Investment bank UBS is trying to change weather investing by launching the first Global Warming Index (GWI), which provides a simple way to take a view on a wide range of weather variables. While initially linked to the temperature of several US cities, there are plans to add European and Asian ones soon. In fact, as UBS notes, there is no limit in principle to the number of cities to be included as references. In this sense, the UBS index would truly capture global phenomena in one stroke.
Thanks to this pioneering development, it is now possible to bet on whether Global Warming is true or false. If you believe the direst predictions will hold true and a persistent upward trend in global (or, at least for now, US) temperatures will become the norm, you would buy the Index (which goes up with the underlying temperature). If you think Mr Gore an alarmist sensationalist, you would sell the Index.
In common with equity, foreign exchange or interest rate underlyings, it is possible to devise structured products based on the GWI. For instance, rather than park money in a low-yielding savings account, an investor could instead enter into a weather-related guaranteed investment or a weather-related note, where returns would depend on the average quarterly performance of the Index. In essence, the warmer the globe gets (as measured by the GWI) the higher the return.
Most interesting are the opportunities to engineer basket, or diversified, structures around the GWI. In these exotic deals, the investor's return would depend directly on the (most likely, purely coincidental rather than direct) correlation between weather and one, two, or more different asset classes.
GWI-based basket trades could help investors in traditional assets to diversify (hedge) their positions via the addition of a non-correlated new variable. Given how closely correlated markets can be from time to time, it may not be a bad idea to include some weather in an old-fashioned menu. If anything, the GWI could be seen as a cheaper (not to mention more exciting) alternative to protecting returns through the use of same-family derivatives (such as equity options or currency forwards).
From http://en.wikipedia.org/
Jumat, 31 Juli 2009
Global warming conspiracy theory
Global warming conspiracy and global warming conspiracy theory are terms used to refer to the claim that the theory of global warming is a fraud, perpetuated for financial or ideological reasons. The term conspiracy theory can be used in a pejorative manner, and proponents of the claim often refer to a more politically correct "global warming hoax" or "global warming fraud" instead.
Claims
* The suggestion of a conspiracy to promote the theory of global warming was put forward in a 1990 documentary The Greenhouse Conspiracy broadcast by Channel Four in the United Kingdom on 12 August 1990. The program was part of the Equinox series,and it asserted that scientists critical of global warming theory were denied funding. Although the program title referred to a conspiracy, Patrick Michaels downplayed the idea, saying, "It may not quite add up to a conspiracy, but certainly a coalition of interests has promoted the greenhouse theory; scientists have needed funds, the media a story, and governments a worthy cause".
* Writing in the National Review in 1997, Ron Bailey said, "Militia members are famously worried that black helicopters are practicing maneuvers with blue-helmeted UN tro ops in a plot to take over America. But the actual peril is more subtle. A small cadre of obscure international bureaucrats are hard at work devising a system of 'global governance' that is slowly gaining control over ordinary Americans' lives. Maurice Strong, a 68-year-old Canadian, is the 'indispensable man' at the center of this creeping UN power grab." Bailey notes that Strong's most prominent and influential role to date was as Chairman of the Earth Summit which gave rise to the UN Framework Convention on Global Climate Change, and asserts that proposals to restrict emissions of greenhouse gases (then under negotiation) would cost the US "$90 billion to $400 billion annually in lost Gross Domestic Product and a loss of between 600,000 and 3.5 million jobs." Bailey alleges Strong's list of contacts includes:
o Former United States Vice President Al Gore;
o Former World Bank President James Wolfensohn;
o James Gustave Speth, head of the United Nations Development Program.
o Shridath Ramphal, formerly Secretary General of the (British) Commonwealth,
o Jonathan Lash, President of the World Resources Institute;
o Ingvar Carlsson, former Swedish prime minister
o Mikhail Gorbachev; and
o Former United States President George H. W. Bush.
Bailey remarks "It's not a conspiracy, of course: just a group of like-minded people fighting to save the world from less prescient and more selfish forces -- namely, market forces."
* In a speech given to the US Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works on July 28, 2003, entitled "The Science of Climate Change", Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla) concluded by asking the following question: "With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people?" Inhofe has suggested that supporters of Kyoto such as Jacques Chirac are aiming at global governance.
* In an article which also quoted Inhofe, the American Free Press stated, "It was an unguarded moment for Chirac. World government is the main goal of the secret Bilderberg group, of which he is a luminary."
* A Washington Post article describing the views of global warming skeptics quotes climatologist William M. Gray as having "his own conspiracy theory," saying, "He has made a list of 15 reasons for the global warming hysteria. The list includes the need to come up with an enemy after the end of the Cold War, and the desire among scientists, government leaders and environmentalists to find a political cause that would enable them to 'organize, propagandize, force conformity and exercise political influence. Big world government could best lead (and control) us to a better world!'" In this article, Gray also cites the ascendancy of Al Gore to the vice presidency as the start of his problems with federal funding. According to him, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration stopped giving him research grants, and so did NASA.
* The March 1, 2007 issue of Whistleblower magazine, a publication of WorldNetDaily, is titled "HYSTERIA: Exposing the secret agenda behind today's obsession with global warming," and asserts that "all the main players –- from politicians and scientists to big corporations and the United Nations –- benefit from instilling fear into billions of human beings over the unproven theory of man-made global warming".
* Commenting on criticism of the Lavoisier Group by Clive Hamilton, the Cooler Heads Coalition notes that "Hamilton accuses the Lavoisier Group of painting the UN's global warming negotiations as "an elaborate conspiracy in which hundreds of climate scientists have twisted their results to support the 'climate change theory' in order to protect their research funding" and adds, "Sounds plausible to us."
* Tim Ball, former professor at the University of Winnipeg, wrote in a February 2007 interview, "You’ve got this incestuous little group that is controlling the whole process both through their publications and the IPCC. I’m not a conspiracy theorist and I hate being even pushed toward that, but I think there is a consensus conspiracy that’s going on."
* A 2007 U. S. Senate Minority Report (updated in 2009) originally citing support of 400 "dissenting scientists", and growing to 700 dissenting scientists. The report challenges man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore.
Fictional representations
* The novel State of Fear by Michael Crichton describes a conspiracy by scientists and others to create public panic about global warming. The novel includes 20 pages of footnotes, described by Crichton as providing a factual basis for the non-plotline elements of the story.
Participants
Many of those claimed to be participants in a conspiracy to promote global warming theory appear prominently in other conspiracy theories. These include organizations such as
* The United Nations
* The Bilderberg Group
* The environmental movement
* The Club of Rome
* Green Cross International
and individuals such as
* Kofi Annan
* Jacques Chirac
* Maurice Strong
* George Soros
* Al Gore
* Mikhail Gorbachev
Motives
A number of different, and sometimes contradictory, motives have been claimed for a conspiracy to promote the idea of global warming
* A desire on the part of the United Nations and its supporters to promote a system of world government or global governance. Proponents of this theory frequently stress the role of Maurice Strong.
* A desire on the part of environmentalists to prevent carbon-based industrial development in Africa
* A desire on the part of environmentalists to promote pollution-intensive industrial development in Africa, while reducing industrial output in the United States
* A desire on the part of climate science researchers to attract financial support
* A desire by the government to raise taxes
* A desire on the part of left-wing political activists to promote an agenda described by Melanie Phillips as a "left-wing, anti-American, anti-west ideology which goes hand in hand with anti-globalisation and the belief that everything done by the industrialised world is wicked. The agenda to cripple this world is revealed by highly questionable assumptions made by climate modellers about likely developments in economics, technology or population movements, which affect emissions and consequent temperature predictions."
* A desire on the part of conservative political leaders including Margaret Thatcher, and Helmut Kohl to promote nuclear power while attracting the political support of Green groups
* A desire on the part of leftwing political leaders to promote socialism:
o According to a critical special contribution written by Lawrie McFarlane in Victoria's Times Colonist, "For socialism, at least in its early form, shared those same instincts -- distrust of private enterprise, animus toward wealth, the urge to proselytize and faith in big government. And like environmentalism, it marched under the banner of a superior morality. (...) Environmentalism is neither religion nor science. It is a political mission, every bit as unquestioning as socialism in its heyday, and offering the same giddy promise to followers: The delicious prospect of being in the right, and better still, running things."
o Czech President Václav Klaus said that "This ideology preaches earth and nature and under the slogans of their protection – similarly to the old Marxists – wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central, now global, planning of the whole world"
Ideological motives
Statements made or allegedly made by various supporters of climate change policies have been quoted as giving support to the idea that anthropogenic global warming may be used primarily for political purposes.
* According to a critical editorial written by Peter Menzies in the Calgary Herald, Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister for the Liberal Party of Canada, said in 1998 that "No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.
* According to the 1993 book Science under Siege by Michael Fumento, former US Senator Timothy Wirth, (D-Colo) said that "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing – in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.."
Criticism
Critics of claims that scientists and others concerned with global warming are promoting a fraud or hoax have commonly used the term "conspiracy theory" to describe this view. On the other hand, those who describe the scientific consensus on global warming as a "hoax", "fraud" or even "conspiracy" often object to the use of the terms "conspiracy theory" or "conspiracy theorists" to describe them and their views.
Steve Connor links the terms "hoax" and "conspiracy," saying, "Reading through the technical summary of this draft (IPCC) report, it is clear that no one could go away with the impression that climate change is some conspiratorial hoax by the science establishment, as some would have us believe."
In a piece headed Crichton's conspiracy theory, Harold Evans described Crichton's theory as being "in the paranoid political style identified by the renowned historian Richard Hofstadter," and went on to suggest that "if you happen to be in the market for a conspiracy theory today, there's a rather more credible one documented by the pressure group Greenpeace," namely the funding by ExxonMobil of groups opposed to the theory of global warming
The documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle received much criticism. George Monbiot described it as "the same old conspiracy theory that we’ve been hearing from the denial industry for the past ten years". UK Secretary of State for Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs, David Miliband presented a rebuttal of the main points of the film and stated "There will always be people with conspiracy theories trying to do down the scientific consensus, and that is part of scientific and democratic debate, but the science of climate change looks like fact to me." John Houghton said, "The most prominent person in the programme was Lord Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer who is not a scientist and who shows little knowledge of the science but who is party to the creation of a conspiracy theory that questions the motives and integrity of the world scientific community, especially as represented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."
Counterclaims of conspiracy
Some who accept the scientific opinion that humans have been largely responsible for recent and projected warming have similarly accused their opponents of being motivated by financial or ideological interests, and in some cases have used the term "conspiracy" to describe this. United States Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt stated in 1998 that:
"...it’s an unhappy fact that the oil companies and the coal companies in the United States have joined in a conspiracy to hire pseudo scientists to deny the facts... the energy companies need to be called to account because what they are doing is un-American in the most basic sense. They are compromising our future by misrepresenting the facts by suborning scientists onto their payrolls and attempting to mislead the American people."
Further evidence of the energy industry funding climate change denial has been produced by Greenpeace with their Exxon Secrets project. ExxonMobil announced in 2008 that it would cut funding to many of the groups that were denying the science behind global warming but continues to fund over "two dozen other organisations who question the science of global warming or attack policies to solve the crisis."
A survey carried out by the UK's Royal Society found that in 2005 ExxonMobil distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society said "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".
From http://en.wikipedia.org/
Claims
* The suggestion of a conspiracy to promote the theory of global warming was put forward in a 1990 documentary The Greenhouse Conspiracy broadcast by Channel Four in the United Kingdom on 12 August 1990. The program was part of the Equinox series,and it asserted that scientists critical of global warming theory were denied funding. Although the program title referred to a conspiracy, Patrick Michaels downplayed the idea, saying, "It may not quite add up to a conspiracy, but certainly a coalition of interests has promoted the greenhouse theory; scientists have needed funds, the media a story, and governments a worthy cause".
* Writing in the National Review in 1997, Ron Bailey said, "Militia members are famously worried that black helicopters are practicing maneuvers with blue-helmeted UN tro ops in a plot to take over America. But the actual peril is more subtle. A small cadre of obscure international bureaucrats are hard at work devising a system of 'global governance' that is slowly gaining control over ordinary Americans' lives. Maurice Strong, a 68-year-old Canadian, is the 'indispensable man' at the center of this creeping UN power grab." Bailey notes that Strong's most prominent and influential role to date was as Chairman of the Earth Summit which gave rise to the UN Framework Convention on Global Climate Change, and asserts that proposals to restrict emissions of greenhouse gases (then under negotiation) would cost the US "$90 billion to $400 billion annually in lost Gross Domestic Product and a loss of between 600,000 and 3.5 million jobs." Bailey alleges Strong's list of contacts includes:
o Former United States Vice President Al Gore;
o Former World Bank President James Wolfensohn;
o James Gustave Speth, head of the United Nations Development Program.
o Shridath Ramphal, formerly Secretary General of the (British) Commonwealth,
o Jonathan Lash, President of the World Resources Institute;
o Ingvar Carlsson, former Swedish prime minister
o Mikhail Gorbachev; and
o Former United States President George H. W. Bush.
Bailey remarks "It's not a conspiracy, of course: just a group of like-minded people fighting to save the world from less prescient and more selfish forces -- namely, market forces."
* In a speech given to the US Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works on July 28, 2003, entitled "The Science of Climate Change", Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla) concluded by asking the following question: "With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people?" Inhofe has suggested that supporters of Kyoto such as Jacques Chirac are aiming at global governance.
* In an article which also quoted Inhofe, the American Free Press stated, "It was an unguarded moment for Chirac. World government is the main goal of the secret Bilderberg group, of which he is a luminary."
* A Washington Post article describing the views of global warming skeptics quotes climatologist William M. Gray as having "his own conspiracy theory," saying, "He has made a list of 15 reasons for the global warming hysteria. The list includes the need to come up with an enemy after the end of the Cold War, and the desire among scientists, government leaders and environmentalists to find a political cause that would enable them to 'organize, propagandize, force conformity and exercise political influence. Big world government could best lead (and control) us to a better world!'" In this article, Gray also cites the ascendancy of Al Gore to the vice presidency as the start of his problems with federal funding. According to him, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration stopped giving him research grants, and so did NASA.
* The March 1, 2007 issue of Whistleblower magazine, a publication of WorldNetDaily, is titled "HYSTERIA: Exposing the secret agenda behind today's obsession with global warming," and asserts that "all the main players –- from politicians and scientists to big corporations and the United Nations –- benefit from instilling fear into billions of human beings over the unproven theory of man-made global warming".
* Commenting on criticism of the Lavoisier Group by Clive Hamilton, the Cooler Heads Coalition notes that "Hamilton accuses the Lavoisier Group of painting the UN's global warming negotiations as "an elaborate conspiracy in which hundreds of climate scientists have twisted their results to support the 'climate change theory' in order to protect their research funding" and adds, "Sounds plausible to us."
* Tim Ball, former professor at the University of Winnipeg, wrote in a February 2007 interview, "You’ve got this incestuous little group that is controlling the whole process both through their publications and the IPCC. I’m not a conspiracy theorist and I hate being even pushed toward that, but I think there is a consensus conspiracy that’s going on."
* A 2007 U. S. Senate Minority Report (updated in 2009) originally citing support of 400 "dissenting scientists", and growing to 700 dissenting scientists. The report challenges man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore.
Fictional representations
* The novel State of Fear by Michael Crichton describes a conspiracy by scientists and others to create public panic about global warming. The novel includes 20 pages of footnotes, described by Crichton as providing a factual basis for the non-plotline elements of the story.
Participants
Many of those claimed to be participants in a conspiracy to promote global warming theory appear prominently in other conspiracy theories. These include organizations such as
* The United Nations
* The Bilderberg Group
* The environmental movement
* The Club of Rome
* Green Cross International
and individuals such as
* Kofi Annan
* Jacques Chirac
* Maurice Strong
* George Soros
* Al Gore
* Mikhail Gorbachev
Motives
A number of different, and sometimes contradictory, motives have been claimed for a conspiracy to promote the idea of global warming
* A desire on the part of the United Nations and its supporters to promote a system of world government or global governance. Proponents of this theory frequently stress the role of Maurice Strong.
* A desire on the part of environmentalists to prevent carbon-based industrial development in Africa
* A desire on the part of environmentalists to promote pollution-intensive industrial development in Africa, while reducing industrial output in the United States
* A desire on the part of climate science researchers to attract financial support
* A desire by the government to raise taxes
* A desire on the part of left-wing political activists to promote an agenda described by Melanie Phillips as a "left-wing, anti-American, anti-west ideology which goes hand in hand with anti-globalisation and the belief that everything done by the industrialised world is wicked. The agenda to cripple this world is revealed by highly questionable assumptions made by climate modellers about likely developments in economics, technology or population movements, which affect emissions and consequent temperature predictions."
* A desire on the part of conservative political leaders including Margaret Thatcher, and Helmut Kohl to promote nuclear power while attracting the political support of Green groups
* A desire on the part of leftwing political leaders to promote socialism:
o According to a critical special contribution written by Lawrie McFarlane in Victoria's Times Colonist, "For socialism, at least in its early form, shared those same instincts -- distrust of private enterprise, animus toward wealth, the urge to proselytize and faith in big government. And like environmentalism, it marched under the banner of a superior morality. (...) Environmentalism is neither religion nor science. It is a political mission, every bit as unquestioning as socialism in its heyday, and offering the same giddy promise to followers: The delicious prospect of being in the right, and better still, running things."
o Czech President Václav Klaus said that "This ideology preaches earth and nature and under the slogans of their protection – similarly to the old Marxists – wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central, now global, planning of the whole world"
Ideological motives
Statements made or allegedly made by various supporters of climate change policies have been quoted as giving support to the idea that anthropogenic global warming may be used primarily for political purposes.
