The future of Asian forests and forest communities may very well hinge on what will soon come out of Durban, South Africa. High-impact decisions regarding climate change, whether which way, are expected from the COP17/CMP7, the latest conference of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change from 28 November to 9 December.

The gathering of government representatives, climate scientists, and environmental NGOs takes place as both climate and energy scientists issue grave warnings about the monumental costs of failure to reverse global warming and climate change with timely, drastic action. Scientists have pointed out that principally greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from use of fossil fuel energy, and secondarily, deforestation are leading to climate catastrophe and massive social dislocation.

From 220 parts per million in pre-industrial times, fossil fuel production and use has driven up the atmosphere's heat-trapping carbon dioxide to 390 ppm, the earth's highest for the past 15 million years. As a result, global temperature increased by 0.8 degrees Celsius (°C), with over half of this rise happening since 1970 alone. Most scientists identified 450 ppm in CO2 as the acceptable upper limit, beyond which the global temperature would climb by more than 2°C. A number of governments though, especially the small island countries, placed the temperature cap at 1.5°C.

Most climate scientists agree that at 450 ppm and over, climate conditions will become extreme. This means regular extreme summertime temperatures, larger and more violent storms, and more frequent crop failures and in some areas, wetter monsoons, and in others, killer heatwaves and intensified punishing drought as in Africa, Central and South America, Southern Europe and central United States. A study by Allamano et al, found that such a 2°C in global temperature will increase by five times the risk and occurrence of massive floods that happen only once a century. Moreover, given current trends, sea levels will be higher by one meter by 2100, engulf most of Bangladesh and the Netherlands, and force the migration of mangrove forest coastal communities. A study by the Royal Society predicts that by 2100, as many as one billion people will become climate change migrants and forced to move due to the impact of global warming.

A rise by 4°C promises even far greater disaster. Earlier forecasts projected that following current trends, this would be reached by 2100. New studies however show a shorter timetable, as early as in 50 years time, in 2060. In such a 4°C scenario, many ecosystems are expected to undergo severe stress or major devastation.

But, even now, when these nodal points are yet to be reached, the effects of climate change are already far-reaching. All linked to climate change are such recent events as the mammoth floods in Thailand, Cambodia, and Laos, where monsoon rainfall was 40% above normal, as well as the drought in Texas. The people displaced by weather-related disasters across Asia last year number more than 30 million people. Already, global warming contributes to the rapid extinction of species, now 100 species per one million species per year, from 0.1-1 species per one million species in the pre-industrial era.

And yet, some scientists even consider even the 450 ppm cap as far too high and still disastrous for the environment. According to Charlie Veron, former chief scientist of the Australian Institute of Marine Science, at 390 ppm, the world's coral reefs are already being degraded and in great danger from dual threats of rising temperatures and ocean acidification. Ongoing climate change is already causing the acidification of the ocean, which in turn is reducing the availability of free carbonate ions in sea water. This makes it more difficult for marine organisms to extract calcium carbonate to build the aragonite and calcite shells and skeletons they need to survive. Veron is batting for a threshold of 320-350 ppm to save the coral reefs.

Even with the higher 450 ppm cap, the effort to keep within even the 450 ppm cap is still uphill. Set to expire by the end of next year, the Kyoto protocol signed in 1997 set industrialized country targets for GHG emission reductions at 5.2% by 2010 from 1990, and considered too low by environmentalists yet legally binding. The previous conference in Cancun set new targets but these are no longer legally binding. Current commitments to GHG emission reductions, including those recently out of Copenhagen and Cancun, were described by civil society organizations as falling far too short of what's needed.

Expectedly, these agreements failed to slow down, much less stop, the juggernaut of GHG emissions. This continues even as scientists insist that GHG emissions must start going down not later than 2015. Instead, the opposite is happening: the rate of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning is rising. According to the World Meteorological Organization and the International Energy Agency (IEA), the record amount of 30.6 gigatonnes of CO2 emitted last year drove CO2 levels higher by 2.3 ppm, exceeding the 2.0 ppm average during the past decade.

The IEA projected that if only the current government policy commitments were to be pursued, the share of fossil fuels in global energy consumption by 2035 would fall only marginally, to 75% from 81% in 2011. Total share of renewable energy will still be smaller than that for any single fossil fuel. What's more, CO2 emissions would soar even further by 20%, driving up global temperatures by 3.5°C, way beyond the 2°C cap.

IEA warns that if current trends persist for roughly five more years, that is, until 2017, all new energy infrastructure from then on would have to be zero-carbon to stick to the 2°C limit, certainly a tall order.

Like many other alternative master plans, that of the IEA still will rely largely on fossil fuels. Scientists Mark Jacobson and Mark Delucchi instead proposed one that envisions a global energy that is 100% based on wind, water and sun (WWS) by 2030. It calls for a massive new infrastructure: the bulk of energy provided by 3.8 million large wind turbines (at 5 MW each and occupying less than 5,000 hectares worldwide), and 89,000 photovoltaic and concentrated solar power plants, averaging 300 megawatts apiece. As Jacobson and Delucci write, "A large-scale wind, water and solar energy system can reliably supply the world's needs, significantly benefiting climate, air quality, water quality, ecology and energy security." The estimated cost of building this WWS network over 20 years is massive, at US$ 100 trillion, but even more so is the wealth held in big banks and spent in large part for financial speculative profit.

Nothing less than a legally binding agreement with deep GHG target cuts will stop climate change and catastrophe. So far, prospects for such a major paradigm shift by way of an adequate legally binding deal coming out of Durban remain dim. After all, the annual export sales for fossil fuels based on "business as usual" trends are projected by the IEA to nearly double from US$ 255 billion in 2011 to US$ 420 billion (2011) in 2035. The IEA estimates global government subsidies for fossil fuels to have reached US$ 409 billion in 2010. The governments of Japan, Russia and Canada reject any plan to extend the Kyoto protocol and the legal binding of industrialized countries. Strongly opposing legally binding caps from the beginning, the US government is the only one in the world consistently refusing to ratify the Protocol.

The European Union and China seem to be pushing for extending the Kyoto Protocol, but whether or not the terms acceptable to them will be adequate also seem to be in doubt. As the most victimized by climate injustice, the poor, non-industrialized countries are pushing the hardest for meaningful, adequate climate action. The African countries, for instance, call for 40% cut in GHG emissions of industrialized countries by 2012.

Solving the problem of climate catastrophe thus boils down to resolving the conflict between special interests and the global common good. Can Durban show the way?

For Jacobson and Delluchi’s energy proposal, please go to Scientific American.