities have breached legal air quality legislation every year since 2005. Air pollution near many of London's busiest roads averages well over twice the World Health Organisation's maximum recommended levels.
Concern centres on particulate pollution - the tiny specks of dust, ash or soot spewed out by vehicles, homes and industry. There are, says the government, more than 1,000 premature deaths a year in London from air pollution, and there is considerable evidence that particulate pollution from diesel engines is associated with death, and admissions to hospital for the treatment of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases and asthma. Transport for London's consultation for the the capital's low-emission zone showed that 1,392,000 people were affected by breaches of EU legal limits for particulate matter in 2005.
"Diesel emissions from road transport are by far the biggest single cause of air quality legal breaches," says Simon Birkett, chair of the cross-party Campaign for Clean Air in London. He urges mayor Johnson and the government to take radical action to meet the demands of the new EU air quality directive, which is due to come into force very shortly and will require the UK to achieve much higher air quality standards for emissions of particulates by 2011.
"Unless the government sets, belatedly and soon, national standards for the abatement of emissions of oxides of nitrogen from older diesel vehicles of all main types, these vehicles must be banned from the most polluted parts of London if the UK is to comply with air quality laws," Birkett says. He wants to see all car advertisements show, in grams per kilometre, the emissions of the hazardous oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter, as well as carbon dioxide emissions.
Inevitable trade-offs
There is a real danger, he says, that in the rush to achieve carbon dioxide targets, other forms of pollution that can be highly injurious to health may be ignored or compromised. "Air pollution needs to be tackled holistically, with sensible judgments being made in the inevitable trade-offs between air quality and climate change," Birkett says.
"A classic example is the latest Department for Transport's CO2 calculator, which is likely to encourage people to choose cars with diesel engines because of their small climate change advantage, even though they generate substantially more of the hazardous particulate matter and nitrogen oxides. We should question whether there is still a place for diesel engines in large cities while there is such a serious public health problem."
Back in Dagenham, Ford keeps a collection of its finest old models. Pride of place goes to a pristine Model T Ford, circa 1908. It still does 25 miles to the diesel gallon, more than many of the gas guzzling engines that Ford makes. Ironically, its diesel engine was designed to be driven on vegetable oil, and, 100 years on, its particulate emissions would have been significantly less than almost any engine the factory now makes.
Young people have the tools for change at their fingertips
When trying to teach a class of 13-year-olds at my old school about green living, not only did I realise that they are fully aware of the need to reduce environmental impacts but also that they are bursting with creative ideas on how to do it. As you read this, they are writing to Lord [Sebastian] Coe, chair of the 2012 London Olympics organising committee, about how he could power the Olympic stadium by harnessing the energy of the vibrations caused by the crowd.
The inhibition-free perspective of young people is refreshing and should remind us of what our priorities should be. So how can we make their views heard? The answer is the internet.
The second generation internet has fast become the most powerful tool the environment movement has. Social networking sites, viral emails and user-generated materials offer a new range of weaponry for campaigning groups.
Around 96% of Americans between 11 and 18 are members of an online social network. So when you consider that protecting the environment is a passion of many young people, the potential power of influence of Web 2.0 for the green movement is phenomenal.
The pupils I met knew that, of all the issues of the 21st century, reducing our environmental footprint is the greatest challenge we face. Forum for the Future found that 78% of university applicants in 2007 believed that "lifestyles need to change across the board, or in many areas, for human civilisation to survive the next 100 years".
It is, therefore, imperative that our young citizens are given a fair hearing on the decisions that current leaders are making - and online social networking can help achieve this. The opportunities it offers play to the skills of young people. Web 2.0 emphasises online collaboration and sharing among users. By sharing knowledge and ideas, and by communicating them broadly, young people can enhance their own capacity to find solutions and make changes.
The new social networking site Footprintfriends.com is an attempt to do just that. It was set up exclusively to join together young people who share a passion for protecting our natural environment. As a moderated site, it aims to be an enabler for young people aged 11 to 18 to act on their environmental concerns. Founder Karen Ford hopes "members will ask questions, change attitudes, and have a say in the future facing them".
Footprintfriends, which has its own charitable foundation to which network members can apply for funding to implement their own projects, has already attracted hundreds of young people since launching last August. It is set to expand rapidly after establishing a new partnership with the British Standards Institute, which is using the site to promote a Sustainable Students competition, involving about 20,000 schools.
We face tough choices in the battle to protect our environment. More than ever before, our young citizens have a way of collaborating to make their views heard. And, more than ever before, we have a responsibility to listen.
· Will Ashley-Cantello is a scholar with the sustainable development charity Forum for the Future
World carbon dioxide levels highest for 650,000 years, says US report
The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has reached a record high, according to the latest figures, renewing fears that climate change could begin to slide out of control.
Scientists at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii say that CO2 levels in the atmosphere now stand at 387 parts per million (ppm), up almost 40% since the industrial revolution and the highest for at least the last 650,000 years.
The figures, published by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on its website, also confirm that carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, is accumulating in the atmosphere faster than expected. The annual mean growth rate for 2007 was 2.14ppm - the fourth year in the last six to see an annual rise greater than 2ppm. From 1970 to 2000, the concentration rose by about 1.5ppm each year, but since 2000 the annual rise has leapt to an average 2.1ppm.
Scientists say the shift could indicate that the Earth is losing its natural ability to soak up billions of tonnes of CO2 each year. Climate models assume that about half our future emissions will be reabsorbed by forests and oceans, but the new figures confirm this may be too optimistic. If more of our carbon pollution stays in the atmosphere, it means emissions will have to be cut by more than is currently projected to prevent dangerous levels of global warming.
Martin Parry, co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's working group on impacts, said: "Despite all the talk, the situation is getting worse. Levels of greenhouse gases continue to rise in the atmosphere and the rate of that rise is accelerating. We are already seeing the impacts of climate change and the scale of those impacts will also accelerate, until we decide to do something about it."
Perched some 11,000ft up a volcano, the Mauna Loa observatory has been measuring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since 1958. It is regarded as producing among the most reliable data sets because of its remote location, far from any possible source of the gas that could confuse the sensors.
Over the decades, the Mauna Loa readings, made famous in Al Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth, show the CO2 level rising and falling each year as foliage across the northern hemisphere blooms in spring and recedes in autumn. But they also show an upward trend as human emissions pour into the atmosphere, and each spring, the total CO2 level creeps above the previous year's high to set a new record.
Robin Oakley, head of Greenpeace's climate change campaign, said: "We're now witnessing a key moment in the climate change story, and it's not good news. The last time the atmosphere was this choked with CO2 humans were yet to evolve as a species. To even consider building new runways and coal-fired power stations at this juncture in history is an unpardonable folly, but Gordon Brown seems determined to stumble forward regardless with his ill-conceived plans in the face of the science and widespread public opposition."
A study last year suggested that the recent surge in atmospheric CO2 levels was down to three processes: growth in the world economy, heavy use of coal in China, and a weakening of natural "sinks", forests, seas and soils that absorb carbon. The scientists said the increase was 35% larger than they expected.
They said about half of the carbon surge was down to the Chinese reliance on coal, which has forced up the carbon intensity of the overall world economy since 2000, reversing a trend of increasing energy efficiency since the 1970s
