Nature Features
The costs of climate change - and who should pay
By Chris Cermak May 3, 2007, 11:46 GMT
High voltage electricity towers rise in front of construction sites of buildings veiled by smog in Jakarta, Indonesia, 03 May 2007. The United Nations Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) meeting in Thailand this week is expected to make public a report focusing on the scientific, tchnological, environmental. and economic aspects of mitigation of climate change. EPA/JURNASYANTO SUKARNO
Washington - A UN panel charged with identifying the best ways to combat global warming this week has hit upon a crucial debate: just how much will it cost, and who should foot the bill?
Environmentalists shirk at the very question: any price to protect the Earth from global warming's catastrophic consequences is worth paying, they say.
But governments and businesses around the world are keen to examine how best to make tackling climate change more cost-effective.
When the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issues the third and final section of its report Friday in Bangkok, one of its many tasks will be 'weighing the costs and benefits' of the options available to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, according to Professor Stephen Schneider of Stanford University's environmental policy department in California.
Estimates of the costs of bringing emissions of carbon dioxide - the chief pollutant - down to manageable levels varies among the scientific literature, anywhere from 3 per cent of global gross domestic product (GDP), to an actual benefit of 0.5 per cent due to greater energy efficiency that could result from using new technologies.
The average estimate among the literature is 1 per cent of global GDP - a number which will likely be used by the IPCC on Friday. The UN report, compiled by hundreds of scientists, does no original research but evaluates all literature published since its last report in 2001.
'It's not the job of the IPCC to say what the world should do,' Schneider said in a conference call with reporters. The IPCC's task is to crunch the numbers rather than make specific policy recommendations, but Schneider acknowledged that 'numbers can take on a life of their own.'
'What is very clear regardless of where one sets the number ... we are going to pay for climate change one way or another,' said Schneider. Scientists estimate that adapting to the effects of climate change down the road - dams to combat rising sea levels for example - could run as high as 5 per cent of global GDP.
The next issue is who should pay, and while the IPCC is expected to make no specific recommendations in that area either, the numbers could set the trend there, too.
China - which could replace the US as the world's biggest polluter by 2009 - has been insisting that the IPCC's outline of increases in carbon dioxide pollution go back as far as 1750, rather than starting at 1970, according to a delegate at the Bangkok meetings which have been going on since Monday. That would subtly highlight the industrialized world's overarching role in creating the current problem.
China and India have balked in the past on tackling climate change on the pretext that developing countries should address it first, but the United States has refused to join the Kyoto Protocol - an international treaty that commits nations to reducing emissions - because developing countries were left out if it.
Even if governments could agree on what proportion of that roughly 1 per cent of global GDP each country should pay, next is the question of who should get the money.
The IPCC on Friday will outline a variety of measures to reduce emissions, among them greater energy efficiency and renewable energy alternatives, offering their respective costs and benefits. Whether controversial alternatives such as nuclear energy are included is still uncertain.
Observers and investors say it is crucial that governments back the right horse, or otherwise back none at all.
'Governments have, on the whole, a mixed record of picking technological winners,' the US-based World Resources Institute said in a recent report on ways to promote low-carbon alternatives.
The WRI advocates technology-neutral government policies which would let the market decide, an example of which is the carbon- trading scheme used in Europe, which sets a cap on industrial emissions and allows companies to buy or sell the rights to pollute.
But environmental groups argue that there are plenty of smaller energy-saving methods, such as flourescent lightbulbs, that should be implemented while incentives for larger investments into energy alternatives run their course.
'We have many things that we can do cheaply to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and we can do them quickly,' said Philip Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, an environmental think-tank.
If all else fails, there's always the concept of geo-engineering, a controversial idea that technology could one day actually counteract global warming - for example by placing a huge sunshade in space between the Earth and the Sun.
The US has reportedly pushed for the concept to be included in the IPCC's report. Environmentalists abhor the idea, and even those willing to hear it see it as an absolute last resort.
Schneider called it a 'backdoor ... because we have screwed up all our opportunities to do it right.'
© 2007 dpa - Deutsche Presse-AgenturCOMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in Nature
- 1. USA California Tsunami Wave Pictures
- 2. Japan Earthquake Tsunami Pictures
- 3. Indonesia Bromo Eruption Pictures
- 4. UN: Bee colonies worldwide under threat from chemicals and pollution
- 5. USA Hawaii Volcano Pictures
Older Talkback
page: 1
You might like to note that European countries and citizens have been paying for some time to try and alleviate some of the causes of globalwarming - there has, so far, been very little effort or payment from America - even signing up to Kyoto took far longer for America than practically anyone else
Its time you Yanks started paying to sort out the harm your oil wasting lifestyle is causing
PS Look at the item 'Thinking like Rats:' on this site - seems to apply particularly to American global warming deniers
More warming evidence is piling up every day - the famous Storks in Spain are no longer migrating South, in Germany they are trying to cover the last remnants of a rapidly melting Glacier with a huge tarpaulin to try and minimise the effect of the sun, cruises are now available to see the new island, several miles long, exposed by the melting of Greenland's Glaciers, and also to see the fast melting sea ice.
