ik heb dit in mijn pb gehad van een userGlobal warming and climate change is looked at in this section of the global issues web site. Introduced are some of the effects of climate change. In addition, this section attempts to provide insights into what governments, companies, international institutions, and other organizations are attempting to do about this issue, as well as the challenges they face. Some of the major conferences in recent years are also discussed.
Introduction
The climate warming, and there is now overwhelming scientific concensus that it is happening, and human-induced. With global warming on the increase and species and their habitats on the decrease, chances for ecosystems to adapt naturally are diminishing. Recent years show increasing temperatures in various regions, and/or increasing extremities in weather patterns. This section looks at what causes climate change, what the impacts are and where scientific concensus currently is. Find out more.
Global Dimming New Page!
Research has shown that air pollutants from fossil fuel use make clouds reflect more of the sun's rays back into space. This leads to an effect known as global dimming whereby less heat and energy reaches the earth. At first, it sounds like an ironic savior to climate change problems. However, it is believed that global dimming caused the droughts in Ethiopia in the 1970s and 80s where millions died, because the northern hemisphere oceans were not warm enough to allow rain formation. Global dimming is also hiding the true power of global warming. By cleaning up global dimming-causing pollutants without tackling greenhouse gas emissions, rapid warming has been observed, and various human health and ecological disasters have resulted, as witnessed during the European heat wave in 2003, which saw thousands of people die. Find out more.
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change New Page!
The world mostly agrees that something needs to be done about global warming and climate change. The first stumbling block, however, has been trying to get an agreement on a framework. In 1988, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meterological Organization (WMO) to assess the scientific knowledge on global warming. The IPCC concluded in 1990 that there was broad international consensus that climate change was human-induced. That report led way to an international convention for climate change, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), signed by over 150 countries at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. This section looks at this Convention and some of the main principles in it. Find out more.
Climate Change Negotiations and Actions
The United States plus a few other countries, and many large corporations have been against climate change treaties due to the fear of the threat to their economy and profits if they have to make substantial changes, as well as the fear of realizing that perhaps they methods have been the primary contributors to the problem. This section explores some of those fears to see if they are justified or not. Find out more.
Climate Justice and Equity
A growing concern from developing countries and various NGOs is the need for public participation and the effect on populations and poor countries that global warming negotiations have. The impacts of climate change will be felt on the world's poorest countries the most. In some cases, climate changes have already affected some small island nations. Climate justice, equity and sustainable development are all important parts of this debate that are often left out of mainstream discourse. Equal rights to the atmosphere for all human beings and equity within and between nations are paramount.
An agreed principle was that of common but different responsibilities.
That is, when the world's majority countries signed up to climate change Convention (including countries like the US who would later withdraw from the subsequent Kyoto Protocol) it was agreed that it is today's rich nations who are the ones responsible for global warming as greenhouse gases tend to remain in the atmosphere for many decades, and rich countries have been industrializing and emitting climate changing pollution for many more centuries than the poor countries.
It was also agreed that the poor countries had pressing needs to meet basic needs and eradicate poverty. As a result, it was agreed that it would be unfair to put emissions restrictions on poor countries when it is the rich countries who have caused the problems.
Nonetheless, some poor countries have already started to make emission reductions, showing that the rich countries can do it to.
These issues are explored in more depth here. Find out more.
Flexibility Mechanisms
Flexibility mechanisms were defined in the Kyoto Protocol as different ways to achieve emissions reduction as part of the effort to address climate change issues. These fall into the following categories: Emissions Trading, Joint Implementation and Clean Development Mechanism. However, these have been highly controversial as they were mainly included on strong US insistence and to keep the US in the treaty. Some of the mechanisms face criticism for not actually leading to a reduction in emissions, for example. Find out more.
Carbon Sinks, Forests and Climate Change
A mechanism suggested for tackling climate change and warming has been the idea of using "Carbon Sinks" to soak up carbon dioxide. To aid in this, reforestation, or planting of new forests, have been suggested. This is a popular strategy for the logging industry and nations with large forests interests. While there may be some potential in this solution, it cannot be effective on its own. This is because it legitimizes continued destruction of old-growth and pristine forests which are rich ecosystems and have an established biodiversity base (albeit shrinking now) that naturally maintain the environment (at no cost!). Creating new forest areas would require the creation of entire ecosystems. It is also criticized for being a quick fix that doesn't tackle the root causes effectively and doesn't lead to, or promote actual emissions reduction. Find out more.
COP10 - Buenos Aires New Page!
December 2004 saw the tenth session of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties (or, COP10 for short). This marked the 10th anniversary of the Kyoto Protocol. Countries were to discuss adaption measures, and the entry of the Kyoto Protocol into force. In addition, some discussion on post-Kyoto was also attempted. Find out more.
COP8 - Delhi Conference
October 23 to November 1, 2002 saw the eighth session of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties (or, COP8 for short). Leading up to this conference there has still been little progress on reducing emissions. Find out more.
COP7 - Marrakesh Conference
October 29 to November 9, 2001 saw the seventh session of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties (or, COP7 for short). The purpose of the meeting was to agree legal text covering outstanding technical aspects of the political agreement reached in Bonn in July 2001 on how to implement the Kyoto Protocol. While an agreement resulted, there are still concerns there will be little impact on emissions as a result. Find out more.
COP6 - Hague Conference
November 13 to November 24, 2000 saw the sixth session of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties (or, COP6 for short). Each COP meeting is where nations meet to evaluate the accords and compliance with meeting emissions reduction targets. This one was intended to wrap up three years of negotiations on the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. Instead though, the talks pretty much collapsed. Find out more.
COP4 - Buenos Aires Conference
November 2 - November 13, 1998 in Buenos Aires, Argentina the Fourth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP-4) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was held. There were many issues that still needed to be discussed, epecially on the trading of Carbon emissions and equity between the rich and developing nations. Find out more.