* According to a critical editorial written by Peter Menzies in the Calgary Herald, Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister for the Liberal Party of Canada, said in 1998 that "No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.
* According to the 1993 book Science under Siege by Michael Fumento, former US Senator Timothy Wirth, (D-Colo) said that "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing – in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.."
Criticism
Critics of claims that scientists and others concerned with global warming are promoting a fraud or hoax have commonly used the term "conspiracy theory" to describe this view. On the other hand, those who describe the scientific consensus on global warming as a "hoax", "fraud" or even "conspiracy" often object to the use of the terms "conspiracy theory" or "conspiracy theorists" to describe them and their views.
Steve Connor links the terms "hoax" and "conspiracy," saying, "Reading through the technical summary of this draft (IPCC) report, it is clear that no one could go away with the impression that climate change is some conspiratorial hoax by the science establishment, as some would have us believe."
In a piece headed Crichton's conspiracy theory, Harold Evans described Crichton's theory as being "in the paranoid political style identified by the renowned historian Richard Hofstadter," and went on to suggest that "if you happen to be in the market for a conspiracy theory today, there's a rather more credible one documented by the pressure group Greenpeace," namely the funding by ExxonMobil of groups opposed to the theory of global warming
The documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle received much criticism. George Monbiot described it as "the same old conspiracy theory that we’ve been hearing from the denial industry for the past ten years". UK Secretary of State for Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs, David Miliband presented a rebuttal of the main points of the film and stated "There will always be people with conspiracy theories trying to do down the scientific consensus, and that is part of scientific and democratic debate, but the science of climate change looks like fact to me." John Houghton said, "The most prominent person in the programme was Lord Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer who is not a scientist and who shows little knowledge of the science but who is party to the creation of a conspiracy theory that questions the motives and integrity of the world scientific community, especially as represented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."
Counterclaims of conspiracy
Some who accept the scientific opinion that humans have been largely responsible for recent and projected warming have similarly accused their opponents of being motivated by financial or ideological interests, and in some cases have used the term "conspiracy" to describe this. United States Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt stated in 1998 that:
"...it’s an unhappy fact that the oil companies and the coal companies in the United States have joined in a conspiracy to hire pseudo scientists to deny the facts... the energy companies need to be called to account because what they are doing is un-American in the most basic sense. They are compromising our future by misrepresenting the facts by suborning scientists onto their payrolls and attempting to mislead the American people."
Further evidence of the energy industry funding climate change denial has been produced by Greenpeace with their Exxon Secrets project. ExxonMobil announced in 2008 that it would cut funding to many of the groups that were denying the science behind global warming but continues to fund over "two dozen other organisations who question the science of global warming or attack policies to solve the crisis."
A survey carried out by the UK's Royal Society found that in 2005 ExxonMobil distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society said "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".
From http://en.wikipedia.org/
Kamis, 30 Juli 2009
Global Warming: The Signs and The Science
Global Warming: The Signs and The Science is a documentary video on global warming published in November by ETV, the PBS affiliate in South Carolina with Alanis Morissette as host. The documentary examines the science behind global warming and pulls together segments filmed in Filmed in the USA, Asia and South America and shows how people in these different locales are responding in different ways to the challenges of global warming to show some of the ways that the world can respond.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/
From http://en.wikipedia.org/
Global warming controversy
The global warming controversy is a dispute regarding the nature, causes, and consequences of global warming. The disputed issues include the causes of increased global average air temperature, especially since the mid-20th century, whether this warming trend is unprecedented or within normal climatic variations, and whether the increase is wholly or partially an artifact of poor measurements. Additional disputes concern estimates of climate sensitivity, predictions of additional warming, and what the consequences of global warming will be. The controversy is significantly more pronounced in the popular media than in the scientific literature.
History
Public opinion
In the European Union, global warming has been a prominent and sustained issue. All European Union member states ratified the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, and many European countries had already been taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions prior to 1990. For example, Margaret Thatcher advocated action against man-made climate change in 1988, and Germany started to take action after the Green Party took seats in Parliament across the 1980s. Substantial activity by NGOs took place as well. Both "global warming" and the more politically neutral "climate change" were listed by the Global Language Monitor as political buzzwords or catch phrases in 2005. In Europe, the notion of human influence on climate gained wide acceptance more rapidly than in many other parts of the world, most notably the United States.
There has been a debate among public commentators about how much weight and media coverage should be given to each side of the controversy. Andrew Neil of the BBC stated that "There's a great danger that on some issues we're becoming a one-party state in which we're meant to have only one kind of view. You don't have to be a climate-change denier to recognise that there's a great range of opinion on the subject." Martin Gardner, on the other hand, sees the media in the United States bending over backwards to give equal time to both sides, when pseudoscience and science are at odds.
The table below shows how public perceptions about the existence and importance of global warming have changed in the U.S. The worldwide consensus is that climate change is a serious problem.
A June 2007 Ipsos Mori poll conducted in the UK found 56 percent of 2032 adults believed scientists were still questioning climate change. The survey suggested that terrorism, graffiti and crime were all of more concern than climate change. Ipsos Mori's head of environmental research, Phil Downing, said people had been influenced by counter-arguments.
The Canadian science broadcaster and environmental activist, David Suzuki, reports that focus groups organized by the David Suzuki Foundation showed the public has a poor understanding of the science behind global warming. This is despite recent publicity through different means, including the films An Inconvenient Truth and The 11th Hour.
An example of the poor understanding is public confusion between global warming and ozone depletion or other environmental problems.
A 15-nation poll conducted in 2006 by Pew Global found that there "is a substantial gap in concern over global warming – roughly two-thirds of Japanese (66%) and Indians (65%) say they personally worry a great deal about global warming. Roughly half of the populations of Spain (51%) and France (46%) also express great concern over global warming, based on those who have heard about the issue. But there is no evidence of alarm over global warming in either the United States or China – the two largest producers of greenhouse gases. Just 19% of Americans and 20% of the Chinese who have heard of the issue say they worry a lot about global warming – the lowest percentages in the 15 countries surveyed. Moreover, nearly half of Americans (47%) and somewhat fewer Chinese (37%) express little or no concern about the problem."
A 47-nation poll by Pew Global Attitudes conducted in 2007 found that "Substantial majorities 25 of 37 countries say global warming is a 'very serious' problem".
There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the US. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "while 84% of scientists say the earth is getting warmer because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels, just 49% of the public agrees."
Related controversies
Many of the critics of the consensus view on global warming have disagreed, in whole or part, with the scientific consensus regarding other issues, particularly those relating to environmental risks, such as ozone depletion and passive smoking. Chris Mooney, author of The Republican War on Science, has argued that the appearance of overlapping groups of skeptical scientists, commentators and think tanks in seemingly unrelated controversies results from an organised attempt to replace scientific analysis with political ideology. Mooney claims that the promotion of doubt regarding issues that are politically, but not scientifically, controversial has become increasingly prevalent under the Bush Administration and constitutes a "Republican war on science". This is also the subject of a recent book by Environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. entitled Crimes Against Nature: How George W. Bush and Corporate Pals are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy. Another book on this topic is The Assault on Reason by former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore. Earlier instances of this trend are also covered in the book The Heat Is On by Ross Gelbspan.
Some critics of the scientific consensus on global warming have argued that these issues should not be linked and that reference to them constitutes an unjustified ad hominem attack. Political scientist Roger Pielke, Jr., responding to Mooney, has argued that science is inevitably intertwined with politics.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/
History
Public opinion
In the European Union, global warming has been a prominent and sustained issue. All European Union member states ratified the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, and many European countries had already been taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions prior to 1990. For example, Margaret Thatcher advocated action against man-made climate change in 1988, and Germany started to take action after the Green Party took seats in Parliament across the 1980s. Substantial activity by NGOs took place as well. Both "global warming" and the more politically neutral "climate change" were listed by the Global Language Monitor as political buzzwords or catch phrases in 2005. In Europe, the notion of human influence on climate gained wide acceptance more rapidly than in many other parts of the world, most notably the United States.
There has been a debate among public commentators about how much weight and media coverage should be given to each side of the controversy. Andrew Neil of the BBC stated that "There's a great danger that on some issues we're becoming a one-party state in which we're meant to have only one kind of view. You don't have to be a climate-change denier to recognise that there's a great range of opinion on the subject." Martin Gardner, on the other hand, sees the media in the United States bending over backwards to give equal time to both sides, when pseudoscience and science are at odds.
The table below shows how public perceptions about the existence and importance of global warming have changed in the U.S. The worldwide consensus is that climate change is a serious problem.
A June 2007 Ipsos Mori poll conducted in the UK found 56 percent of 2032 adults believed scientists were still questioning climate change. The survey suggested that terrorism, graffiti and crime were all of more concern than climate change. Ipsos Mori's head of environmental research, Phil Downing, said people had been influenced by counter-arguments.
The Canadian science broadcaster and environmental activist, David Suzuki, reports that focus groups organized by the David Suzuki Foundation showed the public has a poor understanding of the science behind global warming. This is despite recent publicity through different means, including the films An Inconvenient Truth and The 11th Hour.
An example of the poor understanding is public confusion between global warming and ozone depletion or other environmental problems.
A 15-nation poll conducted in 2006 by Pew Global found that there "is a substantial gap in concern over global warming – roughly two-thirds of Japanese (66%) and Indians (65%) say they personally worry a great deal about global warming. Roughly half of the populations of Spain (51%) and France (46%) also express great concern over global warming, based on those who have heard about the issue. But there is no evidence of alarm over global warming in either the United States or China – the two largest producers of greenhouse gases. Just 19% of Americans and 20% of the Chinese who have heard of the issue say they worry a lot about global warming – the lowest percentages in the 15 countries surveyed. Moreover, nearly half of Americans (47%) and somewhat fewer Chinese (37%) express little or no concern about the problem."
A 47-nation poll by Pew Global Attitudes conducted in 2007 found that "Substantial majorities 25 of 37 countries say global warming is a 'very serious' problem".
There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the US. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "while 84% of scientists say the earth is getting warmer because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels, just 49% of the public agrees."
Related controversies
Many of the critics of the consensus view on global warming have disagreed, in whole or part, with the scientific consensus regarding other issues, particularly those relating to environmental risks, such as ozone depletion and passive smoking. Chris Mooney, author of The Republican War on Science, has argued that the appearance of overlapping groups of skeptical scientists, commentators and think tanks in seemingly unrelated controversies results from an organised attempt to replace scientific analysis with political ideology. Mooney claims that the promotion of doubt regarding issues that are politically, but not scientifically, controversial has become increasingly prevalent under the Bush Administration and constitutes a "Republican war on science". This is also the subject of a recent book by Environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. entitled Crimes Against Nature: How George W. Bush and Corporate Pals are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy. Another book on this topic is The Assault on Reason by former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore. Earlier instances of this trend are also covered in the book The Heat Is On by Ross Gelbspan.
Some critics of the scientific consensus on global warming have argued that these issues should not be linked and that reference to them constitutes an unjustified ad hominem attack. Political scientist Roger Pielke, Jr., responding to Mooney, has argued that science is inevitably intertwined with politics.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/
Selasa, 28 Juli 2009
Keep Cool (board game)
Keep Cool is a board game created by Klaus Eisenack and Gerhard Petschel-Held of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and published by the German company Spieltrieb in November 2004. The game can be classified as both a serious game and a global warming game. In Keep Cool, up to six players representing the world's countries compete to balance their own economic interests and the world's climate in a game of negotiation. The goal of the game as stated by the authors is to "promote the general knowledge on climate change and the understanding of difficulties and obstacles, and "to make it available for a board game and still retain the major elements and processes."
Reception
After Keep Cool was released in stores, it was sold out in only four months, prompting a second edition of the game to be released. The game has become very popular in Germany, and the game's creators were surprised at the success. Petschel-Held explained, "With 'Keep Cool,' we've been able to open new channels for dialogue between scientists and the public," and Eisenack commented, "Feedback has revealed surprising insights and exciting discussions about conflicts of interest in climate politics as highlights of Keep Cool." Keep Cool has been used by NGO's, schools, universities, and gaming conventions, besides being used by families and the general public. The German Federal Ministry for the Environment (BMU) has now included Keep Cool as a part of its teaching materials.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/
Global warming game
A global warming games, also known as a climate game or a climate change game, is a type of serious game. As a serious game, it attempts to simulate and explore real life issues to educate players through an interactive experience. The issues particular to a global warming video game are usually energy efficiency and the implementation of green technology as ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and thus counteract global warming. Global warming games also include more traditional board games, video games, as well as other varieties.
Objectives
The primary objectives of global warming games are twofold:
1. To develop the player's familiarity and knowledge of the issue of global warming and related issues
2. To make the player aware of the challenges and obstacles that are faced when addressing global warming
1. Occasionally, the games encourage players to develop ideas and solutions to global warming
The first objective is universal to global warming games. The issues surrounding global warming commonly included are CO2 emissions and the emission of other greenhouse gases, the melting of the polar ice caps, global sea-level rise, natural disasters and massive changes to lifestyles caused by global warming. Games that do not go beyond the objective of knowledge and familiarity tend to be designed for younger audiences. Games designed for young children often only have the goal to engage the children enough to excite their attention to focus on these basic concepts.
The second objective is integrated into games in a variety of ways. Sometimes demonstrating the challenges of confronting global warming are put directly into the style of gameplay, e.g. to demonstrate the difficulty of international cooperation, players are made to represent different countries and are required to negotiate to fulfill game objectives. Other times, the game includes the challenges as a part of the mechanics, e.g. building 'green factories' is more expensive than building 'black factories.'
The final objective is shared by the most interactive and engaging global warming games. Developing solutions to global warming includes two major types of response: mitigation of emissions and global warming's effects, and adaptation to live sustainably in a new climate. Typically players are given a variety of different options so that they may come up with a number of different creative solutions. Sometimes players are even allowed freedom to create their own unique options to integrate into their strategy.
Prominent Examples
LogiCity
LogiCity is an interactive Flash-based virtual-reality based computer game, produced by Logicom and The National Energy Foundation, an English charity. The game is set in a 3D virtual city with five main activities where players are set the task of reducing the carbon footprint of an average resident. The activities comprise:
- a race against time around a virtual reality office switching off equipment left on by careless users;
- finding and selecting energy efficiency and renewable energy options in a home, but with a strictly limited budget;
- answering a quiz about features they have to find in a low energy building;
- taking part in a role playing game to select the best travel options for three generations of a family; and
- choosing a holiday from a virtual travel agents - but with the risk that climate change may have led to unexpected changes at the destination.
As players work their way through the game they attempt to cut their carbon footprint from a typical English figure of 5.5 tonnes to a level of 2.0 tonnes. At the end of the game they are taken forward to 2066 to see if they have done enough to save England from the worst problems associated with global climate change. The game's conclusion and focus on 2066 is designed to bring home to players the reality of the changes they may face in their lifetime.
The game is part of Defra’s (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) Climate Challenge programme to increase public awareness of Climate Change across the country. The National Energy Foundation, Logicom and British Gas also provided support to the game's development. LogiCity is designed to be used both by individuals and in an educational context. It is stated to be suitable for most children from the ages of 10 or 11 upward (English KS3+), although the main target group is young adults aged 16-26.
The game can either be played online or distributed across a network from a CD-ROM. There are no licensing implications as it has been publicly funded, although all PCs being used for the game do need to meet certain technical requirements (notably being PCs not Macs, and using Internet Explorer as a browser), and may require additional software plug-ins to be downloaded (a VRML viewer and a recent version of Flash player).
There has been some criticism that the game is only really applicable to England, due to limitations imposed by its funders, so that it is unlikely to appeal widely in North America. The look and feel of the game concentrates on a near photo-realism for buildings, but the player is disembodied and lacks an avatar. Firefox users are unable to run the game unless they switch to Internet Explorer, and some users have commented that download times for each module can be up to a minute, although this may be overcome by using the CD-ROM implementation. Logicity is on the cover disk of the February edition of PC Gamer magazine.
Stabilization Wedge Game
The Stabilization Wedge Game, or what is commonly referred to as simply the 'Wedge Game', is a serious game produced by Princeton University's Carbon Mitigation Initiative. The goal of the game creators, Stephen Pacala and Robert H. Socolow, is to demonstrate through this game that global warming is a problem which can be solved by implementing today's technologies to reduce CO2 emissions. The object of the game is to keep the next fifty years of CO2 emissions flat, using seven wedges from a variety of different strategies which fit into the stabilization triangle.
Climate Challenge
Climate Challenge is a Flash-based simulation game produced by the BBC and developed by Red Redemption. Players manage the economy and resources of the 'European Nations' as its president, while reducing emissions of CO2 to combat climate change and managing crises. Climate Challenge is an environmental serious game, designed to give players an understanding of the science behind climate change, as well as the options available to policy makers and the difficulties in their implementation.
