Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Climate Change
Learning Objectives
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
Describe the carbon cycle and its importance to global climate change. Identify the sources of global climate change, including both anthropogenic sources and natural variations. Describe the observed effects of climate change and the likely consequence of global warming, Summarize the evidence for global climate change, and explain why confusion exists about whether it is an actual occurrence. Summarize the history and success of climate change policy at the domestic and international levels of government. Identify current controversial issues related to global climate change and the tools available to policymakers to address global climate change.
daL6660X_03_c03_p051-086.indd 51
8/25/11 5:27 PM
CHAPTER 3
ccording to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA), the first decade of the new millennium was the hottest ever recorded (NOAA, 2010). In fact, the 2000s were part of a global warming trend that can be traced at least to the mid-20th century. The trend, however, is only one piece of the larger, more complex pattern of climate change. We begin this chapter with a look at the nature of the changes that are occurring, and the evidence that has accumulated to illustrate these changes.
52
daL6660X_03_c03_p051-086.indd 52
8/25/11 5:27 PM
CHAPTER 3
Solar Radiation
Heat Exchange
Rivers Atmosphere Ice Interaction Industries Transportation Oceans Human Contributions and Responses Agriculture Vegetation-Soil Interaction Vegetation
Land-use/Land-cover Change
The climate change process includes human, water, carbon, ecosystem, and atmospheric elements.
of the Earths everyday processes, and we are making progress in differentiating the two sources for change.
Anthropogenic Sources
Many greenhouse gases (GHG) occur naturally. For example, water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone (O3), and nitrous oxide (N2O) are all produced through natural processes and help maintain stability in the Earths atmosphere. However, substantial amounts of these greenhouse gases are also produced by anthropogenic (human caused) sources. In particular, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are emitted in very high quantities through industrial and agricultural processes. Since 1750 (a date that preceded any industrial activity), global emissions of CO2 have increased by 31%, emissions of methane have increased by 67%, and emissions of N2O have increased by 16% (EPA, 2010a). While emissions are not the same as concentrationsafter all, gases may accumulate and dissipate differently in the atmospherethe global concentrations of these greenhouse gases reflect a similar pattern: CO2 has increased 36%, CH4 has increased 148%, and N2O has increased 18% (EPA, 2010a). A brief overview of these three critical greenhouse gases illustrates the sources for each. Carbon dioxidethe greenhouse gas that causes most of the changes in atmospheric warmingis emitted by the burning of carbon-based fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, or gas, for
53
daL6660X_03_c03_p051-086.indd 53
8/25/11 5:27 PM
CHAPTER 3
purposes as varied as running factories, heating and lighting homes, and powering cars, trains, and planes. In 2008, the top five categories of fuel use were electricity generation, transportation, industrial use, residential use, and commercial use (see Figure 3.3). In that year, 94.1% of total CO2 emissions came from the combustion of fossil fuels (EPA, 2010a).
Figure 3.2 Three graphs: Carbon emissions, carbon concentrations, and global temperature.
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
1750
1800
1850
1900
1950
2000
Year Departures in temperature (C) from the 1961 to 1990 average 0.5 0.0 -0.5 -1.0
1750
1800
1850
1900
1950
2000
Year
Graphs of three different variablescarbon emissions, carbon concentrations, and global temperaturereveal very similar trend lines, suggesting that the three are connected.
54
daL6660X_03_c03_p051-086.indd 54
8/25/11 5:27 PM
CHAPTER 3
Methane, considered the second most important culprit in the buildup of greenhouse gases, comes primarily from the agricultural sector. While total emissions of methane are far lower than carbon dioxide, a single unit of CH4 is more than 20 times as powerful as CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere (EPA, 2010b). The source for most methane emissions is enteric fermentation, which is a polite way of saying cows passing gas. Landfills are the second largest source; as our garbage breaks down, it releases methane into the atmosphere (EPA, 2010b). Nitrous oxide, the third most abundantly produced greenhouse gas, comes from biological processes associated primarily with agriculture. Synthetically fertilized soils are the source of most N2O emissions. As those soils break down, the fertilizer releases N2O. The gas is also emitted during the production of nylon and through other industrial processes, like the burning of biomass and the production of cattle feed. There are other greenhouse gases; but for our purposes, we will focus on these three. One way scientists and policymakers understand the variations of intensity and quantity among
Carbon Dioxide
(72% of total)
20.6% 29.5% 29.6%
Methane
(18% of total)
40.0%
Nitrous Oxide
(9% of total)
62.0%
8.4%
1.1% 1.5%
55
daL6660X_03_c03_p051-086.indd 55
8/25/11 5:27 PM
CHAPTER 3
greenhouse gases is by translating them all into carbon equivalency. This is part of the reason the policy dialogue focuses on carbon and seems to ignore the other gases. As we consider the impacts associated with GHG emissions, we will revert to the conventional use of carbon when referring to the array of gases that contribute to the phenomenon.
Natural Variation
Of course, the composition of the Earths atmo- Enteric fermentation, or cows passing sphere has not remained stagnant since the begin- gas, is the leading source of methane ning of time. By analyzing ice cores and data from emissions in the atmosphere. tree rings, scientists can trace the global carbon cycle through millions of years of human and pre-human history. The data reveals a dynamic and complex story; but even with substantial variations, the natural world has always operated within what scientists call the historical range of variability (HRV) (see Figure 3.4). The only major changes to take place outside of that range have included ice ages and similarly disruptive eras of pre-human history. However, some relatively dramatic changes within the HRV have occurred periodically during human history and have affected human behavior, such as when populations are forced to migrate or deal with a catastrophe like drought or famine. For example, the planet went through what has been called the Medieval Warm Period during portions of the 12th and 13th centuries. Later, the Little Ice Age led to decreased global temperatures and shifts in precipitation. Both of these shifts produced measurable changes to the expected averages.
NAO Index
0 -1 -2 100
NP
0
Year
Natural processes tend to vary within certain parameters over time. When events outside of that historic range become common, scientists explore the possibility of systemic changes like climate change.
