The List

Who Killed Copenhagen? An FP Whodunnit.

This weekend, world leaders announced that they would not reach a legally binding deal on climate change at next month's Copenhagen summit. With the planet in the balance, who's the world's top culprit?

Barack Obama

Who? President of the United States

The crime:  Obama came into office promising sweeping change and pledging to make the United States a global climate leader. But last weekend, at the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in Singapore, world leaders dashed global hopes that a fully binding international legal agreement on climate change would happen next month. The new goal of the upcoming U.N. climate treaty at Copenhagen, they announced, would be to reach a "political" consensus about possible next steps. And they punted on the most difficult questions -- of national targets for greenhouse gas cuts, and who will pay for them -- into the future.

Obama's role in delivering the bad news was a sad spectacle, but not really a surprise. It marked the culmination of a year in which climate has all but slipped off the president's agenda. While a host of European leaders, from Gordon Brown to Angela Merkel, have publicly stated their intention to attend Copenhagen and committed to carbon reductions, Obama has stonewalled. Earlier this year the president traveled to the Danish capital to lobby (unsuccessfully) for Chicago's Olympic bid. But he hasn't committed to heading across the pond to lobby for the planet's future. Obama said he would only go to Copenhagen if his appearance would seal the deal -- the deal he just helped scuttle (an unhappy self-fulfilling prophecy). Plus, Obama's ambivalence has deflected pressure from two other big emitters: China and India.

Frederic J. Brown/AFP/Getty Images

Wen Jiabao

Who? Premier of People's Republic of China

The crime: Wen commands more international affection than most Chinese politicians. But as chair of China's national climate committee, Uncle Wen let the world down. It's true that China has come further on climate issues in recent years than most observers expected. Before 2007, climate change was largely off the public radar in China, with Chinese journalists and experts wary of making public statements before the parameters of the official position were known. In the intervening years, the world's top carbon emitter has stepped up its research on the impacts of climate change and made real strides on energy efficiency and renewable energy.

But, all the while, China has clung stridently to the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities," wherein the developing countries that have contributed the most cumulative carbon to the atmosphere ought to shoulder the majority of the practical and financial burden for reducing emissions. Whether or not the there is logic to this argument, the way China has presented it has surely not signaled that it is open and willing to negotiate. ("Developed countries must lead the way with transforming their unsustainable production and lifestyle," China's top economic minister recently said.) Such finger-pointing at the West has only fueled suspicion of China on Capitol Hill, giving U.S. cap-and-trade skeptics another reason for inaction.

Feng Li/AFP/Getty Images 

Harry Reid

Who? Democrat of Nevada and Senate majority leader

The crime: He's made a lot of promises -- but not kept them. In January, Reid pledged that the U.S. Senate would pass climate-change legislation before the summit in Copenhagen. Last month, with still no bill in sight, a reporter asked if a bill would even reach the Senate floor, let alone pass, before the summit began. Reid responded with a less-than-inspiring but still affirmative, "Yup." But as of today, it hasn't happened. The Senate cap-and-trade bill -- a version of which the House, headed by Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi, passed in June -- languishes in the committee-approval stage. There is no possibility of a vote until next year.

The Senate has run out of time, and it has hamstrung the efforts of the rest of the world. Indeed, as Reid knew, action in Congress was a prerequisite to progress in Copenhagen. Last spring, Obama indicated that he would not agree to internationally binding carbon-reduction targets unless the U.S. Congress had already passed its cap-and-trade bill. The United States needed to make sure its international agreements comported with domestic law, he said -- and therefore it needed to have its domestic law set first. Reid's foot-dragging ensured that did not happen, causing Obama to punt on Copenhagen and the global agreement to evaporate. Granted, Reid says he needed the legislative time to eke out a massive overhaul of the U.S. health-care system (a Senate vote is expected on that bill next month). But Pelosi managed to do her part -- and had Reid fast-tracked or rushed a vote, the world wouldn't be waiting. If any single body bears blame for Copenhagen's faltering, it is the Senate -- and if any single person is responsible for the Senate, it is Harry Reid.