The Climate Change Game
The Climate Change Game is played by one or two people (sharing the Mouse).Each player is the leader of his/her country, hoping to be re-elected while trying to cope with the effects of climate change and, hopefully, reverse it. You'll make Decisions to change the energies you use or use them in a different way, researching topic in the Glossary. You'll also answer Questions on Climate Change and respond to Natural Events (such as volcanic eruptions) which affect Climate, People's Choices (unpredictable, popular human actions which impact Greenhouse Gas emissions and tax revenues), and economic or political decisions by other countries that affect the level of greenhouse gas emissions. You win “The Climate Change Game” – and your delighted citizens re-elect you - if you can help reduce global Greenhouse Gas emissions to the level required by the Kyoto Protocol AND are not spending more money than people pay in taxes, AND maintain Voter Support of at least 51 percent AND Earth’s Temperature is “comfortable" for life.
V GAS
V GAS is a 3D serious game in which players explore and live in a house that is built to mirror their own. Players begin the game by building a profile including variables such as water use and transportation behaviors, heating and cooling practices, food purchases, and electrical appliance usage. Once the profile has been built, the player can begin the simulation which introduces different scenarios ranging from heat waves to mad cow disease. The player adjusts their lifestyle according to how they would react to these events in real life. All the while, the players' decisions are being measured and recorded, and their overall contribution to N2O, CO2, and CH4 to the atmosphere is measured.
Keep Cool
Keep Cool is a board game created by Klaus Eisenack and Gerhard Petschel-Held of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and published by the German company Spieltrieb in November 2004. The game can be classified as both a serious game and a global warming game. In Keep Cool, up to six players representing the world's countries compete to balance their own economic interests and the world's climate in a game of negotiation. The goal of the game as stated by the authors is to "promote the general knowledge on climate change and the understanding of difficulties and obstacles, and "to make it available for a board game and still retain the major elements and processes."
Winds of Change
The European Climate Forum and Munich Re have launched a climate game called Winds of Change, which is a board game for 2-4 persons. The game illustrates the climate challenge in a playful way and it can be used in team learning, schools, focus groups, etc. It includes several features, which are hotly debated in climate policy-making. These include among others: investments in R&D, technological learning and innovation, de-carbonizing the economy, ocean uptake of CO2, the 2 degrees limit, and insurance against extreme weather events.
Xbox 360 Games for Change Challenge
The Xbox 360 Games for Change Challenge is a collaborative effort between Microsoft and Games for Change (G4C), a subgroup of the Serious Games Initiative. The challenge is a worldwide competition to develop a global warming game with Microsoft's XNA Game Studio Express software. Winners will be awarded scholarships from Games for Change and Microsoft, and the winning games will have the possibility of being available for download on the Xbox LIVE Arcade service. The Xbox 360 Games for Change Challenge has been cast by Microsoft as a "socially-minded" initiative, joining the larger serious games movement. Suzanne Seggerman, a co-founder of Games for Change, shared these comments in a radio interview:
“ Think about how this next generation of kids could be inspired to be environmentalists and humanitarians. You know I'd like to see also, a thousand little game seeds planted. Not all the games are going to get prizes and not even that many are going to get recognized. But think of this new generation of game-makers and game innovators we're reaching. All these kids who've perhaps never even considered the impact of the environment are going to be getting knee deep in environmental issues. That's really exciting. You know kids really respond to this medium of video games in a way they don't to a newspaper or a heavy documentary. And I think that's the key. It's that we're reaching them on their own turf.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/
Objectives
The primary objectives of global warming games are twofold:
1. To develop the player's familiarity and knowledge of the issue of global warming and related issues
2. To make the player aware of the challenges and obstacles that are faced when addressing global warming
1. Occasionally, the games encourage players to develop ideas and solutions to global warming
The first objective is universal to global warming games. The issues surrounding global warming commonly included are CO2 emissions and the emission of other greenhouse gases, the melting of the polar ice caps, global sea-level rise, natural disasters and massive changes to lifestyles caused by global warming. Games that do not go beyond the objective of knowledge and familiarity tend to be designed for younger audiences. Games designed for young children often only have the goal to engage the children enough to excite their attention to focus on these basic concepts.
The second objective is integrated into games in a variety of ways. Sometimes demonstrating the challenges of confronting global warming are put directly into the style of gameplay, e.g. to demonstrate the difficulty of international cooperation, players are made to represent different countries and are required to negotiate to fulfill game objectives. Other times, the game includes the challenges as a part of the mechanics, e.g. building 'green factories' is more expensive than building 'black factories.'
The final objective is shared by the most interactive and engaging global warming games. Developing solutions to global warming includes two major types of response: mitigation of emissions and global warming's effects, and adaptation to live sustainably in a new climate. Typically players are given a variety of different options so that they may come up with a number of different creative solutions. Sometimes players are even allowed freedom to create their own unique options to integrate into their strategy.
Prominent Examples
LogiCity
LogiCity is an interactive Flash-based virtual-reality based computer game, produced by Logicom and The National Energy Foundation, an English charity. The game is set in a 3D virtual city with five main activities where players are set the task of reducing the carbon footprint of an average resident. The activities comprise:
- a race against time around a virtual reality office switching off equipment left on by careless users;
- finding and selecting energy efficiency and renewable energy options in a home, but with a strictly limited budget;
- answering a quiz about features they have to find in a low energy building;
- taking part in a role playing game to select the best travel options for three generations of a family; and
- choosing a holiday from a virtual travel agents - but with the risk that climate change may have led to unexpected changes at the destination.
As players work their way through the game they attempt to cut their carbon footprint from a typical English figure of 5.5 tonnes to a level of 2.0 tonnes. At the end of the game they are taken forward to 2066 to see if they have done enough to save England from the worst problems associated with global climate change. The game's conclusion and focus on 2066 is designed to bring home to players the reality of the changes they may face in their lifetime.
The game is part of Defra’s (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) Climate Challenge programme to increase public awareness of Climate Change across the country. The National Energy Foundation, Logicom and British Gas also provided support to the game's development. LogiCity is designed to be used both by individuals and in an educational context. It is stated to be suitable for most children from the ages of 10 or 11 upward (English KS3+), although the main target group is young adults aged 16-26.
The game can either be played online or distributed across a network from a CD-ROM. There are no licensing implications as it has been publicly funded, although all PCs being used for the game do need to meet certain technical requirements (notably being PCs not Macs, and using Internet Explorer as a browser), and may require additional software plug-ins to be downloaded (a VRML viewer and a recent version of Flash player).
There has been some criticism that the game is only really applicable to England, due to limitations imposed by its funders, so that it is unlikely to appeal widely in North America. The look and feel of the game concentrates on a near photo-realism for buildings, but the player is disembodied and lacks an avatar. Firefox users are unable to run the game unless they switch to Internet Explorer, and some users have commented that download times for each module can be up to a minute, although this may be overcome by using the CD-ROM implementation. Logicity is on the cover disk of the February edition of PC Gamer magazine.
Stabilization Wedge Game
The Stabilization Wedge Game, or what is commonly referred to as simply the 'Wedge Game', is a serious game produced by Princeton University's Carbon Mitigation Initiative. The goal of the game creators, Stephen Pacala and Robert H. Socolow, is to demonstrate through this game that global warming is a problem which can be solved by implementing today's technologies to reduce CO2 emissions. The object of the game is to keep the next fifty years of CO2 emissions flat, using seven wedges from a variety of different strategies which fit into the stabilization triangle.
Climate Challenge
Climate Challenge is a Flash-based simulation game produced by the BBC and developed by Red Redemption. Players manage the economy and resources of the 'European Nations' as its president, while reducing emissions of CO2 to combat climate change and managing crises. Climate Challenge is an environmental serious game, designed to give players an understanding of the science behind climate change, as well as the options available to policy makers and the difficulties in their implementation.
The Climate Change Game
The Climate Change Game is played by one or two people (sharing the Mouse).Each player is the leader of his/her country, hoping to be re-elected while trying to cope with the effects of climate change and, hopefully, reverse it. You'll make Decisions to change the energies you use or use them in a different way, researching topic in the Glossary. You'll also answer Questions on Climate Change and respond to Natural Events (such as volcanic eruptions) which affect Climate, People's Choices (unpredictable, popular human actions which impact Greenhouse Gas emissions and tax revenues), and economic or political decisions by other countries that affect the level of greenhouse gas emissions. You win “The Climate Change Game” – and your delighted citizens re-elect you - if you can help reduce global Greenhouse Gas emissions to the level required by the Kyoto Protocol AND are not spending more money than people pay in taxes, AND maintain Voter Support of at least 51 percent AND Earth’s Temperature is “comfortable" for life.
V GAS
V GAS is a 3D serious game in which players explore and live in a house that is built to mirror their own. Players begin the game by building a profile including variables such as water use and transportation behaviors, heating and cooling practices, food purchases, and electrical appliance usage. Once the profile has been built, the player can begin the simulation which introduces different scenarios ranging from heat waves to mad cow disease. The player adjusts their lifestyle according to how they would react to these events in real life. All the while, the players' decisions are being measured and recorded, and their overall contribution to N2O, CO2, and CH4 to the atmosphere is measured.
Keep Cool
Keep Cool is a board game created by Klaus Eisenack and Gerhard Petschel-Held of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and published by the German company Spieltrieb in November 2004. The game can be classified as both a serious game and a global warming game. In Keep Cool, up to six players representing the world's countries compete to balance their own economic interests and the world's climate in a game of negotiation. The goal of the game as stated by the authors is to "promote the general knowledge on climate change and the understanding of difficulties and obstacles, and "to make it available for a board game and still retain the major elements and processes."
Winds of Change
The European Climate Forum and Munich Re have launched a climate game called Winds of Change, which is a board game for 2-4 persons. The game illustrates the climate challenge in a playful way and it can be used in team learning, schools, focus groups, etc. It includes several features, which are hotly debated in climate policy-making. These include among others: investments in R&D, technological learning and innovation, de-carbonizing the economy, ocean uptake of CO2, the 2 degrees limit, and insurance against extreme weather events.
Xbox 360 Games for Change Challenge
The Xbox 360 Games for Change Challenge is a collaborative effort between Microsoft and Games for Change (G4C), a subgroup of the Serious Games Initiative. The challenge is a worldwide competition to develop a global warming game with Microsoft's XNA Game Studio Express software. Winners will be awarded scholarships from Games for Change and Microsoft, and the winning games will have the possibility of being available for download on the Xbox LIVE Arcade service. The Xbox 360 Games for Change Challenge has been cast by Microsoft as a "socially-minded" initiative, joining the larger serious games movement. Suzanne Seggerman, a co-founder of Games for Change, shared these comments in a radio interview:
“ Think about how this next generation of kids could be inspired to be environmentalists and humanitarians. You know I'd like to see also, a thousand little game seeds planted. Not all the games are going to get prizes and not even that many are going to get recognized. But think of this new generation of game-makers and game innovators we're reaching. All these kids who've perhaps never even considered the impact of the environment are going to be getting knee deep in environmental issues. That's really exciting. You know kids really respond to this medium of video games in a way they don't to a newspaper or a heavy documentary. And I think that's the key. It's that we're reaching them on their own turf.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/
Minggu, 26 Juli 2009
Global Carbon Project
The Global Carbon Project (GCP) was established in 2001. The organisation seeks to quantify global carbon emissions and their causes.
The main object of the group has been to fully understand the carbon cycle. The project has brought together emissions experts and economists to tackle the problem of rising concentrations of greenhouse gases.
The Global Carbon Project works collaboratively with the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme, the World Climate Programme, the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change and Diversitas, under the Earth System Science Partnership.
In late 2006 researchers from the project claimed that carbon dioxide emissions had dramatically increased to a rate of 3.2% annually from 2000. At the time, the chair of the group Dr Mike Raupach stated that "This is a very worrying sign. It indicates that recent efforts to reduce emissions have had virtually no impact on emissions growth and that effective caps are urgently needed,".
Their projections have indicated that we can expect greenhouse gas emissions to occur under the IPCC's worst-case scenario, as CO2 emissions reach 500ppm sometime during the 21 st century.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/
The main object of the group has been to fully understand the carbon cycle. The project has brought together emissions experts and economists to tackle the problem of rising concentrations of greenhouse gases.
The Global Carbon Project works collaboratively with the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme, the World Climate Programme, the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change and Diversitas, under the Earth System Science Partnership.
In late 2006 researchers from the project claimed that carbon dioxide emissions had dramatically increased to a rate of 3.2% annually from 2000. At the time, the chair of the group Dr Mike Raupach stated that "This is a very worrying sign. It indicates that recent efforts to reduce emissions have had virtually no impact on emissions growth and that effective caps are urgently needed,".
Their projections have indicated that we can expect greenhouse gas emissions to occur under the IPCC's worst-case scenario, as CO2 emissions reach 500ppm sometime during the 21 st century.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/
Geoengineering
The modern concept of geoengineering is usually taken to mean proposals to deliberately manipulate the Earth's climate to counteract the effects of global warming from greenhouse gas emissions. The National Academy of Sciences defined geoengineering as "options that would involve large-scale engineering of our environment in order to combat or counteract the effects of changes in atmospheric chemistry."
Some geoengineering techniques are based on carbon sequestration. These seek to reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere directly. These include direct methods (e.g. carbon dioxide air capture) and indirect methods (e.g. ocean iron fertilization). These techniques can be regarded as mitigation of global warming. Alternatively, solar radiation management techniques (e.g. stratospheric sulfur aerosols) do not reduce greenhouse gas concentrations, and can only address the warming effects of carbon dioxide and other gases; they cannot address problems such as ocean acidification, which are expected as a result for rising carbon dioxide levels. Examples of proposed geoengineering techniques include the production of stratospheric sulfur aerosols, which was suggested by Paul Crutzen, and cloud reflectivity enhancement. Most techniques have at least some side effects.
To date, no large-scale geoengineering projects have been undertaken, nor has a consensus been reached that geoengineering is desirable. Some commentators additionally suggest that consideration of geoengineering is unhelpful because it threatens to reduce the political and popular pressure for emissions reduction. Typically, the scientists and engineers proposing geoengineering strategies do not suggest that they are an alternative to emissions control, but rather an accompanying strategy. Some limited tree planting and cool roof projects are already underway, and ocean iron fertilization is at an advanced stage of research, with small scale research trials having been completed.
Definition
Geoengineering is the idea of applying planetary engineering to Earth. Geoengineering would involve the deliberate modification of Earth's environment on a large scale "to suit human needs and promote habitability". Typically, the term is used to describe proposals to counter the effects of human-induced climate change. However, others define it more narrowly as nature-integrated engineering projects. The term geoengineering is distinct from environmental damage and accidental anthropogenic climate change, which are side-effects of human activity, rather than an intended consequence. The global recovery of hydrocarbons from the subsurface using integrated geoscience and engineering technology has been termed 'petroleum geoengineering' as an activity with global impact. . Definitions of the term are not universally accepted.
Background
The field is currently experiencing a surge of interest as it has now become a broadly accepted fact that global warming is both real and dangerous. A degree of urgency in efforts to research and implement potential solutions is based on the historic failure to control emissions, and the possibility that tipping points in the Earth's climate system are close at hand. In particular the Arctic shrinkage is causing accelerated regional warming. Rapid action with geoengineering may be necessary. Other tipping points might be avoided by reducing the impact of global warming in order to stifle positive feedback and prevent the resulting accelerated climate change.
The study of geoengineering is a notably complex discipline, as it requires the collation of knowledge in:
* scientific disciplines including atmospheric chemistry, ecology, meteorology, plant biology
* engineering disciplines including aeronautical engineering, naval architecture, ballistics
* management and control disciplines such as risk management, operational research
Several notable organisations have recently, or are soon to, investigate geoengineering with a view to evaluating its potential. Notably, NASA, the Royal Society, the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, and the UK Parliament, have all held inquiries or contests aimed at discovering and evaluating current knowledge of the subject.
The major environmental organisations such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace have typically been reluctant to endorse geoengineering. Some have argued that any public support for geoengineering may weaken the fragile political consensus to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Proposed projects
Several geo-engineering projects have been proposed. The documentaries Five ways to save the world and La temperature grimpe describe many of the most notable projects. IPCC documents also detail several proposed projects.
Solar radiation management
Solar radiation management (SRM) projects seek to reduce the amount of sunlight hitting the Earth and thus counteract global warming. They do not reduce greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, and thus do not address problems such as ocean acidification caused by these gases. The phenomenon of global dimming is widely-known, and is not necessarily a geoengineering technique, occurring naturally as a result of volcanoes and major forest fires. However, its deliberate manipulation is a tool of the geoengineer.
Solar radiation management projects often have the advantage of speed. Whilst Greenhouse gas remediation offers a comprehensive possible solution to climate change, it does not give instant results; for that, solar radiation management is required.
Techniques that fall into this category include:
* Creating stratospheric sulfur aerosols
* Cool roof – using pale-coloured roofing and paving materials
* Cloud reflectivity enhancement – using fine sea water spray to whiten clouds and increase cloud reflectivity.
* Space sunshade - obstructing solar radiation with space-based mirrors or other structures
Greenhouse gas remediation
Greenhouse gas remediation projects seek to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, and thus tackle the root cause of global warming. They either directly remove greenhouse gases, or alternatively seek to influence natural processes to remove greenhouse gases indirectly. These projects offer a comprehensive solution to the problem of excess greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but they will take many years to work fully. Many projects overlap with carbon capture and storage and carbon sequestration projects, and may not be considered to be geoengineering by all commentators. Techniques in this category include:
* Iron fertilisation of the oceans
* Creating biochar (anaerobic charcoal) and burying it to create terra preta
* Biomass energy with carbon capture and storage
* Carbon air capture to remove carbon dioxide from ambient air
Arctic geoengineering
Various hydrological geoengineering projects aim to change the climate without directly or indirectly removing greenhouse gases, or directly influencing solar radiation. These principally act by limiting Arctic sea ice loss. Keeping the Arctic ice is seen by many commentators as vital, due to its role in the planet's albedo and in keeping methane, which is an important greenhouse gas, locked up in permafrost.