56
daL6660X_03_c03_p051-086.indd 56
8/25/11 5:27 PM
CHAPTER 3
Historic shifts are thought to have occurred for different reasons; for example, variations in solar activity may have led to past climactic changes. Every decade or so, the Pacific Ocean warms, causing a phenomenon known as El Nio, which can lead to extreme changes in precipitation and storm events. El Nio is caused by increased ocean water temperatures, which are in turn caused by higher air temperatures. Scientists dont agree about how much of the current global temperature changes may be attributed to these kinds of natural fluctuations, but certainly natural variation is an element in any global change.
cientists have always disagreed about just how predicted climate change would affect the earth. Recently, however, some of their past predictions have been borne out; we now have concrete evidence that some impacts, including a temperature increase of 18F, have already occurred (see Figure 3.5). The seemingly small increase has set a series of unusual climate events into motion. For example, it has meant dramatic ice melt in the Arctic, and subsequent sea rise. Rising sea levels and increased ocean temperatures have in turn fostered a cascade of global changes, such as an increase in severe weatherincluding droughts, floods, heat waves, and storms that have occurred in numerous locations around the world. Some areas have seen floods while others are experiencing intensified drought. Sub-Saharan Africa, already distressed by poverty and public sector corruption, has seen a dramatic decline in precipitation in recent decades; available water has decreased by 4060% (UNFCCC, 2010). Floods in China in 1998, monsoons in Bangladesh in 2004, and more recent floods in Pakistan in 2010 are also examples of extreme weather events considered to be outside the range of historical variability. Second, as temperatures rise, the globe has seen a decline in winter. Temperatures in the Arctic are often considered to be the canary in the coal mine, meaning they portend similar changes elsewhere and function as a warning. Average temperatures in the Arctic have increased at twice the rate of the rest of the globe, resulting in far more dramatic and perhaps prescientimpacts. Snow cover has declined to unprecedented levels. Glaciers have receded and disappeared. Buildings that were constructed on permafrost have collapsed as the frozen soil melts. These changes are echoed in other cold regions of the planet. For example, in Switzerland, the total volume of glaciers has decreased by 66% in the 20th century (UNFCCC, 2010). Finally, as we might expect, these changes in weather patterns, water availability, and seasonal attributes have dramatically affected the rest of the natural world. Plants and animals are migrating to new areas with colder temperatures as their habitat becomes warmer and drier. Birds are laying their eggs earlier because spring arrives sooner, and this has a domino effect on the species that rely on those eggs for food. Agricultural growing seasons are extended, causing an array of bizarre impacts. Residents of Greenland can garden for the first time, and wine country in California is thriving. But as the warm weather period expands, so too do the life spans of insects. Some of these insects carry diseases dangerous to humans. Many changes to the natural world have impacts on human beings as well. Communities that already suffer from low socioeconomic conditions and a weak social safety net are,
57
daL6660X_03_c03_p051-086.indd 57
8/25/11 5:27 PM
CHAPTER 3
by definition, more vulnerable to natural disasters. Drought cycles have intensified in sub-Saharan Africa as water availability decreases, leading to more frequent food shortages. But even relatively wealthy U.S. societies have begun to experience shifts that stretch their capacity to adjust. Farmers have had to learn to grow crops that previously werent an option in their region, and variability in yield, price, and weather has stretched their ability to adapt. Pest damage has increased dramatically in recent decades (UNFCCC, 2010), and in response farmers are using more pesticides, which in turn creates new environmental challenges such as water pollution. Most of these shifts are occurring incrementally. Day by day, we may be tempted to confuse weather with climate; if it is cold outside, we may find ourselves doubting the reality of climate change. We may wonder how even though the summer of 2010 was globally one of the hottest on record, the city of Los Angeles could have one of its coolest summers in history. But the data is conclusive. Climate change is not only happening now but also causing significant changes to both the natural world and to human beings. Virtually every other environmental issue is now complicated by existing and predicted climate shifts, which is why this issue sets the stage for a broader overview of environmental policy topics.
Humidity
Sea Ice
Climate change is already underway, with measureable changes happening around the world.
58
daL6660X_03_c03_p051-086.indd 58
8/25/11 5:28 PM
CHAPTER 3
Climate change and fire suppression have created imbalance in the ecosystem, allowing an infestation of pine beetles to spread into massive forested areas.
But in the early 1990s, scientists began to see something quite different happening in the high mountains of Wyoming and Colorado. Beetle-killed trees were evident across wide swaths of the landscape. By 2006, those two states had 1.5 million acres of dead trees. Montana lost a million acres of trees to the beetle, and to the north the Canadian province of British Columbia lost an astounding 33 million acres of their lodgepole pine forest. Predictions suggest that these regions can expect near total lodgepole pine death, and some counties have already approached that scale of infection. Climate change is only part of the story. A century of fire suppression allowed many of these forests to grow unusually dense, creating prime conditions for beetles to spread. But weather and climate are also important drivers of this phenomenon. A decade of drought in the western United States, attributed by many scientists to longer-term patterns associated with climate change, weakened the trees. Warmer winters never provided the requisite cold snap that would kill off the beetles, and the insects flourished. When scientists try to predict the many changes we are likely to see as climate change advances, it is impossible for them to capture everything. The pine beetle epidemic in the Western United States and Canada is an example of how unexpected, complex factors combine to create conditions for dramatic change. In the short term, all those dead treesflammable and prone to fallingrepresent a public safety hazard. In the long term, however, most foresters agree that the trees will die and the landscape will recover. A century from now, we will have new, young forests covering the place where red needles currently lie. But the composition of those new forests, the ecosystems they will support, and which wildlife will be attracted to or repelled from them, are all questions that climate scientists and ecologists struggle to answer. Critical Thinking Question Imagine you are Vail Resorts, a world-class ski area located in the heart of the mountain pine beetle damage. Corporate headquarters for this multimillion-dollar business receives phone calls from angry visitors, demanding that the resort do something to fix the view of the forest. How would you respond?
