EARTH’S
|
|
EARTH’S
LAST
GASP?By Daniel A. Lashof
|
NOTE: Dr. Lashof is a senior scientist specializing in climate change, Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, D.C. |
|
"… Entrenched special interests, such as the coal and oil industries, can be expected to use every tool at their disposal to fight sensible climate policies, regardless of the broad-scale benefits for the economy and the environment". |
When coal, oil, and natural gas are burned to generate electricity, drive automobiles, run factories, and heat homes, the atmosphere is polluted with carbon dioxide, a gas that traps heat like the glass panes of a greenhouse. Scientists have been observing the buildup of carbon dioxide and other so called greenhouse gases in the atmosphere for decades with increasing interest and concern. Yet, the problem of human-induced global climatic change, or global warming, didn't emerge onto the public agenda until 1988, when a string of unusually hot weather, coupled with the Congressional testimony of NASA scientist Jim Hansen proclaiming a "high degree of confidence" that humans already were changing the Earth's climate, garnered headlines around the country.
During the following four years, a string of record temperatures and high profile reports kept global warming in the headlines. This intense period of publicity and diplomatic activity culminated in the Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro in June, 1992, where 150 nations signed the Rio Climate Treaty, committing themselves to preventing "dangerous" interference with the climate system.
A combination of factors conspired to move global warming off the front pages following the Earth Summit. Media coverage and Congressional concern seem to be driven more by how hot it was last summer in the eastern U.S. (less than one percent of the planet's surface) than by long-term global warming trends and considered scientific opinion. When particles injected into the stratosphere by the Mt. Pinatubo volcanic eruption in the Philippines in June, 1991, temporarily cooled global temperatures by about 0.5°C, this apparently took the heat off policymakers as well.
Recently, though, the climate issue has made a comeback. By the end of 1994, the Pinatubo plume almost completely had settled, and global temperatures returned to record levels in 1995, just as climate models had predicted at the time of the eruption. Meanwhile, an international panel involving around 2,500 scientists from 130 countries quietly had been preparing an updated assessment of climate change. When the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) adopted its final report in the fall of 1995, it made headlines around the world for the conclusion that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate". Thus, the consensus of the international scientific community confirms Hansen's testimony, which had helped to launch climate change as a public issue seven years earlier. The panel report also included the following:
Rapid climate change. The average rate of warming over the next century probably will be greater than any seen in the last 10,000 years if global warming pollution is not controlled. Extrapolating from a wide range of scenarios for future pollutant emissions and the scientists' range of uncertainty about how the climate will respond to a given change in greenhouse gas concentrations, global mean temperature is projected to rise by 1.8° to 6.3° F between 1990 and 2100.
Death and disease. More than 500 deaths were caused by an intense heat wave that struck the midwestern U.S. in the summer of 1995. Although it is not possible to attribute this (or any other) particular event to global climate change, that is the type of event projected to become more frequent due to global warming. A study of Dallas, Tex., by researchers at the University of Delaware projects that the number of heat-related deaths would rise from an average of 20 per year currently to 620-1,360 per year in the middle of the next century. More outbreaks of infectious diseases, such as malaria and dengue fever, arc foreseen as well. A Dutch study estimates that, by the middle of the 21st century, climate change could induce more than 1,000.000 additional malaria deaths per year.
Battered coasts. Global sea levels are expected to rise by one and a half feet during the next century. This will erode beaches, wipe out many wetlands, and allow storm surges to penetrate farther inland. In cities such as New Orleans, La., and Galveston, Tex., an increase in sea level will mean shoring up seaways and dikes in order to prevent flooding. In many areas, protection will not be practical and retreat from the shoreline will be the only viable option.
Floods and droughts. As a result of global warming, more precipitation would come from intense storms and less from gentle drizzles, increasing the risk of storm damage and flooding. At the same time, warmer temperatures would reduce the amount of water stored in mountain snowpacks and dry soils more rapidly, making drought more likely, especially in the mountain West and mid-continental areas.
