SCIAF's Guide to Climate Change

Climate Change FAQ

FAQs

Q. What is Climate Change?

Climate change refers to changes in weather patterns over a period of time which are linked to the greenhouse effect. It is caused by gases which trap energy from the sun in the earth’s atmosphere, ensuring that the planet is warm enough to sustain life.

Q. Is climate change happening? Is it caused by human activity?

There is now an overwhelming body of scientific evidence which shows that climate change is happening and is caused/exacerbated by human activity.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an international scientific body comprised of hundreds of experts whose reports are reviewed by fellow scientists and governments. The panel has found that ‘Global warming is ‘unequivocal’ and ‘highly likely’ to be caused by human actions’. [i]
The IPCC also states that ‘human influences are very likely (to have) contributed to sea level rise; likely contributed to changes in wind patterns, affecting extra-tropical storm(s)… and temperature (and) likely increased temperatures of extreme hot nights, cold nights and cold days.’[ii]
Here in the UK, the government-commissioned Stern Review notes that ‘The stocks (level) of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are rising, as a result of human activity. The current level (of greenhouse gases) has already caused the world to warm by more than half a degree Celsius and will lead to at least a further half degree warming over the next few decades.’[iii]

**********************************************

[i] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) Fourth Assessment Report Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers

[ii] Ibid.

[iii] Stern, N (2006) Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change - Exec Summary

Q. Why is SCIAF campaigning on climate change?

SCIAF is campaigning on climate change for three key reasons.

The world’s poor people are being hit first and worst by climate change. From increased floods and rainfall to increased droughts, climate change is already affecting poor people around the globe – and this will only become more pronounced as climate change worsens. Raquel Cruz, who works for CESTA, a SCIAF-funded environmental organisation in El Salvador, notes that: “Climate change is a serious problem in my country. When there is a drought, for example, it has a serious effect on the production of food, the population experiences a lack of food, but also farmers find themselves without employment. It doesn’t only cause death and destruction, but also breaks up communities. The overall effect…. is deeper poverty”.
Developed countries such as Scotland are largely responsible for the problem. Historically, developed countries have emitted the vast majority of man-made carbon dioxide, [i]and today account for roughly half of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions, despite having just 15% of world population [ii]. Scotland is no exception. In 2005, just one Scottish power station, Longannet, emitted more CO2 than the combined total of 155 million people[iii] living in ten sub-Saharan African countries - Malawi, Rwanda, Burundi, Chad, Comoros, Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Gambia, Mali and the Central African Republic, [iv]. Those suffering most from climate change have done least to cause the problem.
Developed countries such as Scotland can do much to improve the situation. Changes in our behaviour, and that of our governments, can still prevent the worst impacts of climate change. In order to do that, increases in global surface temperature must not exceed 2 degrees – and this is possible if we act now.

**************************************************

[i] Christian Aid (2006) The Climate of Poverty: facts, fears and hopes

[ii] UNDP (2007) Human Development Report

[iii] Scottish Environment Protection Agency (2005) SPRI Emission Data; Return Details forScottish Power Longannet Power Station figures show that, in 2005, Longannet emitted 8, 508 million kilograms of carbon dioxide or 8.5 million tonnes. Figures from the Energy Information Administration (2004) World per capita carbon dioxide emissions from the consumption and flaring of fossil fuels 1980 – 2004 show that emissions from these ten countries add up to 8.29 million tonnes.

[iv] Figures for developing countries based on statistics from The US Census Bureau (2007) International Database.

Q. Why is it so important to keep the temperature increase to 2 degrees?

Keeping the average global surface temperature increase to 2 degrees will keep damage to more manageable proportions. As the UN notes, although ‘there is no hard-and-fast line separating ‘dangerous’ from ‘safe’ climate change…. Climate science identifies 2°C as a potential ‘tipping point’ for long-run catastrophic outcomes…(and) beyond a threshold of 2°C the risk of large-scale human development setbacks and irreversible ecological catastrophes will increase sharply’.[i]

A temperature increase above 2 degrees would be highly dangerous, with potential impacts including:

Melting and / or collapse of ice sheets and glaciers, leading to increased risk of flooding, decreased water supplies and affecting up to a sixth of the world’s population.
Rising sea-levels - an increase of more than three degrees could affect hundreds of millions of people, especially in South East Asia and the Caribbean and Pacific
Increase in extreme weather conditions
Further decline in crop yields, especially problematic for African countries [ii]

******************************************

[i] UNDP (2007) Human Development Report p14

[ii] CAFOD (2007) CAFOD climate change policy.

Q. Is it too late to stop climate change?

As climate change is already happening, it will not be possible to avoid it altogether.

Moreover, because the study of climate change is evolving, it is not possible to predict exactly what has to be done to keep the increase in global surface temperature to 2 degrees.

