World Environment Day Science Breakfast

Speech given as host to Dr Rajendra K. Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) at the World Environment Day Science Breakfast held at the Members Dining Room, Parliament Buildings, Wellington on 5 June 2008.

World Environment Day

Thank you Helen.  Welcome Dr Pachauri to this science breakfast.

It is a real honour to have you here with us today, as part of the wider World Environment Day programme. 

Hosting Environment Day this year is also a big honour for New Zealand and I sincerely hope you enjoy your time here. 

 I want to cover three areas today. 

In the midst of our best climate scientists, I will shy away from talking about the specifics of climate science. 

You all know a lot more about this area than I do.  But when you are working in the detail of things it can be good to step back and look at the big picture and that is what I am going to do now.

First, I am going to remind us about the atmosphere, what science is telling us about it and the implications.

Then I will touch briefly on some of the sceptical views about climate change that we keep hearing.

Finally, I will talk about the role of the IPCC and the tremendous influence this organisation is having, which is a tribute to you Dr Pachauri and many of the people in this room. 

Firstly, let us remind ourselves about the atmosphere. 

Yes, the atmosphere is something that can be modelled and intensively studied by computer simulations and so on.  But let’s get down to the basics and think about the atmosphere in a way that some might not consider particularly scientific. 

The atmosphere is, in fact, a very thin skin covering the planet.  At a distance of a few kilometres high, the distance from here to the Wellington Airport, the temperature in the atmosphere is around minus 20 degrees Celsius.  This tiny layer sustains life on the planet.  And only the very lowest part of this tiny layer is habitable by humans.

One of the really amazing aspects of the atmosphere is the role that trace gases have. 

What intrigues me here is that this is counter-intuitive.  It would seem obvious that the physical behaviour of the atmosphere, whether it retains heat or not for example, is controlled by the very abundant gases – the oxygen and nitrogen, which together make 99 percent of the atmosphere. 

But what you people here are telling us is that this is not the case.

To understand the behaviour of the atmosphere is to understand the trace gases.  As I understand, the role of trace gases in maintaining habitable conditions on earth was first hypothesised around 100 years ago.  Trace gases only comprise a small fraction of the atmosphere including carbon dioxide yet have a huge role in maintaining the physical and chemical properties of the atmosphere. 

For example, CFCs are measured in parts per trillion, yet these very small concentrations are enough to cause the ozone hole.  Ozone is a vital trace gas - if the ozone layer occurred at the earth’s surface (instead of the stratosphere) it would be between 2 and 3 millimetres thick.  That is how delicate this thin protective film – the atmosphere – is. 

The more we learn about the atmosphere, the more we are realising how fragile it is and how changes to the trace gases can have almost inconceivable impacts. 

For example, had bromine been used instead of chlorine in CFCs, the view amongst some leading atmospheric chemists, including Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen, is that the ozone layer would have collapsed everywhere with a resulting severe impact on life on earth. 

There are two salutary lessons here. 

The first is that we have the ability to change the trace gases in the atmosphere.  We can add new gases, such as CFCs.  We can massively increase existing ones, such as methane. 

The second lesson is that the impact we can have on the atmosphere can be massive and without the benefit of hindsight pretty hard to predict. 

I would venture to suggest that further surprises than the ozone hole, acid rain and climate change may yet be in store as a consequence of emissions from human activities. As a politician I can also say that climate change is the most serious risk facing the planet and we must do what we can to reduce its impact.  The risk of doing nothing is too great.  If we do nothing now, the costs will be higher in the long run. 

So we have learnt that the atmosphere is a pretty amazing planetary skin.  I hope you do take time to pause in your work and think about your work as contributing not just to some improved computer model – which is of course important – but contributing to a greater understanding of how the skin of the planet functions so that we can be sure we look after this very precious skin that protects us all. 

