The deadline for going green and and saving the planet from dangerous warming was dramatically spelled out at the Copenhagen climate conference yesterday. If we are not making drastic cuts in pollution by 2020, costing everybody on the planet up to £150-a-year, we have virtually no chance of limiting temperature rises to 2C. Only geo-engineering solutions such as covering the planet in artificial trees or reflecting sunlight back into space with mirrors could save us. They are still on the drawing board without any proof they will work.And even the most optimistic deal in Copenhagen might not be enough to save us from dangerous warming above 2C.Scientists from the Met Office and Hadley Centre have just run 729 emission scenarios through computers and found just how tough reaching the targets will be - even with a climate deal. Dr Jason Lowe, head of mitigation advice at the Met Office, said: "None of the modelling I have seen has an easy answer to the question of limiting warming to 2C. What this research says is that there are pathways which lead to 2C, the Copenhagen goal, but those pathways appear very challenging in terms of time and rate of emissions reductions. "The only way you can achieve the 2C target is to peak no later than 2020 and cut emissions by at least 4 per cent every year after that. If you don't manage to do that you will have to turn to geo-engineering. Global emissions need to peak around 2016 and be coming down by 4 per cent by 2018 to have a 50 per cent chance of limiting temperatures to 2C. There would be a 90 per cent chance of limiting temperature rises to 3C. If cuts of 5 per cent are made - the maximum even green campaigners think is possible - then the latest carbon emissions can peak is 2020. Before the recession emissions were growing at 3 per cent a year. A 2C rise would still see millions in the world flooded. Politicians meeting in Copenhagen are using the 2C rise as their target for the climate deal which will see billions of pounds handed to developing countries to slow climate change. A five per cent global emissions cut every year is the maximum even the most ambitious green campaigner thinks is possible. It would mean big changes in power generation, more renewable energy like wind farms and solar energy, nuclear power, using biofuels, and driving electric cars. The cost to the world could be as high as 2.5 per cent of global GDP estimated at £36trillion which works out at £150 for every person on the planet. But the reductions will be impossible unless there is a dramatic slowing down in cutting down rainforests, Dr Rachel Warren, of the Hadley Centre said. "We need to dramatically reduce deforestation. If we don't we cannot get to the overall figure of 4 per cent a year. We would need to cut fossil fuel emissions by 7 per cent which is probably unfeasible." The Met Office is planning to relase a detailed report on the costs of cutting emissions in the new year. Temperatures have risen by 0.74 C on pre-industrial levels and carbon already in the atmosphere guarentees another 0.5C rise. Developing countries at the Copenhagen conference are demanding more money to fight climate change. Lumumba Di-Aping of Sudan, the head of the 135-nation bloc of developing countries, said the 10 billion dollars a year proposed to help poor nations change paled in comparison to the more than $1trillion already spent to rescue financial institutions. "If this is the greatest risk that humanity faces, then how do you explain $10 billion?" he said. "Ten billion will not buy developing countries' citizens enough coffins." Some of the poorest nations feared too much of the burden to curb greenhouse gases is being put on them. They want billions of dollars in aid from the wealthy countries. Tiny Tuvalu, which is threatened by Pacific Ocean sea level rises, had a demand for the temperature target rise to be limited to 1.5C rejected after objections from oil producing countries.