COP3 - Kyoto Protocol and Conference
1997, at the Conference of Parties III (COP3), Kyoto, Japan, the Kyoto conference on climate change took place. There, developed countries agreed to specific targets for cutting their emissions of greenhouse gases. A general framework was defined for this, with specifics to be detailed over the next few years. This became known as the Kyoto Protocol. The US proposed to just stabilize emissions and not cut them at all, while the European Union called for a 15% cut. In the end, there was a trade off, and industrialized countries were committed to an overall reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases to 5.2% below 1990 levels for the period 2008 - 2012. (The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in its 1990 report that a 60% reduction in emissions was needed...) As with the following COP meetings, there was enormous media propaganda by affected big businesses and by countries such as the U.S. who were openly hostile to the treaty. In fact one of the first things George Bush did when he came to power was to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. Find out more.
The Ozone Layer and Climate Change
Scientists believe that Global Warming will lead to a weaker Ozone layer, because as the surface temperature rises, the stratosphere (the Ozone layer being found in the upper part) will get colder, making the natural repairing of the Ozone slower. Find out more.
The Childish Pranks of El Niño
The 1997 Niño caused huge problems all over the world, from droughts to floods and poor yield of crops. It is thought that there is a link between climate change and the severity of Niño. Find out more.
What is Global Warming and Climate Change?
Global warming and climate change refer to an increase in average global temperatures. Natural events and human activities are believed to be contributing to an increase in average global temperatures. This is caused primarily by increases in “greenhouse” gases such as Carbon Dioxide (CO2).
What is the Greenhouse Effect?
The term greenhouse is used in conjunction with the phenomenon known as the greenhouse effect.
* Energy from the sun drives the earth's weather and climate, and heats the earth's surface;
* In turn, the earth radiates energy back into space;
* Some atmospheric gases (water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other gases) trap some of the outgoing energy, retaining heat somewhat like the glass panels of a greenhouse;
* These gases are therefore known as greenhouse gases;
* The greenhouse effect is the rise in temperature on Earth as certain gases in the atmosphere trap energy.
Six main gases considered to be contributing to global climate change are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), plus three fluorinated industrial gases: hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6). Water vapor is also considered a greenhouse gas.
Many of these greenhouse gases are actually life-enabling, for without them, heat would escape back into space and the Earth's average temperature would be a lot colder. However, if the greenhouse effect becomes stronger, then more heat gets trapped than needed, and the Earth might become less habitable for humans, plants and animals.
What are the impacts of Global Warming?
For decades, greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide have been increasing in the atmosphere. But why does that matter? Won't warmer weather be nicer for everyone?
Rapid changes in global temperature
A documentary aired on the National Geographic Channel in Britain on August 9, 2003 titled What's up with the weather. It noted that the levels of carbon dioxide for example, were currently at their highest levels in the past 450,000 years.
Increased greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect is feared to contribute to an overall warming of the Earth's climate, leading to a global warming (even though some regions may experience cooling, or wetter weather, while the temperature of the planet on average would rise).
Consider also the following:
* 1998, 2002 and 2003 have been the three warmest years on record;
* According to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the 1990s was the warmest decade;
* The 1900s was the warmest century during the last 1,000 years.
However, it is the rapid pace at which the temperature will rise that will result in many negative impacts to humans and the environment and this why there is such a world-wide concern.
Extreme Weather Patterns
Most scientists believe that the warming of the climate will lead to more extreme weather patterns such as:
* More hurricanes and drought;
* Longer spells of dry heat or intense rain (depending on where you are in the world);
* Scientists have pointed out that Northern Europe could be severely affected with colder weather if climate change continues, as the arctic begins to melt and send fresher waters further south. It would effectively cut off the Gulf Stream that brings warmth from the Gulf of Mexico, keeping countries such as Britain warmer than expected;
* In South Asia, the Himalayan glaciers could retreat causing water scarcity in the long run.
While many environmental groups have been warning about extreme weather conditions for a few years, the World Meteorological Organization announced in July 2003 that “Recent scientific assessments indicate that, as the global temperatures continue to warm due to climate change, the number and intensity of extreme events might increase.”
The WMO also notes that “New record extreme events occur every year somewhere in the globe, but in recent years the number of such extremes have been increasing.” (The WMO limits the definition of extreme events to high temperatures, low temperatures and high rainfall amounts and droughts.) The U.K's Independent newspaper described the WMO's announcement as “unprecedented” and “astonishing” because it came from a respected United Nations organization not an environmental group!
Super-storms
Mentioned further above was the concern that more hurricanes could result. The link used was from the environmental organization WWF, written back in 1999. In August/September 2004 a wave of severe hurricanes left many Caribbean islands and parts of South Eastern United States devastated. In the Caribbean many lives were lost and there was immense damage to entire cities. In the U.S. many lives were lost as well, some of the most expensive damage resulted from the successive hurriances.
In its wake, scientists have reiterated that such super-storms may be a sign of things to come. “Global warming may spawn more super-storms”, Inter Press Service (IPS) notes.
Interviewing a biological oceanography professor at Harvard University, IPS notes that the world's oceans are approaching 27 degrees C or warmer during the summer. This increases the odds of major storms.
* When water reaches such temperatures, more of it evaporates, priming hurricane or cyclone formation.
* Once born, a hurricane needs only warm water to build and maintain its strength and intensity.
Furthermore, “as emissions of greenhouse gases continue to trap more and more of the sun's energy, that energy has to be dissipated, resulting in stronger storms, more intense precipitation and higher winds.”
There is abundant evidence of an unprecedented number of severe weather events in the past decade, [professor of biological oceanography at Harvard University, James] McCarthy says. In 1998, Hurricane Mitch killed nearly 20,000 people in Central America, and more than 4,000 people died during disastrous flooding in China. Bangladesh suffered some of its worst floods ever the following year, as did Venezuela. Europe was hit with record floods in 2002, and then a record heat wave in 2003.