Insurance crisis. The string of hurricanes, storms, and floods over the last few years has caused billions of dollars in property damage, depleting insurance industry reserves and threatening major companies with bankruptcy. Before 1980, there had been no individual events that caused insured losses over $1,000,000,000; since then, there have been more than a dozen weather-induced billion-dollar catastrophes. Although burgeoning property values in vulnerable areas are a major factor in the heightened losses, claims have risen as a percentage of insured values. There is great concern in the insurance industry that the frequency of extreme weather events could be increasing. Hurricane Andrew, with $20,000,000,000 in insured losses, combined with other recent catastrophes to put nine U.S. insurance companies out of business. It easily could have been much worse—had Andrew struck just 20 miles to the north, damages would have been $75,000,000,000. The insurance industry has taken note of these risks and is beginning to call for pollution cuts.
Ecological havoc. The ecological implications of climate change will be more subtle than a hurricane, but may be no less significant. According to the World Wildlife Fund, numerous endangered species currently confined to reserves or small pockets of intact habitat could be pushed over the edge to extinction as suitable climate zones shift out from under protected areas. Migration of alpine species upslope has been reported, and some of these species soon could be pushed off mountaintops. Widespread forest dieback—a condition in woody plants whereby peripheral parts are killed—could occur as projected rates of global warming shift climate zones toward the poles as much as 10 times faster than trees can disperse. In the ocean, measurements of zooplankton abundance off the coast of California show an 80% decline over the last 40 years associated with warmer surface water temperatures and reduced transport of nutrients from deeper layers of the ocean.
None of this is to suggest that the exact consequences of unabated climate change can be predicted. Nor would it be responsible to assert that the Chicago heat wave, Texas drought, Alaska forest fires, or any other individual extreme event definitely could be the result of greenhouse gas emissions. Nevertheless, the dimensions of the global warming threat are clear, and it would be equally irresponsible to ignore the risk that there is a connection. While we can hope that the climate problem turns out to be less severe than current projections indicate, if we choose not to respond, it is equally likely that things will be worse.
In principle, at least, the world has agreed that an indefinite buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere poses unacceptable risks and that action must be taken to stabilize the concentrations of these gases at a "safe" level. Nevertheless, governments have not yet come to terms with what actually must be done to achieve the laudable goals of the Rio Climate Treaty. Under the terms of that agreement, industrialized nations were supposed to have established national plans designed to reduce their emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. While most of these countries have complied with their procedural obligations by writing plans, few of those schemes appear likely to achieve the agreed pollution reduction target.
Furthermore, even if industrialized country pollution emissions were stabilized at current levels, this would not stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations. Because excess CO2 remains in the atmosphere for decades to centuries before it is removed into the deep ocean, the atmosphere will continue to accumulate carbon until global emissions are cut substantially. Parties to the treaty recognized this, again in principle, when they agreed in a 1995 conference in Berlin to negotiate legally binding emission reduction targets for the period beyond the year 2000.
The next step in these negotiations should be for governments to use the results of the science panel report to conclude formally that allowing the concentration of greenhouse gases to reach the equivalent of twice pre-industrial carbon dioxide levels would be dangerous and must be avoided under the terms of the Rio Climate Treaty. An appropriate long-term goal would be to stabilize greenhouse concentrations below the equivalent of 450 parts per million by volume (PPM) of carbon dioxide. (Pre-industrial CO2 concentrations were 280 PPM; current CO2 concentrations are 360 PPM; and CO2 equivalent greenhouse gas concentrations are about 420 PPM.) This long-term science-based objective should be used to set shorter-term emission reduction obligations through the protocol that is being negotiated.
Options under consideration range from voluntary targets to a binding emission reduction of 20% below 1990 levels by 2005 for industrialized countries. The disappointing results of the voluntary target adopted at Rio should make it clear that this approach is unacceptable—it merely will perpetuate the situation, in which most governments use inaction in other countries as an excuse to delay action at home. Similarly, merely stabilizing emissions at 1990 levels, a widely discussed approach would not begin to put the world on a path to stabilizing concentrations at a safe level. Only industrialized country emission reductions on the order of 20% over the next 10-15 years, as has been proposed by Germany and the Alliance of Small Island States, would keep global emissions within a "safe landing corridor", leading to stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations at a level well below an equivalent doubling of CO2.