Heat transport
The use of vertical ocean pipes to mix cooler deep water and warmer surface water, has been proposed by James Lovelock.
Justification
The use of geoengineering to tackle climate change is advocated for several specific reasons:
Tipping points and positive feedback
It is argued that climate change has already, or is soon to, pass one or more tipping pointswhere aspects of the climate system may 'tip' from one stable state to another stable state, much like a glass tipping over. When the new stable state is reached, it may trigger or accelerate warming positive feedback effects, such as the collapse of Arctic sea ice triggering the release of methane from permafrost in Siberia. The "nightmare scenario" is that a domino effect will occur, with successive parts of the climate system tipping one after the other, with each change being caused by the previous one and causing the next one. Such a situation will lead to spiralling and potentially sudden climate change.
The precise identity of such "tipping points" is not clear, with scientists taking differing views on whether specific systems are capable of "tipping" and the point at which this "tipping" will occur. An example of a previous tipping point is that which preceded the rapid warming leading up to the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. Once the tipping point is reached, cuts in greenhouse gas emissions will not be able to reverse the change. Depending on the precise nature of the individual system that "tips", positive feedbacks may occur, with warming causing more warming, which causes yet more warming—a runaway global warming event.Therefore, some commentators suggest that more conservative use of resources is not enough to mitigate global warming. Even if all greenhouse emissions suddenly came to a complete halt, the world would continue to be affected for centuries, and further warming may occur due to positive feedback. Conservation of resources and reduction of greenhouse emissions, used in conjunction with geoengineering, are therefore considered a viable option. Geoengineering offers the hope of temporarily reversing some aspects of climate change and allowing the natural climate to be substantially preserved whilst greenhouse gas emissions are brought under control and removed from the atmosphere by natural or artificial processes.
Precautionary principle
Bearing in mind the threats from climate change, it can be argued that attempting geoengineering represents a lesser risk than not pursuing such strategies. While the understanding of geoengineering techniques is limited, the risks of global warming are at least partially understood, and are severe.
Costs
Some geoengineering techniques, such as the use of pale-coloured materials for roofing and paving, can be achieved at little or no cost, and may even offer a financial payback. It is therefore possible to argue that certain implementations of such techniques are preferable to cutting carbon emissions on cost grounds alone.
Political viability
It has been argued that regardless of the economic, scientific and technical aspects, the difficulty of achieving concerted political action on climate change requires other approaches. Those arguing political expediency say the difficulty of achieving meaningful emissions cuts and the effective failure of the Kyoto Protocol demonstrate the practical difficulties of achieving carbon dioxide emissions reduction by the agreement of the international community. However, others point to support for geoengineering proposals among think tanks with a history climate change skepticism and opposition to emissions reductions as evidence that the prospect of geoengineering is itself already politicized and being promoted as part of an argument against the need for (and viability of) emissions reductions; that, rather than geoengineering being a solution to the difficulties of emissions reductions, the prospect of geoengineering is being used as part of an argument to stall emissions reductions in the first place.
Risks and criticisms
Various criticisms have been made of geoengineering. However, the existence of criticism should not be taken to mean that those raising it are opposed to a particular technique, but rather that they are pointing out a potential disadvantage or downside which may need to be monitored or controlled, or may alternatively weigh against a particular technique. Some commentators appear fundamentally opposed, however. Individuals such as Raymond Pierrehumbert have called for a moratorium on geoengineering techniques.
Ineffectiveness
The effectiveness of the schemes proposed may fall short of predictions. In the example of ocean iron fertilization, for example, the amount of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere may be much lower than predicted, as carbon taken up by plankton may be released back into the atmosphere from dead plankton, rather than being carried to the bottom of the sea and sequestered.
Incomplete solution to CO2 emissions
Techniques that do not remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere may control global warming, but do not reduce other effects from these gases, such as ocean acidification. Whilst not an argument against geoengineering per se, this is an argument against reliance on geoengineering to the exclusion of greenhouse gas reduction.
Control and predictability problems
Many members of the scientific and technical communities fear that the full effects of various geoengineering schemes are not well understood. The failure of the ambitious Biosphere 2 facility is one example of a complex project that was unsuccessful because scientists still have a limited understanding of how earth systems work together.
Performance of the systems may become ineffective, unpredictable or unstable as a result of external events, such as volcanic eruptions, phytoplankton blooms, El Niño, solar flares, etc., potentially leading to profound and unpredictable disruption to the climate system.
It may be difficult to predict the effectiveness of projects, with models of techniques giving widely varying results. In the instances of systems which involve tipping points, this may result in irreversible effects. Climate modelling is far from an exact science even when applied to comparatively well-understood natural climate systems, and it is made more complex by the need to understand novel and unnatural processes which by definition lack relevant observation data.
Side effects
The techniques themselves may cause significant foreseen or unforeseen harm. For example, the use of reflective balloons may result in significant litter, which may be harmful to wildlife.
Ozone depletion is a risk of some geoengineering techniques, notably those involving sulfur delivery into the stratosphere.
The active nature of geoengineering may in some cases create a clear division between winners and losers. Most of the proposed interventions are regional, such as albedo modification in the Arctic. Necessarily, such interventions compel those in the affected regions to tolerate the effects of geoengineering for the supposed benefit of the global climate.
There may be unintended climatic consequences, such as changes to the hydrological cycle including droughts or floods, caused by the geoengineering techniques, but possibly not predicted by the models used to plan them. Such effects may be cumulative or chaotic in nature, making prediction and control very difficult.
Unreliable systems
The performance of the interventions may be inconsistent due to mechanical failure, non-availability of consumables or funding problems.
The geoengineering techniques would, in many instances, be vulnerable to being switched off or deliberately destroyed. As examples, cloud making ships could be switched off or sunk and space mirrors could be tilted to make them useless. Anyone capable of exerting such power may seek to abuse it for commercial gain, military advantage or simple terrorism.
Weaponisation
Weaponisation of geoengineering techniques is generally prohibited by the Environmental Modification Convention. However, this does not eliminate the risk. Geoengineering techniques may be used as a weapon of mass destruction, creating droughts or famines designed to destroy or disable an enemy. They could also be used simply to make battlefield conditions more favourable to one side or the other in a war (such as in Operation Popeye). For example, laser-guided weapons are confounded by clouds, and thus switching off cloud machines would favour forces using such weapons, and switching them on would favour ground forces defending against them.
Whilst laws or treaties may prevent the manipulation of the climate as a weapon of war, it could be argued that geoengineering is itself a manipulation, and thus destroying or disabling the geoengineering structures is not prohibited. A new legal framework may be necessary in the event that large-scale geoengineering becomes established.
Despite the capacity of the military-industrial complex to investigate and deploy geoengineering, their involvement has proved controversial. Carnegie’s Ken Caldeira said, "It will make it harder to achieve broad consensus on developing and governing these technologies if there is suspicion that gaining military advantage is an underlying motivation for its development.."
Effect on sunlight, sky and clouds
Managing solar radiation using aerosols or cloud cover will change the ratio between direct and indirect solar radiation. This may affect plant life and solar energy. There will be a significant effect on the appearance of the sky from aerosol projects, notably a hazing of blue skies and a change in the appearance of sunsets. Aerosols may affect the formation of clouds, especially cirrus clouds.
Moral hazard
The existence of such techniques may reduce the political and social impetus to reduce carbon emissions.
Other criticism comes from those who see geoengineering projects as reacting to the symptoms of global warming rather than addressing the real causes of climate change. Because geoengineering is a form of controlling the risks associated with global warming, it leads to a moral hazard problem. The problem is that knowledge that geoengineering is possible could lead to climate impacts seeming less fearsome, which could in turn lead to a weaker commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Lack of global control
Geoengineering opens up various political and economic issues. David Keith argues that the cost of geoengineering the Earth is within the realm of small countries, large corporations, or even very wealthy individuals. Steve Rayner agrees that not all geoengineering possibilities are expensive, and that some, such as ocean iron fertilisation, are within the reach of very wealthy individuals, calling them a "Greenfinger" (after the fictional Goldfinger) David Victor suggests that geoengineering is within the reach of any individual who has a small fraction of the bank account of Bill Gates, who takes it upon him or her self to be the "self-appointed protector of the planet".
This effectively eliminates any control over who gets to decide when to cool the Earth and how often this should be done. The resulting power would be enormous, and could not necessarily be readily controlled by legal, political or regulatory systems. These legal and regulatory systems may themselves be far less powerful than the geoengineers controlling the climate become.
It is quite feasible for carbon offsetting firms to set up unregulated, unsupervised and dangerous geoengineering projects. This may be done in order to sell carbon credits to individuals and firms.
Geoengineering schemes have the potential to cause significant environmental damage, and may even end up releasing further greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Opposition to some early schemes has been intense, with respected environmental groups campaigning against them.
Implementation issues
There is no general consensus that geoengineering is safe, appropriate or effective, for the reasons listed above. The issue of moral hazard means that many environmental groups and campaigners are reluctant to advocate geoengineering for fear of reducing the imperative to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Other environmentalists see calls for geoengineering as part of an explicit strategy to delay emissions reductions on the part of those with connections to coal and oil industries.
All proposed geoengineering techniques require implementation on a relatively large scale, in order to make a significant difference to the Earth's climate. The least costly schemes are budgeted at a cost of millions, with many more complex schemes such as space sunshade costing far more.
Many techniques, again such as space sunshade, require a complex technical development process before they are ready to be implemented. There is no clear institutional mechanism for handling this research and development process. As a result, many promising techniques do not have the engineering development or experimental evidence to determine their feasibility or efficacy at present.
Once a technique has been developed and tested, its implementation is still likely to be difficult. Climate change is by nature a global problem, and therefore no one institution, company or government is responsible for it. The substantial costs of most geoengineering techniques therefore cannot currently be apportioned. Roll-out of such technologies is therefore likely to be delayed until these issues can be resolved. A notable exception is the use of small albedo manipulation projects, known as cool roof, in which the colour of roofing or paving surfaces can be manipulated to reflect solar radiation back into space. These can be, and are, implemented by individuals, companies and governments without controversy.
Due to the radical changes caused by geoengineering interventions, legal issues are also an impediment to implementation. The changes resulting from geoengineering necessarily benefit some people and disadvantage others. There may therefore be legal challenges to the implementation of geoengineering techniques by those adversely affected by them.
Evaluation of geoengineering
Few field experiments in geoengineering have been carried out. Most of what is known about the suggested techniques is based on simulations from global climate models and other computer modelling techniques. Some techniques are based on natural phenomena such as stratospheric sulfur aerosols and cloud condensation nuclei, the properties of which are already understood from other research, such as that following the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo.
Evaluation of the relative merits of each technology is difficult, especially bearing in mind the difficulties of modelling and the lack of engineering development of many ideas.
A study by Lenton and Vaughan evaluated various techniques and determined that some were capable of reversing the warming effect of a doubling of the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere when compared to pre-industrial levels.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/
Some geoengineering techniques are based on carbon sequestration. These seek to reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere directly. These include direct methods (e.g. carbon dioxide air capture) and indirect methods (e.g. ocean iron fertilization). These techniques can be regarded as mitigation of global warming. Alternatively, solar radiation management techniques (e.g. stratospheric sulfur aerosols) do not reduce greenhouse gas concentrations, and can only address the warming effects of carbon dioxide and other gases; they cannot address problems such as ocean acidification, which are expected as a result for rising carbon dioxide levels. Examples of proposed geoengineering techniques include the production of stratospheric sulfur aerosols, which was suggested by Paul Crutzen, and cloud reflectivity enhancement. Most techniques have at least some side effects.
To date, no large-scale geoengineering projects have been undertaken, nor has a consensus been reached that geoengineering is desirable. Some commentators additionally suggest that consideration of geoengineering is unhelpful because it threatens to reduce the political and popular pressure for emissions reduction. Typically, the scientists and engineers proposing geoengineering strategies do not suggest that they are an alternative to emissions control, but rather an accompanying strategy. Some limited tree planting and cool roof projects are already underway, and ocean iron fertilization is at an advanced stage of research, with small scale research trials having been completed.
Definition
Geoengineering is the idea of applying planetary engineering to Earth. Geoengineering would involve the deliberate modification of Earth's environment on a large scale "to suit human needs and promote habitability". Typically, the term is used to describe proposals to counter the effects of human-induced climate change. However, others define it more narrowly as nature-integrated engineering projects. The term geoengineering is distinct from environmental damage and accidental anthropogenic climate change, which are side-effects of human activity, rather than an intended consequence. The global recovery of hydrocarbons from the subsurface using integrated geoscience and engineering technology has been termed 'petroleum geoengineering' as an activity with global impact. . Definitions of the term are not universally accepted.
Background
The field is currently experiencing a surge of interest as it has now become a broadly accepted fact that global warming is both real and dangerous. A degree of urgency in efforts to research and implement potential solutions is based on the historic failure to control emissions, and the possibility that tipping points in the Earth's climate system are close at hand. In particular the Arctic shrinkage is causing accelerated regional warming. Rapid action with geoengineering may be necessary. Other tipping points might be avoided by reducing the impact of global warming in order to stifle positive feedback and prevent the resulting accelerated climate change.
The study of geoengineering is a notably complex discipline, as it requires the collation of knowledge in:
* scientific disciplines including atmospheric chemistry, ecology, meteorology, plant biology
* engineering disciplines including aeronautical engineering, naval architecture, ballistics
* management and control disciplines such as risk management, operational research
Several notable organisations have recently, or are soon to, investigate geoengineering with a view to evaluating its potential. Notably, NASA, the Royal Society, the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, and the UK Parliament, have all held inquiries or contests aimed at discovering and evaluating current knowledge of the subject.
The major environmental organisations such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace have typically been reluctant to endorse geoengineering. Some have argued that any public support for geoengineering may weaken the fragile political consensus to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Proposed projects
Several geo-engineering projects have been proposed. The documentaries Five ways to save the world and La temperature grimpe describe many of the most notable projects. IPCC documents also detail several proposed projects.
Solar radiation management
Solar radiation management (SRM) projects seek to reduce the amount of sunlight hitting the Earth and thus counteract global warming. They do not reduce greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, and thus do not address problems such as ocean acidification caused by these gases. The phenomenon of global dimming is widely-known, and is not necessarily a geoengineering technique, occurring naturally as a result of volcanoes and major forest fires. However, its deliberate manipulation is a tool of the geoengineer.
Solar radiation management projects often have the advantage of speed. Whilst Greenhouse gas remediation offers a comprehensive possible solution to climate change, it does not give instant results; for that, solar radiation management is required.
Techniques that fall into this category include:
* Creating stratospheric sulfur aerosols
* Cool roof – using pale-coloured roofing and paving materials
* Cloud reflectivity enhancement – using fine sea water spray to whiten clouds and increase cloud reflectivity.
* Space sunshade - obstructing solar radiation with space-based mirrors or other structures
Greenhouse gas remediation
Greenhouse gas remediation projects seek to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, and thus tackle the root cause of global warming. They either directly remove greenhouse gases, or alternatively seek to influence natural processes to remove greenhouse gases indirectly. These projects offer a comprehensive solution to the problem of excess greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but they will take many years to work fully. Many projects overlap with carbon capture and storage and carbon sequestration projects, and may not be considered to be geoengineering by all commentators. Techniques in this category include:
* Iron fertilisation of the oceans
* Creating biochar (anaerobic charcoal) and burying it to create terra preta
* Biomass energy with carbon capture and storage
* Carbon air capture to remove carbon dioxide from ambient air
Arctic geoengineering
Various hydrological geoengineering projects aim to change the climate without directly or indirectly removing greenhouse gases, or directly influencing solar radiation. These principally act by limiting Arctic sea ice loss. Keeping the Arctic ice is seen by many commentators as vital, due to its role in the planet's albedo and in keeping methane, which is an important greenhouse gas, locked up in permafrost.
Heat transport
The use of vertical ocean pipes to mix cooler deep water and warmer surface water, has been proposed by James Lovelock.
Justification
The use of geoengineering to tackle climate change is advocated for several specific reasons:
Tipping points and positive feedback
It is argued that climate change has already, or is soon to, pass one or more tipping pointswhere aspects of the climate system may 'tip' from one stable state to another stable state, much like a glass tipping over. When the new stable state is reached, it may trigger or accelerate warming positive feedback effects, such as the collapse of Arctic sea ice triggering the release of methane from permafrost in Siberia. The "nightmare scenario" is that a domino effect will occur, with successive parts of the climate system tipping one after the other, with each change being caused by the previous one and causing the next one. Such a situation will lead to spiralling and potentially sudden climate change.
The precise identity of such "tipping points" is not clear, with scientists taking differing views on whether specific systems are capable of "tipping" and the point at which this "tipping" will occur. An example of a previous tipping point is that which preceded the rapid warming leading up to the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. Once the tipping point is reached, cuts in greenhouse gas emissions will not be able to reverse the change. Depending on the precise nature of the individual system that "tips", positive feedbacks may occur, with warming causing more warming, which causes yet more warming—a runaway global warming event.Therefore, some commentators suggest that more conservative use of resources is not enough to mitigate global warming. Even if all greenhouse emissions suddenly came to a complete halt, the world would continue to be affected for centuries, and further warming may occur due to positive feedback. Conservation of resources and reduction of greenhouse emissions, used in conjunction with geoengineering, are therefore considered a viable option. Geoengineering offers the hope of temporarily reversing some aspects of climate change and allowing the natural climate to be substantially preserved whilst greenhouse gas emissions are brought under control and removed from the atmosphere by natural or artificial processes.
