Follow-Up. The Wall Street Journal Tuesday, January 18, 2000

Text 3

The Wall Street Journal Tuesday, January 18, 2000

By Arthur B. Robinson and Noan E. Robinson

Technological Wealth

Meanwhile, short-term efforts to improve the environment, such as the plan by California’s South Coast Air Quality Management District to require all public vehicles to be powered by electricity, natural gas, or other clean-burning fuels, will use more hydrocarbon fuels rather than less. Electricity – especially now that nuclear power and hydroelectric dams are considered politically incorrect – will continue to be produced primarily by burning hydrocarbons. The energy delivered to an electric car requires more hydrocarbon fuel per mile than does the direct use of hydrocarbon fuel.

Our scientists and engineers have provided the technological wealth that now finances most of our environmental programmes. They will continue to do so unless pseudo-environmentalism torpedoes our economic progress along with the hopes and futures of billions of people in the less developed world.

Global Warming: Fact vs. Myth

How do we know global warming is real? Who is responsible, and how can it be addressed? These pages summarize what is known - and some of the prevalent misconceptions - regarding this critical environmental problem.

MYTH: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts an increase in the global average temperature of only 2.5°F (1.4°C) to 10.4°F (5.8°C) over the coming century. This small change, less than the current daily temperature range for most major cities, is hardly cause for concern.

FACT: Global average temperature is calculated from temperature readings around the Earth. While temperature does vary considerably at a daily level in any one place, global average temperature is remarkably constant. According to analyses of ice cores, tree rings, pollen and other "climate proxies," the average temperature of the Northern Hemisphere had varied up or down by only a few tenths of a degree Celsius between 1000 AD and about 1900, when a rapid warming began. A global average temperature change ranging from 2.5°F (1.4°C) to 10.4°F (5.8°C) would translate into climate-related impacts that are much larger and faster than any that have occurred during the 10,000-year history of civilization.

From scientific analyses of past ages, we know that even small global average temperature changes can lead to large climate shifts. For example, the average global temperature difference between the end of the last ice age (when much of the Northern Hemisphere was buried under thousands of feet of ice) and today's interglacial climate is only about 5°C (10°F).

[IPCC, 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Section 2.4.]

MYTH: Warming cannot be due to greenhouse gases, since changes in temperature and changes in greenhouse gas emissions over the past century did not occur simultaneously.

FACT: The slow heating of the oceans creates a significant time lag between when carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are emitted into the atmosphere and when changes in temperature occur. This is one of the main reasons why we don't see changes in temperature at the same time as changes in greenhouse gas emissions. You can see the same process occur in miniature when you heat up a pot of water on the stove: there is a time lag between the time you turn on the flame and when the water starts to boil.

In addition, there are many other factors that affect year-to-year variation in the Earth's temperature. For example, volcanic eruptions, El Niño, and small changes in the output of the sun can all affect the global climate on a yearly basis. Therefore, you would not expect the build-up of greenhouse gases to exactly match trends in global climate. Still, scientific evidence points clearly to anthropogenic (or human-made) greenhouse gases as the main culprit for climate change.

[IPCC, 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Secs 7.3 and 7.5.]

MYTH: Human activities contribute only a small fraction of carbon dioxide emissions, an amount too small to have a significant effect on climate, particularly since the oceans absorb most of the extra carbon dioxide emissions.

FACT: Before human activities began to dramatically increase carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted from natural sources closely matched the amount that was stored or absorbed through natural processes. For example, as forests grow, they absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis; this carbon is then sequestered in wood, leaves, roots and soil. Some carbon is later released back to the atmosphere when leaves, roots and wood die and decay. Carbon dioxide also cycles through the ocean. Plankton living at the ocean's surface absorb carbon dioxide through photosynthesis. The plankton and animals that eat the plankton then die and fall to the bottom of the ocean. As they decay, carbon dioxide is released into the water and returns to the surface via ocean currents. As a result of these natural cycles, the amount of carbon dioxide in the air had changed very little for 10,000 years. But that balance has been upset by man.

