The environmental bells tolled again when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its second report in 1996. Because the IPCC’s Second Assessment concluded, “carbon dioxide remains the most important contributor to anthropogenic forcing of climate change”. Anthropogenic means, “originating in human activity”. Could anybody have put this clearer? How is it possible that some world leaders still do not believe in Climate Change…
Main Distinguishing Features of the IPCC Second Assessment
However, the IPCC’s Second Assessment was more direct than the first one of 1990. That original report viewed human activity as “adding to the natural greenhouse effect”. But the second, subsequent one was more direct.
“Projections of future … temperature change and sea level rise confirm the potential for human activities to alter Earth’s climate. Moreover, many important aspects of climate change are effectively irreversible. And to an extent unprecedented in human history. Greenhouse gases are increasing (due largely to human activity), and therefore should lead to significant global warming.”
What is the Value of Human Life in Terms of Climate Change?
The IPCC’s Second Assessment valued human life in U.S. dollars to estimate the monetized cost of climate change. Some participants argued that humanity was worth less in, say, India “than people living in rich countries”.
But the majority believed there was merit in calculating the value of “statistical lives” consistently. Because, they argued, poorer countries should have to trade-off the same amount per head of population in terms of commitment to change.
The panel concluded overall that, “… These results point towards a human influence on climate”. Remember though that they were dispassionately reporting on the evidence before them. And it was not their task to point the way forward.
They saw themselves as merely, “charting a future that allows for economic development which is sustainable”. This begs the question, should science be dispassionate, or passionately involved in humankind in all its permutations. There are two sides to this debate. What do you think: Is the value of human life universal, or are the wealthy nations entitled to more?
Related
Climate Change Part 17: Margaret Thatcher Warns
Climate Change Part 18: 6 Billion Tons of Carbon
Preview Image: Arctic Ice Melt
