|
|
We now move from strategies for minimizing energy usage to methods of dealing with its aftereffects. The main byproducts of energy usage are material waste and emissions of gases. Harmful emissions are often known as greenhouse gases. When these gases are released into the atmosphere, they trap heat that would otherwise radiate into space and produce warmer temperatures, a phenomenon known as the “greenhouse effect.”
The greenhouse effect is a main contributor to global warming and part of the broader disruption of weather patterns referred to as climate change. Many fear that climate change constitutes “the greatest single threat to the environment today.”1 Climate change should be a central part of anyone’s thinking about energy issues, because “preventing catastrophic climate change is, at its core, an energy challenge.”2
Catastrophic Effects
A growing number of scientists worry that, “A warmer climate could lead to rising sea levels, the spread of tropical diseases in previously temperate climes, crop failures in some regions and the extinction of many plant and animal species, especially those in polar or alpine areas.”3 Possible consequences of climate change could affect a range of areas from agricultural yields to the frequency of storms and natural disasters to the survival of many land- and marine-based ecosystems.
Of particular concern is the fact that global warming is already causing the polar ice caps to melt, thus discharging large amounts of extra water into the world’s oceans. The situation could get much worse over time. Even small changes in sea levels could wipe out entire coastal regions. This is because “coastlines are shallow slopes, not firm walls, so a rise in water levels of just tens of centimeters would erase kilometers of wetlands and beaches.” A report by the EPA concludes by 2050 the sea level will rise by six inches due to global warming Some models predict that sea levels could rise between 5 and 32 centimeters by 2050, with potentially catastrophic effects.4
Developed nations, such as the United States, would undoubtedly suffer as a result of such effects. But, given the gradual nature of the change, most rich countries would probably be able to adapt accordingly.
On the other hand, overpopulated developing countries such as India or Indonesia could be devastated. Residents of the small South Pacific nation of Tuvalu, for example, believe higher ocean levels will likely swallow their entire island. They have already concluded an immigration compact with New Zealand to prepare for this possibility.5 Estimates by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change put the number of people that could be displaced by climate change at anywhere from 25 million to 50 million by 2010 and up to 700 million by 2050.6
Policy Response
The scientific debate over the nature and extent of climate change is highly complex. Consequently, this issue brief will not delve into the many controversies surrounding the evidence of climate change.7 Our primary concern is the policy response by global leaders to accepted evidence.
For a long time, the debate about climate change focused on whether it was actually occurring. From complete denial, skeptics then acknowledged the phenomenon in principle but disputed the assertion that climate change was being driven by factors related to human beings. After all, the earth has gone through many periods of extreme climate change, cycling from Ice Ages to more tropical “interglacial periods.” These cycles occurred naturally, without any help from human beings. The current debate recognizes that at least part of the causes of climate change can be attributed to human activity.
The main point of contention now is how the nations of the world can act in concerted fashion to address a problem that will affect all of mankind. In other words, “Arguments now center not on whether human-induced global warming is occurring but whether it is enough of a threat to warrant spending money to stop it”8
The Problem of Collective Action
If, by and large, most scientists, citizens, and political leaders agree that climate change is a serious problem, why has the global policy response been so ineffective? Part of the reason is because climate change is perfect example of what social scientists call a “collective action.” problem. All nations have a collective interest in mitigating climate change, but the individual costs faced by each nation in contributing to this effort are very high, perhaps greater even than the benefits it expects to receive. Because of these steep costs, each nation is reluctant to act on its own before it knows that all others will commit to acting as well. The desired outcome cannot be achieved without cooperation, but cooperation requires a temporary suspension of self-interest and a measure of trust that are rare in international relations. These issues will be further considered below in the regard to the Kyoto Protocol.
A Tipping Point
As discussions about climate change continue, many scientists feel we are approaching a “tipping point” beyond which the effects will be permanent and corrective action futile. The sense of urgency is steadily intensifying, according to one expert, “Anybody whose solution includes the phrase ‘in 20 years,’ hasn’t quite caught on to where we are.”9
One recent British study, for example, predicted that, “A rise of 3 degrees C[elsius] from current temperatures could lead to the irreversible destabilization of the Arctic ice sheets or reversal of the Earth’s ability to absorb carbon dioxide.”10 The notion that this possibility can be prevented without “taxing and regulating carbon” is looking more farfetched every year.11
An expanding chorus of voices is calling for decisive action, coordinated on a global scale before it is too late. As George Marshall of the environment group Rising Tide warns, “We have no right…to argue to future generations…that we were waiting to achieve a full scientific understanding” before addressing climate change simply because it is a costly and formidable problem.12
| THE STERN REVIEW Sir Nicholas Stern, a former chief economist at the World Bank, released a lengthy report to the British government in late October 2006 detailing the potential impact of escalating climate change on the global economy within the next 50 years. This landmark study warns that global warming could eventually “devastate the world economy on the scale of the world wars and the Great Depression” by decreasing global GDP by 5 to 20 percent each year in the coming decades.13The report recommends investing one percent of current global GDP in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, arguing that such a move to reduce global warming could result in trillions of dollars in savings in the long term. Problems highlighted by Stern for special attention include the heavy use of carbon fuels in power generation and rampant deforestation, which single-handedly accounts for more harm to the environment than transportation. Though Stern admits the majority of the burden of achieving these investment targets should fall on rich countries, his report emphasizes that the participation and cooperation of all major economies, including the U.S. and China, will be required to effectively address global warming.14 |
For more information on climate change, please refer to the Environment issue brief (Global Warming).
1 Cooper, “Energy and Environment,” 165
2 Wirth et al.
3 Bradsher and Barboza
4 Titus and Narayanan.
5 Kirby
6 Browne; “Climate Change 2001”
7 Some of the evidence for global warming includes: satellite observations confirming that spring arrives a week earlier than it did in the 1970s, a drop in the number of glaciers in Montana’s Glacier National Park from 150 in 1910 to 30 today, and reductions of up to 80 percent in the snow caps of Tanzania’s Mount Kilimanjaro. See John Browne, “Beyond Kyoto ,” Foreign Affairs 83 (4), July/August 2004; Marcia Clemmit, “Climate Change,” CQ Researcher 16(4), Congressional Quarterly Press, 27 January 2006, 75.
8 Clemmit 75
9 Mantel 436; Mouawad, “Green Guys”
10 Mantel 436
11 Mallaby, “Dated Carbon Approach”
12 Clemmit 76-7
13 Wagner
14 Peston