59
daL6660X_03_c03_p051-086.indd 59
8/25/11 5:28 PM
CHAPTER 3
daL6660X_03_c03_p051-086.indd 60
8/25/11 5:28 PM
CHAPTER 3
The 2009 report found that the planet is warming at a rate of approximately one fifth of a degree Fahrenheit per decade, for a total of about 18F since the 1960s (IPCC, 2009). While this may sound like a minimal amount, its enough to elicit dramatic climate events.
daL6660X_03_c03_p051-086.indd 61
8/25/11 5:28 PM
CHAPTER 3
shifts that will have dramatic impacts on the trajectory of change. For example, if car manufacturers drastically improve fuel efficiency, that might reduce carbon emissions. If carbon capture technology that eliminates new carbon emissions from being held in the atmosphere is successfully developed, that too would alter long-term climate change impacts. To account for the many unknowns, scientists often use scenarios to showcase their predictions. These scenarios are built through modeling, whereby scientists imagine future changes and input different data into the model (see Figure 3.6). Many times the scenarios are developed to show contrast with the BAU trajectory line (see Figure 3.7). For all of these reasons, even the best science cannot be 100% accurate when it seeks to make predictions about the future. In general, models have been shown to be accurate at making global predictions. They are less precise when making local or regional predictions.
Year
Scientists make predictions within confidence intervals, expressing degrees of probability.
62
daL6660X_03_c03_p051-086.indd 62
8/25/11 5:28 PM
CHAPTER 3
Comprehension Check:
1. All of the following show a similar trend line, with historic variation and then sudden, rapid increase EXCEPT: a. Global temperatures b. Extent of oceans c. Carbon emissions d. Carbon concentrations 2. Which is an example of an anthropogenic source of greenhouse gas emissions? a. Oceans b. Volcanoes c. Burning fossil fuels d. Soils 3. One reason why the rate of climate change has been so difficult for scientists to predict is that: a. It is occurring in a linear fashion b. They cant measure it c. There is no historical data for comparison d. Feedback loops complicate the data
Answers: 1) b, 2) c, 3) d
2 16.1 Gt 1
*Gt: gigatons (billions of tons)
The rapid and full application of innovative technologies is 8.9 Gt critical to reducing the emission level. 2050
2010
2020
2030
2040
Year
Policymakers often use a scenario approach when making predictions; the business-asusual scenario assumes no changes are made, while other scenarios can envision technology, demand or supply changes in energy use.
63
daL6660X_03_c03_p051-086.indd 63
8/25/11 5:28 PM
CHAPTER 3
Food
Significant decreases in water availability in many areas, including Mediterranean and Southern Africa Small mountain glaciers disappear water supplies threatened in several areas Sea level rise threatens major cities
Water
Ecosystems
Rising intensity of storms, forest fires, droughts, flooding and heat waves
2C
3C
4C
5C
Global temperature change (relative to pre-industrial) Predicted outcomes of climate change vary depending on how much total temperature increases. More temperature change will lead to more catastrophic changes in each sector.
64
daL6660X_03_c03_p051-086.indd 64
8/25/11 5:28 PM
CHAPTER 3
While these global changes are predicted with high confidence, the big picture tells us little about what to expect for our own neighborhoods. Some areas will experience drought while others will be prone to flooding (see Figure 3.10). You can check the reports of local and regional scientific organizations for more detailed estimates about your own area; many states within the United States have developed local projections (http:/ /www.esrl .noaa.gov/psd/data/usclimate/states.fast.html).
Scientific Fallibility
Of course, science is not perfect. History is full of widely accepted facts that later turned out not to be true. For example, medieval doctors widely practiced bloodletting
Tallahassee
Orlando Gulf of Mexico Saint Petersburg Area that will experience flooding and loss of landmass
FLORIDA
Tampa Fort Meyers
N 0 20 Miles
+ 20 Feet
Key West
As polar ice melts and sea levels rise, some coastal areas will experience flooding and a loss of landmass.
65
daL6660X_03_c03_p051-086.indd 65
8/25/11 5:28 PM
CHAPTER 3
as a medical tool for relieving a variety of conditions. Later, of course, we learned that this cure failed to address the root of disease. In later years, antibiotics and better medical hygiene practices replaced these early misguided attempts. With the imperfection of science in mind, we must approach the climate change consensus with a reasonable degree of humility. Human beings are fallible, and scientists are no exception. Still, for
Figure 3.10 Widespread climate-related impacts are occurring now and are expected to increase.
