By Thomas M. Socha, M.S.
April 1996, saw the one hundredth anniversary of the publication by the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1896. This was the first attempt to quantify the influence of the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) and the changes of the earth’s surface temperature from these greenhouse gases.
During 1997, the world set another temperature record, continuing a long-term global warming trend for which humans are mostly responsible, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists reported in January 1998. By international agreement, the normal temperature for Earth is defined as 61.7°F, the average for the years 1961-1990. Land and ocean readings averaged three-quarters of a degree Fahrenheit above normal, topping the record set in 1990 by fifteen-hundredths of a degree. Counting the 1997 rise, the planet has warmed by more than 1 degree over the last century (Boyd, Robert).
What is global warming (greenhouse effect)? Carbon is release from the burning of fossil fuels and other carbon based materials. Carbon dioxide gas is a major contributor to global warming or the greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide with other greenhouse gases, act like a pane of glass in a greenhouse. They let in visible light from the sun but prevent some of the degrade infrared radiation, or heat, from escaping back into space. They reradiate it back toward the earth surface. The resulting heat buildup raises the temperature of the air in the troposphere. However, without a natural greenhouse effect, Earth would be 33°C cooler than it is now (Rauber: 34).
The global average atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 1990 was 353 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and was increasing at an average rate of 1.8 ppmv/yr. The atmospheric CO2 concentration has been monitored continuously since 1958 when the concentration was 315 ppmv and the rate of increase was 0.6 ppmv/yr. The preindustrial CO2 concentration has been determined by analyzing air bubbles trapped in Greenland and Antarctic ice. These studies reveal that between 1000 and 1800 the CO2 concentration averaged 280 ppmv, varying by only 10 ppmv around this mean (IPCC, 1990, at 11). Ice core studies in Antarctica have now extended the record of atmospheric CO2 back to 220,000 years before present (yrBP). There is a strong correlation between CO2 concentrations and polar temperature over this entire period, with CO2 concentrations of 280 to 300 ppmv during relatively warm periods such as the present (0-10,000 yrBP and 120,000 yrBP) and concentrations of 180-200 ppmv during ice ages (18,000 yrBP and 160,000 yrBP). Current CO2 concentrations are substantially higher than they have been any time in the last 220,000 years (Jouzel: 408).
It is estimated that the climate sensitivity (the equilibrium surface air temperature rise due to a doubling of carbon dioxide) to be between 1.5 and 4.5°C according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1996. The prediction for future rate of global warming ranges between 0.1° and 0.3°C per decade. The IPCC’s scientific assessment under a business-as-usual (no major reduction) emission scenario global average temperatures are likely to rise by more than 5°F (3°C) compared to preindustrial levels by the end of the next century (Lashof: 7 (1993)).
These dramatic increases in the Earth’s surface temperature from the 1980s and continuing into the 1990s made “global warming” an international household phase. Beginning in 1988 the first Conference of Parties (COP I) to the United Nations Convention on Climate Change in Toronto, Canada started the framework to a legally binding global treaty on greenhouse gases. The December 1997, COP III in Kyoto, Japan made it possible for a major agreement to be reached between 155 countries including the United States which has four percent of the world’s population, but is responsible for 22 percent of the carbon emissions. The agreement calls for a reduction in greenhouse gases among developing and developed countries. However, there is still need for more COPs before a finalized international treaty can be reached. In following sections this paper will discuss the effects of greenhouse gases with emphasis on carbon dioxide.
Greenhouse gases make up only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, but they can have a big impact, and their proportion is rising rapidly as economic development speeds up around the world. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in middle of the 18th century, levels of carbon dioxide have jumped 30 percent, nitrous oxide 15 percent, and methane 100 percent. At present develop countries emissions account for approximately 60 percent of global total. But, developing countries emissions are growing rapidly, and by 2020, will account for more than half of the world’s emissions. China, which is already the world’s second-largest emitter, will surpass the United States within 15 years. The following subsections describe some the emission sources and the amount of emissions of the greenhouse gases (Rauber 36).
