Climate Change Part 20: The IPCC’s Second Assessment 1996

Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr +

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

ipcc second assessment
Land & Sea Temperatures: NASA: Public Domain

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”.

ipcc second assessment
Rising Sea Levels: Robert A. Rohde: CC 3.0

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

Share.

About Author

I tripped over a shrinking bank balance and fell into the writing gig unintentionally. This was after I escaped the corporate world and searched in vain for ways to become rich on the internet by doing nothing. Despite the fact that writing is no recipe for wealth, I rather enjoy it. I will not deny I am obsessed with it when I have the time. I live in Margate on the Kwazulu-Natal south coast of South Africa. I work from home where I ponder on the future of the planet, and what lies beyond in the great hereafter. Sometimes I step out of my computer into the silent riverine forests, and empty golden beaches for which the area is renowned. Richard

Leave A Reply