Is global warming a lot of hot air?

By Julian Sudre

This time the landing is meant to be unprecedented and not only because terra firma has shown signs of conditional elements that distract the scrutinising eye of scientists but the looming and mostly important report on science of climate change that is released on February 2.

According the the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change, temperatures are expected to jump by 2.0 C to 4.5 C by 2100 along with sea-level rise of between 28 and 43 centimetres by the same date.

Similarly, the report will lay stress on the fact that it has been poorly understood the impact pollution has had on the Greenland ice sheet. Considered it would have taken hundred of years for it to melt right the way through, now satellite data suggested the ice sheet was melting three times three times faster than previously thought.

"I hope this report will shock people and governments into taking more serious action as you really can't get a more authentic and more credible piece of scientific work. So I hope this will be taken for what it's worth" said the IPPC chairman, R K Pachauri.

It was also pointed out that food production did as much damage as private transport and housing, Environment minister Ben Bradshaw has warned. The consumption of meat and dairy products does in fact contribute to global warming -- methane gas is emitted by cows and sheep -- because of the energy and land needed to rear animals.

Food production and preparation alongside transport and housing actually account for 25 per cent of global warming. Flying accounts for only 2 per cent.

The weather, appropriately, has turned public opinion with Hurricane Katrina and the heatwave that torched America's west coast last year accompanied by the constant staccato of new research has only strengthened the belief that something must be done.

During the state-of-the-union address, President Bush announced the reduction of America's petrol consumption by 20 per cent by 2017. That is the US will have to rely on a greater use of alternative fuels.

Ethanol stands to be ineffcient due to heavy subsidies and high tariffs on import of foreign ethanol and liquified coal remains filthy because of high carbon emissions.

Mr Bush so far has rejected both clean and efficient solutions to climate change. The first measure is a carbon tax and the second is a cap-and-trade system of the sort Europe introduced to meet the Kyoto targets.

Such measures would limit companies' emissions while allowing them to buy and sell permits to pollute. Either system, should, by setting a price on carbon, discourage its emission; and in doing so, encourage the development and use of cleaner-energy technologies.

America has not taken a green leaf out of the eco- book but has seemed to have closed the book on it.

In due time, world leaders would have to get tearing leaves out of that book and play catch-up before the pollutant wave closes its curl over our dear planet Earth.