Emissions of Carbon Dioxide
The carbon content in the atmosphere was quite constant during the last 10,000 years, but major changes have been observed since the industrial revolution. The total carbon burden in the atmosphere has increased from 600 to 760 billion tons in 1992. At present, as much as 7 billion tons of carbon enters the atmosphere annually. The net flux is estimated at about 3.2 billion tons. Combustion of fossil fuels is by far the main anthropogenic source of carbon dioxide. The total emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning, cement manufacturing, and gas flaring was estimated at 6.2 billion tons carbon in 1992 (Pacyna and Graedel: 277).
Emissions of Methane
Methane is an important greenhouse gas that accounts for about 15% of the current greenhouse forcing, based on model calculations. Methane sources are numerous, diverse, and geographically dispersed. The total emissions estimate of 442-542 million tons of carbon per year (Pacyna and Graedel: 278).
Emissions of Nitrous Oxide
Many anthropogenic sources of the gas are also known, including fertilizer fields, animal nitrogen excretion, postburn effects of land use changes, fossil fuel combustion, trash incineration, traffic and some industrial activities. The total emissions range from 12.3 - 22.8 million tons of N2O-N, with more than half from natural sources (Pacyna and Graedel: 279).
Emission of Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and Other Halocarbons
Since they were introduced in the 1930s, CFCs have become widely used for refrigeration, air-conditioning, aerosol propellants, production of foam packing and insulation, and as solvents. Halons are used in fire extinguishers. The production and release of CFCs has been declining in the past few years as a result of the Montreal Protocol agreements to limit and eventually stop production of the compounds (Pacyna and Graedel: 280).
INCREASES IN GREENHOUSE GAS CONCENTRATION FROM HUMAN ACTIVITIES
There is no doubt that human activity caused the observed increase in atmospheric CO2. The IPCC cites four independent lines of evidence. First, the steady rise in CO2 concentrations since 1800 contrasts sharply with the nearly constant concentration during the previous 1000 years. There is simply no plausible natural change in the carbon cycle that could account for this change over this time period. Second, the observed CO2 concentration history since 1800 is closely related to the cumulative emissions of CO2 from fossil fuels and deforestation. Indeed the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere is consistently less than the emissions, as expected due to CO2 uptake by the oceans. Third, the CO2 concentration difference between the Northern Hemisphere and the Southern Hemisphere has increased from 1 ppmv in 1960 to 3 ppmv in 1985, consistent with growth in the rate of fossil fuel emissions concentrated in the Northern Hemisphere. Finally, the observed trends in the abundance of heavier carbon isotopes relative to the most common (lighter) form of carbon in atmospheric CO2 is consistent with expectations given the relative ratios found in fossil fuel and plant carbon (IPCC, 1990 at 14).
Therefore, the observed atmospheric CO2 increase is due to fossil fuel combustion and deforestation is fully consistent with the fact that the average CO2 molecule resides in the atmosphere for 3-5 years before being exchanged with carbon in the ocean or terrestrial biosphere (3.9 years based on the exchange rate estimates adopted by the IPCC) (Lashof: 5).
CLIMATE CHANGE AND ITS ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC EFFECTS
Ecological systems are the very foundation of our society in science, agriculture, social and economic planning. Five essential biological systems croplands, forests, grasslands, oceans, and fresh waterways support world economy. Except for fossil fuels and minerals, they supply all the raw materials for industry and provide all our food.
· Cropland supply food, feed, and an endless array of raw materials for industry such as fiber and vegetable oils.
· Forests are the source of fuel, lumber, paper, and countless other products, and countless other products, and house valuable watersheds that provide drinking water for growing urban areas.
· Grasslands provide meat, milk, leather and wool.
· And oceans and freshwater produce food for individuals and resources for industry.
Stated in the jargon of the business world, you could say the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment. But when we pollute, degrade, and irretrievably comprise that ecological capital, we begin to serious damage to the economy (Wirth: 22).