More recently, Brazil was struck by the first-ever recorded hurricane in the South Atlantic last March.
“Weather records are being set all the time now. We're in an era of unprecedented extreme weather events,” McCarthy said.
Historical weather patterns are becoming less useful for predicting the future conditions because global warming is changing ocean and atmospheric conditions.
“In 30 to 50 years' time, the Earth's weather generating system will be entirely different,” he predicted.
— Stephen Leahy, Global Warming May Spawn More Super-Storms, Inter Press Service, September 20, 2004
Ecosystem Impacts
With global warming on the increase and species' habitats on the decrease, the chances for various ecosystems to adapt naturally are diminishing.
Many studies have pointed out that the rates of extinction of animal and plant species, and the temperature changes around the world since the industrial revolution, have been significantly different to normal expectations.
An analysis of population trends, climate change, increasing pollution and emerging diseases found that 40 percent of deaths in the world could be attributed to environmental factors.
Jaan Suurkula, M.D. and chairman of Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology (PSRAST), paints a dire picture, but notes that he is only citing observations and conclusions from established experts and institutions. Those observations and conclusions note that global warming will lead to the following situations, amongst others:
* Rapid global heating according to a US National Academy of Science warning;
* Dramatic increase in greenhouse gas emissions;
* Ozone loss aggravated by global warming;
* Ozone loss likely to aggravate global warming;
* Warming of the oceans leads to increased green house gasses;
* Permafrost thawing will aggravate global warming;
* Oceanic changes observed that may aggravate the situation;
* A vicious circle whereby each problem will exacerbate other problems which will feedback into each other;
* Massive exctinction of species will aggravate the environmental crisis;
* Sudden collapse of biological and ecological systems may occur, but will have a very slow recovery;
* While effective measures can decrease global warming and other problems the World community has repeatedly failed to establish cooperation.
The “vicious circle” Suurkula refers to is worth expanding. In his own words, but slightly reformatted:
The ongoing accumulation of greenhouse gasses causes increasing global warming.
* This causes a more extensive destruction of ozone in the polar regions because of accentuated stratospheric cooling.
o An increase of ozone destruction increases the UV-radiation that, combined with higher ocean temperature, causes a reduction of the gigantic carbon dioxide trapping mechanism of the oceanic phytoplankton biomass;
o This accentuates the warming process.
* When the warming has reached a certain level, it will release huge amounts of greenhouse gasses trapped in the permafrost.
o This will enhance the global warming, and the polar destruction of ozone, and so on.
* The observed decrease of the thermohaline circulation [the various streams that transport warm and cold waters around the world and therefore has an important stabilizing effect on world climate] further aggravates the situation.
This is a global self-reinforcing vicious circle accelerating the global warming.
— Jaan Suurkula, World-wide cooperation required to prevent global crisis; Part one - the problem, Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology, February 6, 2004
Rising Sea Levels
Water expands when heated, and sea levels are expected to rise due to climate change. Rising sea levels will also result as the polar caps begin to melt.
Rising sea levels is already affecting many small islands.
The WorldWatch Institute reports that “[t]he Earth's ice cover is melting in more places and at higher rates than at any time since record keeping began”. (March 6, 2000).
Rising sea levels will impact many coastlines, and a large mass of humanity lives near the coasts or by major rivers.
Increase in Pests and Disease
An increase in pests and disease is also feared.
A report in the journal Science in June 2002 described the alarming increase in the outbreaks and epidemics of diseases throughout the land and ocean based wildlife due to climate changes.
One of the authors points out that, “Climate change is disrupting natural ecosystems in a way that is making life better for infectious diseases.”
If some of this does get worse, it is likely that the poorest regions and people are likely to suffer the most, as they would have the least resources at hand to deal with the effects.
Greenhouse gases and emissions resulting from human activity
Leading climate scientists now agree that human pollution, mainly from fossil fuels, has added substantially to global warming in the past 50 years. A 1000-page document from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reveals far bleaker predictions that the Earth will get far hotter than predicted. (The IPCC is an international scientific body that studies the relationship between human activity and global warming. It includes hundreds of scientists from around the world.)
Differences in Greenhouse Gas Emission Around the World
As the World Resources Institute highlights there is a huge contrast between developed/industrialized nations and poorer developing countries in greenhouse emissions, as well as the reasons for those emissions. For example:
* In terms of historical emissions, industrialized countries account for roughly 80% of the carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere to date. Since 1950, the U.S. has emitted a cumulative total of roughly 50.7 billion tons of carbon, while China (4.6 times more populous) and India (3.5 times more populous) have emitted only 15.7 and 4.2 billion tons respectively (although their numbers will rise).
* Annually, more than 60 percent of global industrial carbon dioxide emissions originate in industrialized countries, where only about 20 percent of the world's population resides.
* Much of the growth in emissions in developing countries results from the provision of basic human needs for growing populations, while emissions in industrialized countries contribute to growth in a standard of living that is already far above that of the average person worldwide. This is exemplified by the large contrasts in per capita carbons emissions between industrialized and developing countries. Per capita emissions of carbon in the U.S. are over 20 times higher than India, 12 times higher than Brazil and seven times higher than China.
At the 1997 Kyoto Conference, industrialized countries were committed to an overall reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases to 5.2% below 1990 levels for the period 2008 - 2012. (The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in its 1990 report that a 60% reduction in emissions was needed...)