Alaska
Summers get hotter and dryer, with increasing evaporation outpacing increased precipitation Wildfires and insect problems increase Lakes decline in area Permafrost thawing damages infrastructure Coastal storms increase risks to villages and fishing fleets Shifts in marine species affect fisheries
Northwest
Declining snowpack reduces summer streamflows, straining water resources including those needed for hydroelectric power Increasing wildfires, insects, and species shifts pose challenges for ecosystems and the forest products industry Rising water temperatures and declining summer streamflows threaten salmon and other coldwater fish species Sea-level rise increases erosion and land loss
Midwest
Heat waves, air quality problems, and insect and waterborne diseases increase Reduced water levels in the Great Lakes affect shipping, infrastructure, beaches, and ecosystems under a higher emissions scenario More periods of both floods and water deficits occur Floods, droughts, insects, and weeds challenge agriculture Diseases and invasive species threaten native fish and wildlife
Northeast
Extreme heat and declining air quality are likely to pose increasing health risks Production of milk, fruits, and maple syrup is likely to be adversely affected More frequent flooding due to sea-level rise, storm surge, and heavy downpours Reduced snow negatively affects winter recreation Lobster fishery continues northward shift; cod fishery further diminished
Northeast
Islands
Likely reductions in freshwater availability have significant impacts Sea-level rise and storms threaten island communities Climate changes affecting coastal and marine ecosystems have major implications for tourism and fisheries
Southeast
Southeast
Increases in air and water temperature stress people, plants, and animals
Southwest
Scarce water supplies for trade-offs among competing uses Increasing temperature, drought, wildfire, and invasive species accelerate landscape transformation Increased frequency and altered timing of flooding increases risks to people, ecosystems, and infrastructure Unique tourism and recreation opportunities are likely to suffer
Coasts
Significant sea-level rise increases risks to coastal cites More spring runoff and warmer water will increase the seasonal reduction of oxygen in coastal ecosystems Coral reefs will be affected by higher temperatures and ocean acidification Changing ocean current will affect coastal ecosystems
Great Plains
Increasing temperature, evaporation, and drought frequency compound water scarcity problems Agriculture, ranching, and natural lands are stressed by limited water supplies and rising temperatures Alteration of key habitats such as prairie potholes affect native plants and animals
Decreased water availability is very likely to affect the economy and natural systems Sea-level rise and increases in hurricane intensity and storm surge cause serious impacts Thresholds are likely to be crossed, causing major disruptions to ecosystems and the benefits they provide to people Severe weather events and reduced availability of insurance will affect coastal communities
66
daL6660X_03_c03_p051-086.indd 66
8/25/11 5:28 PM
CHAPTER 3
the purposes of policymaking, we must begin by understanding where the best scientific consensus exists and where it is elusive. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has characterized climate science into three groups: whats known, whats very likely, and whats not certain. The information within each of these groups will continue to change as we learn more, and separating the avalanche of information into these categories allows the agency to issue regulatory policy based on areas of consensus (http:/ /www.epa.gov/climatechange). Outside of the consensus that climate is changing and that human activities are at least partly responsible, scientists disagreesometimes profoundlyon what kind of changes we can expect, when we should expect them, and how fast they are likely to occur. Perhaps most important for our interest here, scientists and policymakers struggle to agree on what to do about it. How should countries respond? What about governments? Businesses? Individuals? Next, we examine some ways in which individuals tend to contemplate the issue of climate change differently than scientists.
67
daL6660X_03_c03_p051-086.indd 67
8/25/11 5:28 PM
CHAPTER 3
Moreover, climate change deniers, those who doubt the existence of climate change or the link between a changing climate and human behavior, attract media attention. When prominent scientists or political leaders refute the conventional wisdom about climate change, the public is especially apt to pay attention. For example, Senator James M. Inhofe (R-OK) has famously called climate change the greatest hoax ever perpetuated on the American people (Inhofe, 2003). His use of such strong language and the public platform of the Senate floor ensure that his comments are more likely to be covered by the popular press than similar comments by an average citizen.
Figure 3.11 Poll: Which is the most accurate depiction of climate change?
29% Global warming is a theory that has not yet been proven. 16% 48% Global warming is a proven fact and is mostly caused by emissions from cars and industrial facilities such as power plants and factories. Global warming is a proven fact caused mostly by natural changes that have nothing to do with emissions from cars and industrial facilities.
7% Unsure
daL6660X_03_c03_p051-086.indd 68
8/25/11 5:28 PM
CHAPTER 3
Table 3.1: The Other Side: Example Positions of Climate Change Skeptics
As we just discussed, most scientists agree that climate is changing and that human activity is at least partly responsible. For those who argue that the climate is not changing, or that climate is changing, but not because of humans, the following positions are often asserted: Claim Recent warming is part of the natural cycle of climate stretching over billions of years. Therefore, global warming is not caused by human activity. Individuals, organizations, and corporations with a financial stake in carbon reduction, or alternative energy, promote the theory of climate change for their own financial gain. Quote Climates always change. They always have and they always will. They are driven by a number of factors that are random and cyclical.1 Sample Claimant/Credentials Professor Ian Pilmer (geologist); Professor of Mining Geology at the University of Adelaide, South Australia; director of three mining companies. Author of Heaven and Earth, the bible for climate change deniers. Patrick J. Michaels (climatologist) Senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute (a Libertarian think tank); senior fellow in the School of Public Policy at George Mason University; Virginia State Climatologist from 1980 to 2007. Harold Lewis (physicist), letter of resignation to the president of the American Physical Society (APS) Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara. Supporting documentation to a letter to UN Chairman Ban ki-Moon from members of The Copenhagen Climate Challenge (2009);5 the letter was signed by 195 individuals, many of whom are researchers and professors in various scientific disciplines.
climate scientists are ... responding to the incentives of financial and professional security and advancement.2
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave.3 The IPCC is biased and therefore its findings and statements are not credible. (IPCC Chairman, Indian economist Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, is sometimes accused of maintaining bias and conflict of interest.) Current concerns about global warming are a false alarm and are reminiscent of past warnings (e.g., about global cooling) that turned out to be false. the IPCCs approach to forecasting climate violated 72 principles of forecasting4 . The claims of the IPCC ... with respect to sea level changes is deeply biased and not based on actual observation.
[current scientists] ... sound very much James Inhofe (US Senator) forlike those who warned us in the 1970s that mer businessman. the planet was headed for a catastrophic global cooling. On April 28, 1975, Newsweek printed an article titled, The Cooling World, in which the magazine warned: There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production-with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth."6
69
daL6660X_03_c03_p051-086.indd 69
8/25/11 5:28 PM
CHAPTER 3
Thought Questions
1. Which of the above arguments do you think is most compelling? Why? 2. Which of the above arguments is least compelling? Why? 3. Which of the claimants do you think is most credible? Which is least credible? Explain your answers. 4. Select one of the above assertions and research more about the claimant who made it and the context in which it was made. What might the counterargument be? Do you think the claimant successfully proves his point?
hat have policymakers done with the information on sources of climate change, the current manifestations of those changes, and likely impacts for the future? The response of international and domestic governments to emerging information has been slow. Here we begin by identifying components of the climate change policy approach and then go on to review policymaking of the last several decades.