Wildlife
Animals are beginning to shift their populations northward or to higher elevations. In comprehensive research reported in 1996, Camille Parmesan of the University of California at Santa Barbara documented range changes in a tiny butterfly called Edith’s checkerspot — the first study of how a species reacts to warmer temperatures across its entire habitat. After surveying 151 locations, Parmesan found that the butterfly was declining at the southern edge of its range, with Mexican populations of the species four times as likely to be extinct as those in Canada. Southern populations of the butterfly had also shifted to higher, cooler elevations, she found (Moore: 22).
Since marine life is sensitive to water temperature, the distribution of some organisms will change, and some species may die off. To compare sea life in 1993-94 to what it was more than 60 years earlier, marine expert J.P. Barry of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute collected more than 58,000 specimens from the same site in Monterey Bay, California, where a similar underwater census had been conducted in 1931. During the intervening years, eight of nine species that preferred warmer waters had increased significantly in numbers. By contrast, animals preferring colder waters had declined sharply. Researchers have observed similar changes elsewhere, including off Southern California and at tiny Macquarie Island, halfway between Tasmania and the frozen Antarctic continent (Moore: 24).
Perhaps the most disturbing changes are to sensitive coral reefs, which are susceptible to runoff and other pollution and can die of as water warms. Since the first-ever reports of coral death, or bleaching, in 1979-80, die-offs have been reported in 60 places, with 95 percent of the coral killed in some areas (Moore: 25).
In 1990, caribou migrating to the coastal plain of northern Alaska found that the earliest spring in nearly 40 years had caused their principal forage to go to seed, depriving them of crucial nourishment. In the High Arctic, unseasonable warmth could collapse the snow dens of the ringed seal, leaving the pups vulnerable. Together the with a reduction in the extent of pack ice, this decline in the seal population could spell the end for the king of the north, the polar bear (Rauber: 38).
Another problem is freshwater fish species that dependent on cold water (e.g. salmon, trout, walleye, pike, and muskie) are susceptible to rises in water temperature. A 5°F rise in average water temperatures would devastate many trout populations. A 1996 EPA study concluded that 24 states could lose 50 to 100 percent of their coldwater fish populations (Rauber 38).
Vegetation
One study using two scenarios of global warming (GISS and GFDL) by Mikhail A. Vedyushkin predicted changes vegetation on the Earth surface. He concludes that there are small increase of forest and decrease of nonforest vegetation area are predicted by both scenarios.
Among the significant changes predicted by both scenarios are (Vedyushkin: 10):
· The transition of tundra to forest types (Temperate evergreen seasonal broad-leaved forest; Cold-deciduous forest, with and without evergreens; and Evergreen needle-leafed woodland) found in the Russian arctic and Far East, in north Scandinavia, Iceland, Canada, and Alaska;
· The Emergence of large non-forested areas with vegetation types (Drought-deciduous shurbland/thicket; Xeromorphic shurbland/thicket; Tall/medium/short grassland with 10-40% woody tree cover; Tall/short grassland with shrub cover; and Meadow with short grassland, no woody cover) found in Yakuita to the east from lake Baikal in Russia and in Canada on some areas presently occupied by forest types;
· Territories presently attributed to types (Temperate evergreen seasonal broad-leafed forest, summer rain and Cold-deciduous forest, with evergreens) vegetation on Matthews Map in Southeastern United Sates and east China decrease in area. This vegetation will be replaced by other forest and non-forest types such as (Tropical/subtropical drought-deciduous forest; Cold-deciduous forest, with evergreens; Evergreen broad-leaved; Tropical/subtropical drought-deciduous woodland; Tall/medium/short grassland with 10-40% woody tree cover; Tall/medium/short grassland, <10% woody tree or tuft-plant cover, and Tall/short grassland, no woody cover).
“Shrubs have invaded and are in some cases replacing native grasslands worldwide,” says USDA-ARS plant ecologist H. Wayne Polley of Temple Texas. “Rising CO2 levels over the past 200 years may be partially responsible,” he says. That is because some plants seem to benefit more than others from the extra CO2. “Woody plant populations tend to increase as precipitation increases. Improving plants’ water use efficiency could be having the same effect as having more rain,” Polley says. In much of Texas, mesquite has replaced the native prairie grasses. Such a shift in the vegetation can have widespread impacts: less forage available for livestock grazing, a shift in wildlife species that inhabit the area, changes in soil nutrient cycling, and increased erosion because shallow-rooted grasses no longer hold soil in place (Stelljes: 13).