Precautionary principle
Bearing in mind the threats from climate change, it can be argued that attempting geoengineering represents a lesser risk than not pursuing such strategies. While the understanding of geoengineering techniques is limited, the risks of global warming are at least partially understood, and are severe.
Costs
Some geoengineering techniques, such as the use of pale-coloured materials for roofing and paving, can be achieved at little or no cost, and may even offer a financial payback. It is therefore possible to argue that certain implementations of such techniques are preferable to cutting carbon emissions on cost grounds alone.
Political viability
It has been argued that regardless of the economic, scientific and technical aspects, the difficulty of achieving concerted political action on climate change requires other approaches. Those arguing political expediency say the difficulty of achieving meaningful emissions cuts and the effective failure of the Kyoto Protocol demonstrate the practical difficulties of achieving carbon dioxide emissions reduction by the agreement of the international community. However, others point to support for geoengineering proposals among think tanks with a history climate change skepticism and opposition to emissions reductions as evidence that the prospect of geoengineering is itself already politicized and being promoted as part of an argument against the need for (and viability of) emissions reductions; that, rather than geoengineering being a solution to the difficulties of emissions reductions, the prospect of geoengineering is being used as part of an argument to stall emissions reductions in the first place.
Risks and criticisms
Various criticisms have been made of geoengineering. However, the existence of criticism should not be taken to mean that those raising it are opposed to a particular technique, but rather that they are pointing out a potential disadvantage or downside which may need to be monitored or controlled, or may alternatively weigh against a particular technique. Some commentators appear fundamentally opposed, however. Individuals such as Raymond Pierrehumbert have called for a moratorium on geoengineering techniques.
Ineffectiveness
The effectiveness of the schemes proposed may fall short of predictions. In the example of ocean iron fertilization, for example, the amount of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere may be much lower than predicted, as carbon taken up by plankton may be released back into the atmosphere from dead plankton, rather than being carried to the bottom of the sea and sequestered.
Incomplete solution to CO2 emissions
Techniques that do not remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere may control global warming, but do not reduce other effects from these gases, such as ocean acidification. Whilst not an argument against geoengineering per se, this is an argument against reliance on geoengineering to the exclusion of greenhouse gas reduction.
Control and predictability problems
Many members of the scientific and technical communities fear that the full effects of various geoengineering schemes are not well understood. The failure of the ambitious Biosphere 2 facility is one example of a complex project that was unsuccessful because scientists still have a limited understanding of how earth systems work together.
Performance of the systems may become ineffective, unpredictable or unstable as a result of external events, such as volcanic eruptions, phytoplankton blooms, El Niño, solar flares, etc., potentially leading to profound and unpredictable disruption to the climate system.
It may be difficult to predict the effectiveness of projects, with models of techniques giving widely varying results. In the instances of systems which involve tipping points, this may result in irreversible effects. Climate modelling is far from an exact science even when applied to comparatively well-understood natural climate systems, and it is made more complex by the need to understand novel and unnatural processes which by definition lack relevant observation data.
Side effects
The techniques themselves may cause significant foreseen or unforeseen harm. For example, the use of reflective balloons may result in significant litter, which may be harmful to wildlife.
Ozone depletion is a risk of some geoengineering techniques, notably those involving sulfur delivery into the stratosphere.
The active nature of geoengineering may in some cases create a clear division between winners and losers. Most of the proposed interventions are regional, such as albedo modification in the Arctic. Necessarily, such interventions compel those in the affected regions to tolerate the effects of geoengineering for the supposed benefit of the global climate.
There may be unintended climatic consequences, such as changes to the hydrological cycle including droughts or floods, caused by the geoengineering techniques, but possibly not predicted by the models used to plan them. Such effects may be cumulative or chaotic in nature, making prediction and control very difficult.
Unreliable systems
The performance of the interventions may be inconsistent due to mechanical failure, non-availability of consumables or funding problems.
The geoengineering techniques would, in many instances, be vulnerable to being switched off or deliberately destroyed. As examples, cloud making ships could be switched off or sunk and space mirrors could be tilted to make them useless. Anyone capable of exerting such power may seek to abuse it for commercial gain, military advantage or simple terrorism.
Weaponisation
Weaponisation of geoengineering techniques is generally prohibited by the Environmental Modification Convention. However, this does not eliminate the risk. Geoengineering techniques may be used as a weapon of mass destruction, creating droughts or famines designed to destroy or disable an enemy. They could also be used simply to make battlefield conditions more favourable to one side or the other in a war (such as in Operation Popeye). For example, laser-guided weapons are confounded by clouds, and thus switching off cloud machines would favour forces using such weapons, and switching them on would favour ground forces defending against them.
Whilst laws or treaties may prevent the manipulation of the climate as a weapon of war, it could be argued that geoengineering is itself a manipulation, and thus destroying or disabling the geoengineering structures is not prohibited. A new legal framework may be necessary in the event that large-scale geoengineering becomes established.
Despite the capacity of the military-industrial complex to investigate and deploy geoengineering, their involvement has proved controversial. Carnegie’s Ken Caldeira said, "It will make it harder to achieve broad consensus on developing and governing these technologies if there is suspicion that gaining military advantage is an underlying motivation for its development.."
Effect on sunlight, sky and clouds
Managing solar radiation using aerosols or cloud cover will change the ratio between direct and indirect solar radiation. This may affect plant life and solar energy. There will be a significant effect on the appearance of the sky from aerosol projects, notably a hazing of blue skies and a change in the appearance of sunsets. Aerosols may affect the formation of clouds, especially cirrus clouds.
Moral hazard
The existence of such techniques may reduce the political and social impetus to reduce carbon emissions.
Other criticism comes from those who see geoengineering projects as reacting to the symptoms of global warming rather than addressing the real causes of climate change. Because geoengineering is a form of controlling the risks associated with global warming, it leads to a moral hazard problem. The problem is that knowledge that geoengineering is possible could lead to climate impacts seeming less fearsome, which could in turn lead to a weaker commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Lack of global control
Geoengineering opens up various political and economic issues. David Keith argues that the cost of geoengineering the Earth is within the realm of small countries, large corporations, or even very wealthy individuals. Steve Rayner agrees that not all geoengineering possibilities are expensive, and that some, such as ocean iron fertilisation, are within the reach of very wealthy individuals, calling them a "Greenfinger" (after the fictional Goldfinger) David Victor suggests that geoengineering is within the reach of any individual who has a small fraction of the bank account of Bill Gates, who takes it upon him or her self to be the "self-appointed protector of the planet".
This effectively eliminates any control over who gets to decide when to cool the Earth and how often this should be done. The resulting power would be enormous, and could not necessarily be readily controlled by legal, political or regulatory systems. These legal and regulatory systems may themselves be far less powerful than the geoengineers controlling the climate become.
It is quite feasible for carbon offsetting firms to set up unregulated, unsupervised and dangerous geoengineering projects. This may be done in order to sell carbon credits to individuals and firms.
Geoengineering schemes have the potential to cause significant environmental damage, and may even end up releasing further greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Opposition to some early schemes has been intense, with respected environmental groups campaigning against them.
Implementation issues
There is no general consensus that geoengineering is safe, appropriate or effective, for the reasons listed above. The issue of moral hazard means that many environmental groups and campaigners are reluctant to advocate geoengineering for fear of reducing the imperative to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Other environmentalists see calls for geoengineering as part of an explicit strategy to delay emissions reductions on the part of those with connections to coal and oil industries.
All proposed geoengineering techniques require implementation on a relatively large scale, in order to make a significant difference to the Earth's climate. The least costly schemes are budgeted at a cost of millions, with many more complex schemes such as space sunshade costing far more.
Many techniques, again such as space sunshade, require a complex technical development process before they are ready to be implemented. There is no clear institutional mechanism for handling this research and development process. As a result, many promising techniques do not have the engineering development or experimental evidence to determine their feasibility or efficacy at present.
Once a technique has been developed and tested, its implementation is still likely to be difficult. Climate change is by nature a global problem, and therefore no one institution, company or government is responsible for it. The substantial costs of most geoengineering techniques therefore cannot currently be apportioned. Roll-out of such technologies is therefore likely to be delayed until these issues can be resolved. A notable exception is the use of small albedo manipulation projects, known as cool roof, in which the colour of roofing or paving surfaces can be manipulated to reflect solar radiation back into space. These can be, and are, implemented by individuals, companies and governments without controversy.
Due to the radical changes caused by geoengineering interventions, legal issues are also an impediment to implementation. The changes resulting from geoengineering necessarily benefit some people and disadvantage others. There may therefore be legal challenges to the implementation of geoengineering techniques by those adversely affected by them.
Evaluation of geoengineering
Few field experiments in geoengineering have been carried out. Most of what is known about the suggested techniques is based on simulations from global climate models and other computer modelling techniques. Some techniques are based on natural phenomena such as stratospheric sulfur aerosols and cloud condensation nuclei, the properties of which are already understood from other research, such as that following the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo.
Evaluation of the relative merits of each technology is difficult, especially bearing in mind the difficulties of modelling and the lack of engineering development of many ideas.
A study by Lenton and Vaughan evaluated various techniques and determined that some were capable of reversing the warming effect of a doubling of the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere when compared to pre-industrial levels.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/
Jumat, 17 Juli 2009
Environment of China
This article documents the environment of mainland People's Republic of China. One of the serious negative consequences of the People's Republic of China's rapid industrial development has been increased pollution, smog, and degradation of natural resources. Much solid waste is not properly disposed of. Water pollution is a source of health problems across the country, and air pollution causes up to 1,750,000 premature deaths each year. China's polluted environment is largely a result of the country's rapid development and consequently a large increase in primary energy consumption, which is primarily provided by coal power plants. China has pursued a development model which prioritizes exports-led growth (similar to many other East Asian countries). Forbes Magazine reports that all 10 of the 10 most polluted cities in the world are in China.
Nevertheless, China has achieved some significant improvements to its environment during the recent years. According to the World Bank, 'China is one of a few countries in the world that have been rapidly increasing their forest cover. It is managing to reduce air and water pollution.'
As part of US$498 billion economic stimulus package of November 2008 (the largest in China's history), the government plans to enhance sewage and rubbish treatment facilities and prevent water pollution, accelerate green belt and natural forest planting programs, and increase energy conservation initiatives and pollution control projects.
Environmental issues
Efforts to control China's pollution problem have become a top priority of the Chinese leadership. In March 1998, the State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA) was officially upgraded to a ministry-level agency, reflecting the growing importance the PRC Government places on environmental protection. Beginning in 2006, the government greatly expanded expenses into environmental protection, and a series of new laws have been passed. Enforcement of these laws is also being expanded. The PRC has strengthened its environmental legislation and made some progress in stemming environmental deterioration. During the 11th 5-Year Plan (2006-2010), the PRC plans to reduce total emissions by 10% and bring China's energy efficiency up by 20%. Beijing in particular is investing heavily in pollution control as part of its campaign to host a successful Olympiad in 2008. Some cities have seen improvement in air quality in recent years. In the first half of 2007, China's total energy consumption per unit of output improved by 2.8% and China's sulfur dioxide emissions fell by 0.6%, showing that these new measures have the potential to slow down pollution growth.
Since 2002, the number of complaints to the environmental authorities has increased by 30% every year, reaching 600,000 in 2004; while the number of mass protests caused by environmental issues has grown by 29% every year.
The Xinhua News Agency has quoted an environmental official, Wang Jinnan, as saying that more than 410,000 Chinese die as a result of pollution each year. The Financial Times said a World Bank report, entitled Cost of Pollution in China, (prepared with the cooperation of the State Environmental Protection Agency) found up to 760,000 people die prematurely each year in China because of air and water pollution. High levels of air pollution in China's cities leads to 350,000-400,000 premature deaths, it said. Another 300,000 die because of indoor air of poor quality. The newspaper article, quoting World Bank advisers and Chinese officials, also said that the report omitted research showing that there are 60,000 premature deaths each year because of water of poor quality.
The Chinese government has placed a greater concern on environmental issues since the early 21st century. In 2004, the central government instituted the Green Gross Domestic Product project, in order to determine the true gross domestic product, adjusted to compensate for negative environmental effects. The results were so much worse than projected that the program was suspended entirely in 2007. In 2005, the eleventh five-year plan contained special emphasis on the nation's environmental degradation. In his annual address in 2007, premier Wen Jiabao made 48 references to "environment," "pollution," or "environmental protection."In addition, the Chinese government attempted to hold national "No Car Days" throughout nearly 100 cities, including Beijing, in which cars would be banned on central roads. However, it was largely ignored.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/
Energy and Environment
Energy and Environment describes itself as "an interdisciplinary journal aimed at natural scientists, technologists and the international social science and policy communities covering the direct and indirect environmental impacts of energy acquisition, transport, production and use." The journal's publisher is Multi-Science and its editor since 1996 is Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, who is a former Reader in Geography at the University of Hull in England and writer on the political and policy aspects of climate change. The journal's editorial advisory board has 20 members, including 11 professors and 5 other PhDs in 2008.
Energy and Environment ("E&E") has been published since 1989. People who have published in this journal include Richard Tol, and Gary Yohe. The journal is not listed in the ISI's Journal Citation Reports indexing service for academic journals, although it is included in Scopus, which lists it as a trade journal, with coverage from 1995. According to the WorldCat.org database, the journal can be found at 39 libraries worldwide, at universities and the library of congress.
The journal's peer-review process has at times been criticised for publishing substandard papers. Roger A. Pielke (Jr), who published a paper on hurricane mitigation in the journal, said in a post answering a question on Nature's blog in May about peer-reviewed references and why he published in E&E: "...had we known then how that outlet would evolve beyond 1999 we certainly wouldn't have published there. The journal is not carried in the ISI and thus its papers rarely cited. (Then we thought it soon would be.) We were invited to submit a piece in 1997 or 1998 and we had this in prep and sent it in."
People considered climate skeptics or contrarians, including Sallie Baliunas, Ian Castles, Bjorn Lomborg, Patrick Michaels, Ross McKitrick, Stephen McIntyre, Roger Pielke Jr. and Willie Soon, have published in the journal. Skeptics on the journal's editorial staff include Boehmer-Christiansen herself and anthropologist Benny Peiser. Some of the journal's articles opposing the scientific consensus on climate change have been quoted by policy makers known to be skeptical of the subject, such as U.S. Senator James Inhofe and U.S. Congressman Joe Barton. When asked about the publication of these papers Boehmer-Christiansen replied, "I'm following my political agenda -- a bit, anyway. But isn't that the right of the editor?"
The publication's ISSN is 0958-305X and OCLC is 21187549.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/
Energy and Environment ("E&E") has been published since 1989. People who have published in this journal include Richard Tol, and Gary Yohe. The journal is not listed in the ISI's Journal Citation Reports indexing service for academic journals, although it is included in Scopus, which lists it as a trade journal, with coverage from 1995. According to the WorldCat.org database, the journal can be found at 39 libraries worldwide, at universities and the library of congress.
The journal's peer-review process has at times been criticised for publishing substandard papers. Roger A. Pielke (Jr), who published a paper on hurricane mitigation in the journal, said in a post answering a question on Nature's blog in May about peer-reviewed references and why he published in E&E: "...had we known then how that outlet would evolve beyond 1999 we certainly wouldn't have published there. The journal is not carried in the ISI and thus its papers rarely cited. (Then we thought it soon would be.) We were invited to submit a piece in 1997 or 1998 and we had this in prep and sent it in."
People considered climate skeptics or contrarians, including Sallie Baliunas, Ian Castles, Bjorn Lomborg, Patrick Michaels, Ross McKitrick, Stephen McIntyre, Roger Pielke Jr. and Willie Soon, have published in the journal. Skeptics on the journal's editorial staff include Boehmer-Christiansen herself and anthropologist Benny Peiser. Some of the journal's articles opposing the scientific consensus on climate change have been quoted by policy makers known to be skeptical of the subject, such as U.S. Senator James Inhofe and U.S. Congressman Joe Barton. When asked about the publication of these papers Boehmer-Christiansen replied, "I'm following my political agenda -- a bit, anyway. But isn't that the right of the editor?"
The publication's ISSN is 0958-305X and OCLC is 21187549.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/
Rabu, 15 Juli 2009
Economics of global warming
The economics of global warming refers to the projected size and distribution of the economic costs and benefits of global warming, and to the economic impacts of actions aimed at the mitigation of global warming. Estimates come from a variety of sources, including integrated assessment models, which seek to combine socio-economic and biophysical assessments of climate change.
At an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) conference in April 2007, delegates from 120 nations discussed the specific economic and societal costs of mitigating global warming, and eventually approved the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
Projections of climate change
Integrated assessment models provide different projections as to the amount of future climate change. The IPCC have produced a report (SRES) where a number of different future scenarios are described. The scenarios differ in whether the future will be:
* 'more environmental' (scenarios with the 'B' prefix) or 'market-oriented' (scenarios with the 'A' prefix)
* 'more global' (scenarios with the '1' suffix) or 'more regional' (scenarios with the '2' suffix)
Forecasts of changes in global mean temperature for these scenarios are given in the IPCC report.The 'best estimate' global mean temperature increase (2090 to 2099 relative to the period 1980-1999) for these scenarios range from 1.8 degrees Celsius for the B1 scenario, to 4.0 degrees Celsius for the A1FI scenario. The 'likely' range (greater than 66% probability) over the same period for all the SRES scenarios is a global mean temperature increase of between 1.1 to 6.4 degrees Celsius.
