The case for an 'E-mission Control'

28 September 2009

If the world was a company, would its shareholders be happy with the way it was managing its greatest long-term risk – the threat of climate change?  Look at the resources devoted to the two bodies that co-ordinate the response to global warming - the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which provides scientific advice; and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which organises global climate negotiations. The core budget for these two organisations is under £30 million a year, less than that of Basildon Council. 

The 1960s Apollo programme to put people on the moon had a ‘Mission Control’ which cost billions. So why haven’t governments invested at the same scale in an ‘E-mission Control’ operation to protect the Earth? Of course, money isn’t everything. The IPCC runs on brainpower and the academics who produce its reports have done heroic work on a shoestring, deserving their Nobel Prize.    Also, more is spent at the national level than internationally. The US alone is putting over $60 billion into green investments. 

But unilateral action won’t save the world and there is an urgent need to put more into the central co-ordination of the effort to overcome global warming. If the world was a multinational company, its investors and auditors would want to see evidence of a risk management system that combined breadth, depth and speed - covering the full range of potential threats in detail and enabling the organisation to react quickly.

The system by which the world responds to global warming is strong on depth – but at the expense of speed and breadth. The IPCC reviews thousands of research papers and presents heavyweight assessment reports every six or seven years.  Politicians then respond with national policies and negotiations for international agreements. The cycle, from science on the ground to emissions reductions, can take a decade.

This level of rigour has been vital. It has ensured that the evidence for climate change has withstood assault from lobbyists, sceptics and governments such as the previous US administration. But the nature of the process also means that today’s policies are based on yesterday’s science and policy-makers are constantly playing catch-up.

Look at how the consensus has moved over the acceptable level of carbon dioxide in the air. Before the industrial revolution, it was around 280 parts per million (ppm). It is now over 385ppm and rising by 1-2ppm a year. Before 2007, debate focused on stabilising the level at around 450ppm, which would have allowed at least a decade to get emissions under control. But in 2007, the IPCC said that 400ppm was the upper limit to stop temperatures rising over 2.4C on pre-industrial times – perilously close to current levels. 

This shift in scientific advice has prompted a corresponding update of policy goals. This year for example, the UK raised its 2020 emissions reduction goal from a cut of 26% on 1990 levels to one of 34%. But that shift came two years after the IPCC report - and the UK is a leader in target-setting. With time running out, we can’t afford a science-policy cycle that takes this long. 

The system also needs more breadth. Currently, because of its insistence on rigour, the IPCC has not fully covered the emerging science on the knock-on impacts of global warming. These ‘feedback’ effects include long-buried methane being released from beneath the Siberian tundra and Arctic ice melting faster as it loses its reflectivity. The fear is that such feedbacks will exacerbate the changes and trigger runaway warming.   For this and other reasons, many, including the IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri, now believe 350ppm should be the goal for stabilising carbon dioxide – which, if it becomes the consensus – will trigger a further round of policy catch-ups.

Underlying all these factors is the issue of ‘risk appetite’. How big does a risk have to be to act on it? Governments don’t wait until an attack is highly probable before they order fighter planes. Large companies protect their assets against wild cards such as hackers and pandemics.  Increasingly organisations are considering risks of low probability, high impact, ‘black swan’ events. So why, when the future of the planet is at stake, do we only act when we have very high levels of scientific probability?

The IPCC’s next major report is not due until 2014, by which date science will have advanced and policy needs to have progressed even more.   Its in-depth assessments therefore need to be supplemented by a rapid-response capability, through which working groups of expert scientists can consider the latest findings, assign them risk ratings and present them to governments.

At the same time, other aspects of the process need strengthening. The world needs a clear, transparent, comprehensible database covering emissions, targets, policies and progress. It would benefit from a virtual ‘climate campus’ where technologists, business people and investors can share information and form partnerships.  And there needs to be clearer communication with the public on all aspects of the issue.   These add up to a high-tech, high-skill, high profile ‘E-mission Control’ centre to guide society towards a low-carbon future.  Governments that spent billions bailing out banks should be prepared to provide the comparatively meagre resources for such an important initiative.

However progressive businesses also have cause to support it. They would prefer change to come sooner rather than later so they can invest with confidence in long-term green projects, from energy efficient plant to carbon capture and storage. The gaps in the science-policy system are holding those changes back. So rather than simply pressing governments to hurry up, enlightened businesses might consider a more hands-on role, contributing financial and human resources to help build the necessary capabilities. If a few far-sighted companies were to help provide the relatively modest resources to turn the current low-budget operations into a fit-for-purpose global climate HQ, it would represent an ‘Armstrong’ moment - the proverbial small step that delivers a giant leap, both in transforming the world’s response to climate change and assuring those responsible of a place in history.