UN:Environmental groups attending the UN climate change meeting here have expressed cautious optimism that the major report due to be released today will fairly reflect the strength of scientific opinion on how to tackle global warming, writes Frank McDonald, Environment Editor in Bangkok
The third working group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), meeting in Bangkok this week, is expected to conclude that the cost of doing nothing is far higher than the cost of cleaning up our fossil fuel-based economies.
Hans Verolme, of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), who has been observing the closed-door sessions, said: "We're moving through the document at a reasonable pace, and it's on track for publication with only minor changes here and there."
Mr Verolme, who is director of the WWF's climate change programme, told The Irish Timesthat "small differences of opinion" were being incorporated in the text, but he was "not particularly worried" about the report being compromised.
"The scientists must be allowed to present the full set of political, technological and economic options, and governments should start making the necessary emissions cuts now," he said. Otherwise, temperatures would rise to dangerous levels.
WWF and other environmental groups represented in Bangkok insist that to cap the increase in average global surface temperatures at two degrees, the world needs to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by more than 50 per cent by 2050.
"The planet is running a fever and people are working with WWF to cool it," Mr Verolme said, adding that while the cost of developing alternatives to fossil fuels might seem high, it was considerably less than the damage caused by global warming.
At a press briefing yesterday, WWF highlighted initiatives around the world that save energy and cut CO2 emissions - such as a new law in Thailand designed to promote production of electricity from biofuel plants.
"We have all the technological and economic tools available today," said WWF's Dr Stephan Singer. "Governments now need to implement clean energy solutions and remove the obstacles that still prevent their breakthrough."
Friends of the Earth climate campaigner Catherine Pearce said policies encouraging the development of renewable energy needed to be promoted with "the kind of investment which has previously been enjoyed by nuclear and fossil fuels". She hoped that the latest IPCC report "will push governments to take action by demonstrating that the policies, measures and sustainable energy technologies are readily available. We have no time to lose, and no excuses for further inaction."
Greenpeace climate campaigner Stephanie Tunmore has also demanded "immediate action to revolutionise global energy production and use in response to repeated warnings about catastrophic climate change from the IPCC".
"We now stand at a 'climate crossroads'. We can go down the road of renewable energy and smart, efficient use of energy, keep the global average temperature increase below two degrees and avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
"Or we can keep blundering on in the same direction into a fossil-fuelled future of extreme weather, drastic water shortages and desperate climate refugees. We cannot afford to take a wrong turn," she declared.
In partnership with the European Renewable Energy Council, Greenpeace has produced a blueprint called Energy [ R]evolution showing how CO2 emissions could be halved by 2050 using existing clean technologies, applied in a more efficient way.
"Our global energy concept means that the investment volume for new power plants until 2030 will be in a range of $300-350 billion per year - almost equal to the amount of money currently spent on subsidies for fossil fuels," it says.
According to Greenpeace, "the world can have safe, robust renewable energy . . . while phasing out damaging and dangerous sources such as coal and nuclear and without the use of unproven 'techno-fixes' like carbon capture and storage".