A 2009 study by the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change looked at future predictions of climate change.According to this study, there is a 57% likelihood of exceeding a 5 degrees Celsius increase in global mean temperature by 2100 (relative to the base years of 1981 to 2000). This is the 'no policy' estimate. In the 'policy' estimate, where greenhouse gas emissions are controlled to relatively low levels, the likeliest increase in global mean temperature for the same period is between 2 and 2.5 degrees Celsius.
According to a 2008 study by the Hadley Centre, for a 'business-as-usual' increase in global greenhouse gas emissions of 132% (from 1990 emission levels) by 2050, the rise in global mean temperature will be between 5.5 and 7.1 degrees Celsius (relative to pre-industrial levels) by 2100.In this estimate, the likeliest increase in global mean temperature is 5.5 degrees Celsius (50% chance of occurring), and the the worst case increase in global mean temperature is 7.1 degrees Celsius (10% chance of occurring). The Hadley Centre study also looked at other emissions scenarios. In a scenario where there is an early and rapid decline in emissions (a 47% decrease from 1990 emission levels by 2050), global mean temperature is predicted to rise 2.1 to 2.8 degrees Celsius by 2100. For this scenario, 2.1 degrees Celsius is the likeliest increase in global mean temperature (50% chance of occurring), and 2.8 degrees Celsius the worst case increase in global mean temperature (10% chance of occurring).
Economic impacts of global warming
Aggregate impacts
The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, published in 2007, looked at the aggregate economic impacts of climate change:
to impose net annual costs, which will increase over time as global temperatures increase. Peer-reviewed estimates of the social cost of carbon in 2005 average US$12 per tonne of CO2, but the range from 100 estimates is large (-$3 to $95/tCO2). This is due in large part to differences in assumptions regarding climate sensitivity, response lags, the treatment of risk and equity, economic and non-economic impacts, the inclusion of potentially catastrophic losses and discount rates. Aggregate estimates of costs mask significant differences in impacts across sectors, regions and populations and very likely underestimate damage costs because they cannot include many non-quantifiable impacts.
Aggregate impacts have also been quantified in other metrics: for example, climate change over the next century is likely to adversely affect hundreds of millions of people through increased coastal flooding, reductions in water supplies, increased malnutrition and increased health impacts.
According to the IPCC Report, with medium confidence (around 5/10 chance of being correct): 'aggregate market sector impacts of 2°C global mean temperature increase, above the 1990 level, will be plus or minus a few percent of global GDP, with most people in the world negatively affected. Studies of aggregate economic impacts found net damages beyond temperature increases of 2 to 3°C above 1990 levels, with increasing damages at higher magnitudes of climate change.' The Report adds that: 'On balance, the current generation of aggregate estimates in the literature is more likely than not to understate the actual costs of climate change.'
The Copenhagen Consensus
As part of the 2004 Copenhagen Consensus on the economics of global warming, Professor Robert O. Mendelsohn of Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, stated that:
A series of studies on the impacts of climate change have systematically shown that the older literature overestimated climate damages by failing to allow for adaptation and for climate benefits (see Fankhauser et al. 1997; Mendelsohn and Newmann 1999; Tol 1999; Mendelsohn et al. 2000; Mendelsohn 2001;Maddison 2001; Tol 2002; Sohngen et al. 2002; Pearce 2003; Mendelsohn and Williams 2004). These new studies imply that impacts depend heavily upon initial temperatures (latitude). Countries in the polar region are likely to receive large benefits from warming, countries in the mid-latitudes will at first benefit and only begin to be harmed if temperatures rise above 2.5C (Mendelsohn et al. 2000). Only countries in the tropical and subtropical regions are likely to be harmed immediately by warming and be subject to the magnitudes of impacts first thought likely (Mendelsohn et al. 2000). Summing these regional impacts across the globe implies that warming benefits and damages will likely offset each other until warming passes 2.5C and even then it will be far smaller on net than originally thought (Mendelsohn and Williams 2004)."
The Stern Review
The Stern Review is a 2006 reportby the former Chief Economist and Senior Vice-President of the World Bank, Nicholas Stern, which predicts that climate change will have a serious impact on economic growth without mitigation.The report suggests that an investment of one percent of global GDP is required to mitigate the effects of climate change, with failure to do so risking a recession worth up to twenty percent of global GDP.
In the Stern Review, net monetised cost estimates of climate change were negative (i.e., net damages) for all global mean temperature increases. The Review has been criticized by some economists, saying that Stern did not consider costs past 2200, that he used an incorrect discount rate in his calculations, and that stopping or significantly slowing climate change will require deep emission cuts everywhere.
Some economists have supported Stern's approach, or argued that Stern's estimates are reasonable, even if the method by which he reached them is open to criticism. Research by Weitzman has suggested that structural uncertainty and low-probability high-impact risks are very important, and that "the influence on cost-benefit analysis of fat-tailed structural uncertainty about climate change, coupled with great unsureness about high-temperature damages, can outweigh the influence of discounting or anything else".
Criticism of aggregate costs
Some experts are critical of how economic studies aggregate costs of climate change damage.Schneider and Lane argue that because of the problems of one-metric aggregations, multiple metrics should be used to assess climate change damages.
Monetising aggregate costs of climate change often requires valuations of human welfare, the state of the environment, etc. This process is called using surrogate prices. The methodology and results of calculating surrogate prices has been described as 'problematical' by Ackerman.Using the example of the First and Second World Wars, Jaeger et al. argue that human suffering is 'incommensurable with GDP figures'.
Schneider and Lane point to the inadequacies of market-aggregation-only analysis, using Bangladesh as an example. Sea level rise due to climate change could reduce Bangladesh's GDP by about 80%, but this would only be equivalent to a reduction in global GDP of 0.1%. In a market-aggregation-only analysis, a loss of 0.1% global GDP would be described as being relatively insignificant. Schneider and Lane dispute this result, arguing that loss of life and biodiversity in Bangladesh are 'at least as important as aggregate market impacts'.
Distribution of impacts
According to the IPCC report: 'here is medium confidence that a warming of less than 2°C above 1990 levels would have net negative impacts on market sectors in many developing countries and net positive impacts on market sectors in many developed countries; and high confidence that above 2 to 3°C, there would be net negative impacts in many developed countries and additional negative impacts in many developing countries.'
Vulnerability to climate change is highly variable within individual countries. As a consequence, some population groups in developed countries are also highly vulnerable to a warming of less than 2°C.
Water
All IPCC regions show an overall net negative impact of climate change on water resources and freshwater ecosystems. Efforts to quantify the economic impacts of climate-related changes in water resources are hampered by a lack of data. Additionally, cost estimates are highly sensitive to different estimation methods and to different assumptions regarding how changes in water availability will be allocated across various types of water uses, e.g., between agricultural, urban, or in-stream uses.
Effects on agriculture
In the Summary for Policy Makers of the 4th Assessment Report, Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states that: "Crop productivity is projected to increase slightly at mid- to high latitudes for local mean temperature increases of up to 1-3°C depending on the crop, and then decrease beyond that in some regions. At lower latitudes, especially seasonally dry and tropical regions, crop productivity is projected to decrease for even small local temperature increases (1-2°C), which would increase the risk of hunger. Globally, the potential for food production is projected to increase with increases in local average temperature over a range of 1-3°C, but above this it is projected to decrease."
Insurance
An industry very directly affected by the risks is the insurance industry; the number of major natural disasters has tripled since the 1960s, and insured losses increased fifteenfold in real terms (adjusted for inflation). According to one study, 35–40% of the worst catastrophes have been climate change related (ERM, 2002). Over the past three decades, the proportion of the global population affected by weather-related disasters has doubled in linear trend, rising from roughly 2% in 1975 to 4% in 2001 (ERM, 2002).
According to a 2005 report from the Association of British Insurers, limiting carbon emissions could avoid 80% of the projected additional annual cost of tropical cyclones by the 2080s. A June 2004 report by the Association of British Insurers declared "Climate change is not a remote issue for future generations to deal with. It is, in various forms, here already, impacting on insurers' businesses now." It noted that weather risks for households and property were already increasing by 2-4 % per year due to changing weather, and that claims for storm and flood damages in the UK had doubled to over £6 billion over the period 1998–2003, compared to the previous five years. The results are rising insurance premiums, and the risk that in some areas flood insurance will become unaffordable for some.
Financial institutions, including the world's two largest insurance companies, Munich Re and Swiss Re, warned in a 2002 study that "the increasing frequency of severe climatic events, coupled with social trends" could cost almost US$150 billion each year in the next decade.These costs would, through increased costs related to insurance and disaster relief, burden customers, taxpayers, and industry alike.
In the United States, insurance losses have also greatly increased. According to Choi and Fisher (2003) each 1% increase in annual precipitation could enlarge catastrophe loss by as much as 2.8%. Gross increases are mostly attributed to increased population and property values in vulnerable coastal areas, though there was also an increase in frequency of weather-related events like heavy rainfalls since the 1950s
Infrastructure
Roads, airport runways, railway lines and pipelines, (including oil pipelines, sewers, water mains etc) may require increased maintenance and renewal as they become subject to greater temperature variation and are exposed to weather that they were not designed for. Regions already adversely affected include areas of permafrost, which are subject to high levels of subsidence, resulting in buckling roads, sunken foundations, and severely cracked runways.
Investment
Venture capitalists and other investors have noted potential opportunities arising from global warming, as massive sums of money are needed for enhanced infrastructure as well as clean technologies that could help reduce emissions of global warming gases. As Joel Makower, a noted expert on business and the environment, has pointed out, "For all the handwringing over the negative bottom-line impacts of climate change for most companies, a handful of large corporate interests may come out winners, creating potentially profitable opportunities for forward-thinking investors." These include companies investing in clean energy technologies such as solar energy and wind power, but also companies in other sectors: agriculture (to produce biofuels as well as biobased plastics that supplant petroleum-based ones), information technology companies (producing switches, routers, and software intended to create a more efficient, "smart grid", chemical companies (producing "green chemistry" alternatives to petrochemicals), and producers of more efficient motors for aircraft, automobiles, and industrial use.
Migration
Some Pacific Ocean island nations, such as Tuvalu, are concerned about the possibility of an eventual evacuation, as flood defense may become economically inviable for them. Tuvalu already has an ad hoc agreement with New Zealand to allow phased relocation.
In the 1990s, a variety of estimates placed the number of environmental refugees at around 25 million. (Environmental refugees are not included in the official definition of refugees, which only includes migrants fleeing persecution.) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which advises the world’s governments under the auspices of the UN, estimated that 150 million environmental refugees will exist in the year 2050, due mainly to the effects of coastal flooding, shoreline erosion and agricultural disruption (150 million means 1.5% of 2050’s predicted 10 billion world population).
Northwest Passage
Melting Arctic ice may open the Northwest Passage in summer, which would cut 5,000 nautical miles (9,000 km) from shipping routes between Europe and Asia. This would be of particular relevance for supertankers which are too big to fit through the Panama Canal and currently have to go around the tip of South America. According to the Canadian Ice Service, the amount of ice in Canada's eastern Arctic Archipelago decreased by 15% between 1969 and 2004.
While the reduction of summer ice in the Arctic may be a boon to shipping, this same phenomenon threatens the Arctic ecosystem, most notably polar bears which depend on ice floes. Subsistence hunters such as the Inuit peoples will find their livelihoods and cultures increasingly threatened as the ecosystem changes due to global warming.
Development
The combined effects of global warming may impact particularly harshly on people and countries without the resources to mitigate those effects. This may slow economic development and poverty reduction, and make it harder to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.
In October 2004, the Working Group on Climate Change and Development, a coalition of development and environment NGOs, issued a report Up in Smoke on the effects of climate change on development. This report, and the July 2005 report Africa - Up in Smoke? predicted increased hunger and disease due to decreased rainfall and severe weather events, particularly in Africa. These are likely to have severe impacts on development for those affected.
At the same time, in developing countries, the poorest often live on flood plains, because it is the only available space, or fertile agricultural land. These settlements often lack infrastructure such as dykes and early warning systems. Poorer communities also tend to lack the insurance, savings or access to credit needed to recover from disasters.
Environmental
Assessing the economic value of ecosystems and biodiversity is difficult,but attempts have been made to do this. Stern presents the results of several integrated assessment models that include climate change impacts on ecosystems.
Non-monetised impacts of climate change on ecosystems and biodiversity are assessed in the IPCC report:of the species assessed so far, there is medium confidence (around 5/10 chance of being correct) that 20-30% will be at increased risk of extinction if global mean temperature increase exceeds 1.5-2.5 degrees Celsius (relative to the period 1980-1999). This temperature increase would be expected to have a predominantly negative impact on biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services, e.g. water and food supply.
Smith and Hitz looked at climate change impacts on terrestrial ecosystems.According to the paper, increased atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide - associated with the burning of fossil fuels - will be of some benefit to plant growth. Vegetation productivity is expected to peak then decline with increasing global mean temperature.
A 2004 study published in Nature estimates that between 15 and 37% of known plant and animal species will be 'committed to extinction' by 2050. Few of the terrestrial ecoregions on Earth could expect to be unaffected.
Water scarcity
Positive eustasy (sea-level rise) may contaminate groundwater, affecting drinking water and agriculture in coastal zones. Increased evaporation will reduce the effectiveness of reservoirs. Increased extreme weather means more water falls on hardened ground unable to absorb it, leading to flash floods instead of a replenishment of soil moisture or groundwater levels. In some areas, shrinking glaciers threaten the water supply. The availability of freshwater runoff from mountains for natural systems and human uses may also be impacted.
Higher temperatures will also increase the demand for water for the purposes of cooling and hydration.
Health
Currently, climate change contributes to increased early deaths and the burden of disease[. Climate change is expected to have a predominantly negative effect on human health, particularly in low-income countries . An example of a health benefit of climate change is fewer cold deaths. Some examples of negative health effects include:
* increased levels of malnutrition
* increased deaths, diseases, and injuries due to extreme weather events
* greater burden of diarrhoeal diseases
Some economists have included health outcomes in cost-benefit studies of climate change. These studies have several shortcomings; one is that they only cover a limited range of health outcomes, e.g., malaria, heat and cold deaths. In these studies, as is traditional in economics, the value of human mortality in poorer countries is judged to be lower than human mortality in richer countries. One study has suggested that replacing national mortality values with a global average would increase mortality costs by up to five times.
Heat and cold health effects
In temperate areas, warming of the climate is expected to bring some benefits, such as reduced numbers of deaths due to cold exposure. This benefit is expected to be outweighed by the negative effects of temperature rise, especially in developing countries.
Palutikof et al. calculate that in England and Wales for a 1 °C temperature rise the reduced deaths from cold outweigh the increased deaths from heat, resulting in a reduction in annual average mortality of 7000. However, in the United States, only 1000 people die from the cold each year, while twice that number die from the heat. The 2006 United States heat wave killed at least 225 people, with 163 of those in California. The central California valley, had six consecutive days of 110 degree-plus Fahrenheit temperatures.
The European heat wave of 2003 killed 22,000–35,000 people, based on normal mortality rates (Schär and Jendritzky, 2004). It can be said with 90% confidence that past human influence on climate was responsible for at least half the risk of the 2003 European summer heat-wave (Stott et al. 2004).
Spread of disease
Global warming is expected to extend the favourable zones for vectors conveying infectious disease such as malaria. In poorer countries, this may simply lead to higher incidence of such diseases. In richer countries, where such diseases have been eliminated or kept in check by vaccination, draining swamps and using pesticides, the consequences may be felt more in economic than health terms, if greater spending on preventative measures is required.
Contamination by sector and cost of reducing fossil fuel use
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions depends in part on lowering consumption of fossil fuels. The key challenge is that nearly all forms of economic activity rely on fossil fuel energy sources, from transportation fuel, electricity from coal-fired plants, industrial furnaces to home and office heating. Reducing emissions can be achieved through gains in efficiency - producing the same benefits with smaller amounts of fossil energy, or by displacing fossil sources with non- or low-emitting sources. Low emission renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and biomass still represent only a small fraction of total energy consumption. The scale of current fossil energy dependence poses a substantial challenge. Gaining energy efficiency typically requires up-front investment, such as adding insulation, replacing energy-inefficient devices and processes, or buying hybrid vehicles. Some such investments can pay for themselves in the savings on energy bills, and the economic case for choosing them depends on the payback period. If an upgrade's payback is better than the risk-free interest rate, economic theory predicts individuals will choose the higher return of making the efficiency investment. If current pricing is not leading to this outcome, the cost of fossil energy is not yet high enough to drive adoption of available efficiency gains. (Social science researchers Kurani and Turrentine reported in 2004 that consumers often fail to make choices that have favorable payback period. They attribute the "uneconomic" choices to risk aversion, weighing potential losses much higher than potential gains.)
Advocates of mitigating climate change hold that greenhouse gas emissions must carry a price, so the market can internalize the externality of the impact of their emission. This could take the form of a carbon tax or of emission caps, with a market created for trading emission permits, much as was done in the USA for sulfate emissions blamed for acid rain. Thus the economic impact of avoiding greenhouse gas emissions depends on how much consumption will have to be avoided, and how quickly the economy can incorporate efficiency gains.