The United States is the World's Largest Emitter of Greenhouse Gases
The United States is the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases. It:
* Accounts for roughly four percent of the world's population;
* Accounts for approximately 23% of global emissions and 42% of industrialized country emissions;
The previously 15-member Europen Union is also large Emitter
The previously 15 member-nations European Union (E.U.), if considered as a whole (for it is more comparable to the U.S.):
* Accounts for roughly 3 percent of the world's population;
* Accounts for around 10% of global emissions and 24% of industrialized countries' man-made emissions of the six main gases;
* Recent years have seen a reduction in emissions from those initial 15-member states. However,
o It is not near the level required;
o For the second consecutive year, in 2003, emissions from EU countries have actually increased slightly (though still remaining slightly lower than 1990 levels).
Stalling Kyoto Protocol Gets Push by Russia
The Kyoto Protocol was the climate change treaty negotiated in 1997, setting targets for emissions of greenhouse gases.
In order to be binding under international law, the treaty would need ratification from the countries responsible for around 55% of the global greenhouse gas emissions of 1990.
The U.S. being the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gasese, pulled out in 2001, leaving treaty ratification depdenent on Russia, responsible for 17% of world emissions. Russia has to cut emission levels from the Soviet days, and their emissions in the past decade has been far less, so it should not pose as much of a problem to reduce such emissions.
Noting the above, the BBC commented on this adding that Kyoto was only ever a first step - now discussions on the next, more stringent, target on greenhouse gas emissions can begin.
Skepticism on Global Warming or That it can be human-induced
Cartoon Depicting the Denial of Global Warming
© Anne Ward Penguin
For a very long time, something of contention and debate in the U.S. had been whether or not a lot of climate change has in fact been induced by human activities, while many scientists around the world, Europe especially, have been more convinced that this is the case.
In May 2002, the Bush Administration in the U.S. did admit a link between human activities and climate change. However, at the same time the administration has continued its controversial stance of maintaining that it will not participate in the international treaty to limit global warming, the Kyoto Protocol, due to economic priorities and concerns. (More about the Kyoto Protocol, U.S. and others' actions/inactions is discussed in subsequent pages on this section.)
Throughout the 1990s, especially in the United States, but in other countries as well, those who would try and raise the importance of this issue, and suggest that we are perhaps over-consuming, or unsustainably using our resources etc, were faced with a lot of criticism and ridicule. The previous link is to an article by George Monbiot, writing in 1999. In 2004, he notes a similar issue, whereby media attempts at balance has led to “false balancing” whereby disproportionate time is given to more fringe scientists or those with less credibility or with additional agendas, without noting so, and thus gives the impression that there is more debate in the scientific community about whether or not climate change is an issue to be concerned about or not:
Picture a situation in which most of the media, despite the overwhelming weight of medical opinion, refused to accept that there was a connection between smoking and lung cancer. Imagine that every time new evidence emerged, they asked someone with no medical qualifications to write a piece dismissing the evidence and claiming that there was no consensus on the issue.
Imagine that the BBC, in the interests of “debate”, wheeled out one of the tiny number of scientists who says that smoking and cancer aren't linked, or that giving up isn't worth the trouble, every time the issue of cancer was raised.
Imagine that, as a result, next to nothing was done about the problem, to the delight of the tobacco industry and the detriment of millions of smokers. We would surely describe the newspapers and the BBC as grossly irresponsible.
Now stop imagining it, and take a look at what's happening. The issue is not smoking, but climate change. The scientific consensus is just as robust, the misreporting just as widespread, the consequences even graver.
...
“The scientific community has reached a consensus,” the [U.K.] government's chief scientific adviser, Professor David King, told the House of Lords last month. “I do not believe that amongst the scientists there is a discussion as to whether global warming is due to anthropogenic effects.
“It is man-made and it is essentially [caused by] fossil fuel burning, increased methane production... and so on.” Sir David chose his words carefully. There is a discussion about whether global warming is due to anthropogenic (man-made) effects. But it is not - or is only seldom - taking place among scientists. It is taking place in the media, and it seems to consist of a competition to establish the outer reaches of imbecility.
...
But these [skeptics and illogical points against climate change] are rather less dangerous than the BBC, and its insistence on “balancing” its coverage of climate change. It appears to be incapable of running an item on the subject without inviting a sceptic to comment on it.
Usually this is either someone from a corporate-funded thinktank (who is, of course, never introduced as such) or the professional anti-environmentalist Philip Stott. Professor Stott is a retired biogeographer. Like almost all the prominent sceptics he has never published a peer-reviewed paper on climate change. But he has made himself available to dismiss climatologists' peer-reviewed work as the “lies” of ecofundamentalists.
This wouldn't be so objectionable if the BBC made it clear that these people are not climatologists, and the overwhelming majority of qualified scientific opinion is against them. Instead, it leaves us with the impression that professional opinion is split down the middle. It's a bit like continually bringing people on to the programme to suggest that there is no link between HIV and Aids.
What makes all this so dangerous is that it plays into the hands of corporate lobbyists. A recently leaked memo written by Frank Luntz, the US Republican and corporate strategist, warned that “The environment is probably the single issue on which Republicans in general - and President Bush in particular - are most vulnerable... Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need... to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue.”
— George Monbiot, Beware the fossil fools, The Guardian, April 27, 2004
Despite the ridicule and attempts to discredit global warming concerns, there have been enough studies to conclude that global climate change is here. For example, (and these are not the only studies; there are more):
* According to a study, by Patrick Mazza and Rhys Roth, there is enough evidence to conclude that Global Warming is here and human-induced. Their study is titled Global Warming is Here; The Scientific Evidence;
* A scientific study by the Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London, verified the warming of Earth's climate from space by comparison of satellite data over a 27 year time span. (Ironically, this study came out just as U.S. President George Bush decided to reverse an election campaign pledge to legislate limits on carbon dioxide emissions. Instead, he said that any plan to legislate emissions would not include carbon dioxide (by far the largest greenhouse gas). Energy woes in California have been a factor in this decision.)