The following subsections discuss the effects of climate change pertaining to forests and agriculture.
Forests
The forests of the next century will be dramatically different. The sugar maple could virtually disappear from the United States. With a doubling of atmospheric CO2, the ranges of birch, hemlock, and beech trees could also shift 300 to 600 miles to the north. University of California researchers estimate that global warming could render 20 to 50 percent of the state’s natural areas unsuitable for their current species (Thompson: 38 ). Given the right conditions, fast-growing trees like spruce can move up to 100 yards a year. For most species, however, progress is measured in feet per decade. Spruce forests are already advancing into what is now tundra; a doubling of CO2 is expected to reduce the tundra’s size by 30 percent (Rauber 39).
Agriculture
The potential impact of climate change on agriculture is also of great concern. An authoritative international study of the impacts of global warming on food security concludes that as many as 63 to 369 million additional people could be at risk of hunger in 2060 if global warming is not controlled. The analysis involved three steps:
detailed crop modeling, accounting for the direct effects of CO2 as well as climate change;
global food trade modeling, accounting for changes in technology and farm-level responses to price changes; and 3) case studies of vulnerable regions (Stinner, B. et al., Appendix C).
A key finding of the study is that crop production is likely to decline in developing countries, but could increase in developed countries. Cereal production in developing countries is projected to decline by 9 to 11 percent in 2060 relative to production in the absence of climate change. Meanwhile, developed country cereal production could rise by as much as 11 percent or fall by 4 percent, depending on the climate scenario. Overall, global production would decline by 1 to 8 percent. This decline in production leads to higher food prices and the increase in the number of people at risk of hunger (Lashof: 5 (1993)).
Agricultural experts examined the potential for adaptive responses (beyond price-induced effects) to mitigate the impacts of climate change. They found that a "full adaptation effort", including changes in planting times and extensive irrigation, could partially or completely offset the decline in global food production, although production in developing countries would still be reduced by 5 to 7 percent compared to the base case. If this level of adaptation could be achieved the number of people at risk of hunger in 2060 might decline by 12 million or increase by 119 million, depending on the climate scenario. The costs and feasibility of such an adaptation effort was not studied (Lashof: 5 (1993)).
Some have asserted that global warming will be benign because it will occur primarily at night and will be accompanied by the fertilizing effect of higher CO2 concentrations. Unfortunately there is no reason to accept this sanguine view. First, it should be noted that the CO2 fertilization effect has already been taken into account in the study of global agriculture just described, and higher CO2 levels will do noting to mitigate agricultural losses on land that has been inundated by sea-level rise. Second, although there is evidence that the warming over Northern Hemisphere land areas measured during the last 40 years is primarily due to increases in daily minimum (night) temperatures, there is no scientific basis for assuming that the same would hold true for greenhouse gas-induced warming during the next century, especially if day time temperature increases have been suppressed to date by increases in sulfate aerosol concentrations. Analysis of climate processes and feedbacks using three-dimensional computer models (General Circulation Models or GCMs) do predict some decrease in the day-to-night temperature difference due to greenhouse warming, but substantial increases would occur in both the maximum and minimum temperature (IPCC, 1992, at 119, 151-152). Third, even if greenhouse warming is greater at night there is little evidence that this will mitigate the impacts of climate change. Sea-level rise is driven primarily by the average temperature increase and is not particularly sensitive to changes in the day-night cycle; disruption of natural ecosystems can be expected to be equally severe; and the rise in nighttime temperatures is precisely the factor controlling increases in the range of tropical diseases such as malaria and pest damage to crops (Stinner, Appendix C). Indeed, the only consequence of global warming likely to be mitigated if there were a decrease in the diurnal temperature cycle is heat and drought stress to crops, but it should be noted that much of the yield reductions found in the study cited above were due other factors, such as a shortening of the development period.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES (FLOODING, HURRICANES, DROUGHTS)
The potential damage to coastal communities and ecosystems from sea-level rise is perhaps the most easily quantified risk of climate change (though this does not necessarily mean it is the most important). The IPCC projects a rise of 1-3.5 feet (30-110 centimeters) by 2100 under a business-as-usual scenario as a result of thermal expansion of the ocean and the melting of mountain glaciers as well as changes in the water balance in Greenland and Antarctica (IPCC 1990, at 277). Recent observations suggesting that Greenland may currently be accumulating rather than discharging ice may reflect short-term local temperature anomalies (Greenland appears to have cooled by 0.9°F (0.5°C) during the period 1977- 86) and are not a sound basis for projecting Greenland's contribution to sea-level rise decades into the future (Schneider: 11). The possibility of a much greater sea-level increase than projected by the IPCC (e.g. 30 feet) is based (and has always been based) on the risk that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet could collapse rather suddenly due to global warming. Although the probability of this occurring now appears to be remote, it still cannot be ruled out.