daL6660X_03_c03_p051-086.indd 70
8/25/11 5:28 PM
CHAPTER 3
comprehensive attempt to govern climate change includes both adaptation and mitigation components. The collection of activities, rules, behaviors, and laws that together govern an issue area like climate change is called a regime. In this text, this chapter marks the first in a series of chapters organized around environmental regimes. Here we review the components of the climate change regime; in subsequent chapters we study the water quality regime, the biodiversity regime, and others. Thinking of a regime as a web of actions and policies can help us analyze governance according to issue area rather than, say, actor or policy tool. That is, the climate change regime includes regulatory and statutory pieces, it involves both command and control and market-based efforts, and it involves actors at every level of the policymaking hierarchy. What holds those disparate pieces together is their attention on a single issue area: climate change.
daL6660X_03_c03_p051-086.indd 71
8/25/11 5:28 PM
CHAPTER 3
emissions? Because rich nations have produced decades worth of industrial scale emissions, they have far more responsibility for the current carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than poor underdeveloped countries do. The United States, for example, emitted 19.91% of total global carbon emissions in 2007, while Belize emitted less than 0.01% (UNFCCC, 2010) (http:/ /unfccc.int/ghg_data/ghg_data_unfccc/items/4146.php). Similarly, the United States is now in a far greater position to curtail its emissions than Belize. We have strong government institutions, widespread economic stability, low poverty rates, and technical innovation to help us in the effort. The struggling country of Belize, by contrast, is already emitting so little that to ask it to reduce its output would undermine its own development efforts. The separation of countries into these two categories is based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibility. Most countries fell clearly into one camp or the other, but several caused controversy. India and China, in particular, were ultimately listed as nonAnnex I, despite their many years of economic growth and their high current levels of carbon emissions. The United States argued passionately that China in particular should be held to binding emissions targets, but to no avail. Although the United States was initially part of the Kyoto Protocol process, domestic political support was low. The president and leaders in Congress were concerned about the economic costs of mitigation, and they shared a sense of injustice over Chinas position in the treaty. Without the necessary public support, the Senate did not accept the treaty. Since the United States never ratified the treaty, it is not bound by the targets specified there. Virtually every other industrialized country40 countries plus the European Uniondid sign and ultimately ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Those states have emissions targets pegged to their own 1990 baseline emissions data, collected as part of the UNFCCC. Although developing countries were not held to binding targets, signatories were required to begin tracking their own emissions and became eligible for a series of financial and technical assistance programs (see Focus Box).
Smoke rises from the Bao Steel mill in Baotou, Inner Mongolia, China. Baotou is notorious as a big polluter, most of it from the large Bao Steel factory.
In the 13 years since the Kyoto Protocol was drafted, climate change has gained attention across the globe. What was once a set of scientifically
72
daL6660X_03_c03_p051-086.indd 72
8/25/11 5:28 PM
CHAPTER 3
dubious predictions is now more widely understood as valid. Countries that were unable to garner enough domestic support to ratify the Protocol in 1997 gradually built that support; in 2005, when Russia ratified the treaty, it officially went into force. By all accounts, treaty compliance has been low. Most countries have failed to reduce their emissions according to the targets they agreed to. As with many international agreements, enforcement mechanisms are weak, and international pressure has been building for a more comprehensive, aggressive, and enforceable treaty. In 2009, hundreds of political and environmental leaders met in Copenhagen, Denmark, to update the Kyoto Protocol and begin a new chapter in the climate change regime.
daL6660X_03_c03_p051-086.indd 73
8/25/11 5:28 PM
CHAPTER 3
KIRIBATI Indonesia
Gilbert Islands Phoenix Islands Line Islands
AUSTRALIA
NEW ZEALAND
Indian Ocean
Tasman Sea
74
daL6660X_03_c03_p051-086.indd 74
8/25/11 5:28 PM
CHAPTER 3
hen the United States failed to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, international condemnation followed. As the most powerful country on the planetand one of the richestmany countries argued that the United States should take a leadership role in the global problem of climate change. With a high quality of life and a stable government, the United States may indeed be uniquely situated to demonstrate to the rest of the world how creative governance tools can be employed to tackle such a daunting environmental issue. Even though the United States hasnt seized the opportunity to be a role model in international negotiations, our country has begun to take steps at the domestic level.
75
daL6660X_03_c03_p051-086.indd 75
8/25/11 5:28 PM
CHAPTER 3
National Level
Thus far, the thrust of the U.S. federal governments policy approach has been through the creation of voluntary measures. Supporters of this approach have noted inconclusive science and applaud the countrys conservative strategy. Critics argue that voluntary measures have historically failed to produce the kind of transformative results that climate change warrants. Another response of Congress was to form a group devoted to researching the science behind climate change. In 1990, Congress created the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) (http:/ /www.globalchange.gov/) to bring together scientists from across the disciplinary spectrum. The groups mission statement is to build a knowledge base that informs human responses to climate and global change through coordinated and integrated federal programs of research, education, communication, and decision support (USGCRP, 2011). Acting as a clearinghouse for scientific prediction, observed impacts, and innovative policymaking, the USGCRP has issued a stream of assessments and other useful reports. Another federal group, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has taken a more incremental and rule-based approach by implementing regulations through the Clean Air Act. In the 2007 court case Massachusetts v. EPA (549 U.S. 497), the Supreme Court ruled that six greenhouse gases qualify as pollutants governed by the Clean Air Act (see Chapter 4 ). Two years later, the EPA revisited Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, and determined that CO2 and other gases were indeed threats to public health. This landmark endangerment finding triggered the agencys authority to regulate the emissions of those gases along with other pollutants. While the finding itself doesnt instigate new emissions rules, it is a prerequisite for executive action. Most experts agree that the EPA is likely to target the transportation sector first through a change in gas efficiency requirements. The agency has developed a comprehensive website that offers information for individuals, communities, and governments (http:/ /epa.gov/climatechange/index.html).