However, it is becoming clear that we have a narrow window of opportunity within which urgent action needs to be taken if we are to avoid the worst excesses of climate change. The world’s current carbon emissions are unsustainable. On current trends, the global temperature is set to increase by 2 - 3°C in the next fifty years alone[i]. Carbon dioxide, once emitted, stays in the atmosphere for a long time. The longer the delay in reducing emissions, the more difficult it will become to avoid dangerous climate change.

Evidence is mounting to show that now is the time to take decisive action. Reports such as the UN Human Development report and the Stern Review conclude that the next ten years are crucial, with emissions from developed countries needing to be cut by at least 30% by 2020.

********************************************

[i] ibid

Q. What needs to be done?

At the international level, developed and developing countries must work together, putting in place a fair and effective framework for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and keeping the temperature increase to 2 degrees. At the national level, governments—including the UK and Scottish governments —must put in place appropriate legislation. Businesses and individuals must also play their part. Large scale changes are needed – but the scale of the problem should not deter us, as changes in individuals’ behaviour can have a big effect.

Q. What can I do to reduce my carbon footprint?

There are actions which everyone can take to reduce their carbon footprint. The Stop Climate Chaos coalition and its I Count campaign suggest several actions you can take and has a carbon calculator allowing you to see how much carbon you can save. The site www.icount.org recommends:

Turning electrical appliances off, instead of onto standby. Turning the TV off will save 20kg of carbon per year and turning the DVD player off will save 44kg.
Installing energy efficient light bulbs – if a million people changed one light bulb, it would save 200,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions.
Turning the heating down by 1°C will save 250kg of carbon in an average winter.

Q. Should I stop buying fair trade and other goods from developing countries?

We think not. This would have a damaging effect on people in developing countries, but would do little to reduce the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions. Over one million people in Africa rely on UK imports of fresh fruit and vegetables for their income, and not buying such products would reduce total UK emissions by less than 0.1%.

It would also be unfair to target these flights—which play a crucial role in promoting development in places such as Kenya—when the vast majority of aircraft emissions are caused by passenger and military flights. It would be better to campaign for aviation emissions to be included in international agreements and the Scottish and UK climate change bills, to ensure holistic treatment of, and solutions to, the problem of aeroplane emissions.

Q. What can Scotland do? Can Scotland make a difference when countries with larger emissions—such as America—are not doing enough?

As a net contributor to climate change, Scotland has a responsibility to reduce its carbon footprint. The inertia of some other countries cannot be used as an excuse.

But what’s more, Scotland could make a real difference by showing others the way. We are one of the first countries to be setting binding carbon-reduction targets. Unlike the proposed UK legislation, the proposed targets in Scotland (cutting emissions by 80% by 2050) are broadly consistent with leading scientists’ recommended levels. If we get this right, the Scottish example could exert truly global influence.

Q. Do developing countries have a responsibility to limit emissions? What action should large emitters such as India and China take?

Developed countries are responsible for much of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and continue to emit far more than their fair share of greenhouses gases today. With 15% of the population, they currently emit roughly 50% of the world’s carbon dioxide. [i]

On the other hand, many developing countries and all less developed countriescould increase the amount of greenhouse gases they emit and still be within sustainable limits.

There are a few exceptions to this rule, but even the emissions of large developing countries look small on a per capita basis. For example, the average person in the UK is responsible for roughly three times more carbon dioxide than the average Chinese citizen (9.62 vs 3.62 tonnes) [ii], and although Chinaproduces 17 % per cent of the world’s CO2, it has 20% of the world’s population.[iii]

Although China, and other developing countries which emit an unsustainable amount of greenhouse gases, will also need to bring their emissions down, the onus is on developed countries to take the lead and significantly reduce their emissions first. They should also provide help for developing countries in terms of reducing their emissions, by, for example, providing them with clean technology.

**************************************

[i] UNDP (2007) Human Development Report

[ii] Energy Information Administration (2004) World per capita carbon dioxide emissions from the consumption and flaring of fossil fuels 1980 – 2004

[iii] UNDP (2007) Human Development Report

Q. What is SCIAF doing to reduce its carbon footprint?

SCIAF is committed to minimising its contribution to climate change. We are an international development charity and our work requires air travel in order to visit those countries in which we work. We will keep our carbon emissions under review and make changes where necessary and appropriate.

We are committed to assessing and minimising our own carbon footprint and have policies in place on UK travel, recycling and energy efficiency in the workplace to reduce our carbon footprint.

Q. What is SCIAF calling for in the Scottish Climate Change Bill?

A Scottish Climate Change Bill will go through the Scottish Parliament in 2008.