The regions most vulnerable to sea-level rise according to the IPCC Impacts Assessment are highly populous river deltas such as the Nile delta in Egypt, the Ganges in Bangladesh, the Yangtze and Hwang Ho in China, and the Mekong in Vietnam. A 3-foot (1 meter) rise in sea level would inundate 12-15% of Egypt's arable land and 17% of Bangladesh (IPCC: 6-3 (1990)). In these two countries alone more than 20 million people would be displaced (Edgerton: 72). In industrialized countries such as the United States densely populated urban centers can be protected by sea walls. Nonetheless, the United States would loose 8000 square miles (20,000 km2) of land, valued at about $650 billion, and 30-80% of its coastal wetlands (IPCC, Working Group II, op cit: 6-4, 6-9). These problems will only be compounded if the potential for global warming to increase the intensity of hurricanes and other storms is realized (IPCC 1990: 154).
It appears that global warming already has increased the frequency of heavy rains in the United States. Which is caused by warmer air can hold more water vapor than cooler air can, so when it rains it really pours. An extraordinary series of floods has hit the United States since 1993, racking up over $25 billion of losses. It is beginning to look like a pattern. Paradoxically, the rising temperature also seems to be increasing the frequency of droughts (water evaporates faster from soil when air is warmer). The drought of 1988, cost farmers more than $15 billion.
DISEASES CAUSE BY INCREASES IN THE EARTH’S SURFACE TEMPERATURE
Thirty of the new diseases that emerged in the last 20 years, many thrive in warmer and wetter weather. Lyme disease is linked to warmer, humid conditions that breed more deer ticks.
Malaria kills about 1 to 2 million people a year worldwide. About 90 percent of new cases occur in Africa and Southeast Asia. Although the disease is now rare in developed countries, that could change with global warming. As soon as 50 years from now, malaria could spread to parts of the world that are now too cold to support life cycle of the mosquitoes and their parasites that transmit the disease (Discover Magazine, 3-1-1996: 15).
Thus, global warming in North America could extend the distribution of the mosquito vectors Aedes aegypti and A. albopictus. There has also been a fourfold increase in malaria in the last five years is associated with heat and humidity the development of the mosquito larvae is faster in warmer climates, resulting in the mosquitoes becoming adults sooner. Also, the extrinsic incubation periods of yellow fever and dengue viruses in the mosquito vectors are dependent on temperature. With warmer temperatures, the incubation time required from when the mosquito first encounters an infected host until the mosquito is able to transmit an infection virus may be shortened. Recent years have also seen a marked increased in dengue fever, with 320,000 reported cases in the Americas (Cross and Hyams: 724 ).
Emerging so-called hemorrhageic diseases, such as ebola, machupo and hanta virus could also be related to climatic conditions. Dr. Eric Chivian, director of the Harvard center, said hanta, which was first detected in the southwestern United States in 1993, emerged after six years of drought that killed off predators of disease-carrying mice, followed by heavy rains and snows during which the mice population rose tenfold (Lakshmanan: A12)
Another deadly threat is the resurgence of cholera, which thrives in the higher water temperatures of a warmer world; it has already been found in the Chesapeake Bay. A 1991 cholera epidemic South America killed 5,000 people.