How much longer will the Global Warming sceptics (and those who oppose the Gore evidence for purely political reasons) hide the truth from themselves ?
...are very different things. If you think co2 driven global climate change is truth, then you do not know the difference.
'we are making it bigger'
Cake
Pete's PS above seems to be the item you should follow up - look at the information then look inwardly at your reasons for opposition to the FACTS. Truth is, you haven't a clue
See the WWF:... item on this site . 'USA is the laggard' in taking steps. How true - pursuing political beliefs rather than taking an open minded view of world problems.
Al Gore ruined the global warming cause, what a hypocrite, least him being on the board of apple has forced them to deal with slave labor and environmental issues. What are we gonna do when the ice age comes? 67000 glaciers worldwide, less than 100 studied,Less than 50% melting, many are growing,expanding,cooling etc,.
This rubbish about only 100 glaciers being studied has been quoted before - most glaciers are being studied in one form or another and over 80% of them are retreating - the data has been laid out in previous blogs. Of course you can find some which are growing, but that is partly because of extra precipitation from more moisture in the atmosphere through global warming, not because another Ice Age is approaching
The Germans are even covering a glacier with a huge tarpaulin to try and slow the melting and preserve skiing facilities - I suppose the diehard global warming sceptics will quote that as a case of 'man made cooling' - which PROVES the next ice age is coming
I have been reading this and similar threads on the climate for a while and a number of things strike me -
1.There seem to be one or two correspondents (who also feature on threads for other subjects) who continually try and create an argument by taking an extreme view, often contrary to the facts. I can only assume that they either get some sort of enjoyment from this or they are so blinded by their beliefs that rational discussion is pointless.
2. There are some genuinely concerned people who try to present facts about Global Warming causes (for and against) and have a genuine desire to debate and try to analyse the facts and arrive at a conclusion
3. There are inputs which do not support the man-made causes for Global Warming and which, by trying to swamp the debate with instances of events which at first glance appear to contradict the Global Warming models and even suggest an imminent Ice Age. These may well be following a separate agenda - perhaps actively supported by the Oil industry lobby
4. There are people who appear to be politically biased - thus Gore must be wrong whatever the facts - therefore Global Warming isn't happening
Having tried to sift through the various inputs, my conclusions on these debates are -
Treat everything on these threads with considerable suspicion, but when facts are presented, particularly the anti-global warming ones, try to check them elsewhere before accepting them at face value.
There is a great deal of evidence that the world is getting hotter - people in most countries have direct experience of this from their local environment compared with a couple of decades ago. (and look at the year by year trends - don't be misled by the spurious effects which crop up now and again and are claimed to be a reversal of the trends)
The question of cause is hotly (sorry, a pun) disputed, but clearly the heating effect of the Sun is marginally increasing. Whether this is directly by increased output or through the position and inclination of the Earth relative to the Sun, or because there is less reflection from clouds & ice, is a complex relationship, but overall the Earth is gaining extra energy.
The loss of energy from the Earth by radiation into space is not sufficient to compensate for the extra incoming energy, so the Earth is getting hotter.
The rate of getting hotter is dependent upon the difference in quantity between incoming and outgoing energy, and is affected by many factors, but it is very probable that the increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere {which allows incoming ultra violet energy in but partially blocks outgoing infra red radiation (heat) - the 'Greenhouse Effect'} is helping to retain more energy than previously, which remains as additional heat in the land and sea.