We want the Scottish Bill to:

Commit to limiting the global temperature increase to 2ºC and establish this as a principle in the Bill. As part of this, adopt an overarching target and overall carbon budget to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% by 2050 [i] and at least 3% per annum – with scope to revise this if necessary.
Ensure policies for mitigation and adaptation are compatible with sustainable development.
Ensure higher Scottish emissions cuts are additional to the overall UK target, and not offset by lower performance elsewhere in the UK
Include international aviation and shipping emissions [ii] in the targets. Airline emissions are the UK’s fastest growing source of carbon dioxide and shipping emissions account for up to 5% of global emissions.
Ensure transparency, accountability and legal safeguards, for example by effective reporting standards; independent audits; and requiring Ministers to report annually to parliament.
Establish an expert Carbon Committee to update Ministers on the latest scientific developments and to provide advice on key issues (e.g. carbon trading).
Establish a ‘Carbon Fund’ to give financial incentives and / or sanctions to public bodies to encourage emission reductions. A proportion of the fund would help pay for adaptation in developing countries to compensate for damage caused by Scotland’s emissions.

*************************************

[i] Greenhouse gas emissions measured as CO2 equivalent and measured against 1990 levels

[ii] To be included in both baseline and targets, based on traffic through Scottish ports and airports.

Q. Why are we focusing on greenhouse gases instead of carbon dioxide? What is the difference?

Although carbon dioxide is a key greenhouse gas, it is not the only one. Carbon dioxide emissions are crucial but other emissions are also important. For example, nitrous oxide is often used in agricultural fertilisers and has roughly 300 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide[i]. Thus focusing solely on carbon dioxide would ignore other gases which are also produced by human activities and can also contribute to global warming.

************************

[i]http://climatechange.ucdavis.edu/terms.html

Q. Why is SCIAF calling for year-on-year emissions reductions?

Carbon dioxide stays in the earth’s atmosphere years after it is emitted and during this time it will continue to contribute to climate change. It is therefore important that we start to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide—and other greenhouse gases—as soon as possible. In order to do this most effectively, we need to look not just at long-term targets but also put short-term targets in place.

Q. What is carbon trading and what is SCIAF’s position on it?

Carbon trading is an approach to reducing carbon emissions that involves the allocation of quotas or ‘the rights’ to emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide, which can then be bought and sold. Those willing to pollute less than their quota allows are able to sell their ‘rights’ to those who wish to pollute more than the amount permitted by their allocation. Some argue that this leads to a more efficient system of deciding how and where carbon footprints are reduced.

If carbon trading is used, it should incorporate two key principles: 1) Allocation of quotas should be equitable and not based on previous emission levels (which would simply reward large polluters and maintain the current economic imbalance); 2) Such systems should be developed such that they do not stunt the economic development of poor countries.

In recognition of the complexities involved we are calling for a specialist Carbon Committee to advise the Scottish government on this and other matters.

Q. What are carbon offsets and what is SCIAF’s position?

Carbon offsetting is the practice of ‘compensating’ for your carbon emissions by paying for an event to take place that has the ‘equal and opposite’ effect in terms of its carbon impact. For example, someone driving from London to Glasgow might pay for trees to be planted that absorb the same amount of carbon that his or her journey generates. In theory, the net effect of the car journey and the tree-planting on overall carbon levels would be zero, i.e. it would be ‘carbon neutral’.

While offsetting has its attractions, it also has its critics who feel it should not be seen as a substitute for the far-reaching emission reductions that are so urgently needed. There is a risk that carbon offsetting encourages governments, companies and individuals to carry on ‘business as usual’ without engaging in the fundamental changes that need to be made.

Carbon offsetting can also have unintended consequences, impacting on the environment and local communities. For example, any change of land use automatically releases carbon (and sometimes other greenhouse gases) that are trapped in the soil – and this effect is especially pronounced in peat bogs found in places such as Indonesia.

Moreover, as many offsetting schemes take place in developing countries, poor people and vulnerable communities are the ones who will feel the effects of poorly-designed programmes. For example, the creation of large scale plantations could mean that less land is available for use by local communities to grow crops on or to graze livestock.

Offsetting should be arranged through a reputable and responsible provider, whose programmes do not adversely affect the communities in which they operate. This is another complex area in which a Carbon Committee could advise the Scottish Government.

Q. What are bio-fuels?

Bio-fuels are energy sources that originate from recently-living plants and animals. They are seen as an alternative to fossil fuels, and may have climate change-related benefits. Crops such as corn, sugar beet, soya and palm oil are often the raw materials used to create such fuels on a large scale.

In theory, bio-fuels are a renewable source of energy because they can simply be re-planted and re-grown, and the growing process will capture the same amount of carbon as is emitted when the fuel is used. However in practice bio-fuels are not ‘carbon neutral’ since energy is needed to plant, grow, harvest, transport and process such fuels.

Although bio-fuels have the potential to help reduce carbon emissions, they have implications for the environment and development. They can have negative impacts on local communities when, for example, small scale farmers are relocated to make way for large scale plantations. They may also contribute to an increase in the price of food.

If trees are cut down to make way for plantations, and if certain fertilisers are used to promote production, bio-fuels may actually increase overall levels of carbon dioxide emissions.

If bio-fuels are to play a role in the fight against climate change, they must be sustainable both in terms of their impact on the environment and their impact on vulnerable people in developing countries.

SCIAF

Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund

SCIAF's Guide to Climate Change

FAQs