SOLUTIONS AND TECHNOLOGY
Kyoto
On December 11, 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, 150 nations agreed in principle to the following plan:
· Thirty-eight industrial nations must reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases to an average of 5% below 1990 levels by 2012. Although the average must be cut to only 5% below 1990 levels, for a country like the United States which has steadily rising emissions, the Kyoto agreement will require cuts as great as 30% to 35% below where emissions would otherwise be by the year 2012 (Wald: 36).
· Developing countries, like China and India, are asked to set voluntary limits.
· Enforcement for the 38 countries bound by real limits will be decided upon later.
· Ratification. The Kyoto accord will become legally binding once it has been ratified by at least 55 nations representing at least 55% of the 1990 carbon dioxide emissions. (The United States, with 4% of the world's population, emits 20% of world total carbon dioxide.) The terms are binding on an individual country only after its own government ratifies the treaty.
· Trading pollution rights. The most controversial part of the Kyoto accord allows nations to purchase pollution rights from other nations. The details will be worked out at a meeting set for next November in Buenos Aires.
How does tradeable pollution permits work? Typically, tradeable pollution permits are presented as the "free market" solution to environmental problems. However, economist Herman Daly has described tradeable pollution permits clearly, allowing us to see that the "free market" plays only a small role in tradeable permits (Daly: 52-57):
The first step in any tradeable pollution permit plan is to create a limited number of rights to pollute. Added all together, the pollution allowed by these rights must not exceed the absorptive capacity of the ecosystem. In other words, as a first step, someone has to determine the total quantity of pollution that the ecosystem can tolerate —in this instance, the total quantity of greenhouse gases that will keep the planet's temperature tolerably low. The "free market" has nothing to do with this first step.
The second step is to allocate, or distribute, these newly-created assets (these rights to pollute). They must be initially distributed to various parties (individuals, firms, or nations, for example). What is a fair distribution? Should every citizen be given some of these rights free? Should every firm be given a bundle of these rights free? Should these rights be considered public property and then be auctioned off to the highest bidder, or simply sold for a predetermined price? What seems fair and equitable will vary from country to country. When the United States began its tradeable permit program for sulfur dioxide as part of the Clean Air Act of 1990, existing sulfur dioxide emitters were freely given the right to pollute at or near their existing levels. This may seem to reflect an odd conception of fairness since sulfur emitters are degrading a public resource (the air we all breathe). However, this way of distributing pollution rights is consistent with a society that tolerates and even encourages the purchase of political power by the highest bidders (maintaining a free market in political rights, so to speak), as the United States currently does.
The third step is to allow the buying and selling of pollution rights. Only in this third step does the "free market" formally come into play. The market will distribute pollution rights in a least-cost fashion, providing something close to the cheapest way to achieve the allowed levels of pollution.
Reforestation
Trees can help offset or worsen global warming. As a tree grows, it absorbs CO2 at a rate that varies with species and age. Faster growing tress consume more, but longer-lived species “fix” the gas for longer periods. The American Forestry Association uses the benchmark average of 13 pounds of CO2 per year per tree. Once the tree is cut down the carbon is release into the atmosphere through natural decay or sped up through burning of organic materials.
Oregon Senator Ron Wydan outlined a plan to combat global warming with a tax breaks and other incentives for timberland owners. The plan offer landowners financial incentives to plant trees, preserve older forests and extend tree-harvest rotations as a way to cut down on the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Senator Wydan wants his program included as part of the $5 billion President Clinton wants to spend in 1998 on climate change and global warming programs (Robertson: B12).