Some pundits have criticized such attempts at calculating the costs of mitigating climate change by avoiding fossil fuel consumption, pointing out that the opportunity costs of avoiding consumption are not (and cannot) be calculated and are likely to be more important than the expected benefits .
Mitigation and adaptation
The costs of mitigating (reducing) global warming depend on a number of factors. One fundamental factor is the target level of atmospheric carbon dioxide: the lower the level, the sooner action must be taken if increases beyond the target level are to be avoided. The sooner action must be taken, the shorter the period over which costs must be spread, and the higher the absolute costs, as cheaper technologies which might emerge later are not yet available. A common target level (assumed by the United Kingdom) is 550ppm (current levels are around 380ppm, and rising at 2-3ppm per year). Signatories of the Kyoto Protocol committed themselves to targets that require lowering their national greenhouse gas emissions to a specified level relative to their actual 1990 emissions. During the target period for Kyoto of 2008-2012, many nations set targets to reach a small percentage below 1990 levels.
Another crucial factor in estimating the costs of climate change is the discount rate to apply. Normally a relatively high rate (e.g. 5%-10%) is applied, reflecting the cost of capital. However, where intergenerational issues involve potential irreversibilities such as climate change, a low discount rate (e.g. 1%-4%) may be applied. The difference is dramatic: at 4% (a typical rate for social issues), avoiding $1m worth of climate change damage in 100 years' time is valued at nearly $20,000 today (net present value), whereas at 8% it is valued at less than $500.
Another area for debate is the relationship between technological development and regulatory incentives: if regulation can induce substantial technological change, the costs of mitigation may be much lower.
The Kyoto Protocol
According to the IPCC report, 'notable achievements' of the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol include:
* the establishment of a global response to the climate problem;
* the stimulation of an array of national policies;
* the creation of an international carbon market;
* the establishment of new institutional mechanisms that may provide the foundation for future mitigation efforts.
Significant differences exist between countries in meeting their Kyoto commitments. Collectively, industrial countries who ratified the treaty will probably meet their 2010 emission limitation targets.
The Kyoto Protocol was the first international agreement to set mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions. Kyoto's emission reduction targets have been criticised, with some saying they are too weak and others saying they are too strong. The IPCC report describes Kyoto's emission reduction targets as being 'modest', and to be more effective, 'future mitigation efforts would need to achieve deeper reductions covering a higher share of global emissions'.
Tol has stated that "the emissions targets agreed in the Kyoto Protocol are irreconcilable with economic rationality." Nordhaus and Boyer estimated that the present value of benefits from mitigation under the Kyoto Protocol would be $120 billion, far below the likely costs; "Other studies reach similar conclusions". Grubb has criticised cost-benefit analyses of this sort, arguing that they suffer from a number of problems.
Some economists view Kyoto as a useful first step in responding to climate change. Climate scientists O'Neill and Oppenheimer support Kyoto's targets, arguing that they are consistent with atmospheric CO2 stabilization at 450 ppm. A 450 ppm target could 'forestall the disintegration of WAIS, but is by no means certain, because additional warming would occur beyond 2100'.
Cost estimates
IPCC TAR (Synthesis Report) suggested values of $78 billion to $1141 billion annual mitigation costs, amounting to 0.2% to 3.5% of current world GDP (which is around $35 trillion), or 0.3% to 4.5% of GDP if borne by the richest nations alone. As economic growth is expected to continue, the percentage would fall. In terms of cost per tonne of carbon emission avoided, the range (for a target of 550ppm) is $18 to $80.
These cost estimates refer to reductions achieved through tradable emissions permits when those permits are given away to polluters. If the reductions are achieved through emission taxes or auctioned permits, and the revenue is used to reduce distortionary taxes, the TAR III synthesis report concludes that " on the existing tax structure, type of tax cuts, labour market conditions and method of recycling... it is possible that the economic benefits may exceed the costs of mitigation." Nordhaus and Boyer calculated that the present value cost of the Kyoto Protocol would be $800 billion to $1,500 billion if implemented as efficiently as possible. Richard Tol estimates that the net present value cost to be more than $2.5 trillion.
Azar and Schneider (2002) observe that global output in 1990 was around $20 trillion. If it grew steadily at 2.1 percent per annum it would be just short of $200 trillion by 2100. They thereby make the point that the calculated present value costs of mitigation would look smaller if scaled against 2100 output than if scaled against 1990 output. However, neither comparator is relevant to the question of whether the likely benefits from mitigation exceed the costs.
A 2008 study, not peer-reviewed, by the consulting company McKinsey Global Institute uses cost curve analysis to estimate that it is possible to stabilize global greenhouse gas concentrations at 450 to 500 ppm CO2-e with macroeconomic costs in the order of 0.6-1.4% of global GDP by 2030.
Lord Peter Levene, chairman of Lloyd's of London, said on 12 April 2007 that the threat of climate change must be an integral part of every company’s risk analysis.
Co-benefits
In addition to avoiding the costs of the business-as-usual scenario, mitigation actions can bring other benefits, depending on factors such as the technology used. These include, for example, the reduced economic impact from oil supply disruptions and/or price rises, if mitigation reduces oil dependence. This may be of particular benefit to non-oil-exporting developing countries, which suffer greater economic impact from oil price rises. Co-benefits from ending deforestation include protection of biodiversity, benefits for indigenous people, research and development possibilities, tourism, and some protection from extreme weather events. (Stern Review, page 280) Reducing greenhouse gas emissions also significantly reduces air pollution.
Optimal strategies for mitigation
Financial and technological strategies can have a major impact on reaching a particular target atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration.
* Carbon tax
* Carbon emissions trading
* A hybrid between a carbon tax and an emissions trading scheme, this can be thought of as an emissions trading scheme with a price cap, a price floor, or both. A price cap can be realized by governments being able to sell an unlimited amount extra permits at a given price (the price of the cap). A price floor can be realized by governments buying back permits if the price goes below the value of the floor, or by emitters paying a fee when they exercise the permit (so the effective carbon price is equal to the sum of the permit price and the exercise fee).
* Regulation
* Reducing the carbon intensity of energy via Nuclear power or Renewable Energy
* Energy efficiency
"No regrets" policies - notably reducing fossil fuel subsidies, which is predicted to increase growth whilst reducing CO2 emissions. Article 2 of the Kyoto Protocol specifies a progressive removal of subsidies and reform of taxes as a means of achieving reduction commitments.
McKibbin and Wilcoxen argue that a combination of long term carbon price signals and short terms caps on economic cost is needed to address both economic efficiency, equity sharing and political feasibility.
The Stern Review recommends adopting a quantative global stabilisation target range for the stock of greenhouse gases as a foundation for policy. It suggests that this target range would be likely to be somewhere between 450-550 ppm CO2-e. It also recommends a carbon price signal through the use of a carbon tax or emissions trading scheme.
Brink et al. (2005) showed that the costs of mitigation can be reduced by considering the inter-relationships of different greenhouse gas, and the differential impact that different technological decisions may have on their emissions.
Cost distribution
The costs and benefits of global warming are distributed quite unequally.
* low-lying countries' risk of floods
* many countries subject to increased drought are poor African countries
* ability of poor countries to mitigate / adapt (margin)
* GW increases variability of weather, which implies greater capital requirements for water storage systems, flood defenses, etc as well as individual requirements to cope with wider variation in weather patterns
The costs of mitigation may also be distributed unequally, both within and between countries. Wier et al. (2005) showed that carbon taxes, particularly direct taxes on households, are regressive (more so than VAT), suggesting that in order to maintain social acceptance the regressive effect needs to be compensated for either within the environmental tax structure, or in other parts of the tax system. Indirect taxes (on business) are less regressive, and petrol taxes are found to be progressive.
Inter-relationships between countries
Bastianoni et al. (2004) note the differences between methodologies for assigning responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions, which include the geographical approach, based on the IPCC guidelines for GHG inventory; the consumer responsibility approach, based on the Ecological Footprint methodology; and the Carbon Emission Added (CEA) approach, which resembles the accounting of a Value Added Tax. Different methodologies can produce quite different results in terms of responsibility for emissions, with consequent impact on policy.
Gradual change vs climate surprises
Baranzini et al. (2003) conclude that "(i) gradual, continuous uncertainty in the global warming process is likely to delay the adoption of abatement policies as found in previous studies, with respect to the standard CBA; however (ii) the possibility of climate catastrophes accelerates the implementation of these policies as their net discounted benefits increase significantly."
From http://en.wikipedia.org/
At an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) conference in April 2007, delegates from 120 nations discussed the specific economic and societal costs of mitigating global warming, and eventually approved the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
Projections of climate change
Integrated assessment models provide different projections as to the amount of future climate change. The IPCC have produced a report (SRES) where a number of different future scenarios are described. The scenarios differ in whether the future will be:
* 'more environmental' (scenarios with the 'B' prefix) or 'market-oriented' (scenarios with the 'A' prefix)
* 'more global' (scenarios with the '1' suffix) or 'more regional' (scenarios with the '2' suffix)
Forecasts of changes in global mean temperature for these scenarios are given in the IPCC report.The 'best estimate' global mean temperature increase (2090 to 2099 relative to the period 1980-1999) for these scenarios range from 1.8 degrees Celsius for the B1 scenario, to 4.0 degrees Celsius for the A1FI scenario. The 'likely' range (greater than 66% probability) over the same period for all the SRES scenarios is a global mean temperature increase of between 1.1 to 6.4 degrees Celsius.
A 2009 study by the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change looked at future predictions of climate change.According to this study, there is a 57% likelihood of exceeding a 5 degrees Celsius increase in global mean temperature by 2100 (relative to the base years of 1981 to 2000). This is the 'no policy' estimate. In the 'policy' estimate, where greenhouse gas emissions are controlled to relatively low levels, the likeliest increase in global mean temperature for the same period is between 2 and 2.5 degrees Celsius.
According to a 2008 study by the Hadley Centre, for a 'business-as-usual' increase in global greenhouse gas emissions of 132% (from 1990 emission levels) by 2050, the rise in global mean temperature will be between 5.5 and 7.1 degrees Celsius (relative to pre-industrial levels) by 2100.In this estimate, the likeliest increase in global mean temperature is 5.5 degrees Celsius (50% chance of occurring), and the the worst case increase in global mean temperature is 7.1 degrees Celsius (10% chance of occurring). The Hadley Centre study also looked at other emissions scenarios. In a scenario where there is an early and rapid decline in emissions (a 47% decrease from 1990 emission levels by 2050), global mean temperature is predicted to rise 2.1 to 2.8 degrees Celsius by 2100. For this scenario, 2.1 degrees Celsius is the likeliest increase in global mean temperature (50% chance of occurring), and 2.8 degrees Celsius the worst case increase in global mean temperature (10% chance of occurring).
Economic impacts of global warming
Aggregate impacts
The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, published in 2007, looked at the aggregate economic impacts of climate change:
to impose net annual costs, which will increase over time as global temperatures increase. Peer-reviewed estimates of the social cost of carbon in 2005 average US$12 per tonne of CO2, but the range from 100 estimates is large (-$3 to $95/tCO2). This is due in large part to differences in assumptions regarding climate sensitivity, response lags, the treatment of risk and equity, economic and non-economic impacts, the inclusion of potentially catastrophic losses and discount rates. Aggregate estimates of costs mask significant differences in impacts across sectors, regions and populations and very likely underestimate damage costs because they cannot include many non-quantifiable impacts.
Aggregate impacts have also been quantified in other metrics: for example, climate change over the next century is likely to adversely affect hundreds of millions of people through increased coastal flooding, reductions in water supplies, increased malnutrition and increased health impacts.
According to the IPCC Report, with medium confidence (around 5/10 chance of being correct): 'aggregate market sector impacts of 2°C global mean temperature increase, above the 1990 level, will be plus or minus a few percent of global GDP, with most people in the world negatively affected. Studies of aggregate economic impacts found net damages beyond temperature increases of 2 to 3°C above 1990 levels, with increasing damages at higher magnitudes of climate change.' The Report adds that: 'On balance, the current generation of aggregate estimates in the literature is more likely than not to understate the actual costs of climate change.'
The Copenhagen Consensus
As part of the 2004 Copenhagen Consensus on the economics of global warming, Professor Robert O. Mendelsohn of Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, stated that:
A series of studies on the impacts of climate change have systematically shown that the older literature overestimated climate damages by failing to allow for adaptation and for climate benefits (see Fankhauser et al. 1997; Mendelsohn and Newmann 1999; Tol 1999; Mendelsohn et al. 2000; Mendelsohn 2001;Maddison 2001; Tol 2002; Sohngen et al. 2002; Pearce 2003; Mendelsohn and Williams 2004). These new studies imply that impacts depend heavily upon initial temperatures (latitude). Countries in the polar region are likely to receive large benefits from warming, countries in the mid-latitudes will at first benefit and only begin to be harmed if temperatures rise above 2.5C (Mendelsohn et al. 2000). Only countries in the tropical and subtropical regions are likely to be harmed immediately by warming and be subject to the magnitudes of impacts first thought likely (Mendelsohn et al. 2000). Summing these regional impacts across the globe implies that warming benefits and damages will likely offset each other until warming passes 2.5C and even then it will be far smaller on net than originally thought (Mendelsohn and Williams 2004)."
The Stern Review
The Stern Review is a 2006 reportby the former Chief Economist and Senior Vice-President of the World Bank, Nicholas Stern, which predicts that climate change will have a serious impact on economic growth without mitigation.The report suggests that an investment of one percent of global GDP is required to mitigate the effects of climate change, with failure to do so risking a recession worth up to twenty percent of global GDP.
In the Stern Review, net monetised cost estimates of climate change were negative (i.e., net damages) for all global mean temperature increases. The Review has been criticized by some economists, saying that Stern did not consider costs past 2200, that he used an incorrect discount rate in his calculations, and that stopping or significantly slowing climate change will require deep emission cuts everywhere.
Some economists have supported Stern's approach, or argued that Stern's estimates are reasonable, even if the method by which he reached them is open to criticism. Research by Weitzman has suggested that structural uncertainty and low-probability high-impact risks are very important, and that "the influence on cost-benefit analysis of fat-tailed structural uncertainty about climate change, coupled with great unsureness about high-temperature damages, can outweigh the influence of discounting or anything else".
Criticism of aggregate costs
Some experts are critical of how economic studies aggregate costs of climate change damage.Schneider and Lane argue that because of the problems of one-metric aggregations, multiple metrics should be used to assess climate change damages.
Monetising aggregate costs of climate change often requires valuations of human welfare, the state of the environment, etc. This process is called using surrogate prices. The methodology and results of calculating surrogate prices has been described as 'problematical' by Ackerman.Using the example of the First and Second World Wars, Jaeger et al. argue that human suffering is 'incommensurable with GDP figures'.
Schneider and Lane point to the inadequacies of market-aggregation-only analysis, using Bangladesh as an example. Sea level rise due to climate change could reduce Bangladesh's GDP by about 80%, but this would only be equivalent to a reduction in global GDP of 0.1%. In a market-aggregation-only analysis, a loss of 0.1% global GDP would be described as being relatively insignificant. Schneider and Lane dispute this result, arguing that loss of life and biodiversity in Bangladesh are 'at least as important as aggregate market impacts'.
Distribution of impacts
According to the IPCC report: 'here is medium confidence that a warming of less than 2°C above 1990 levels would have net negative impacts on market sectors in many developing countries and net positive impacts on market sectors in many developed countries; and high confidence that above 2 to 3°C, there would be net negative impacts in many developed countries and additional negative impacts in many developing countries.'
Vulnerability to climate change is highly variable within individual countries. As a consequence, some population groups in developed countries are also highly vulnerable to a warming of less than 2°C.
Water
All IPCC regions show an overall net negative impact of climate change on water resources and freshwater ecosystems. Efforts to quantify the economic impacts of climate-related changes in water resources are hampered by a lack of data. Additionally, cost estimates are highly sensitive to different estimation methods and to different assumptions regarding how changes in water availability will be allocated across various types of water uses, e.g., between agricultural, urban, or in-stream uses.
Effects on agriculture
In the Summary for Policy Makers of the 4th Assessment Report, Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states that: "Crop productivity is projected to increase slightly at mid- to high latitudes for local mean temperature increases of up to 1-3°C depending on the crop, and then decrease beyond that in some regions. At lower latitudes, especially seasonally dry and tropical regions, crop productivity is projected to decrease for even small local temperature increases (1-2°C), which would increase the risk of hunger. Globally, the potential for food production is projected to increase with increases in local average temperature over a range of 1-3°C, but above this it is projected to decrease."
Insurance
An industry very directly affected by the risks is the insurance industry; the number of major natural disasters has tripled since the 1960s, and insured losses increased fifteenfold in real terms (adjusted for inflation). According to one study, 35–40% of the worst catastrophes have been climate change related (ERM, 2002). Over the past three decades, the proportion of the global population affected by weather-related disasters has doubled in linear trend, rising from roughly 2% in 1975 to 4% in 2001 (ERM, 2002).
According to a 2005 report from the Association of British Insurers, limiting carbon emissions could avoid 80% of the projected additional annual cost of tropical cyclones by the 2080s. A June 2004 report by the Association of British Insurers declared "Climate change is not a remote issue for future generations to deal with. It is, in various forms, here already, impacting on insurers' businesses now." It noted that weather risks for households and property were already increasing by 2-4 % per year due to changing weather, and that claims for storm and flood damages in the UK had doubled to over £6 billion over the period 1998–2003, compared to the previous five years. The results are rising insurance premiums, and the risk that in some areas flood insurance will become unaffordable for some.