Since the Industrial Revolution, the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil has put about twice as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than is naturally removed by the oceans and forests. This has resulted in carbon dioxide levels building up in the atmosphere. Today, carbon dioxide levels are 30% higher than pre-industrial levels, higher than they have been in the last 420,000 years and are probably at the highest levels in the past 20 million years. Studies of the Earth's climate history have shown that even small, natural changes in carbon dioxide levels were generally accompanied by significant shifts in the global average temperature. We have already experienced a 1°F increase in global temperature in the past century, and we can expect significant warming in the next century if we fail to act to decrease greenhouse gas emissions.

[IPCC, 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, p. 39.]

MYTH: The Earth has warmed rapidly in the past without dire consequences, so society and ecosystems can adapt readily to any foreseeable warming.

FACT: The Earth experienced rapid warming in some places at the end of the last glacial period, but for the last 10,000 years our global climate has been relatively stable. During this period, as agriculture and civilization developed, the world's population has grown tremendously. Now, many heavily populated areas, such as urban centers in low-lying coastal zones, are highly vulnerable to climate shifts.

In addition, many ecosystems and species that are already threatened by existing pressures (such as pollution, habitat conversion and degradation) may be further pressured to the point of extinction by a changing climate.

[IPCC, 2001. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, p. 238; IPCC, 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, p. 138.]

MYTH: The buildup of carbon dioxide will lead to a "greening" of the Earth because plants can utilize the extra carbon dioxide to speed their growth.

FACT: Carbon dioxide has been shown to act as a fertilizer for some plant species under some conditions. In addition, a longer growing season (due to warmer temperatures) could increase productivity in some regions. However, there is also evidence that plants can acclimatize to higher carbon dioxide levels - that means plants may grow faster for only a short time before returning to previous levels of growth. Another problem is that many of the studies in which plant growth increased due to carbon dioxide fertilization were done in greenhouses where other nutrients, which plants need to survive, were adequately supplied. In nature, plant nutrients like nitrogen as well as water are often in short supply. Thus, even if plants have extra carbon dioxide available, their growth might be limited by a lack of water and nutrients. Finally, climate change itself could lead to decreased plant growth in many areas because of increased drought, flooding and heat waves. Whatever benefit carbon dioxide fertilization may bring, it is unlikely to be anywhere near enough to counteract the adverse impacts of a rapidly changing climate.

[IPCC, 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Section 3.2.2 and 3.7.]

MYTH: If Earth has warmed since pre-industrial times, it is because the intensity of the sun has increased.

FACT: The sun's intensity does vary. In the late 1970's, sophisticated technology was developed that can directly measure the sun's intensity. Measurements from these instruments show that in the past 20 years the sun's variations have been very small. Indirect measures of changes in sun's intensity since the beginning of the industrial revolution in 1750 show that variations in the sun's intensity do not account for all the warming that occurred in the 20th century and that the majority of the warming was caused by an increase in human-made greenhouse gas emissions.

[IPCC, 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, pp. 380-82, Table 6.6.]

MYTH: The science of global climate change cannot tell us the amount by which man-made emissions of greenhouse gases should be reduced in order to slow global warming.

FACT: The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change states that emissions of greenhouse gases should be reduced to avoid "dangerous interference with the climate system." Scientists have subsequently attempted to define what constitutes "dangerous interference." One study (O'Neill and Oppenheimer, 2002) supplies three criteria that could be used: 1) risk to threatened ecosystems such as coral reefs; 2) large-scale disruptions caused by changes in the climate system, such as sea-level rise caused by the break-up of the Antarctic Ice Sheet; and 3) large-scale disruptions of the climate system itself, such as the shutdown of the thermohaline circulation of the Atlantic Ocean (the Gulf stream), which would result in a severe drop in temperature to Europe.

This study projects that if C02 concentrations are capped at 450 parts per million (ppm), major disruptions to climate systems may be avoided, although some damage (such as that to coral reefs) may be unavoidable. Current estimates of atmospheric CO2 concentrations likely to be reached without aggressive action to limit greenhouse gas emissions are far higher - from 550 ppm to as much as 1000 ppm in the next hundred years. To limit C02 concentrations to 450 ppm, measures need to be taken now to begin reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. If action is delayed, we risk failing to reach this goal and consequently bringing on major disruptions to the climate system, human society and global ecosystems.