This extra heat in the Earth system will be carried around via sea and atmosphere and will cause changes in climate and weather - this works in many ways - some places will get hotter/drier others colder/wetter and various combinations in between, but whatever happens, the extra energy will still be somewhere in the system, and overall the Earth's temperature will carry on increasing
But in the meantime, anything we can do to reduce the amount of CO2 will allow more energy to leave Earth. (The mechanism for CO2 retaining Infra Red energy is clear, it is only the relationship between CO2 level/amount of energy retained which is questioned). So, anything we do to limit the amount of CO2 is better than doing nothing - it may or may not be enough to limit the rate of warming, but it is a step in the right direction. It might even be sufficient to balance the energy in/out and stabilise the temperature
It is only if this balance of energy in/energy out was completely reversed that any overall cooling could occur and a new ice age could happen. And if proponents of a looming ice age say it is just around the corner they must think up a reason for either the sun to suddenly get a lot dimmer or the amount of radiation leaving the Earth must increase dramatically. (Actually - removing all the CO2 would achieve that - without ANY Greenhouse effect, the Earth's mean temperature would be around minus 6 degrees Centigrade - that is how potent even very small concentrations of CO2 can be)
Well that's my view. I fully expect the various activists will come screaming in with all sorts of counter arguments - fact or fiction - but I shall go away and do something more useful, like minimising my carbon footprint and enjoying the warm (but not yet baking) weather
To all the EuroArrogants that seem to think the EU is somehow the center (centre for the Eurozens) of the global warming, cliamte change, ozone hole and environmental universe, then please reconsider your position and stop attacking the USA (and Australia, China, most of Asia, a lot of Africa and probably Canada now) for their cautious stance on this issue.
Whilst, the EU seems to think they are to be credited with creating the green mentality and were the first to the plate in tackling the problems this is not necessary true. Consider all the decades of work borrows from the USA that forms the basis for most of the scientific and legislative framework used in the EU.
Even if the USA is taking a 6 to 10 year breather and is slacking, the decade break in the USA's position is well deserved in light of the USA's contribution to the science and legislation of environmentalism.
This is so typical of Europe to simply do something for a small time frame and act as though they have been doing it all the time and it was originally part of their way of thinking our something.
For gods sakes, many parts of Europe only recently started cleaning up rivers and streams (thanks mainly to the Water Framework Directive, Bathing waters direct, drinking waters directive, shellfish directives, etc.). And you act as though the USA has no idea whatsoever about any of this even though a massive amount of the academic literature and research used in the EU to bring about these environmental legislations is based in decades old information from the USA. And we have not even begun to talk about air pollution directives and legislation.
Anyway, if the Europeans relax for 10 minuets and step back from their continuous Anti-American bashing mentality and look at the true situation, the fact that the Federal Government has valid reason for taking slow steps into this; State governments themselves are taking it upon themselves to legislate pollution of all sorts. For Gods sake when did parts of the EU finally give up leaded gasoline (petro)?
Farthermore, do you honestly belive that all research in environmental technologies and environmental sciences has come to a complete stop in the USA just because of the Bush Administration? If you do, you are are saddly mistaken. There is far more research going on in the USA Universities these fields that can be found in the EU. But again, the Eurozens seem to think they are on the cutting edge and know best.
And do you think simply because the USA, whom did not sign the Kyoto protocol/treaty is doing nothing? Come on man...you can't possibly be that stupid. But many people seem to think just because a country does not commit to targets (that are very questionable but in effectiveness, economics and so forth) that that country is doing nothing? Get real. That makes about as much sense as saying everyone in France like frogs legs and eats them all day.
So, shut the hell up you stupid EuroArrogants because you sound stupid, you sound arrogant and you make yourselves look like fools. You would do yourselves and the world much better to have open and constructive dialogue. It may suit the Europeans to throw away their soverign rights without any thought about it and allow Brussells in it's infinite wisdom to make all the socialistic decisions for everyone but that culture does not exist is many other countries and you would be wise to realize that and accept it. Other countries have other methods of culturally implementing ideas and these ways are not the European way. I also, do not think Australians take kindly to being told what to do, how to do it and why to do it forcefully by their government...neither should Canadians or Mexicans for that matter. However, apparently Europeans careless about control over their own lives and prefer instead to reside in a bubble of socialism and prefer to have their super-government dictate the terms to them. Ok, that is fine for you...but allow the rest of us to move in a way that is comfortable for us and realize that there are other priorities as well. Once the bush administration is removed (not long from now) we will see big change. Until then, let the researchers continue to research, let the Universities continue to educate and let the State governments implement their own plans...and giving credit where credit is due would be nice for once.
I wonder how much Co2 is produced by the worlds 6.5 billion human beings as they breath ?
I seem to recall that sombody calculated that if the worlds population continues to increase at the same rate in a few million years the heat given off from their bodies would make the Earths surface hotter than the Sun ?
Scientists say that we need a 70% drop in Co2 emissions ? The same effect could be gained by a 70% drop in the worlds population with no drop in living standards and oil space and food for everybody, and don't forget all those lovely creatures that will not become extinct.
So abortion is saving the planet?...Maybe we could stop Volcanoes...When is that killer asteroid coming?
You forgot number 5, Cut and paste on the second half of what your writing about co2. Your co2 info is incorrect by the way.