Technology
Energy-efficient technologies and alternative fuel sources from fuel cells to photovoltaic panels to wind power are already out there, waiting to be used. A study from Worldwatch Institute concludes that greenhouse gas reduction will boost the global economy by spurring innovation. A new study from the Energy Department concludes that the potential impact of innovative new approaches could be enormous. A Big Three consortium called United States Council for Automotive Research, or USCAR, also has been working with federal researchers to develop a car that will get up to 80 miles to a gallon of gasoline by the year 2004. These high-mileage cars could slash United States carbon emissions by a total of 87 million metric tons per year by 2010, 20 percent of the way toward stabilizing emissions at 1990 levels. More efficient buildings could cut 59 million more metric tons per year. Advances in electric generation such as converting coal plants to natural gas could cut 136 million metric tons more. “Any company or business or building can reduce emissions by 20 to 25 percent now and cut its costs,” says Joseph Romm, Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency at the United States Energy Department (Carey: 64).
CONCLUSION
Scientists are convinced the accumulation in the atmosphere of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is heating up the earth, but they cannot say exactly how much warming will occur. Global warming is likely to produce much more erratic weather because a warmer atmosphere means the evaporation of more water from the oceans, leading to greater precipitation. It also means the exchange of more energy, leading to greater atmospheric violence. Which means some areas might be hit by droughts, while others could suffer more frequent and violent storms. Thus, it would hurt developing economies.
A prudent evaluation of the risks of global warming must also consider the possibility that climate change will be much more severe and/or much more rapid than the most likely scenario projected by climate models. The IPCC noted that there are a number of potential feedback mechanisms not currently included in climate models that could increase greenhouse gas concentrations in response to the initial warming, amplifying climate change (IPCC 1990: xviii). These mechanisms include the potential for reduced carbon uptake by the oceans, increased CO2 emissions from the dieback of forests and the decay of soils, and increased methane emissions from wetlands and hydrates. Because these feedbacks interact with each other and other climate processes in a non-linear way, there is a risk that the overall climate sensitivity could be as much as twice as great as the upper bound of the uncertainty range adopted by the IPCC. (Lashof: 213 (1989).
The transitional period as result of global warming will be a challenge for the nations of the world. If these changes are swift (not allowing humans to adjust) then food production will decrease (causing food shortages) and coastal flooding will increase (causing thousands of deaths of coastal and island people), especially in the developing economies.
The Kyoto agreement is good start for global cooperation among countries in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, even if it succeeds 100% in meeting its goals, greenhouse gases will continue to rise. In a clear statement on its front page in early November, the New York Times declared that "a growing number of scientists and policy makers" believe it will be impossible to avoid a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. "...[M]any experts believe that it is already too late to avoid serious climatic disruption, that the task ahead is one of keeping it from becoming truly catastrophic," the Times said. "The reason, [these experts] say, is that the world's economic and political systems cannot depart from business as usual rapidly enough." (Stevens: A1, A12.)
Is this what the American people want? On December 11 the New York Times reported taking a poll which revealed that 65% of Americans feel the United States should cut its greenhouse emissions "regardless of what other countries do" and only 17% feel that cutting emissions "will cost too much money and hurt the United States economy." (Bennet: A1, A10). Another poll, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, nearly three out every four of 1,200 Americans survey say they would pay a nickel a gallon more for gasoline to address global warming.
There is need for more conferences like Kyoto to bring together different ideas and solutions from countries around the world to find ways of reducing greenhouse gases from the business-as-usually scenario. It is imperative that next step we take include action from both developed and developing counties in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Developing countries must leapfrog from high CO2 emission fuel source (e.g. coal) to a lower CO2 emission fuel source (e.g. natural gas) in order to reduce greenhouse gases. These developing and developed countries must try to use the newest technologies presently available. Developed countries could trade emission releases in exchanged for helping to setup these technologies in developing countries.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bad air gets worse. (global warming could increase the range of potential malaria outbreaks), Vol. 17, Discover Magazine, 3-1-1996: 15.
Bennet, James, “Warm Globe, Hot Politics,” New York Times, December 11, 1997, pgs. A1, A10.
Boyd, Robert S., “Earth’s ‘fever’ rose again in 1997: Increase called proof of global warming, but some unconvinced,” Knight-Ridder Washington Bureau, 1998.
