Impact of Climate Change on Arab Countries - (IPCC) - Working ...

ARAB ENVIRONMENT: CLIMATE CHANGE 131
bility for action on climate change falls on the
shoulders <strong>of</strong> the industrialized countries, which
with only 20% <strong>of</strong> the world’s population, have
contributed about 75% <strong>of</strong> total CO 2 emissions.
As we now know, very few countries adopted the
necessary policies and measures called for by the
convention and greenhouse gas emissions continue
to increase. Because energy consumption is so
vital to industrialized countries, the barriers, both
economic and political, to adopting the necessary
policies and measures have been very high.
With implementation <strong>of</strong> voluntary measures faltering,
the first Conference <strong>of</strong> the Parties to the
Convention in Berlin agreed to negotiate a
Protocol to define more precisely the emissions
reduction commitments <strong>of</strong> developed countries.
It took two years to negotiate the Kyoto Protocol
(1995-97) and another 8 years for it to come into
force, when countries representing 55% <strong>of</strong> the
developed country emissions had ratified. The
US declared its intention not to ratify the
Protocol in 2001. The Kyoto Protocol set an initial
target and a time table for reducing emissions
by industrialized countries. Industrialized countries
were to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by
5.2% below 1990 levels during the first commitment
period <strong>of</strong> 2008-2012. For the U.S. it was
a commitment <strong>of</strong> 7%.
While the Kyoto Protocol was intended as a first
step in implementing the climate change convention,
it would not have materially altered the
long-term atmospheric concentrations <strong>of</strong> greenhouse
gases. And for the U.S., emissions in 1997
were already 12% above 1990 levels.
Accordingly, the reductions by the U.S. would
have amounted to almost 20%.
As was expected, the chances <strong>of</strong> the U.S. ratifying
the Kyoto Protocol became zero. What was not
expected, however, was the Bush
Administration’s outright rejection <strong>of</strong> the Kyoto
Protocol and the global concern over climate
change. Rejecting Kyoto’s provisions as they
apply to the U.S. and proposing viable alternatives
is one thing, taking several steps backward
and arguing that we do not know enough to take
action is another. The Administration’s position
was taken in spite <strong>of</strong> the IPCC’s 2001 assessment
report, which concluded that: ‘there is new and
stronger evidence that most <strong>of</strong> the warming
observed over the last 50 years is attributable to
human activities,’ and the US National Academy
<strong>of</strong> Sciences report in the same year saying that
“Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the
Earth’s atmosphere as a result <strong>of</strong> human activities,
causing surface temperatures to rise. There
is general agreement that the observed warming
is real and particularly strong within the past 20
years”.
III. POLICY-MAKING
AND UNCERTAINTY
Much complexity and uncertainty surround climate
change. Despite significant gains in the scientific
understanding <strong>of</strong> climate change, uncertainties
remain. <strong>Climate</strong> models are not usually
designed to tell us anything about the evolution
<strong>of</strong> the climate system in the short-term; rather,
they are designed to simulate long-term (20-30
years) behaviour as accurately as possible. Also,
while climate models can make reliable projections
about change in global climate, their projections
about change in regional climate are less
reliable.
The key question, however, is no longer whether
climate change is already happening and should
be a central global concern. The key question is
how climate change will manifest itself regionally
and locally and what can be done about it. As
governments prepare to meet the challenge <strong>of</strong> climate
change they need to address the trade<strong>of</strong>fs
between near-term economic development and
long-term sustainable development. They also
need to devise effective strategies for dealing with
climate change in the absence <strong>of</strong> full knowledge
<strong>of</strong> regional impacts and the unsettling prospect <strong>of</strong>
reaching irreversibility or tipping points <strong>of</strong> no
return. The uncertainty associated with climate
change projections is <strong>of</strong>ten cited as the reason for
people’s failure to accept the need to adapt to climate
change. In the face <strong>of</strong> urgent short-term
priorities such as hunger, poverty and disease,
poor countries and communities find it particularly
challenging to focus on adaptation measures
when the predictions <strong>of</strong> impacts from climate
change are not unequivocal. Uncertainty should
not, however, be an excuse for inaction.
Decisions are regularly made in the face <strong>of</strong> uncertainty
(e.g., investment decisions). Water-