Many Sources Of Greenhouse Gases Being Discovered
Pollution from various industries, the burning of fossil fuels, methane from farm animals, forest destruction, rotting/dead vegetation etc have led to an increased number of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. And, as international trade in its current form continues to expand with little regard for the environment, the transportation alone, of goods is thought to considerably contribute to global warming via emissions from planes, ships and other transportation vehicles. (For more about trade and globalization in its current form and how it affects the environment, as well as other consequences, visit this web site's section on trade related issues.)
Even sulphur emitted from ships are thought to contribute a fair bit to climate change. (If you have registered at the journal, Nature, then you can see the report here.) In fact, sulphur based gas, originating from industry, discovered in 2000 is thought to be the most potent greenhouse gas measured to date. It is called trifluoromethyl sulphur pentafluoride (SF5CF3).
NewScientist.com reports (December 22, 2003) on a study that suggests soot particles may be worse than carbon dioxide in contributing to global warming. The soot particles also originate from industry, and during the industrial revolution, was quite common. While on the positive side there is less soot these days and perhaps easier to control if needed, alone, as one of the scientists of the study commented, “It does not change the need to slow down the growth rate of carbon dioxide and eventually stabilize the atmospheric amount.”
With Earth's resources gradually being depleted, sustainability and alternative technologies become even more important. While some major companies are even trying to produce more efficient products or use energy more efficiently, other large corporations are actually pushing back environmental programs in order to increase profits or to survive in a tough business world. The efforts of others to help protect the environment, and ultimately ourselves, are seriously undermined, as a result.
The subsequent pages on this site look at the political issues around tackling climate change.
On January 15, 2005, the BBC broadcast its weekly acclaimed Horizon documentary. This one was about a dangerous phenomenon called Global Dimming.
Table of contents for this page
This web page has the following sub-sections:
* Burning of fossil fuels is creating two effects
* What is global dimming?
* Impacts of global dimming: millions already killed by it?
o Health and environmental effects
o Millions from Famines in the Sahel in the 70s and 80s
o Billions are likely to be affected in Asia from similar effects
o As well as fossil fuel burning, contrails is another source
* Global Dimming is hiding the true power of Global Warming
o Addressing global dimming only will lead to massive global warming
* Root causes of global warming also must be addressed
* More Information
Burning of fossil fuels is creating two effects
Two effects of fossil fuel productions are:
* Greenhouse gases that cause global warming
* By-products which are pollutants that cause global dimming
What is global dimming?
Fossil fuel use, as well as producing greenhouse gases, creates other by-products. These by-products are also pollutants, such as sulphur dioxide, soot, and ash. These pollutants however, also change the properties of clouds.
Clouds are formed when water droplets are seeded by air-borne particles, such as pollen. Polluted air results in clouds with larger number of droplets than unpolluted clouds. This then makes those clouds more reflexsive. More of the sun's heat and energy is therefore reflected back into space.
This reduction of heat reaching the earth is known as Global Dimming.
Impacts of global dimming: millions already killed by it?
Global warming results from the greenhouse effect caused by, amongst other things, excessive amounts of greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere from fossil fuel burning. It would seem then, that the other by-products which cause global dimming may be an ironic saviour.
A deeper look at this, however, shows that unfortunately this is not the case.
Health and environmental effects
The pollutants that lead to global dimming also lead to various human and environmental problems, such as smog, respiratory problems, and acid rain.
The impacts of global dimming itself, however, can be devastating.
Millions from Famines in the Sahel in the 70s and 80s
The death toll that global dimming may have already caused is thought to be massive.
Climatologists studying this phenomenon believe that the reflection of heat have made waters in the northern hemisphere cooler. As a result, less rain has formed in key areas and crucial rainfall has failed to arrive over the Sahel in Northern Africa.
In the 1970s and 1980s, massive famines were caused by failed rains which climatologists had never quite understood why they had failed.
The answers that global dimming models seemed to provide, the documentary noted, has led to a chilling conclusion: “what came out of our exhaust pipes and power stations [from Europe and North America] contributed to the deaths of a million people in Africa, and afflicted 50 million more” with hunger and starvation.
Billions are likely to be affected in Asia from similar effects
Scientists said that the impact of global dimming might not be in the millions, but billions. The Asian monsoons bring rainfall to half the world's population. If this air pollution and global dimming has a detrimental impact on the Asian monsoons some 3 billion people could be affected.
As well as fossil fuel burning, contrails is another source
Contrails (the vapour from planes flying high in the sky) were seen as another significant cause of heat reflection.
During the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States, all commercial flights were grounded for the next three days.
This allowed climate scientists to look at the effect on the climate when there were no contrails and no heat reflection.
What scientists found was that the temperature rose by some 1 degree centigrade in that period of 3 days.
Global Dimming is hiding the true power of Global Warming
The above impacts of global dimming have led to fears that global dimming has been hiding the true power of global warming.
Currently, most climate change models predict a 5 degrees increase in temperature over the next century, which is already considered extremely grave. However, global dimming has led to an underestimation of the power of global warming.
Addressing global dimming only will lead to massive global warming
Global dimming can be dealt with by cleaning up emissions.
However, if global dimming problems are only addressed, then the effects of global warming will increase even more. This may be what happened to Europe in 2003.
In Europe, various measures have been taken in recent years to clean up the emissions to reduce pollutants that create smog and other problems, but without reducing the greenhouse gas emissions in parallel. This seems to have had a few effects:
* This may have already lessened the severity of droughts and failed rains in the Sahel.
* However, it seems that it may have caused, or contributed to, the European heat wave in 2003 that killed thousands in France, saw forest fires in Portugal, and caused many other problems throughout the continent.
The documentary noted that the impacts of addressing global dimming only would increase global warming more rapidly. Irreversible damage would be only about 30 years away. Global level impacts would include:
* The melting of ice in Greenland, which would lead to more rising sea levels. This in turn would impact many of our major world cities
* Drying tropical rain forests would increase the risk of burning. This would release even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, further increasing global warming effects. (Some countries have pushed for using “carbon sinks” to count as part of their emission targets. This has already been controversial because these store carbon dioxide that can be released into the atmosphere when burnt. Global dimming worries increase these concerns even more.)