Carey, John, “Global Warming: Greenhouse gases: The Cost of Cutting Back”, Vol. 3556, Business Week, 12-8-1997, pp. 64.
Cross, Eleanor and Hyams, Kenneth C., “The Potential Effect of Global Warming on the Geographic and Seasonal Distribution of Phlebotomus papatasi in Southwest Asia,” Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 104, July 1996, pp. 724-727.
Daly, Herman, Beyond Growth (Boston: Beacon Press, 1996), pp. 52-57.
Edgerton, L., The Rising Tide, Island Press, Washington, DC (1991): 72
Graedel, T.E. and Pacyna, J.M., “Atmospheric Emissions Inventories: Status and Prospects,” Annual Review Energy Environmental, 1995, 20:265-300.
Hulme, Mike, “Global Warming,” Progress in Physical Geography 21, 3 (1997), pp. 446-453.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 1990: xviii, 11, 14, 154, 277
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 1992, at 119, 151-152
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group II, Potential Impacts of Climate Change, 1990: 6-3, 6-4, 6-9).
Jouzel, J, et al. 1993. “Extending the Vostok Ice-core record of palaeoclimate to the penultimate glacial period.” Nature 364:407-412.
Lakshmanan, Indira A.R., “Global warming kills, say Harvard doctors,” Boston Globe, December 2, 1997
Lashof, D. “The Dynamic Greenhouse: Feedback Processes that may Influence Future Contractions of Atmospheric Trace Gases and Climatic Change, Climatic Change,” pg. 213 (1989).
Lashof, Daniel A., “The Risks of Global Warming,” October 6, 1993, The Electricity Journal.
Manbe, S., “Century-scale effects of increased atmospheric CO2 on the ocean-atmosphere system.” Nature 364:215-218.
Moore, Curtis A., “Warming up to hot new evidence.” , Vol. 27, International Wildlife, 1-11-1997, p. 24-27.
Rauber, Paul, “Heat wave: If we Continue to Ignore the Danger Signs, The World of the Future will Be a Hotter, Poorer, Deadlier Place; Here’s What it Might Look Like. (Global Warming),” Vol. 82, Sierra, 9-19-1997, pp. 34(8).
Robertson, Lance, Eugene Register-Guard, December 7,1997.
Schneider, S., “Will sea levels rise or fall?,” Nature 356: 11 (1992).
Stelljes, Kathryn Barry; Adams, Sean; Comis, Don; Lysons-Johnson, Dawn, “Preparing agriculture for a changing world. (includes related article on the greenhouse effect),” Vol. 45, Agricultural Research, 7-1-1997, pp. 4(12).
Stevens, William K., “Experts Doubt a Greenhouse Gas Can Be Curbed,” New York Times, November 3, 1997, pp. A1, A12.
Stinner, B. et al., “Potential Effects of Climate Change on Plant-Pest Interactions, in J. Smith and D. Tirpak, eds., The Potential Effects of Global Climate Change on the United States, Appendix C,” US Environmental Protection Agency: Washington (1989).
Thompson, Dick, “Climate: Melt away future the ice caps are shrinking, some fish are vanishing and a butterfly is moving north fast. Global warming is here all right, but we haven’t seen anything yet,” Time International, 11-1-1997, p. 38+.
Vedyushkin, Mikhail A., “Vegetation Response to Global Warming: The Role of Hysteresis,” Water, Air, and Soil Pollution: 95: 1997, p. 1-12.
Wald, Matthew L., “Agency Says Gas Emissions Will Be Worse Than Thought,” New York Times, November 16, 1997, pg. 36.
Wirth, Timothy E., Undersecretary for Global Affairs (Transcript), Vol. 8, US Department of State Dispatch, 10-1-1997, pp. 16(7).
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Mr. Thomas M. Socha has a Master of Science in Hazardous Waste Management from Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan. Mr. Socha is employed at People Technology, Inc. an environmental consulting company located in Rochester, Michigan as Senior Project Manager.
You can reach Mr. Socha at info@peopletechnology.net .