The Greenland ice sheet is losing its mass faster than in previous years and making an increasing contribution to sea level rise, according to a study published in the journal Science. The study has also given scientists a clearer view of why the sheet is shrinking; weather data, satellite readings and models of ice sheet behaviour were used to analyse the annual loss of 273 thousand million tonnes of ice. It is suggested that the melting of the entire sheet would raise sea levels globally by about 7m (20ft).

In total, sea levels are rising by about 3mm per year, principally because seawater expands as it warms.

Indeed, Arctic temperatures are now higher than at any time in the last 2,000 years. Evidence from ice cores, tree rings and lake sediments confirms that the Arctic is very sensitive both to changes in solar heating and to greenhouse warming.

While the Earth is getting steadily warmer, the international community is not even close to a comprehensive global agreement on climate change, with many politicians attempting to lower expectations ahead of the Copenhagen conference in December. The last meeting in Barcelona, which finished on the 6th of November, failed to advance the negotiations, with developed and developing nations unable to compromise.

EU leaders have repeatedly underlined the need for member states to take a leading position in fighting climate change, calling on all parties to “inject a new momentum” into the process and emphasising the need for a legally binding agreement building on the Kyoto protocol. They also urged all parties to embrace the objective of limiting global warming to no more than 2°C and to agree to global emission reductions by 2050 of at least 50% compared to 1990 levels and aggregate developed country emission reductions of at least 80-95%, as part of such global emission reductions.

The EU has itself committed to a 30% reduction by 2020 compared to 1990 levels, provided that other developed countries commit themselves to comparable reductions and that developing countries contribute according to their responsibilities and capabilities.

EU leaders also pledged to pay their fair share of the money needed to help developing countries implement ambitious mitigation and adaptation strategies, endorsing the proposal by UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, that the total costs to developing countries could amount to around €100 billion annually by 2020, to be met through a combination of their own efforts, the international carbon market and international public finance. There was, however, no agreement on the exact figures involved. While many feel an appropriate sum could be €5 to 7 billion, the issue of this division between the individual member states has proved to be even more contentious. The bloc of 9 Eastern European states, led by Poland and Hungary, has hampered any binding agreement, claiming that the EU’s poorest nations simply cannot afford such figures.

Indeed, on other issues, such as deforestation, the EU has struggled to represent all member states with authority, further undermining its position as a global leader. The Bali conference in 2008 saw an agreement to include the greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation activities, which account for around 25% of all the CO₂ emitted into the atmosphere - and position Indonesia and Brazil among the world’s biggest emitters after China and the United States. EU member states cannot agree on which model to adopt to account for deforestation. States with large forests (namely, Austria, Finland and Sweden) prefer to employ the model which evaluates the whole stock (where the result will always be positive) rather than the scheme that compares deforestation and reforestation activities – and more accurately depicts a nation’s net emissions.

Securing an ambitious, comprehensive and binding agreement in Copenhagen next month, which should address such contentious issues as carbon leakage, licensing of low-carbon technologies and deforestation will, at the very least, be challenging. Many, if not most, delegates will be wrestling with their moral obligations and economic needs. US industry is mounting fierce opposition to the Waxman-Markey bill making its way through the Senate that would introduce a cap-and-trade system. Australia will struggle to balance its conflicting roles of being the Asian leader in fighting climate change and remaining the most important supplier of fossil fuels to the region.

What the EU must now grasp, is that any aspirations to lead the world on the issue of climate change that may be held, must be supported by more than a notional commitment to emissions reductions and loose commitments to financial aid. Whilst any permanent solution to this problem will require bold, inconvenient and costly measures, most of which will necessitate rigorous testing to resolve shortcomings, a warming planet and depleting fossil fuel reserves will eventually force the hand of every Government across the globe to seek alternative, clean energy and fuel sources. Such sustainability would, however, create thousands of jobs and billions worth of business in the nation that first achieves it.

The Copenhagen negotiations may well have many hurdles to clear if a comprehensive consensus is to be reached; yet failure to act, regardless of the outcome of the December UN conference, could, for the EU at least, represent yet another missed opportunity to secure its status as an economic power for the next generation…