These and other effects could combine to lead to an increase of 10 degrees centigrade in temperature over the next 100 years, not the standard 5 degrees which most models currently predict.
This would be a more rapid warming than any other time in history, the documentary noted. With such an increase,
* Vegetation will die off even more quickly
* Soil erosion will increase and food production will fail
* A Sahara type of climate could be possible in places such as England, while other parts of the world would fare even worse.
* Such an increase in temperature would also release one of the biggest stores of greenhouse gases on earth, methane hydrate, currently contained at the bottom of the earth's oceans and known to destabilize with warming. This gas is eight times stronger than carbon dioxide in its greenhouse effect. As the documentary also added, due to the sheer amounts that would be released, by this time, whatever we would try to curb emissions, it would be too late.
“This is not a prediction,” the documentary said, “it is a warning of what will happen if we clean up the pollution while doing nothing about greenhouse gases.”
Root causes of global warming also must be addressed
If we were to use global dimming pollutants to stave off the effects of global warming, we would still face many problems, such as:
* Human health problems from the soot/smog
* Environmental problems such as acid rain
* Ecological problems such as changes in rainfall patterns (as the Ethiopian famine example above reminds us) which can kill millions, if not billions.
Climatologists are stressing that the roots of both global dimming causing pollutants and global warming causing greenhouse gases have to be dealt with together and soon.
We may have to change our way of life, the documentary warned. While this has been a message for over 20 years, as part of the climate change concerns, little has actually been done. “Rapidly,” the documentary concluded, “we are running out of time.”
More Information
* The transcript of the documentary from the BBC web site
* Frequently asked questions about global dimming article, which accompanies the transcript.
* Why the sun seems to be 'dimming', BBC, January 13, 2005
* Goodbye Sunshine, The Guardian, December 18, 2003
Next/Previous Page Navigation
* « Previous Page
* Next Page »
Other pages in this section
These are the pages within this section on this web site that you can also read.
* Global Warming
o Introduction
o You are here: Global Dimming
o UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
o Reactions to Climate Change Negotiations and Action
o Climate Justice and Equity
o Flexibility Mechanisms
o Carbon Sinks, Forests and Climate Change
o COP10 - Buenos Aires Conference
o COP8 - Delhi Conference
o COP7 - Marrakesh Conference
o COP6 - The Hague Conference
o COP4 - Buenos Aires Conference
o COP3 - Kyoto Protocol and Conference
o The Ozone Layer and Climate Change
o The Childish Pranks of El Niño
o Links for more Information
This web page has the following sub-sections:
* The Creation of the Convention
* Recognizing Rich Countries Have More Obligation to Emission Reduction
* The Framework is a starting point
* Major Steps
* Obstacles and Slow Progress
The Creation of the Convention
In the early 1980s, scientists were beginning to raise concerns about climate change.
In 1988, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meterological Organization (WMO) to assess the scientific knowledge on global warming. Its first major report in 1990 showed that there was broad international consensus that climate change was human-induced.
That report led way to an international convention for climate change. This became the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), signed by over 150 countries at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. (By the middle of 2000, over 180 countries had signed and ratified it).
The Convention took effect in 1994. By 1995 negotiations had started on a protocol — an international agreement linked to the existing treaty, but standing on its own. This led to the Kyoto Protocol, adopted unanimously in 1997. The main purposes of this protocol was to
* Provide mandatory targets on greenhouse-gas emissions for the world's leading economies all of whom accepted it at the time;
* Provide flexibility in how countries meet their targets;
* Further recognize that commitments under the Protocol would vary from country to country.
For More detailed information on the Convention »
Consider the following:
* United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
o The full text of the convention
o A beginner's guide to the Convention
o Their resources section provides access to the various official documents, etc.
Recognizing Rich Countries Have More Obligation to Emission Reduction
As a general principle, it was also recognized that most of the greenhouse gas emissions contributing to climate change come from the industrialized “Northern” countries, that have been developing since the Industrial Revolution, as such emissions remain in the atmosphere a long time. In addition, they have been developing for longer than the Third World, so action to address this must proportionatly be with those industrialized nations. The following summarizes this well:
Industrialised countries set out on the path of development much earlier than developing countries, and have been emitting GHGs [Greenhouse gases] in the atmosphere for years without any restrictions. Since GHG emissions accumulate in the atmosphere for decades and centuries, the industrialised countries' emissions are still present in the earth's atmosphere. Therefore, the North is responsible for the problem of global warming given their huge historical emissions. It owes its current prosperity to decades of overuse of the common atmospheric space and its limited capacity to absorb GHGs.
Developing countries, on the other hand, have taken the road to growth and development very recently. In countries like India, emissions have started growing but their per capita emissions are still significantly lower than that of industrialised countries. The difference in emissions between industrialised and developing countries is even starker when per capita emissions are taken into account. In 1996, for instance, the emission of 1 US citizen equalled that of 19 Indians.
— Background for COP 8, Center for Science and Environment, October 25, 2002
This difference was recognized as a principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. When the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was formulated and then signed and ratified in 1992 by most of the world's countries (including the United States and other nations who would later back out of the subsequent Kyoto protocol), this principle was acknowledged. Adding a bit more detail here, the principle recognized that
* The largest share of historical and current global emissions of greenhouse gases has originated in developed countries;
* Per capita emissions in developing countries are still relatively low;
* The share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet their social and development needs.
