My colleague Bill Hewitt at the FPA Climate Change Blog has posted an overview of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) activities over the last week in Bangkok, Thailand. The bad news is no news: he isn't forecasting universally useful political agreement, with critical states dragging their feet (uh, that would be the U.S., Australia, Brazil, and China, among others). The good news: Bill says the IPCC documents provide a wealth of information for the other sectors of world activity: regional and industry-wide initiatives, development of new business, and individual actions toward solutions.
Central Asia Spotlight
One of the rich resources coming out of the IPCC efforts is Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. It looks at regional consequences, and Eurasianet has reported on the report vis-a-vis the consequences for Central Asia:
The report initially forecasts avalanches, increased runoff and earlier spring peak discharge from glaciers and floods due to unseasonable rains. But by the end of the 21st century, disappearing glaciers in the Tien Shan, Pamir and Hindu Kush mountain ranges will result in decreased river flows and severe water shortages. Temperatures may experience a dramatic increase, while crop yields are forecast to fall 30 percent by 2050.
In other posts at this site, there are links to other references to the same conclusions: glacier runoff will cure lack-of-water problems with a vengeance while the glaciers increase their melt. After the deluge: just desert. The Eurasianet article also points to the already-discussed-here problems of water management and irrigation. Central Asian states don't have water systems capable enough to manage this wealth of water as it exits mountain/glacier watersheds in accelerated quantity. These states have plenty of water treaties, but none with binding clauses. Furthermore, in states such as Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, many disincentives for individual action are based upon structures of state ownership. In truth, they are more than disincentives–they make change impossible. Just like the IPCC forecast, any individual effort toward conservation is soon engulfed by a flood of official indifference–and then dries up and blows away.
On the other hand, democratic and free-trading states don't make climate change acceptance easy either–this is the problem for U.S., Australia, Brazil, India, and other states. These states have to contend with internal feuds–where the people aren't ready to embrace consequences of mass consumption and legacy pollution problems. In contrast, democracies of the developing world see adherence to climate change protocols as a barrier to progress or a distraction from daily, more pressing problems.
Yet what constitutes a daily problem for developing Central Asia? Never mind the dire warnings of the future: meteorological history shows that Central Asia lies within a belt of temperature change among the highest in the world (see page 5 of this summary). Kazakhstan had floods this past February and March; Kyrgyzstan had mudslides this month and Tajikistan and Afghanistan had them last month.
Skepticism no barrier to responsible planning
Skeptics of climate change may point to earthquakes and floods as problems independent of climate change. Yet even climate change skeptics have to see that none of these isolated disasters are going away, and that they are a cause of human distress and economic hardship. In this light, the IPCC reports should be valued, at the least, because they form a guide for anticipating natural disaster. While everyone quibbles over the rapidly-consolidating and increasingly-verified science, real benefit could still be accomplished by developing plans based upon its reports.
Citizens near Lake Sarez in Tajikistan, the lake formed by earthquakes in 1911, are receiving World Bank-funded disaster readiness training. They won't be able to save their villages, but at least there will be a plan to get their families to high ground in time. The people in Badakshan region are willing to learn–now if only leaders in Central Asia and those of the US, Australia, China, Russia, Brazil and India could figure out how to get in front of them–seeking the moral and political high ground in time for everyone.
Further reading:
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Executive Summary, 23 pages, also linked above
IPCC Publications Portal Page
Japan's 2003 Country Study of Tajikistan, featuring Lake Sarez disaster planning
Photos: Orexca; NASA; Fieldgemology.com
