CLIMATE CHANGE- GLOBAL WARMING
John Burton, Retired Chemical Engineer
Sept.14, 2006
The paper was written for WASWC- World Association for Soil and Water
Conservation
CLIMATE CHANGE- GLOBAL WARMING
Contents
1. Overview – A Challenge to the Civilized World
2. The Scientific View – What Is Causing Climate Change?
3. The Predicted Effects in This Century of Climate Change
4. The History of Our Knowledge of Climate Change
5. Actions That Are Being Done to Reduce the Extent of This Change
6. What Should the U.S. Government Be Doing about Climate Change?
7. Why Is the U.S. Doing so Little to Counter Climate Change?
8. A Global Problem with Differences in National Views and Responses
1. Climate Change – A Challenge to the Civilized World
The matter of global warming is an issue that questions and challenges some of
the basic components of our culture and economic system.
Knowledge
This era is said to be one of a knowledge society replacing the industrial era. But
few of U.S. Voters know even the basics of the causes and effects of global
warming, nor do most of us realize how important this matter is to our coming
generations – with more knowledge of it, we may decide it is a more serious threat
than terrorism.
Our Economic System
The capitalist economic system has overcome attempts at communism and socialism
and that of the U.S. Is hailed as the best though imperfect economic system in the
world. Our current President, after acknowledging that we should take action, now
says the actions needed to diminish global warming would ruin our economy. How
we could take effective countermeasures without seriously damaging our economy
is a question that has not been adequately studied. Growth of consumption has
been important to our economic prosperity. Most forms of consumerism require the
energy that we get from burning fossil fuels thus emitting carbon dioxide, the chief
cause of climate change. If we eliminated the types of consumption that were big
users of energy, we would need to substitute other activities that generate
employment. Fortunately, this appears to be a practical solution. The activities we
would substitute to reduce the use of fossil fuels are generally labor intensive.
Life Styles
The first actions could be what economists call “no regrets” programs. These are
essentially programs that save energy and costs but whose payback is so long that
government financial incentives are needed for adoption by the public. Other
starting actions would have enough effect on our modes of living to crate strong
public objections although perhaps acceptable by a majority. But to effectively slow
up global warming we would later need to drastically reduce our use of fossil fuels
by actions that would affect the life styles of most of us. Recent polls find that 60%
of knowledgeable U.S. Voters would accept a higher gas tax if it would help to avert
global warming.
The Ethical Dilemma
We must balance concerns for ourselves vs. Those of future generations and must
balance the interests of Americans vs. Those of the multitudes in the developing
nations. Looking back in our history we must regret some of the actions of our
ancestors re slavery, treatment of Indians, gender discrimination, etc. Will our
future generations be horrified at failure of this generation to slow up global
warming? Also, do we have a moral obligation to the people of the poor nations
who, lacking our wealth and technology, and in some cases because of their
geography, will be much more adversely affected by global warming than will the
United States?
2. The Scientific View – What Is Causing Climate Change?
The basic explanation of why the earth is now warming and will continue to do so
at least through this century is clear. During the last 10-20,000 years the
temperature of the earth has stayed about the same with only temporary warm
and cold spells. This is due to a fortunate balance wherein the heat lost by the
earth as it revolves in a frigid outer space is balanced by the heat it receives and
retains from the sun’s rays. Global warming is due to it now retaining more of this
heat from the sun’s rays due to man’s activities in this industrial age.
Of the heat received from the sun’s rays, a portion is reflected back. But some of
this reflected portion does not get back into outer space; it is re-reflected back to
the earth’s surface by what is called the greenhouse effect. Certain components of
the earth’s atmosphere, water vapor and the greenhouse gases (GHGs – chiefly
carbon dioxide and to a lesser extent methane), act like the glass in a greenhouse
and re-reflect some of these rays back again to the earth. Before mankind began to
add to the amount of these greenhouse gases by burning fossil fuels, coal, oil and
natural gas, this amount of heat from the sun that was kept by the earth plus that
re-reflected was just enough to maintain a steady temperature on the earth.
When coal, oil, or natural gas is burned in order to get heat or energy, the carbon
in them is converted to carbon dioxide (CO2). This CO2 accounts for about 80% of
the greenhouse gas effect. We have pretty reliable figure on the amount of CO2
we put into the atmosphere each year as the amount of each of these has long
been recorded by international commercial organizations.