daL6660X_03_c03_p051-086.indd 76
8/25/11 5:28 PM
CHAPTER 3
Acting at the state level allows this advisory teamand others like it in other states to make very specific recommendations about how to approach the larger goals. Thus, for example, Washington analyzed its own transportation system and recommended an increase in public transportation options that began with enhanced funding for such initiatives. The team noted Washingtons lack of bicycle accessibility in certain areas, as well as the states shortage of parking at key public transportation hubs. Urban redevelopment in this way has been linked to long-term strategies for reducing emissions, allowing community planners to integrate statewide goals into local-level efforts. Cities and towns across the country have adopted a range of measures that address both mitigation and adaptation components. Over a thousand mayors have joined the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, in which they pledge to reduce carbon emissions in their own cities to meet Kyoto targets (http:/ /www.usmayors.org/climateprotection/ revised/). Another popular organization, ICLEI: Local Governments for Sustainability (http:/ /www.iclei.org/), offers detailed programmatic support for local governments who wish to improve their strategies to address climate change. Over 1,200 local governments have joined this initiative. In addition to these two high-profile examples of institutional support, countless technical documents, planning guides, and regional initiatives have formed to assist layers of government interested in pursuing climate smart governance.
Civil Society
The private sector has also taken steps to adapt to a changing climate and take responsibility for its own role in longer-term mitigation efforts. For example, private individuals and firms have shown themselves to be powerful drivers of change through investment. Renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power have attracted record investor interest since many foresee growth in those areas. Globally, investment in renewable energy soared to $100 billion in 2006 (United Nations Environment Program, 2007). Interest groups from diverse sectors have weighed in on climate change. For example, the 2006 American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment has generated widespread support from postsecondary schools across the country. By signing the agreement, hundreds of institutions have agreed to complete an emissions inventory, develop a plan to create campus climate neutrality, and establish a curriculum that integrates sustainability (http:/ /www.presidentsclimatecommitment.org/). Individual citizens have also adjusted their lifestyles to accommodate the new reality. After several decades of relative inaction, environmentalism has once again come into style. Individuals mitigate their own emissions primarily for two reasons. First, we may be responding to incentives developed by local, state, or even national government actors. For example, tax rebates for installing residential solar power have resulted in thousands of new solar-powered households. Special commuting lanes reserved for drivers of hybrid vehicles have helped convince thousands of Americans to drive hybrid vehicles instead of vehicles with poor gas mileage. Several communities have instituted new sliding pay scales for trash pickup, thereby creating incentives for individuals to become aware of their own trash and reduce the amount of garbage they send to the local landfill. Second, as individuals have become more aware of how their actions can affect the environment, they have made numerous lifestyle adjustments to reduce their carbon footprint. Even
77
daL6660X_03_c03_p051-086.indd 77
8/25/11 5:28 PM
CHAPTER 3
without financial incentives, many people choose to bring their own bags to the grocery store, to recycle, to landscape with plants that require less water, and to eat locally grown food. Living in smaller spaces, choosing public transportation over a personal vehicle, and taking a stay-cation to reduce travel are all trends that have increased dramatically in recent years (http:/ /library.thinkquest.org/11353/gather/help.htm; http:/ /www.seql.org/100ways.cfm).
his chapter has described ongoing discussion regarding the extent to which anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gases contribute to shifts in the Earths climate. We have also explored the difficulty in formulating a coherent policy response to the uncertain science surrounding climate change predictions. Here we focus on three specific topics for which much of the disagreement is currently the loudest. Recall the context for these controversies: the need for both adaptation and mitigation, the debate over the effectiveness of international treaties, and the rise of market-based approaches for dealing with environmental problems.
78
daL6660X_03_c03_p051-086.indd 78
8/25/11 5:28 PM
CHAPTER 3
tropical countries like Brazil and the Philippines. But the United States is not exempt from these efforts. After all, one of the most powerful drivers for deforestation is the market for wood products in industrialized countries. One way policymakers have tried to address this challenge is by channeling consumer demand for wood to sources that do not deplete valuable tropical forests. Suppose you are building a house. You want to use wood to build it since you like the way wood looks and it is an affordable product. But you also dont want to contribute to deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. One solution is to purchase wood that has been labeled sustainable by a legitimate authority. The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) is one such organization that has developed a comprehensive certification system for wood. If you buy wood with an FSC stamp, you can be confident that it has met a series of criteria for sustainability (http:/ /www.fscus.org/). Other sinks, such as oceans and soils, are also important in this effort. The use of innovative tools such as certification may help protect or enhance those sinks. Since certification
16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
BAU Business as Usual WRE500 Global stabilization at 500 ppm (parts per million)
2000
2010
2020
2030 B
2040
2050
2060
16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
2000
2010
2020
2030 Year
2040
2050
2060
Stabilization wedges have proven to be a useful way for policymakers to compare and weigh myriad approaches for mitigating climate change. Notice the trend and increase of fossil fuel emissions if we go about our business as usual (BAU) and do not undertake any of the actions in the stabilization wedges.
79
daL6660X_03_c03_p051-086.indd 79
8/25/11 5:28 PM
CHAPTER 3
systems are created in the private sector and rely on consumer behavior for their success, they are an example of market-based incentive reform. Similarly, mitigation governance is likely to occur with heavy reliance on market forces to foster change. Stabilization wedges are a helpful way to conceptualize the scope and scale of mitigation opportunities. Current policy debate is heated over the specific tools that governments might support to hasten these wedge achievements.