Chip Somodevilla/AFP/Getty Images  

Jairam Ramesh

Who? India's minister of state for environment and forests

The crime: Two years ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N. research organization, issued a report on climate change. It concluded that the Himalayan glaciers in India were among the fastest-receding on Earth and that they might disappear by 2035. India has long resisted international efforts to rein in its emissions, but this month, India's environment minister released a classic piece of oppo research, arguing that climate change is not responsible for glacier melting and implying that political concerns underpinned the IPCC report. "This comes from Western scientists," Jairam said, apparently ignorant that the report's primary author is Indian. "It is high time India makes an investment in understanding what is happening in the Himalayan ecosystem," he added.

This sort of diversionist finger-pointing exemplifies Ramesh's beliefs about global warming. He agrees that climate change exists. He contends that "no country in the world" is as vulnerable to its effects as India, with its long floodable coastline and monsoon-dependent crops. But he has refused to have India agree to binding international targets, arguing that developed economies should do more instead -- butting heads with dignitaries such as U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and with Copenhagen negotiators along the way. 


Tom Donohue

Who? President and chief executive officer of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce

The crime: If Copenhagen were a person and FP were prosecuting for its death, we'd charge most of the offenders on our list with manslaughter. But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Tom Donohue could stand for murder charges. His organization actually set out to kill a deal. Climate legislation has stalled in the U.S. Congress, crippling the chances of any international agreement, in no small part because of the redoubled efforts of American industry and business lobbyists. According to an analysis by the Center for Investigative Journalism in Washington, "More than 1,150 companies and advocacy groups had hired an estimated 2,810 lobbyists on climate change" -- five for each member of Congress.

The chamber has been front and center in efforts to convince legislators to just say no to cap-and-trade legislation, arguing that measures enacted now to save the planet wouldn't be worth the upfront cost to the U.S. economy. The chamber, for instance, has been one of the backers of a fake grassroots group called "Energy Citizens," which, according to its press release, held rallies to "to aim a loud message at those states' U.S. senators to avoid the mistakes embodied in the House climate bill." The question, really, is just who Donahue is speaking for today? With concern about climate on the rise in the U.S., marquis companies like Apple and Levi Strauss & Co. have quit the chamber to protest its obstructionist stance.

Chip Somodevilla/AFP/Getty Images

The List

The End of the World

While the apocalypse is pretty unlikely to come in 2012, it does have to happen sooner or later. Here are five possible scenarios for the end of humanity.



How it could happen: Objects from space impact Earth all the time, generally burning up in the atmosphere. Occasionally, a large object makes it through, resulting in a massive impact. The most recent major impact was the 1908 Tunguska event that flattened a 2,000-square-mile area of Siberian forest with an explosion about 1,000 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. The object involved, which was likely only a few dozen meters in diameter, could have wiped out a major metropolitan area.

The real danger would come from an object more than a kilometer in diameter, which could kick up enough sediment to cause environmental damage and crop failures worldwide. A rock the size of the 15-kilometer object that is thought to have killed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago would probably wipe us out too.

How likely is it? Another large object is sure to hit the earth eventually, but almost certainly not during our lifetimes. An object big enough to kill off a substantial portion of the earth's population only hits earth about twice every million years. None of the objects yet discovered by NASA's Near Earth Objects program have a high probability of hitting the earth -- though one known as 1950 DA will come extremely close in 2880. Given the relatively small effort devoted to identifying near-earth objects, there's no guarantee that the earth would have much warning time before one hit. A previously unknown seven-meter asteroid passed just 14,000 kilometers from the earth's surface on Nov. 6 and was noticed by NASA only 15 hours before what counts as an entirely too close encounter.



How it could happen: Under the worst-case scenario predicted by the International Panel on Climate Change, the global surface temperature of the Earth could increase by as much as 4-5 degrees Celsius by the end of this century. (Many scientists believe that estimate is conservative). Such a scenario would lead to as much as a half-meter rise in sea levels, flooding coastal regions including many of the world’s major cities.

Meanwhile, nearly one-third of the planet could become desert and more than half would experience drought. The salinization of much of the Earth’s groundwater supply will only make this worse. The IPCC found that at even a 3.5 degree increase would put 40-70 percent of the world’s species at risk of extinction, and the potential for new geopolitical conflicts over dwindling resources is mind-boggling.