Another source of the increased amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere in the
past century is from the burning of tropical forests. Here again we have a carbon
balance that has been upset by mankind’s activities. Without human interference
the amount of CO2 absorbed by trees and other vegetation is in balance with that
given off by these when they decay. There is not only a huge amount of carbon in
trees and vegetation but there is even more in the soils beneath them. So when
large amounts of tropical forest are burned as in Brazil and Indonesia, we are
putting stored carbon into the atmosphere just as in the case of our burning of the
stored carbon in fossil fuels. A portion of human-caused emission of CO2 in past
years has been from what scientists call “land use change” which includes trees, all
vegetation and soils. At present the addition of CO2 by destruction of tropical
forests may be partially balanced by increases in stored carbon in forests and soils
in the northern temperate zone.
Since CO2 now causes about 80% of the climate change and pretty good data is
available on how much is emitted each year from burning of fossil fuels, we should
focus most of our attention on this greenhouse gas. Methane (CH4) is the second
most important greenhouse gas. It is the chief component of natural gas. Its
increased emission has been more variable than that of CO2 and we still do not
have an accurate knowledge of the amounts of the various sources of its emissions
into the atmosphere. It is emitted by growing rice, by cattle, by decomposition in
landfills and an important amount comes simply from leaks in natural gas pipelines
Both ozone and the halo carbons (like Freon) that destroy ozone have small effects
on global warming but these effects are complicated and are relatively unimportant
in the matter of global warming at least until we have greatly reduced the emission
of carbon dioxide. We do not know to what extent natural causes such as variation
of sun’s radiation will also affect the climate in addition to the predicted changes
that will be made by man’s activities. Water vapor in the atmosphere acts as a
greenhouse gas and is one of the natural causes of climate change. Volcanic
eruptions are a natural cause that has a temporary cooling effect.
Notes: The observed sea level rise differs in many places because the sea level is
measured in comparison to the adjacent land and the land may be sinking or rising.
The eruption of Tabors in Indonesia in 1815 was followed by what became known
as “the year without a summer”. Dust went straight up to the stratosphere and
was carried around the world, obscuring the sun. Snow fell in New England in June.
In 1992 the eruption of Mount Pinto slowed up the global warming trend.
The predicted temperature rise in this century will be the fastest in the 10,000
years of this interglacial period. The 1990s had the highest temperature rise in our
recorded history. We do not know how much, if any, of this was due to natural, not
man-made, causes.
3. The Predicted Effects of Climate Change in This Century
Several scientific institutions have made predictions of what climate changes can be
expected if we continue to increase our emissions of greenhouse gases. The most
extensive is that done by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPX).
This consists of hundreds of scientists, some of whom write reports on various
aspects of the whole climate change issue, and others who review these reports.
The U.S. Academy of Sciences and the U.S. National Research Council have
endorsed the work of the IPX.
The following are some of the IPX predicted effects in this century, assuming that
on average the world continues on its present course and takes no more than
modest and tardy steps to slow up CO2 emissions:
The average global temperature will rise from 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius (2.5 to
10.4 degrees Fahrenheit). In the northern hemisphere the rise will be greatest in
the Arctic region and in mid-continent land areas.
The ocean level will rise by 0.1 to 0.9 of a meter and this will continue for further
centuries. This will exacerbate the impact of coastal storm surges.
The warmer ocean will increase in many areas the frequency and severity of violent
weather events, and over the globe the precipitation will on average be increased.
Climate changes in rainfall and droughts will upset many agricultural practices.
Initially there will be beneficial agricultural effects in some northern areas and in
Australia due to warmer weather. And in many regions where there is enough
water and fertilizer the increased CO2 in the atmosphere will increase plant growth
rates. But after an initial productivity rise, further temperature increases will have
an adverse effect.
Movement away from the tropics of warmer weather will require local animal and
vegetable life to adapt to a warmer weather or shift to new locations at higher
latitudes. Whether they will be able to make such shifts in location will largely
depend on how slowly the temperature change takes place.
Some tropical diseases such as malaria, dengue fever and encephalitis will move
into middle latitude countries. Already we have seen mosquitoes and some
diseases move higher up mountains.