— The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, (Text is original, but minor edit made to reformat as a list)
That is,
* Today's rich nations are the ones responsible for global warming as greenhouse gases tend to remain in the atmosphere for many decades, and rich countries have been industrializing and emitting climate changing pollution for many more centuries than the poor countries;
* It is therefore unfair to expect the third world to make emissions reductions (and also unfair considering their development and consumption is for basics and for developing, while for the rich, it has moved on to luxury consumption and life styles);
Furthermore, developing countries too were to reduce emissions ultimately, but in a different way: The rich were to help provide means for the developing world to transition to cleaner technologies while developing:
The extent to which developing country Parties will effectively implement their commitments under the Convention will depend on the effective implementation by developed country Parties of their commitments under the Convention related to financial resources and transfer of technology and will take fully into account that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country Parties.
— The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
This principle is explored in further detail on this site's Climate Justice and Equity section.
The Framework is a starting point
While the Convention was weakened due to US threats to not attend Rio if there were binding commitments to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions, it is still a useful framework. The Convention provides a framework to tackle a number of issues and had some objectives set, including the following:
* Recognize that a problem exists (earlier in the 1980s and beginning of 1990s there was a huge amount of skepticism that human-induced climate change exists, because there are also natural cycles in the change of the climate that occurs over hundreds of years. However, now, the body of research indicates that humans are a factor in the current climate changes.)
* As a result, the ultimate objective, as described in Article 2, is to achieve “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”
* Continued scientific research is encouraged because the climate is a very complex issue and patterns are likely to continue changing.
* The Convention recognizes that the current developed and industrialized nations have the largest current and historic emissions and that they should therefore take the lead and burden of helping reduce harmful effects and cut down emissions.
o See Article 4 of the Convention for more detail.
o This is significant, as it recognizes the right for developing countries to develop economically.
o During the Kyoto summit, this was hotly contested by the United States, which is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world -- for just about four percent of the world's population, they emit over a quarter of the world' emission. Per capita, this is far, far higher than any other nation as well. For more about the Kyoto protocol, and the US positions etc, visit this section's page on Kyoto.
o Note though that most debate has been on reduction of emissions. While that is good, what is often left out is the fact that those developing countries already facing problems, or are about to, are left without much help in adapting, as a part of this report points out.
* The Convention also recognized that it is likely that the poorer nations will suffer the most, as there are less resources and capabilities to adapt to sudden changes of this magnitude.
* It is also recognized that a more sustainable economy is needed as current consumptive patterns could be destructive. (For more about over-consumption etc., visit this site's sections on Behind Consumerism and Consumption and on Population.)
Major Steps
The following table is from a report from PANOS called Just a lot of hot air?, looking at the issues leading up to the climate conference in Hague 2000. It summarizes the major steps toward action on the issue of Climate Change. (Some minor updates added since recent events after Hague.)
Steps Towards Action on Climate Change Event Date and place Principal achievements
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - First report 1990 Broad international scientific consensus that human actions are influencing the climate
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change 1992, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. (Entered into force 1994)
* Committed the global community to stabilising the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
* Recognised the primary responsibility of industrialised countries, and the differentiated responsibilities of developing countries
IPCC - Second report 1995
* Confirmed human influence on climate
* Stated that risk from climate change is severe enough to justify preventive actions (Governments which have signed the Convention have to accept the findings of the IPCC).
Conference of Parties (COP) 1 1995, Berlin, Germany
* Established budget, secretariat and institutional mechanisms
* Established pilot phase of "Activities Implemented Jointly" to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
* Agreed timetable for setting specific reduction targets for industrialised countries
Conference of Parties (COP) 2 1996, Geneva, Switzerland
* Endorsed IPCC2 and COP1 agreements
* US announced its commitment to binding targets "medium-term", with "flexibility, in implementation measures"
* OPEC dropped its opposition to action
Conference of Parties (COP) 3 1997, Kyoto, Japan Agreed the Kyoto Protocol, with targets for industrialised country greenhouse gas reductions
Conference of Parties (COP) 4 1998, Buenos Aires, Argentina Agreed a "Plan of Action" for following up on the Kyoto Protocol, including processes for stimulating technology transfer
Conference of Parties (COP) 5 1999, Bonn, Germany Further progress on implementing the Kyoto Protocol
Conference of Parties (COP) 6 2000, The Hague, The Netherlands See main body of [PANOS report]
IPCC - Third report 2000/2001
“Rio plus Ten” Earth Summit 2002 Many people hope the Kyoto Protocol will be ratified and will enter into force by this the time. [This didn't happen. It will now come into force February 2005]
Negotiations begin for a second round of emissions reductions 2005 This is the target date to start negotiations for the second period of the Kyoto Protocol
Agreed cuts in greenhouse gases 2008-2012 This is the period in which emissions cuts agreed in the Kyoto Protocol have to be achieved and measured
Obstacles and Slow Progress
Many of the objectives highlighted above have still not been recognized. For example, the industrialized countries have not provided much help in many areas such as effective emission reductions and stalling on developing country commitments, or opposing the Kyoto protocol itself.
These issues are now explored, in the next page on this site.
Next/Previous Page Navigation
* « Previous Page
* Next Page »
Other pages in this section
These are the pages within this section on this web site that you can also read.
* Global Warming
o Introduction
o Global Dimming
o You are here: UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
o Reactions to Climate Change Negotiations and Action
o Climate Justice and Equity
o Flexibility Mechanisms
o Carbon Sinks, Forests and Climate Change
o COP10 - Buenos Aires Conference
o COP8 - Delhi Conference
o COP7 - Marrakesh Conference
o COP6 - The Hague Conference
o COP4 - Buenos Aires Conference
o COP3 - Kyoto Protocol and Conference
o The Ozone Layer and Climate Change
o The Childish Pranks of El Niño
o Links for more Information
This web page has the following sub-sections:
* The Creation of the Convention
* Recognizing Rich Countries Have More Obligation to Emission Reduction
* The Framework is a starting point
* Major Steps
* Obstacles and Slow Progress
The Creation of the Convention
In the early 1980s, scientists were beginning to raise concerns about climate change.