Why do global warmers want to keep temperatures the same, Isn't that like rats? Failure to adapt, just remain status quo?
articles published by Dr. Theodor Landscheidt of the Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity in Waldmuenchen, Germany. The late Dr. Landscheidt was a giant in the field of climatology.
Here's what Dr. Landscheidt said: 'The current 11-year sunspot cycle 23 with its considerably weaker activity seems to be a first indication of the new trend, especially as it was predicted on the basis of solar motion cycles two decades ago. As to temperature, only El Niño periods should interrupt the downward trend, but even El Niños should become less frequent and strong.'
Dubious - your point about sun cycles may be a reason for solar radiation to drop. However I think the El Nino effect is only within the energy moving around in the Earth's system, as pointed out by Marcus in his interesting item earlier in this thraed. I don't see how an El Nino can increase the amount of radiation going back into space - it may move the air and currents around in a different pattern but the heat is still there somewhere
Once considered incredible, the notion that climate can change rapidly is becoming respectable. In a 2003 report, Robert Gagosian cites 'rapidly advancing evidence [from, e.g., tree rings and ice cores] that Earth's climate has shifted abruptly and dramatically in the past.' For example, as the world warmed at the end of the last ice age about 13,000 years ago, melting ice sheets appear to have triggered a sudden halt in the Conveyor, throwing the world back into a 1,300 year period of ice-age-like conditions called the 'Younger Dryas.'
EuroArogants seems to be suffering from an inferiority complex in relation to Europeans. That seems to be justified if all he can manage is lots of invective rather than concrete facts
Hopefully he won't let off much more hot air or global warming really will take off - not in America of course, they intend ignoring it for several years, pretending its not happening.
If the earth has been heating up since the last ice age and has natural warming and cooling cycles, no matter what and we are going to be struck by a killer asteroid right?...What does it matter. I just read 'have you hugged you hummer' and now I am going to get one. They are 3x's more energy efficient in a dust to dust study of energy use compared to a toyota prius.(hybrids)
Lobster's idea of reducing population to cut CO2 is great - but it could be improved enormously: get rid of the 6% of the World's population who are american and the CO2 reduction would be 25% because of their energy wasting/pollution producing lifestyle. That reaaly would be a productivity improvement
Attention: WIMB (weather in my backyard) means global warming is real report: Florida Gov. Charlie Crist has declared a state of emergency because of the current danger of wildfires in the state. Oh my god its happening.
See also the 'Artic Leaders Blame....' thread on this site
Also, before believing too much from Dubious, try Googling 'Dr Landscheidt Exxon'
Dubious - if you do a little research I think you will find that Dr Theodore Landscheidt far from being 'a giant of Climatology' was actually an Astrologer and 'amateur' climatologist
Looks as if Marcus is right - a lot of the supposedly impartial information quoted on this and other threads seems to be derived from people (not all are even scientists) who appear to have some very dubious funding arrangements.
Since much of this funding is oil industry based, one can't help questioning the validity of results which are so strongly anti global warming
Many people quoting this data here probably do so without realising they've been misled, but it may also be the case that some input is actually oil industry spinners at work
'Global Warming is Real' - perhaps you're being ironic (if so, that's very unusual as Americans apparently don't get irony), but Florida having to impose restrictions because of fire danger may seem a backyard event at this stage, but consider that in Europe - roughly the same land area as the USA -
There are emergency measures already, or about to be, in force for drought and/or fire dangers in many countries; Italy - severe drought could cause power generation loss and crop failure plus lack of drinking water, Spain much drought, Northern Germany and surrounding areas - drought likely to cause crop failure, UK - only 5% of normal rainfall in April, already very short of water in some areas, Portugal - large fires now occur each year and drought prevails, all the Alpine areas suffering ice loss and water tables falling rapidly. These are just ones I know about - other countries in Europe are having very dry, hot summers, there is now fear of malaria spreading from Africa because of rising temperatures.
It is easy for anti global warming people to dismiss localised events as not being representative, but when large sections of a whole continent are affected, it is time to think seriously
It may be that only Florida is currently suffering in the USA and all other areas are getting normal rain - but I suspect conditions will change quite rapidly in the near future, and 'backyards' will become continent wide if you get the same sort of spread of drought as Europe with a similar land area
page: 1
SP4: Pay and Pay, and Pay, Guess who!?May 3rd, 2007 - 14:30:03
Yeah, you and me! The whole point is to hand the trial lawyers their next rice bowl for the 21st century. You will pay the secret tax every day of your lives in your utility bills, fuel costs, etc.
This is Gore's constituency, and he's delivering. It's indentured servitude, and like brother Jesse says 'in slavery, everyone has a job!'
Report this comment