Ultimately, global emission reductions will be needed, based on an enforceable system of emission allowances assigned to each country. Before such a global regime can be contemplated, though, industrialized countries, and in particular the U.S., as the world's richest nation and largest polluter, must provide political and technological leadership. This will require more than good speeches; it will necessitate action that genuinely reduces U.S. greenhouse gas pollution.
Coal and oil interests are quick to argue that such pollution reductions seriously would damage the U.S. economy. Still, the U.S. could cut greenhouse gas pollution to 20% below 1990 levels by 2010 while increasing long-run economic growth, according to a preliminary government analysis presented at a workshop hosted by five Federal agencies. While the U.S. has not endorsed any specific targets and timetables for greenhouse gas pollution after the year 2000, this and other analyses presented at the workshop show that the barriers to substantial emission reductions are political not economic.
Even the generally favorable results obtained in recent economic modeling exercises are likely to overestimate short-run adjustment costs. Industry and government consistently have overestimated the cost and underestimated the feasibility of pollution reductions. Macroeconomic models fail to account for the potential of dynamic technological, instialtional7 and organizational change to achieve emission reductions at dramatically lower costs or a net profit.
For example, in 1989, industry estimated that it would run $1,500 per ton to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions, but emission allowances are trading for about 20 times less (well under $100 per ton, including futures contracts out to 2003). An analysis presented by John Hoffman of the Environmental Protection Agency found that dramatic technological and organizational innovations are possible that could reduce U.S. emissions to 20% below 1990 levels by 2010 at a net profit, even without considering the macroeconomic benefits of using emission allowance auction revenues to reduce taxes. Similar results, based on regional or sectoral studies, have been obtained by many other analysts.
Action to cut greenhouse gas emissions will have additional benefits as well. Consider electric power plants and automobiles, for instance. These two sources alone are responsible for more than half of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions and are expected to account for about three-quarters of the emission increases in the absence of new policies. Any strategy for cutting U.S. greenhouse gas emissions will result by necessity in reduced consumption of coal and oil by power plants and cars. This, in turn will reduce local and regional air pollution as well as Americans economically damaging dependence on imported oil.
Power plants are responsible for 70% of sulfur oxide emissions, 33% of nitrogen oxides, and 23% of mercury emissions. Coal-fired power plants are the largest single source of June particles that have been shown to be responsible for tens of thousands of premature cardiopulmonary deaths in U.S. cities. Thus, reducing demand for electricity by using it more efficiently—replacing resistance heating with ground-source heat pumps that are more than three times as efficient, for example—and substituting cleaner fuels, such as natural gas and renewable energy sources, will reduce acid rain, smog, fine particle concentrations, and toxic loadings while cutting carbon dioxide emissions. The Natural Resources Defense Council has employed advanced technology and design concepts to create lighting systems in its offices that provide enhanced visual performance while cutting electricity requirements by 75%.
Similarly, automobiles are responsible for 22% of nitrogen oxide emissions and 27% of volatile organic compound emissions, and are the driving force behind our growing dependence on imported oil. The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects net oil imports will rise from 45% of domestic consumption in 1995 to 58% in 2005. Americans' import dependence already is higher than it was in 1973 and 1979, when OPEC price increases were a major factor in pushing the U.S. economy into a recession.
A study by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory shows that, by 2005, OPEC will reach the same market share with which it triggered the two previous oil price spikes. The report notes that a profit-maximizing OPEC would raise oil prices about threefold for as long as it could maintain them — about two years. Over this period, it would have extracted $500,000,000,000 — $2,000 for every man, woman, and child — from the American economy. Thus, reducing oil consumption by making cars that go farther on each gallon of gasoline can have enormous economic as well as environmental benefits.
The economic good news, however, should not be read to imply that reducing emissions would be easy. Institutional and organizational change always is hard, even when it has clear long-term benefits. The political task of enacting emission reductions remains enormous, as entrenched special interests, such as the coal and oil industries, have traditionally used every tool at their disposal to fight sensible climate policies, regardless of the broad-scale benefits for the economy, the environment and your health.