How likely is it? A recent MIT study found that current carbon trends bear out the IPCC’s worst-case scenarios or even exceed them. Global carbon levels are currently at 380 parts per million compared to 280 before the Industrial Revolution. Most scientists conclude that catastrophic effects will begin to be felt once those levels pass 450. If the Earth reaches 800-1000 parts per million, as the worst-case scenarios predict, it’s really anybody’s guess. While recent research by the National Oceanographic and Aeronautics Administration suggests that many of the effects of climate change are already irreversible, the worst, potentially civilization-ending outcomes could be mitigated by a substantial reduction in carbon emissions.


How it could happen: There are currently more than 23,000 nuclear weapons in the world, of which 8,000 are currently operational and 2,000 are on high alert and ready to launch on short notice. While nuclear apocalypse has long been a popular subject for books and movies, the Dr. Strangelove scenario is actually fairly unlikely. Even in 1977, with nuclear arsenals near their Cold War height, the U.S. Defense Department of Defense predicted a maximum of 265 million casualties from a full-scale U.S.-Soviet nuclear war. Certainly, such a death toll would be enough to destroy both countries as superpowers, but not the end of life as we know it. With nuclear stockpiles substantially reduced since then, the casualties would likely be much lower today.

However, scientists in the 1980s developed models showing that the dust and smoke caused by a superpower nuclear war would cause temperature and precipitation shifts unprecedented in human history -- a "nuclear winter." A study by Cornell ecologist Mark Harwell in 1986 predicted that global agriculture would be wiped out completely for a year, leading to a famine that would wipe out most of humanity. A 2007 study by ecologists at Rutgers University found that current global nuclear stockpiles are still capable of producing this outcome.

How likely is it? The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists created the famous "Doomsday Clock" in 1947 to convey how close humanity is to "catastrophic destruction." The clock reached its high-point -- 2 minutes to midnight -- after the first hydrogen bomb tests in 1953. The BAS moved the clock back to 17 minutes after the end of the Cold War but it has been steadily ticking back toward midnight since then, with rogue states such as North Korea developing nuclear weapons and tensions increasing between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan and it currently stands at 5 minutes to midnight.

Despite this, the worst-case scenario of all-out nuclear war between two superpowers is far less likely than it once was. The nuclear winter theory also remains controversial, with some scientists saying the predicted effects have been exaggerated.



How it could happen: Throughout history, plagues have brought civilizations to their knees. The Black Death killed more off more than half of Europe's population in the Middle Ages. In 1918, a flu pandemic killed an estimated 50 million people, nearly 3 percent of the world's population, a far greater impact than the just-concluded World War I. Because of globalization, diseases today spread even faster - witness the rapid worldwide spread of H1N1 currently unfolding.

A global outbreak of a disease such as ebola virus -- which has had a 90 percent fatality rate during its flare-ups in rural Africa -- or a mutated drug-resistant form of the flu virus on a global scale could have a devastating, even civilization-ending impact.

How likely is it? Treatment of deadly diseases has improved since 1918, but so have the diseases. Modern industrial farming techniques have been blamed for the outbreak of diseases, such as swine flu, and as the world’s population grows and humans move into previously unoccupied areas, the risk of exposure to previously unknown pathogens increases.  More than 40 new viruses have emerged since the 1970s, including ebola and HIV. Biological weapons experimentation has added a new and just as troubling complication.



How it could happen: There are any number of theories for how human civilization -- the world as we know it -- might end. Some are natural: supervolcanoes erupting like the one in Yellowstone National Park that could severely alter the Earth’s climate or a gamma-ray burst from a star that would cause dangerous radiation in the Earth’s atmosphere. Others are man-made: overpopulation causing a food crisis or the accidental development of dangerous new technologies.

 How likely is it? Sooner or later, the world will end. In about 5-8 billion years, according to astronomers' estimates, our sun will burn out the last of its hydrogen into helium and will balloon up into a red giant hundreds of  times its current size, dragging the Earth to its inevitable doom. Even if the planet escapes destruction, it’s atmosphere and oceans will be boiled away. Human beings have only been around for a small fraction of that time -- around 200,000 years -- and one way or another, the chances of us being around for the real end of the world are pretty slim.