Berlin - Odds are, most people would not want to live in a world where the worst case scenario of global warming has played out. Average climate change of more than 2 degrees Celcius above pre- industrial levels would have catastrophic effects, says Bill Hare, director of Climate Analytics, a non-profit group that assesses scientific data on climate change.
"If we don't get emissions turned down, and even if we just get what's presently on the table, then we are looking at 3 to 4 degrees warming by 2100," he says. "With this will come major damages to key natural and human systems."
First affected would be sub-Saharan Africa, where Hare says some troubling signs are already manifesting in the form of drought and worsening food supplies, upping the possibility for conflict.
Next would come rising sea levels, perhaps of up to one metre, threatening low-lying countries such as Bangladesh and a host of island nations. The changes would also mean increasing acidification of sea water, meaning large-scale damage to coral reefs around the world.
It might be easy from the relative comfort of a home in the developed world to think that, while such scenarios are unfortunate tragedies, one will at least be safe from major changes in more temperate and advanced nations. But Hare holds out no such hope.
"If you are in a high-latitude zone, then the effects are likely to be in some ways less sever than in the presently dry regions of the low latitudes of the world. But people in higher latitudes will not be immune to problems," he says.
Those problems could include higher temperatures and more significant heatwaves. Droughts would also affect industrialized areas, forcing changes in farming and putting pressure on forested regions. Insect infestations would likely increase.
"You might not starve," he says, but "you would likely experience more problems associated with warming."
Nor would dodging the bullet of your country slipping under the waters or being washed away solve all your problems. "We would have to deal with climate refugees," notes Antje von Broock, head of international environment policy for Friends of the Earth Germany.
That is of huge importance, agrees Susanna Droege, head of the global issues division at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, noting that countries like Germany already stumble when they have to absorb a mere 20,000 immigrants from troubled political areas.
Happily, there is still reason to hope for an accord when world leaders meet in Copenhagen in early December to try to hammer out a legally binding climate change treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. Some advocates say that recent pledges by world leaders presage a breakthrough in Copenhagen.
Others note that failure to reach an actual treaty in Copenhagen by no means signals absolute failure. Leaders might agree to standards upon which they could try to seek agreement in 2010 or later. And individual nations do not need an international accord to limit their own greenhouse gas emission levels, say others.
Tom Bainbridge, who chairs the climate change working party for the United Kingdom Environmental Law Association, says the European Union is seeking a leading role in minimizing climate change. While the EU cannot set global policy, it can steer global opinion, Bainbridge notes.
"It seems to me that the EU momentum is significant and probably there is quite a lot to be made of that," he said. "At the end of the day, industry and people generally say, well, that's the way it's going to be."
Of course, just having a treaty is not a guarantee troubles will end. Countries have to adhere to it. And care must be taken that the treaty holds countries to a high standard, not to lower standards that are politically easy to swallow, but will, ultimately, do little to control climate change.
"The danger that the treaty will have lower numbers is always there," said Droege.
That's why it's important to have a legally binding treaty with set controls rather than a looser accord, says Hare. "The legally binding agreements that we have, have more often worked than not."
Still others say there is no need to worry about a treaty, since much of the science pointing to climate change is theoretical and that competing theories show that there might not be any climate change. Hans-Joachim Luedecke, a retired professor who focuses on climate issues, says the jury is still out on what role carbon dioxide can play in climate change.
Hare dismisses such arguments, noting that most mainstream scientists are worried. But, even if doubters like Luedecke are correct, notes von Broock, the changes called for to combat climate change are eventually going to be necessary to help the world deal with the disappearance of fossil fuels.
"What disadvantages do we have from protecting the climate?" she asks.
