Oil giants involved in the exploitation of tar sand fields face calls this week to disclose future carbon liabilities. Co-operative Financial Services (CFS) and environmental charity WWF-UK are launching a campaign for a legal requirement for companies including Shell and BP to include this information in financial reporting.

The Co-op says tar sands activities threaten to create a new class of toxic investment that could push the financial system into deeper crisis, while WWF wants the UK to take the lead and make London the centre of green finance. Nearly £40bn of UK pension assets is invested in British-based oil and gas companies. Co-op and WWF say investors need disclosure so they can factor financial and environmental risks into their decision-making. Disclosure of the financial risks associated with tar sands should be a key part of a new transparent system.

The Co-operative Bank is already funding a legal challenge against oil companies by the Beaver Lake Cree nation in Canada’s Alberta province. Chief Al Lameman claims caribou, elk, moose and other animals are being harmed and plants used in traditional medicine are threatened.

Paul Monaghan of CFS said: “The Co-op focused on the issue of unconventional oil in last year’s Observer Good Companies Guide and highlighted the risks and need for improved transparency on environmental performance. Legislation encouraging better disclosure on carbon would be a good start.”

Greenpeace activists display a banner from a construction crane near the State Department in Washington Photograph: Tazz/Tazz/Greenpeace

The Obama administration issued a mea culpa today on America’s role in causing climate change, in a move to get the major economies working together on a global warming treaty.

The admission by Hillary Clinton at a two-day meeting of the world’s biggest polluters was intended to ease some of the obstacles towards a deal at UN talks in Copenhagen in December. She placed the gathering of officials from 17 countries, the European Union and the United Nations on a par with the G20 meeting on the economic crisis earlier this month.

As the secretary of state opened the meeting, the Greenpeace US executive director, Phil Radford, was arrested in his first day in the job. He and six other climbers unfurled a banner from a construction crane near the state department with a message for the environment ministers: “Stop Global Warming. Rescue the Planet.” Radford called for the industrialised world to commit to deeper cuts in emissions and provide assistance to developing countries.

Clinton addressed the complaints of developing countries such as India and China that America and the EU, by demanding binding emissions cuts, want to saddle them with the burden of climate change; they argue they did not cause the problem and must prioritise growth. She said the US recognised industrialised countries bore a responsibility: “Some countries like mine are responsible for past emissions.” She wanted China and India to grow their economies: “We want people to have a higher standard of living.”

Obama had broken with eight years of denial under George Bush, Clinton said. “The United States is fully engaged and ready to lead and determined to make up for lost time both at home and abroad … the US is no longer absent without leave.”

She saw climate change as the gravest problem facing the international community: “The facts on the ground are outstripping the worst case scenario models.”

Diplomats see the gathering of Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European commission, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, Britain, the United States, Denmark and the UN as an important ­station on the road to Copenhagen.

The two-day meeting – one of three such before December – is not expected to produce definitive agreements. But diplomats hope to get a clearer idea of how countries are prepared to act. There is also hope of establishing negotiations on financial aid and technological assistance to developing countries which will bear the brunt of global warming.

In almost 100 days in office, Obama has worked to persuade the world he wants to play a leadership role on climate change. Clinton emphasised that progress, noting directives by Obama, and US rulings designating CO₂ as a pollutant.

Many people ask how sure we are about the science of climate change. The most definitive examination of the scientific evidence is to be found in the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its last major report published in 2007. I had the privilege of being chairman or co-chairman of the panel’s scientific assessments from 1988 to 2002.

Many hundreds of scientists from different countries were involved as contributors and reviewers for these reports, which are probably the most comprehensive and thorough international assessments on any scientific subject ever carried out. In June 1995, just before the G8 summit in Scotland, the academies of science of the world’s 11 largest economies (the G8 plus India, China, and Brazil) issued a statement endorsing the IPCC’s conclusions and urging world governments to take urgent action to address climate change. The world’s top scientists could not have spoken more strongly.

Unfortunately, strong vested interests have spent millions of dollars on spreading misinformation about climate change. First, they tried to deny the existence of any scientific evidence for global warming. More recently, they have largely accepted the fact of anthropogenic (man-made) climate change but argue that its impacts will not be great, that we can “wait and see,” and that in any case we can always fix the problem if it turns out to be substantial.

The scientific evidence does not support such arguments. Urgent action is needed both to adapt to the climate change that is inevitable and to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, especially CO₂, to prevent further damage as far as possible.

At the Earth summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the world’s nations signed up to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), the objective of which is “to stabilise the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a level that does not cause dangerous interference with the climate system … that allows ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, that ensures food production is not threatened, and that enables economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.” Such stabilisation would also eventually stop further climate change.

It is now recognised that widespread damage due, for instance, to sea level rise and more frequent and intense heat waves, floods and droughts, will occur even for small increases of global average temperature. Therefore it is necessary that very strong efforts be made to hold the average global temperature rise below 2C relative to its preindustrial level.

If we are to have a good chance of achieving that target, the concentration of CO₂ must not be allowed to exceed 450 parts per million (it is now nearly 390 ppm). This implies that before 2050 global emissions of CO₂ must be reduced to below 50% of the 1990 level (they are currently 15% above that level), and that average emissions in developed countries must be reduced by at least 80% of the 1990 level. The UK has already committed itself to a binding target to reduce emissions by that amount, and President Barack Obama has expressed intention that the United States should also set that target.

One clear requirement is that tropical deforestation, which is responsible for 20% of greenhouse gas emissions, be halted within the next decade or two. Regarding emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, the International Energy Agency (IEA) in its Energy Technology Perspectives has set out in detail the technologies and actions that are needed in different countries and sectors to meet these targets.

For the short term, the IEA points out that very strong and determined action will be necessary to ensure that global CO₂ emissions stop rising (the current increase is more than 3% per year), reach a peak by about 2015, and then decline steadily toward the 2050 target. The IEA also points out that the targets can be achieved without unacceptable economic damage. In fact, the IEA lists many benefits that will be realised if its recommendations are followed.

What is required now is recognition that anthropogenic climate change will severely affect our children, grandchildren, the world’s ecosystems, and the world’s poorer communities, and that the severity of the impact can be substantially alleviated by taking action now.

John Theodore Houghton, a former professor of atmospheric physics at Oxford University, and founder of the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, was the co-chair of the IPCC’s scientific assessment working group and lead editor of its first three reports