Putting a Price on Carbon: Emissions Trading, Cap and Trade, Carbon Taxes, and Offsets
Recall that when there is no monetary cost associated with emitting carbon (or any other pollutant or greenhouse gas), those emissions function as externalities (see Chapter 2). Consumers do not pay the full cost of a product when costs remain external. One way to capture those externalitiesand internalize themis through the market. Market-based mechanisms, as discussed in Chapter 2, seek to minimize the role for government and instead turn to financial incentives to alter behaviors. As policymakers struggle to govern climate change, much debate focuses on the best way to create incentives for businesses and individuals to reduce their emissions. Thus even market-based governance has a placeoften at the initiation phasefor governmental regulation. Emissions trading is one such tool. For this system to work, a governmental authority begins by establishing a limit or cap on the total emissions of a given substance that can be tolerated. That total is then divided into smaller units that are sold to firms as pollution permits, or credits. If a business is able to reduce its emissions below the credits it holds, it may sell the unused credits. Similarly, a business is allowed to exceed its allocation only if it buys enough credits to cover its own emissions. The buying and selling of the credits is regulated not by the government, but instead by normal market price fluctuation. Trading pollution credits thus ensures that the cap is maintained, but it also allows flexibility in the private sector for meeting targets. This tool is also called cap and trade, and it has been the focus of much political controversy. Proponents of the approach applaud the use of market forces to accomplish what otherwise might place the government in a difficult command and control position. Moreover, the plan offers a way for the cap to be tightened or loosened over time; as new science emerges or political will changes, the cap may be adjusted without having to redo the fundamental pieces of the scheme. Finally, this plan encourages innovation. Businesses have an incentive to develop long-term solutions to their emissions, and they know that by selling their unused permits, they can recoup the value of whatever costs those solutions involve. Opponents of a mandatory cap-and-trade program point to monitoring and enforcement challenges. The program would rely on accurate emissions measurements at every stage of the trade, and technical difficulties would exist. The program would also be expensive, especially up front. Not only would government agencies need to set up the cap and defend it, but the scheme calls for the creation of new authorities to administer complex financial trades.
80
daL6660X_03_c03_p051-086.indd 80
8/25/11 5:28 PM
CHAPTER 3
Some opponents focus less on the costs of establishing the new system and more on the inadequacy of the whole idea. Carbon trading will be practiced only by countries and/ or large industries, when perhaps individualand radicallifestyle changes will be the only way to avoid catastrophic planetary changes. Other opponents worry about environmental justice, noting that richer countries or businesses will be able to buy their way out of making any real changes to their emissions practices. Many have expressed concern that even if a robust cap and trade system is established, it will fail to solve the problem in any final way; the existence of the new program is likely to create a false sense of security, and will thereby distract policymakers from exploring more transformative solutions. Precedent for emissions trading exists. Title IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act (see Chapter 4) launched the first national effort to manage pollution through a trading program. By granting industries allowances for emitting sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxidesthe culprits for acid rainthe EPA effectively harnessed market forces. Coal-burning power plants participated in the program with successful outcomes. Expanding on this program and applying its principles to climate change would require substantial reform. But this scale of emissions trading is being practiced already in the European Union, albeit with mixed results. The United States already has a voluntary carbon-trading market through the Chicago Climate Exchange, and several voluntary regional programs have emerged including the Western Climate Initiative (for Western states). One mandatory system exists for member states, called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (http:/ / www.rggi.org/home). Cap and trade isnt the only market-based solution available. Some policymakers prefer a simple carbon tax. The tool would work much the same way as our existing tax system but would effectively internalize the costs of carbon. Industries would thus pay a tax proportional to the amount of carbon they emit. Unlike a cap-and-trade program, which places a firm cap on the total amount of carbon that could be emitted, a carbon tax has no such limit. Also unlike a cap-and-trade program, which allows market forces to determine the dynamic price of carbon, the carbon tax places a firm price on carbon. Proponents argue that a tax would be simpler both to develop and to enforce. Proposals for cap and trade and those for a carbon tax sometimes include a provision for offsets. Based on the premise that climate change is a global problem, and the location of the emissions matters less than the overall planetary total, offsets allow a country or a business to purchase emissions reductions through distant projects. In a cap-and-trade model, for example, a company that cannot meet its permitted cap may instead purchase carbon offsets that will make up the difference. These transactions already exist in a voluntary way in the United States. When you fly, for example, the airline is likely to ask if you would like to offset the emissions associated with your travel. If you say yes, you will be charged a few extra dollars, and that money will be sent to support a wind farm or a new energy efficiency project. Companies may choose to offset their own emissions, and they are then likely to tell their customers that offsets make them a carbon neutral business. This means that the business has calculated its total emissions and has purchased an equivalent in carbon savings through promised offset projects. Some customers may choose to shop at outlets that offer such green business practices.
81
daL6660X_03_c03_p051-086.indd 81
8/25/11 5:28 PM
CHAPTER 3
Since offsets are still conducted in a voluntary market, many note that they are not held to a reliable standard. A rigorous standardization system would need to be established if offsets were to become part of a U.S. national market-based carbon regulatory scheme. Standardization components exist already for the Chicago Climate Exchange, for the Clean Development Mechanism authorized in the Kyoto Protocol, and in other similar trading programs. Both cap-and-trade and carbon-tax systems present some of the same problems. First among concerns is the idea that tightening carbon emissions in a given country or sector only results in increased emissions elsewhere. For example, companies that would be held to an expensive market regime in the United Statessuch as a permit system or a carbon taxwill instead choose to migrate to countries with less rigorous emissions standards. This is called carbon leakage and is a version of the same problem that has faced international policymakers on many other environmental issues. Since climate change is a global problem, moving the polluters to a different country where they may do the same business but more cheaply does not resolve the environmental issue. Total global emissions would be the same. Complex solutions have been proposed to address the problem of leakage, including a focus on trading rules. The United States, for example, could refuse to trade with countries that dont have a carbon tax or similar regime in place.
