Biologists’ alarm bells ring louder

climate change. It suggested that the action plan agreed in Scotland in July “fell far short of a strategy to stop the rise in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.” Frustration at the lack of action on climate change was expressed by John Lawton, head of Britain’s Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution who, in the wake of hurricane Katrina, criticised US policymakers and told journalists he believed the hurricane was a sign of potential climate change. May’s letter also raises similar concerns. His letter says: “Although it is not possible to say that the destructive potentials of hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma were greater because of global warming, a connection is likely and certainly cannot be ruled out. “As long as greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise, there is the very real prospect that the increase in aid agreed at Gleneagles will be entirely consumed by the mounting cost of dealing with the added burden of adverse effects of climate change in Africa. In effect, the Gleneagles communique gave hope to Africa with one hand, through a promise of more aid, but took that hope away with the other hand through its failure to address adequately the threat of climate change.” It adds: “Therefore, if the increase in aid and other measures outlined in the Gleneagles action plan on Africa are to create maximum benefit, they must be accompanied by effective action on climate change by stopping the inexorable rise of greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere.” The letter draws attention to a collection of 17 scientific papers, also published last month, which examine the impact of climate change on crops. It highlights a paper that concludes that rising sea surface temperatures in the Indian Ocean are responsible for a drop in rainfall in Ethiopia since 1996. The letter points out that that the $200 billion estimated cost of dealing with the impacts of hurricane Katrina is equivalent to 1.7 per cent of the gross domestic product of the United States, compared with estimates that it would cost no more than one per cent of GDP for the country to meet its target under the Kyoto protocol. It concludes: “Clearly dealing with even some of the consequences of climate change, such as more destructive hurricanes, looks more costly than taking measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” Current Biology Vol 15 No 22 R902