According to correspondents in the UK, BP is spending a great deal of money on an advertising campaign to persuade the population that the company is taking its responsibilities seriously in climate change and that "we must all work together to reduce CO2 emissions" As part of this campaign, BP has on posted on its internet site some global warming information, including a page entitled "Stabilising GHG levels" (Link)

I will put the meat of the document here:




What you are reading in "Stabilising GHG levels", is a profoundly dishonest and immoral document, which seeks to preserve the status quo as much as it can be preserved and yet give the appearance of a worthwhile contribution to global warming amelioration. The intro states this: Based on current scientific opinion, we believe that it's realistic to promote actions designed to stabilize carbon dioxide concentrations at around 500-550 parts per million, consistent with limiting global temperature rise to around 2°C.

This is a blatantly dishonest statement. There is no scientific consensus as to what might constitute a "safe" level of carbon dioxide. (Link) There are scientists, and James Lovelock is one, and Sir David King another, who consider that our present level of CO2 is already too high. There are certainly many who have latched onto a level of about 400 ppm as being a possible tipping point for the climate to suddenly more severely move to a much warmer climate. This is mentioned in a BBC report which states that the "International Climate Change Taskforce" indicated any concentration of CO2 over 400 ppm would be "dangerous" (Link) This matter is also discussed as part of an interview with climate scientists who publish the internet site, realclimate (Link). So to blithely state 500-550 ppm as being some sort of safe level for our climate is appallingly cavalier and, frankly, recklessly dangerous.

The IPCC in its third report suggested that the likely increase in temperature of the Earth with a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 levels would be between 1.5 to 4.5 deg C, a wide range certainly, but with the greatest certainty at about 3 deg C. So, when BP say a doubling of CO2 would cause a 2 deg C world temperature rise, they are actually choosing a temperature rise near the lowest estimate. On a basis of probabilities, if the 3 deg C rise is about 50% likely, then a 2 deg C rise would be somewhere near 20% or, to put it another way, it is equally likely that the world will warm 4 deg C as the figure provided by BP. However more recent calculations and climate modelling suggest a temperature increase of between 2.6 to 4.1 deg C. in which case the BP estimate is outwith the lower range of the predictions. (Link) Another report Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change (Link) says this: a stabilisation at 450 ppmv CO2 equivalent would imply a medium likelihood (~50%) of staying below 2 C warming In other words, there is still a 50% chance of higher than a 2 deg climate warming at a level of CO2 substantially below BP's targets.

BP says that the best way to achieve this doubling of CO2 is to keep emissions at their present level, but to improve our future efficiency because energy needs are forecast to double by 2050, which would, everything else being equal, double our present emissions. They then go on to suggest a target reduction in total CO2 emissions of about 3.5 billion tons, equivalent to about 1 billion tons of carbon, or about 15 % only of our present 7 billion ton carbon emissions. But many scientists have suggested that to stabilise our climate to something "tolerable", a vaguely defined figure, but certainly less than 2 deg C global rise, will require a reduction in CO2 emissions of about 70% (Link) - another group suggest 60% (Link) inadequate to achieve any worthwhile reduction in CO2 emissions and future global warming.

Supposing that a 2 deg C rise in global temperature was achievable under BP's scenario, what does this really mean? It certainly doesn't just mean balmy summer nights in Glasgow and frost free winters in Helsinki. It might mean these things but it is also more likely it means more severe weather, hurricanes, droughts, winds, floods. The warmer the atmosphere, the more turbulent it is likely to be, the drier in some areas, and the wetter in others. Whilst it is true that climate scientists, as in the links in this paragraph, have suggested a 2 deg C as a possible danger level, this is the maximum permissable. The BP 2 deg C is misleading, the most important part of the world in regard to climate change is the northern hemisphere, and particularly the high latitudes, which will, if general global warming is 2 deg C, but much higher, 3-5 deg C, climate scientists agree on this (link 1)(Link 2 p13 Note this is a pdf file 1.7 mb). A warming of over 3 deg in Greenland's latitudes is likely to end up melting the ice cap and raising sea levels by up to 7 metres. That won't happen in one hundred years, but in several hundred to a thousand years it will - goodbye London, New York, Miami, Bangladesh, Amsterdam, Venice and all those coastal areas with much of the world's population. Even with present temperature rises, the Arctic sea ice is likely to be completed melted away in summer within 55 years (Link), well within the life-time of today's younger adults. The climate consequences of this melting will likely be to accelerate global warming.

Similarly, today's rising temperatures are proving sufficient to melt most tropical glaciers. The result of this will be the loss of summer water storage for hundreds of millions of people, with drought in summer, and floods in winter. Melting of tundra lands could well release vast quantities of stored methane, a highly efficient global warming gas, accelerating further global warming. None of these things I mention are improbable, they are verifiable, and I suggest folks reading this don't just accept what I say but check it out on the internet. (Just use Google, look for "global warming" "glacier retreat" "arctic ice cap melting" - whatever you fancy examining more closely. There is a vast resource there.)

What one must also understand that the climate effects of doubling our CO2 concentrations won't just last 100 years. This time scale is used as a mere convenience. Whilst it is true that an individual CO2 molecule will last in the atmosphere for somewhere between 40-200 years, it is also true that about a quarter of the CO2 will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years, and about 7% for longer than 100,000 years (Link) (This page is well worth reading in any case, it is a good debunking of the so-called anti-global warming science in Michael Crichton's novel State of Fear). Another article in Real Climate examines this question (Link) In other words, BP's scenario is trying to suggest that there is nothing wrong in bequeathing humanity a CO2 concentration of double our present level, the unknown effects of which will affect our descendents over thousands of years. There is no way that at the present time anyone can suggest that this is anything other than the most profound interference with the natural functioning of the planet which sustains us.

Let's examine some of the options provided by BP in detail:

Furthermore there is no mention of nuclear power, public transport, urban planning, environmental degredation, the Millennial Ecosystems Report, oil depletion, carbon tax, etc, just the assumption we can all carry on as we are doing, with a few minor adjustments, when it should now be perfectly plain to any normal, sentient human being that the one thing we cannot do is to keep on as we are doing.

If any proof were needed that there are in the world many people in positions of power and responsibility, whom some of us might even count as friends or colleagues, who possess a supreme disdain for our world and our future generations, then this unprincipled, fraudulent, cynical and immoral document will be all that most of us need.