Ethics
Major greenhouse gases that are emitted by humans do not dissipate quickly; instead, they remain in the atmosphere for decades or centuries. Even if we were to cease all industrial emissions as of today, the climate would continue to respond to existing greenhouse gas concentrations for generations to come. Similarly, the world we live in today is the product of our great-great-grandparents emissions. Although all countries are now feeling the early impacts of climate change, not all countries have contributed equally to those changes. Grappling with the ethics of climate change is both complicated and essential. Particularly in the context of global negotiations, it is important to consider which countries hold more responsibility for anthropogenic change as well as which countries are likely to suffer disproportionately. Cumulative emissions data from 1850 to 2002 shows that the United States ranks first among all countries, having emitted 29.3% of total world emissions. The 25 countries that comprise the European Union are in second place with 26.5% (UNFCCC, 2010). Not coincidentally, these are also the richest countries on the planet. Emitting carbon in the process of industrialization has enriched a small subset of the worlds people and, in the process, created conditions that now threaten the survival of the worlds most vulnerable people. China and India are frequently the target of international concern because they now emit a great deal of carbon. However, if we choose a different lens and consider historical emissions instead of current ones, the picture changes. Yes, these impoverished countries have experienced explosive economic growth in recent decades, and that growth has proportionately increased their emissions. But with so many residents still living in rural, poor conditions, the Chinese government is adamant that it should be assessed more on the basis of its historically low contribution to climate change and less on its more recent development. The tension between economic growtha good thingand carbon
82
daL6660X_03_c03_p051-086.indd 82
8/25/11 5:28 PM
Conclusion
CHAPTER 3
emissionsa bad thinghas intensified as climate change science improves. Policymakers struggle with two competing objectives: ensuring the right of all human beings to experience a basic quality of life, and preventing the looming disasters associated with emissions that invariably correspond with economic growth. Should very poor countries be kept in poverty so they can maintain their low emissions? Should very rich countries sacrifice the quality of life their citizens have come to expect? Are human beings entitled to different levels of wealth based on where they happen to be born? The ethical questions that arise from a close examination of climate change are timeless. On a practical level, policymakers universally accept the principle of sustainable development, a principle that famously encourages the current generation to live in a way that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Brundtland Commission, 1987). While the idea of sustainable development has gained widespread support, translating it into policy has been difficult.
Comprehension Check:
1. Most of the public gets its scientific information from: a. The Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change b. The United Nations c. Mainstream media d. Peer-reviewed journals 2. What is the best way to characterize U.S. action on climate change to date? a. The U.S. has done nothing b. The U.S. has developed a number of voluntary measures c. The U.S. is a leader in climate change policy d. The U.S. has a national level climate change policy, but it is weak
Answers: 1) c, 2) b
Conclusion
s scientists continue to improve public understanding of what causes climate change and how the process has begun to unfold, governments are faced with a daunting challenge. Never before has humanity faced such a global threat; every country is being pushed to act with little certainty about what the future will bring. Despite scientific consensus about the anthropogenic sources of climate change, policymakers remain strongly divided over how to respond. Market-based tools are gaining the most traction, and many people feel certain that a price will be placed on carbon within a generation. Ethical dilemmas continue to underlie international policy discussions, both complicating and enriching the decision-making process. Climate change has already begun to affect most other long-standing environmental issues. Upcoming chapters that explore policy challenges detail the ways in which a changing climate has influenced, and is predicted to influence, other environmental problems.
83
daL6660X_03_c03_p051-086.indd 83
8/25/11 5:28 PM
Conclusion
CHAPTER 3
Key Terms
Climate change: a long-term and large-scale change in weather patterns. Greenhouse gases: atmospheric gases (such as carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, and nitrous oxide) that trap solar radiation rather than allowing it to reflect back into space. Carbon sink: a component of the natural world, such as an ocean, that absorbs more carbon than it emits. Radiative forcing: A measure of the influence that a climatic factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earths atmosphere. Anthropogenic: human caused. Enteric fermentation: the release of methane into the atmosphere by flatulent cows. Carbon equivalency: a formulaic tool that allows scientists to convert properties of other greenhouse gasseslike methaneinto a standard unit for the sake of comparison and measurement. Historical range of variability (HRV): the inherent variation of ecosystem characteristics and processes throughout history. El Nio: irregular climactic changes that affect the equatorial Pacific ocean, leading to global cycles of precipitation and temperature. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): a United Nationsbased international scientific group that evaluates the emerging science on climate change and translates that information for global policymakers. Positive feedback loops: phenomena that encourage or speed up the progression of climate change in a nonlinear fashion. Negative feedback loops: phenomena that slow down or even reverse the progression of climate change. Adaptation: any action that seeks to minimize the effects and disruptions of climate change. Mitigation: activities that seek to reduce concentrations of greenhouse gases by, for example, decreasing emissions or improving sinks. Regime: the collection of activities, rules, behaviors, and laws that together govern an issue area like climate change. Kyoto Protocol: a international treaty signed in 1997 that established emissions targets for high-income, industrialized countries.
84
daL6660X_03_c03_p051-086.indd 84
8/25/11 5:28 PM
Conclusion
CHAPTER 3
Copenhagen Accord: a nonbinding treaty that yielded a pledge by industrialized states, including the United States, to assist developing states as they adapt to a changing climate. Endangerment finding: an EPA declaration that a particular substance poses a threat to human health and welfare. Such a finding is necessary to trigger the EPAs authority to regulate that substance. Cap and trade: a system that establishes a limit on total allowable emissions of a particular substance and distributes permits to emitting entities that total the capped level. Participants are then authorized to buy and sell permits on the open marketplace. Carbon neutral: the result when an entitys total emissions of carbon are offset by carbon savings or compensation payments, resulting in a net zero emissions level. Sustainable development: a principle that asks the current generation to live in such a way that meets their present needs without compromising those of future generations.
Thought Questions
1. Find a recent news piece or political argument that asserts disbelief of climate change. Respond to those claims. Be specific, and provide arguments from scientific, political, and ethical perspectives. 2. Summarize the differences between command and control and market-based policy tools that mitigate climate change. Which approach seems better to you? Why? 3. Consider the challenges facing scientists who make predictions about future impacts from climate change. Do you think those limitations are generally well understood by the public, or do inaccurate predictions undermine the science? Discuss. 4. To what degree do you believe that individual activitiessay, choosing to walk to work instead of drivecan have a measurable impact on a changing climate? Why?
85
daL6660X_03_c03_p051-086.indd 85
8/25/11 5:28 PM
daL6660X_03_c03_p051-086.indd 86
8/25/11 5:28 PM