[O'Neill, B. and M. Oppenheimer. 2002. Dangerous Climate Impacts and the Kyoto Protocol. Science (296): 1971-1972.]

Environmental Defense | September 2003

I. Fill in the table given below with the facts and opinions of opposing groups: those who assume the global warming is a serious threat (I) and those who make light of the problem (II)..

Natural Phenomena	I	II
Temperature rise
Rise in Sea Level
Climate Change (floods, droughts, tornados, earthquakes, terrestrial rains, etc.

II. Write an essay expressing your poison in the matter. Does global warming end in a question mark for you?

6. Different countries have been trying to find an appropriate solution to the problem of gases emission in the world. Read the text about the Treaty which is signed up by many European countries.

BBC NEWS, Monday, 29 September, 2003

What is the Kyoto treaty?

The Kyoto Treaty commits industrialised nations to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, principally Carbon Dioxide, by around 5.2% below their 1990 levels over the next decade.

Drawn up in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, the agreement needs to be ratified by countries who were responsible for at least 55% of the world’s carbon emissions in 1990 to come into force. The agreement was dealt a severe blow in March 2001 when President George W Bush announced that the United States would never sign it.

A scaled-down version was drawn up four months later and finalised at climate talks in Bonn in Germany in 2002. The treaty now only needs Russian ratification to come into force. If and when the revised treaty takes effect in 2008, it will require all signatories, including 39 industrialised countries, to achieve different emission reduction targets.

With that aim, it will provide a complex system which will allow some countries to buy emission credits from others. For instance, a country in western Europe might decide to buy rights or credits to emit carbon from one in eastern Europe which could not afford the fuel that would emit the carbon in the first place.

The US produced 36% of emissions in 1990, making it the world’s biggest polluter. The revised Kyoto agreement, widely credited to the European Union, made considerable compromises allowing countries like Russia to offset their targets with carbon sinks - areas of forest and farmland which absorb carbon through photosynthesis. The Bonn agreement also reduced cuts to be made to emissions of six gases believed to be exacerbating global warming - from the original treaty’s 5.2% to 2%.

It was hoped that these slightly watered down provisions would allow the US to take up the Kyoto principles - but this has not proved to be the case.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is facing criticism from around the world for refusing to set a timetable for ratifying the Kyoto climate change agreement. At the opening of a major conference on global warming in Moscow, Mr Putin said his government was still studying the pros and cons of ratification.

Russia’s approval is vital for the 1997 pact to acquire the force of international law, after the United States pulled out two years ago. Mr Putin had been urged to use the conference to confirm Russia’s ratification and his comments have drawn protests from the United Nations, European Union and environmentalists.

Norway’s Environment Minister Boerge Brende said Mr Putin had promised a year ago that Russia would ratify the treaty “soon”. “Without Russia, and when the US and Australia is not on board, there will be no Kyoto Protocol. And climate change is taking place,” he said.

Some European government figures claim privately that the US has been working behind the scenes to encourage Russia to sabotage the treaty. But the American chief climate negotiator Harlan Watson told the BBC he categorically denied that. He said President Bush had pledged not to influence other countries one way or another on whether to go ahead with Kyoto.

The environmentalist group Greenpeace warned that “[Mr Putin’s] stalling could now derail the entire process”. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan urged Russia to immediately approve the agreement. The EU, which plans to limit emissions from its own industries from 2005, also reiterated its call for Russia to sign up. But Mr Putin was ambiguous about his views on Kyoto.

Our correspondent says international observers are puzzled as to why Russia has such a problem with Kyoto since, on the face of it, the country has secured an extraordinarily good deal from the agreement. Under the Kyoto system, this leaves Russia with “spare” pollution allowances which it can sell to other countries to help them fulfil their own targets.

Questions:

1. What is the Kyoto Treaty and what are its targets?

2. Why was a scaled-down version drawn up in 2002?

3. Which countries signed the Protocol and which pulled out of it?

4. Did Russia sign the Protocol?

5. Why do people say that the Protocol is beneficial for Russia?

7. The Kyoto Protocol was one of the key topics at the G8 summit in June, 2007. Read the texts below and analyze how the situation has changed since the treaty was drawn up.

Дата добавления: 2014-11-16