Melting of Arctic ice may interrupt the thermo halide circulation that now warms
Western Europe and influences climate throughout the world. But this is not likely
to happen until after this century.
The developing countries in the tropical areas and in Africa will suffer the biggest
damage since they will not have the financial resources or the technology to take
protective measures.
One matter that I see as getting far too little attention is that nearly all studies of
what will happen have been limited to this century. If we continue to make only
modest efforts to reduce emissions, the rate of climate change and the
corresponding effects on all peoples will be substantially more in the next century
than is expected in this century. Since 1990 we have known of the need for action
but as of today there is little prospect of effective countermeasures. Kyoto is only a
tiny step when viewed in the total picture. All during the time we are going about
business as usual, two things are happening. First, our rate of emissions is steadily
increasing, so each year the amount of reduction needed to get back to a safe level
gets bigger. Second, the carbon dioxide we are putting into the atmosphere has a
life there of about 100 years, so what we have already put there and the amount
we are now adding means we will undergo much climate change, regardless of
what corrective actions we take in coming years.
And there are some so-called “surprise factors” unpredictable things that could
result from a new climate situation. The tundra in Alaska and Siberia holds
enormous amounts of methane underground in a frozen state called methane
clathrate. A warming climate could get this released into the atmosphere which
would be catastrophic because methane is a very potent greenhouse gas. Methane
has 20 times the warming effect of carbon dioxide though its life in the atmosphere
is much shorter. Also there is methane clathrate frozen under pressure at deep
ocean bottoms which could be released by a warmer ocean. Another surprise factor
could be release of carbon dioxide from the surface waters of warmer oceans which
so far have been absorbing about one half of the carbon dioxide we have been
emitting.
Notes:
In estimating temperature in 2100, the IPCC has made estimates based on six
scenarios. These try to take into account the different economic, technological, social
and political practices that may take place during this century and the resulting
temperature in 2100. For example, a combination of fast economic growth, high
technologies and continued high use of fossil fuels for energy predicts a 4.4 degrees C
rise. With the same conditions but high use of non-fossil fuels, the temperature rise is
only to 2.5 degrees .
4. The History of Our Knowledge of Climate Change
Starting in the 1970s, when global warming was predicted with some degree of
reliability, the likelihood that it will happen unless we take preventive actions has
steadily become more accepted worldwide by both scientists and governments. So
the principal debate is now about what should be done by countries of different
economic levels.
However there are a few scientists who believe that there is not sufficient evidence
that mankind’s emission of greenhouse gases is going to cause a damaging climate
change. But I have seen reports that show that 5 of these outstanding nay-sayers
have been receiving funds from sources that profit from the use of fossil fuels.
Also we still have institutions such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute that cast
doubt on the evidence for global warming in their publications and when they lobby
Congress. But such institutions are biased inasmuch as their chief principle is to
oppose practically all government regulations or activities that might reduce
business profits. Since the actions of most governments to reduce CO2 emissions
make energy more expensive, the business community, at least in the United
States, tends to be on the side of the nay-sayers.
The reports by the IPCC, issued in 1992, 1995 and 2001, have become increasingly
certain of man-made global warming and their estimated rise in temperature has
increased to 1.4-5.8ºC (2.5-10.4ºF) by the end of this century. Their last report
says there is a 90-99% probability that by the end of this century the world will
experience higher maximum temperatures and more hot days over nearly all the
land areas.
Since 1958 the percentage of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, in the
atmosphere has been constantly measured at a point on top of an extinct volcano
in Hawaii. This has shown a steady annual rise, starting from 358 parts per million
(ppm) in 1958 to 379 ppm today. This compares with an estimated 268 ppm before
the start of the industrial age and the use of fossil fuels.
The scientific prediction has long been that the warming would be greater in the
Arctic regions and we have already seen that this is happening with a substantial
reduction of Arctic ice thickness and areas of open water. Antarctic temperature has
risen 2.5º Celsius (4.5ºF) in the past 50 years. Glaciers have been melting and the
frost lines rising on the mountains of all northern continents.
