CHRIS ROSE
Deputy Executive & Programme Director

Climate change is happening. The scientists of the IPCC - the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - say it is now "discernible"

Carbon dioxide continues to rise. The IPCC forecasts a global average increase in temperature of 1.5 - 3.5.C by 2100.

Human made warming will double by 2050.

This spring Greenpeace sailed around an island in Antarctica which used to be part of an ice shelf connected to the mainland. But not any more.

Antarctic temperatures have climbed 2.5.C.

Arctic temperatures have risen even further.

This is in line with what was predicted.

The Climate Convention calls for "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic [human made] interference with the climate system" and it adds "Such a level should be achieved within a timeframe sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner".

This means setting ecological limits.

In 1990, scientists working for the United Nations Environment Programme set such limits at one degree above pre industrial levels, and one tenth of one degree per decade. They also set limits for sea level rise.

Above this, they foresaw: "rapid, unpredictable and non-linear responses that could lead to extensive ecosystem damage".

Although it lacks the pollution policies to go with it, the EU has adopted a two degree limit. We believe this is too dangerous. The UNEP scientists said two degrees was "an upper limit beyond which the risks of grave damage to ecosystems, and of rapid non-linear responses are expected to increase rapidly".

These limits correspond to carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere and so to the amount of fossil fuels you burn and put into the air.

This creates a carbon budget.

To meet the UNEP 1.0C limit and avoid extensive ecosystem damage, we calculate that the carbon budget is about 225 billion tonnes of carbon.

In real terms, this means that ninety-five percent of all the fossil fuels thought to exist below ground, must stay there.

Likewise, three quarters of all the earmarked fossil fuel reserves, must stay below ground.

In other words, only one quarter of the fossil fuel reserves - oil, gas and coal - can ever be used.

Oil alone could take the world over the limit.

Even the EU's target, which crosses the threshold into 'rapid and unpredictable' ecosystem damage, means not using half of all fossil fuel reserves.

This is why, as a matter of logic, we believe it is wrong and irresponsible to go on exploring for more fossil fuels.

Indeed, it is clear that fossil fuels must be phased out - they will not "run out" as some people still think. They must be closed down by political agreement, in a phase out.

The climate talks don't get near this problem. They are only beginning to look at small percentage cuts in emissions. Kyoto has nothing on the radar, let alone on the table, which will protect the climate.

Like the Montreal Protocol which controlled both production and consumption of ozone depleting substances, action is needed on the supply side of fossil fuels as well as demand.

What is worse, the oil industry, the flagship of fossil fuels, is trying to increase use of oil. BP for example wants a five percent annual increase in its production.

Globally, oil use is growing at over one percent a year and forecast to double.

Globally, fossil fuel reserves are growing, not shrinking.

Since the oil shock of 1973, oil reserves have grown in every year but three, and on average two barrels of oil have been added for every one used.

The oil industry is storing up the fuel that can, quite literally, destroy nature.

At current rates of use, on the budget we propose, fossil fuels would be phased out within forty years. At current rates of increase, it is thirty years.

Whether you use our limits or those proposed by the EU, a phase out is inescapable.

Yet fossil fuels are not even on the international agenda.

Not at Earth Summit Two. Not at the Climate Convention in Kyoto.

We believe Tony Blair can and should change that reality, and he, Robin Cook and his colleagues should give a lead to all nations in starting the process of ending fossil fuels.

Our logic in this campaign comes from science and the need to protect nature.

Our political strategy comes from this man, who once said of political problems, "When in a hole", "first - stop digging".