Financial institutions, including the world's two largest insurance companies, Munich Re and Swiss Re, warned in a 2002 study that "the increasing frequency of severe climatic events, coupled with social trends" could cost almost US$150 billion each year in the next decade.These costs would, through increased costs related to insurance and disaster relief, burden customers, taxpayers, and industry alike.
In the United States, insurance losses have also greatly increased. According to Choi and Fisher (2003) each 1% increase in annual precipitation could enlarge catastrophe loss by as much as 2.8%. Gross increases are mostly attributed to increased population and property values in vulnerable coastal areas, though there was also an increase in frequency of weather-related events like heavy rainfalls since the 1950s
Infrastructure
Roads, airport runways, railway lines and pipelines, (including oil pipelines, sewers, water mains etc) may require increased maintenance and renewal as they become subject to greater temperature variation and are exposed to weather that they were not designed for. Regions already adversely affected include areas of permafrost, which are subject to high levels of subsidence, resulting in buckling roads, sunken foundations, and severely cracked runways.
Investment
Venture capitalists and other investors have noted potential opportunities arising from global warming, as massive sums of money are needed for enhanced infrastructure as well as clean technologies that could help reduce emissions of global warming gases. As Joel Makower, a noted expert on business and the environment, has pointed out, "For all the handwringing over the negative bottom-line impacts of climate change for most companies, a handful of large corporate interests may come out winners, creating potentially profitable opportunities for forward-thinking investors." These include companies investing in clean energy technologies such as solar energy and wind power, but also companies in other sectors: agriculture (to produce biofuels as well as biobased plastics that supplant petroleum-based ones), information technology companies (producing switches, routers, and software intended to create a more efficient, "smart grid", chemical companies (producing "green chemistry" alternatives to petrochemicals), and producers of more efficient motors for aircraft, automobiles, and industrial use.
Migration
Some Pacific Ocean island nations, such as Tuvalu, are concerned about the possibility of an eventual evacuation, as flood defense may become economically inviable for them. Tuvalu already has an ad hoc agreement with New Zealand to allow phased relocation.
In the 1990s, a variety of estimates placed the number of environmental refugees at around 25 million. (Environmental refugees are not included in the official definition of refugees, which only includes migrants fleeing persecution.) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which advises the world’s governments under the auspices of the UN, estimated that 150 million environmental refugees will exist in the year 2050, due mainly to the effects of coastal flooding, shoreline erosion and agricultural disruption (150 million means 1.5% of 2050’s predicted 10 billion world population).
Northwest Passage
Melting Arctic ice may open the Northwest Passage in summer, which would cut 5,000 nautical miles (9,000 km) from shipping routes between Europe and Asia. This would be of particular relevance for supertankers which are too big to fit through the Panama Canal and currently have to go around the tip of South America. According to the Canadian Ice Service, the amount of ice in Canada's eastern Arctic Archipelago decreased by 15% between 1969 and 2004.
While the reduction of summer ice in the Arctic may be a boon to shipping, this same phenomenon threatens the Arctic ecosystem, most notably polar bears which depend on ice floes. Subsistence hunters such as the Inuit peoples will find their livelihoods and cultures increasingly threatened as the ecosystem changes due to global warming.
Development
The combined effects of global warming may impact particularly harshly on people and countries without the resources to mitigate those effects. This may slow economic development and poverty reduction, and make it harder to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.
In October 2004, the Working Group on Climate Change and Development, a coalition of development and environment NGOs, issued a report Up in Smoke on the effects of climate change on development. This report, and the July 2005 report Africa - Up in Smoke? predicted increased hunger and disease due to decreased rainfall and severe weather events, particularly in Africa. These are likely to have severe impacts on development for those affected.
At the same time, in developing countries, the poorest often live on flood plains, because it is the only available space, or fertile agricultural land. These settlements often lack infrastructure such as dykes and early warning systems. Poorer communities also tend to lack the insurance, savings or access to credit needed to recover from disasters.
Environmental
Assessing the economic value of ecosystems and biodiversity is difficult,but attempts have been made to do this. Stern presents the results of several integrated assessment models that include climate change impacts on ecosystems.
Non-monetised impacts of climate change on ecosystems and biodiversity are assessed in the IPCC report:of the species assessed so far, there is medium confidence (around 5/10 chance of being correct) that 20-30% will be at increased risk of extinction if global mean temperature increase exceeds 1.5-2.5 degrees Celsius (relative to the period 1980-1999). This temperature increase would be expected to have a predominantly negative impact on biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services, e.g. water and food supply.
Smith and Hitz looked at climate change impacts on terrestrial ecosystems.According to the paper, increased atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide - associated with the burning of fossil fuels - will be of some benefit to plant growth. Vegetation productivity is expected to peak then decline with increasing global mean temperature.
A 2004 study published in Nature estimates that between 15 and 37% of known plant and animal species will be 'committed to extinction' by 2050. Few of the terrestrial ecoregions on Earth could expect to be unaffected.
Water scarcity
Positive eustasy (sea-level rise) may contaminate groundwater, affecting drinking water and agriculture in coastal zones. Increased evaporation will reduce the effectiveness of reservoirs. Increased extreme weather means more water falls on hardened ground unable to absorb it, leading to flash floods instead of a replenishment of soil moisture or groundwater levels. In some areas, shrinking glaciers threaten the water supply. The availability of freshwater runoff from mountains for natural systems and human uses may also be impacted.
Higher temperatures will also increase the demand for water for the purposes of cooling and hydration.
Health
Currently, climate change contributes to increased early deaths and the burden of disease[. Climate change is expected to have a predominantly negative effect on human health, particularly in low-income countries . An example of a health benefit of climate change is fewer cold deaths. Some examples of negative health effects include:
* increased levels of malnutrition
* increased deaths, diseases, and injuries due to extreme weather events
* greater burden of diarrhoeal diseases
Some economists have included health outcomes in cost-benefit studies of climate change. These studies have several shortcomings; one is that they only cover a limited range of health outcomes, e.g., malaria, heat and cold deaths. In these studies, as is traditional in economics, the value of human mortality in poorer countries is judged to be lower than human mortality in richer countries. One study has suggested that replacing national mortality values with a global average would increase mortality costs by up to five times.
Heat and cold health effects
In temperate areas, warming of the climate is expected to bring some benefits, such as reduced numbers of deaths due to cold exposure. This benefit is expected to be outweighed by the negative effects of temperature rise, especially in developing countries.
Palutikof et al. calculate that in England and Wales for a 1 °C temperature rise the reduced deaths from cold outweigh the increased deaths from heat, resulting in a reduction in annual average mortality of 7000. However, in the United States, only 1000 people die from the cold each year, while twice that number die from the heat. The 2006 United States heat wave killed at least 225 people, with 163 of those in California. The central California valley, had six consecutive days of 110 degree-plus Fahrenheit temperatures.
The European heat wave of 2003 killed 22,000–35,000 people, based on normal mortality rates (Schär and Jendritzky, 2004). It can be said with 90% confidence that past human influence on climate was responsible for at least half the risk of the 2003 European summer heat-wave (Stott et al. 2004).
Spread of disease
Global warming is expected to extend the favourable zones for vectors conveying infectious disease such as malaria. In poorer countries, this may simply lead to higher incidence of such diseases. In richer countries, where such diseases have been eliminated or kept in check by vaccination, draining swamps and using pesticides, the consequences may be felt more in economic than health terms, if greater spending on preventative measures is required.
Contamination by sector and cost of reducing fossil fuel use
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions depends in part on lowering consumption of fossil fuels. The key challenge is that nearly all forms of economic activity rely on fossil fuel energy sources, from transportation fuel, electricity from coal-fired plants, industrial furnaces to home and office heating. Reducing emissions can be achieved through gains in efficiency - producing the same benefits with smaller amounts of fossil energy, or by displacing fossil sources with non- or low-emitting sources. Low emission renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and biomass still represent only a small fraction of total energy consumption. The scale of current fossil energy dependence poses a substantial challenge. Gaining energy efficiency typically requires up-front investment, such as adding insulation, replacing energy-inefficient devices and processes, or buying hybrid vehicles. Some such investments can pay for themselves in the savings on energy bills, and the economic case for choosing them depends on the payback period. If an upgrade's payback is better than the risk-free interest rate, economic theory predicts individuals will choose the higher return of making the efficiency investment. If current pricing is not leading to this outcome, the cost of fossil energy is not yet high enough to drive adoption of available efficiency gains. (Social science researchers Kurani and Turrentine reported in 2004 that consumers often fail to make choices that have favorable payback period. They attribute the "uneconomic" choices to risk aversion, weighing potential losses much higher than potential gains.)
Advocates of mitigating climate change hold that greenhouse gas emissions must carry a price, so the market can internalize the externality of the impact of their emission. This could take the form of a carbon tax or of emission caps, with a market created for trading emission permits, much as was done in the USA for sulfate emissions blamed for acid rain. Thus the economic impact of avoiding greenhouse gas emissions depends on how much consumption will have to be avoided, and how quickly the economy can incorporate efficiency gains.
Some pundits have criticized such attempts at calculating the costs of mitigating climate change by avoiding fossil fuel consumption, pointing out that the opportunity costs of avoiding consumption are not (and cannot) be calculated and are likely to be more important than the expected benefits .
Mitigation and adaptation
The costs of mitigating (reducing) global warming depend on a number of factors. One fundamental factor is the target level of atmospheric carbon dioxide: the lower the level, the sooner action must be taken if increases beyond the target level are to be avoided. The sooner action must be taken, the shorter the period over which costs must be spread, and the higher the absolute costs, as cheaper technologies which might emerge later are not yet available. A common target level (assumed by the United Kingdom) is 550ppm (current levels are around 380ppm, and rising at 2-3ppm per year). Signatories of the Kyoto Protocol committed themselves to targets that require lowering their national greenhouse gas emissions to a specified level relative to their actual 1990 emissions. During the target period for Kyoto of 2008-2012, many nations set targets to reach a small percentage below 1990 levels.
Another crucial factor in estimating the costs of climate change is the discount rate to apply. Normally a relatively high rate (e.g. 5%-10%) is applied, reflecting the cost of capital. However, where intergenerational issues involve potential irreversibilities such as climate change, a low discount rate (e.g. 1%-4%) may be applied. The difference is dramatic: at 4% (a typical rate for social issues), avoiding $1m worth of climate change damage in 100 years' time is valued at nearly $20,000 today (net present value), whereas at 8% it is valued at less than $500.
Another area for debate is the relationship between technological development and regulatory incentives: if regulation can induce substantial technological change, the costs of mitigation may be much lower.
The Kyoto Protocol
According to the IPCC report, 'notable achievements' of the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol include:
* the establishment of a global response to the climate problem;
* the stimulation of an array of national policies;
* the creation of an international carbon market;
* the establishment of new institutional mechanisms that may provide the foundation for future mitigation efforts.
Significant differences exist between countries in meeting their Kyoto commitments. Collectively, industrial countries who ratified the treaty will probably meet their 2010 emission limitation targets.
The Kyoto Protocol was the first international agreement to set mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions. Kyoto's emission reduction targets have been criticised, with some saying they are too weak and others saying they are too strong. The IPCC report describes Kyoto's emission reduction targets as being 'modest', and to be more effective, 'future mitigation efforts would need to achieve deeper reductions covering a higher share of global emissions'.
Tol has stated that "the emissions targets agreed in the Kyoto Protocol are irreconcilable with economic rationality." Nordhaus and Boyer estimated that the present value of benefits from mitigation under the Kyoto Protocol would be $120 billion, far below the likely costs; "Other studies reach similar conclusions". Grubb has criticised cost-benefit analyses of this sort, arguing that they suffer from a number of problems.
Some economists view Kyoto as a useful first step in responding to climate change. Climate scientists O'Neill and Oppenheimer support Kyoto's targets, arguing that they are consistent with atmospheric CO2 stabilization at 450 ppm. A 450 ppm target could 'forestall the disintegration of WAIS, but is by no means certain, because additional warming would occur beyond 2100'.
Cost estimates
IPCC TAR (Synthesis Report) suggested values of $78 billion to $1141 billion annual mitigation costs, amounting to 0.2% to 3.5% of current world GDP (which is around $35 trillion), or 0.3% to 4.5% of GDP if borne by the richest nations alone. As economic growth is expected to continue, the percentage would fall. In terms of cost per tonne of carbon emission avoided, the range (for a target of 550ppm) is $18 to $80.
These cost estimates refer to reductions achieved through tradable emissions permits when those permits are given away to polluters. If the reductions are achieved through emission taxes or auctioned permits, and the revenue is used to reduce distortionary taxes, the TAR III synthesis report concludes that " on the existing tax structure, type of tax cuts, labour market conditions and method of recycling... it is possible that the economic benefits may exceed the costs of mitigation." Nordhaus and Boyer calculated that the present value cost of the Kyoto Protocol would be $800 billion to $1,500 billion if implemented as efficiently as possible. Richard Tol estimates that the net present value cost to be more than $2.5 trillion.
Azar and Schneider (2002) observe that global output in 1990 was around $20 trillion. If it grew steadily at 2.1 percent per annum it would be just short of $200 trillion by 2100. They thereby make the point that the calculated present value costs of mitigation would look smaller if scaled against 2100 output than if scaled against 1990 output. However, neither comparator is relevant to the question of whether the likely benefits from mitigation exceed the costs.
A 2008 study, not peer-reviewed, by the consulting company McKinsey Global Institute uses cost curve analysis to estimate that it is possible to stabilize global greenhouse gas concentrations at 450 to 500 ppm CO2-e with macroeconomic costs in the order of 0.6-1.4% of global GDP by 2030.
Lord Peter Levene, chairman of Lloyd's of London, said on 12 April 2007 that the threat of climate change must be an integral part of every company’s risk analysis.
Co-benefits
In addition to avoiding the costs of the business-as-usual scenario, mitigation actions can bring other benefits, depending on factors such as the technology used. These include, for example, the reduced economic impact from oil supply disruptions and/or price rises, if mitigation reduces oil dependence. This may be of particular benefit to non-oil-exporting developing countries, which suffer greater economic impact from oil price rises. Co-benefits from ending deforestation include protection of biodiversity, benefits for indigenous people, research and development possibilities, tourism, and some protection from extreme weather events. (Stern Review, page 280) Reducing greenhouse gas emissions also significantly reduces air pollution.
Optimal strategies for mitigation
Financial and technological strategies can have a major impact on reaching a particular target atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration.
* Carbon tax
* Carbon emissions trading
* A hybrid between a carbon tax and an emissions trading scheme, this can be thought of as an emissions trading scheme with a price cap, a price floor, or both. A price cap can be realized by governments being able to sell an unlimited amount extra permits at a given price (the price of the cap). A price floor can be realized by governments buying back permits if the price goes below the value of the floor, or by emitters paying a fee when they exercise the permit (so the effective carbon price is equal to the sum of the permit price and the exercise fee).
* Regulation
* Reducing the carbon intensity of energy via Nuclear power or Renewable Energy
* Energy efficiency
"No regrets" policies - notably reducing fossil fuel subsidies, which is predicted to increase growth whilst reducing CO2 emissions. Article 2 of the Kyoto Protocol specifies a progressive removal of subsidies and reform of taxes as a means of achieving reduction commitments.
McKibbin and Wilcoxen argue that a combination of long term carbon price signals and short terms caps on economic cost is needed to address both economic efficiency, equity sharing and political feasibility.
The Stern Review recommends adopting a quantative global stabilisation target range for the stock of greenhouse gases as a foundation for policy. It suggests that this target range would be likely to be somewhere between 450-550 ppm CO2-e. It also recommends a carbon price signal through the use of a carbon tax or emissions trading scheme.
Brink et al. (2005) showed that the costs of mitigation can be reduced by considering the inter-relationships of different greenhouse gas, and the differential impact that different technological decisions may have on their emissions.
Cost distribution
The costs and benefits of global warming are distributed quite unequally.
* low-lying countries' risk of floods
* many countries subject to increased drought are poor African countries
* ability of poor countries to mitigate / adapt (margin)
* GW increases variability of weather, which implies greater capital requirements for water storage systems, flood defenses, etc as well as individual requirements to cope with wider variation in weather patterns
The costs of mitigation may also be distributed unequally, both within and between countries. Wier et al. (2005) showed that carbon taxes, particularly direct taxes on households, are regressive (more so than VAT), suggesting that in order to maintain social acceptance the regressive effect needs to be compensated for either within the environmental tax structure, or in other parts of the tax system. Indirect taxes (on business) are less regressive, and petrol taxes are found to be progressive.
Inter-relationships between countries
Bastianoni et al. (2004) note the differences between methodologies for assigning responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions, which include the geographical approach, based on the IPCC guidelines for GHG inventory; the consumer responsibility approach, based on the Ecological Footprint methodology; and the Carbon Emission Added (CEA) approach, which resembles the accounting of a Value Added Tax. Different methodologies can produce quite different results in terms of responsibility for emissions, with consequent impact on policy.
Gradual change vs climate surprises
Baranzini et al. (2003) conclude that "(i) gradual, continuous uncertainty in the global warming process is likely to delay the adoption of abatement policies as found in previous studies, with respect to the standard CBA; however (ii) the possibility of climate catastrophes accelerates the implementation of these policies as their net discounted benefits increase significantly."
From http://en.wikipedia.org/
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)