In 1988, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meterological Organization (WMO) to assess the scientific knowledge on global warming. Its first major report in 1990 showed that there was broad international consensus that climate change was human-induced.
That report led way to an international convention for climate change. This became the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), signed by over 150 countries at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. (By the middle of 2000, over 180 countries had signed and ratified it).
The Convention took effect in 1994. By 1995 negotiations had started on a protocol — an international agreement linked to the existing treaty, but standing on its own. This led to the Kyoto Protocol, adopted unanimously in 1997. The main purposes of this protocol was to
* Provide mandatory targets on greenhouse-gas emissions for the world's leading economies all of whom accepted it at the time;
* Provide flexibility in how countries meet their targets;
* Further recognize that commitments under the Protocol would vary from country to country.
For More detailed information on the Convention »
Consider the following:
* United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
o The full text of the convention
o A beginner's guide to the Convention
o Their resources section provides access to the various official documents, etc.
Recognizing Rich Countries Have More Obligation to Emission Reduction
As a general principle, it was also recognized that most of the greenhouse gas emissions contributing to climate change come from the industrialized “Northern” countries, that have been developing since the Industrial Revolution, as such emissions remain in the atmosphere a long time. In addition, they have been developing for longer than the Third World, so action to address this must proportionatly be with those industrialized nations. The following summarizes this well:
Industrialised countries set out on the path of development much earlier than developing countries, and have been emitting GHGs [Greenhouse gases] in the atmosphere for years without any restrictions. Since GHG emissions accumulate in the atmosphere for decades and centuries, the industrialised countries' emissions are still present in the earth's atmosphere. Therefore, the North is responsible for the problem of global warming given their huge historical emissions. It owes its current prosperity to decades of overuse of the common atmospheric space and its limited capacity to absorb GHGs.
Developing countries, on the other hand, have taken the road to growth and development very recently. In countries like India, emissions have started growing but their per capita emissions are still significantly lower than that of industrialised countries. The difference in emissions between industrialised and developing countries is even starker when per capita emissions are taken into account. In 1996, for instance, the emission of 1 US citizen equalled that of 19 Indians.
— Background for COP 8, Center for Science and Environment, October 25, 2002
This difference was recognized as a principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. When the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was formulated and then signed and ratified in 1992 by most of the world's countries (including the United States and other nations who would later back out of the subsequent Kyoto protocol), this principle was acknowledged. Adding a bit more detail here, the principle recognized that
* The largest share of historical and current global emissions of greenhouse gases has originated in developed countries;
* Per capita emissions in developing countries are still relatively low;
* The share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet their social and development needs.
— The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, (Text is original, but minor edit made to reformat as a list)
That is,
* Today's rich nations are the ones responsible for global warming as greenhouse gases tend to remain in the atmosphere for many decades, and rich countries have been industrializing and emitting climate changing pollution for many more centuries than the poor countries;
* It is therefore unfair to expect the third world to make emissions reductions (and also unfair considering their development and consumption is for basics and for developing, while for the rich, it has moved on to luxury consumption and life styles);
Furthermore, developing countries too were to reduce emissions ultimately, but in a different way: The rich were to help provide means for the developing world to transition to cleaner technologies while developing:
The extent to which developing country Parties will effectively implement their commitments under the Convention will depend on the effective implementation by developed country Parties of their commitments under the Convention related to financial resources and transfer of technology and will take fully into account that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country Parties.
— The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
This principle is explored in further detail on this site's Climate Justice and Equity section.
The Framework is a starting point
While the Convention was weakened due to US threats to not attend Rio if there were binding commitments to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions, it is still a useful framework. The Convention provides a framework to tackle a number of issues and had some objectives set, including the following:
* Recognize that a problem exists (earlier in the 1980s and beginning of 1990s there was a huge amount of skepticism that human-induced climate change exists, because there are also natural cycles in the change of the climate that occurs over hundreds of years. However, now, the body of research indicates that humans are a factor in the current climate changes.)
* As a result, the ultimate objective, as described in Article 2, is to achieve “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”
* Continued scientific research is encouraged because the climate is a very complex issue and patterns are likely to continue changing.
* The Convention recognizes that the current developed and industrialized nations have the largest current and historic emissions and that they should therefore take the lead and burden of helping reduce harmful effects and cut down emissions.
o See Article 4 of the Convention for more detail.
o This is significant, as it recognizes the right for developing countries to develop economically.
o During the Kyoto summit, this was hotly contested by the United States, which is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world -- for just about four percent of the world's population, they emit over a quarter of the world' emission. Per capita, this is far, far higher than any other nation as well. For more about the Kyoto protocol, and the US positions etc, visit this section's page on Kyoto.
o Note though that most debate has been on reduction of emissions. While that is good, what is often left out is the fact that those developing countries already facing problems, or are about to, are left without much help in adapting, as a part of this report points out.
* The Convention also recognized that it is likely that the poorer nations will suffer the most, as there are less resources and capabilities to adapt to sudden changes of this magnitude.
* It is also recognized that a more sustainable economy is needed as current consumptive patterns could be destructive. (For more about over-consumption etc., visit this site's sections on Behind Consumerism and Consumption and on Population.)
Major Steps
The following table is from a report from PANOS called Just a lot of hot air?, looking at the issues leading up to the climate conference in Hague 2000. It summarizes the major steps toward action on the issue of Climate Change. (Some minor updates added since recent events after Hague.)
Steps Towards Action on Climate Change Event Date and place Principal achievements
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - First report 1990 Broad international scientific consensus that human actions are influencing the climate
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change 1992, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. (Entered into force 1994)
hij zegt dat mijn forum een kopie is van Turksestudent.nl
mijn forum is turksnlforum.com
Wie wil me hiermee helpen
wat moet ik doen met dit soort pb's
en is dat waarschuwing terecht???