On the face of it, the proposition that a tiny fraction of the gases in the atmosphere make conditions liveable on planet earth seems quite ludicrous.  This is, I suspect, the starting point for those sceptical about climate change. 

And the sceptics also point out that the world was cooling throughout some of the 20^th century, from about the 1940s to the 1970s.  And they ask the legitimate question “how can scientists claim the earth is heating?”. 

Well as I understand, scientists consider this cooling was most likely caused by atmospheric pollution, known as “global dimming”.  In many developed countries, emissions to the atmosphere from cars, power stations, and industries, have been cleaned up since the 1970s. 

The skies are becoming brighter allowing more radiation to reach the ground, be turned into heat, and then trapped by the increasing greenhouse gases. 

But now we are seeing massive industrial expansion in Asia, an increase in atmospheric pollution and an increase in dimming masking global warming. 

Hence the warming we are seeing is less than would be expected given the increase in methane, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Healthy scepticism is good.  We need to question. 

But my view is that this is no longer the time for scepticism on climate change.  What many of you in this room are telling us through the IPCC that you head Dr Pachauri, is that the skin of our planet is in trouble. 

And it is all to do with the trace gases. 

Dr Pachauri, you head one of the most important organisations of the early 21^st century, the IPCC. 

This importance was recognised at the highest level in 2007 when the IPCC was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize jointly with Al Gore. 

Your organisation is telling us that human civilisation has some difficult times ahead even if we dramatically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions over the next decade or so.  We have played with the trace gases in our planet’s delicate and well-balanced protective skin; our atmosphere.  And what the scientific community is telling us is that we do so at our peril.

The influence of the IPCC is not only at the level of governments. 

I understand that increasingly the business community is starting to understand the risks around climate change and the opportunities for new climate-friendly activities. 

The investment community is starting to take notice and factor climate change into their investment advice. 

Some very well respected players in the international business community, for example, are talking openly about the need for a 90 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and contemplating how this might be achieved and what the risks and opportunities for a range of sectors are. 

Dr Pachauri, through the work your organisation is doing, mainstream business is now starting to understand that they too are reliant on a stable atmosphere for certainty and continued profitability. 

An unstable climate will benefit few.  We are seeing that a small hiccup in global food production can have serious economic ripples across the planet creating uncertainty and instability in some countries. 

The work of the IPCC is telling us we would be better off with a stable climate than an unstable one.  Governments and industry around the planet are starting to grasp this message and its implications.

The government I am part of has some ideas on climate change: we’re working with the community and business sectors to reach an agreement on the details of an Emissions Scheme, and to provide time to adapt to meeting the costs. 

We also have solutions such as subsidising more home insulation, buying back the railways, big investments in public transport and making government departments cut energy use. 

Dr Pachauri, I encourage your organisation to continue its excellent work and hope that it has even greater impact than it has had so far.  The work of the IPCC is now being mainstreamed into decisions by governments, industry and communities around the world. 

Many people and organisations have now started to move towards a lower carbon path.  They are responding to the warnings that your organisation is signalling.  Keep signalling these warnings.  Your work is important for furthering understanding of this crucial issue.

And it’s events such as World Environment Day - with the theme of ‘kicking the carbon habit’ – that provide an opportunity to engage the public with the challenges ahead. 

New Zealand is taking these challenges seriously. 

The government wants New Zealand to be the first truly sustainable nation, and we consider carbon neutrality to be a key indicator of sustainability. 

We have achieved a lot but there is much more to be done.  We have set ambitious targets, such as producing 90% of our electricity from renewable sources. 

We believe there are tremendous opportunities for New Zealand businesses and the New Zealand economy from meeting the sustainability challenge and considerable risks in not meeting the challenge. 

Dr Pachauri, thank you for your work to date.  Thank you for coming to New Zealand for World Environment Day.  Good luck for continuing this important work into the future.

• More information on NZ's hosting of World Environment Day: www.beehive.govt.nz/feature/world+environment+day+6