We should bear in mind that the only known safe level of CO2 in the atmosphere is
what was there when we began to burn fossil fuels (268 ppm). Even if we were to
promptly cut back our emission rate as much as indicated in the Kyoto agreement,
global warming will nevertheless continue. The best we can hope to do is to slow
global warming and reduce its ill effects. To be confident that there will be no bad
effects from climate change we will have to make a drastic reduction in emission of
carbon dioxide.
Notes:
In 1890 a Swedish chemist made the startling prediction that the growing burning of
fossil fuels would double the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and this
would have a “greenhouse effect” and lead to worldwide warming. But this forecast was
scorned and it was not until 1967 that two U.S. Scientists at Princeton warned that
doubling carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would cause a temperature rise of 4ºF and
thus started growing studies by thousands of climatologists and other scientists.
In 1989 Stephen Schneider, a climatologist at the National Center for Climate Research
in Colorado, said that greenhouse gas theory is validated by hundreds of physical
measurements of the properties of atmospheric gases.
On January 29, 1999 the American Geophysical Union said in an official policy
statement that there is a “compelling basis for legitimate public concern” about our
human-induced climate change.
A May 16, 2000 EPA report starts with “The earth’s climate is predicted to change
because human activities are altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere
through the buildup of greenhouse gases”. Near the end of the report it says
“Scientists expect that the average global surface temperature could rise 1.6-6.3ºF by
2100 with significant regional variation.”
An 2001 the Hadley Center in England which has had a large staff studying climate
change for several years, forecast extreme weather conditions in England by 2100.
Prime Minister Tony Blair said these are the considered opinions of some of the world’s
best scientists and we cannot afford to ignore them.
The Nay-Sayers The predictions by scientists in the 1980s that global warming, caused
for the most part by burning of fossil fuels, was going to be a serious problem alerted
the coal, oil and gas industries who saw that this might lead to legislation restricting
the use of fossil fuels. They contributed millions of dollars to programs and publications
that in turn hired a number of prominent scientists to campaign for them. These
argued that it was uncertain that global warming will take place and anyway climate
changes are by natural factors with man’s activities having no or little effect. But a
check into funds received by each of these scientists found that most had received
funds from the fossil fuel industries or from organizations funded by these industries.
Some examples:
Fred Singer, Director of Science and Environment Policy Project, acknowledged on TV
program Nightline that he had received funding from Exxon, Shell, Unocal, and ARCO.
The Greening Earth Society was funded by Western Fuels, a group of coal mining
companies whose annual reports noted it had spent $583,000 in 1988 in “advocacy in
the area of climate change”. This funds Dr. Patrick J. Michaels and his World Climate
Report
.5. Actions That Are Being Done to Reduce the Extent of This Change
European nations, Canada and Japan have taken some measures to meet their
obligations as Kyoto signatories although there have been reports that several of
these nations will not meet their Kyoto targets. They plan to have a meeting to
decide on what the next steps will be after 2012 which is the terminal date for
Kyoto.
The following are a few samples of the many programs all over the world to reduce
emissions of CO2: In Spain after next year all new houses must have solar panels.
Last year Canada released “A plan for honoring our Kyoto commitment.” Carbon
credits are being traded in Europe. Use of wind turbines and solar cell panels to
generate electricity is growing in most countries. I believe Japan is a leading nation
in the use of solar panels and that Denmark and Germany are outstanding in use of
wind turbines. Denmark is outstanding in its use of cogeneration in electric utilities
to increase their overall efficiency. Cogeneration is putting to use the waste heat
that electric utilities have no use for. It can be used to provide heat to nearby
buildings or industries.
The booming economies in China and Japan are making them larger contributors to
CO2 emissions. In China many more coal-burning power plants are planned and
automotive transport is rapidly growing. It is reported that the European Union is
to provide China with the IGCC technology for power plants in which it is easier to
capture the CO2 emissions and store them underground
Petroleum companies are increasing the practice of taking CO2 generated by
utilities and injecting this in oil fields to increase oil production, a benefit that
decreases CO2 emissions from power plants but also makes more petroleum
available whose use will generate more CO2.
There has been little effort in the developing nations to reduce their CO2 emissions
which to date are too small to have much effect on the global situation. A few U.S.
Corporations are financing tree planting in these countries to obtain carbon credits
for future use.
The increasing shortages of water is having a slight effect in increasing CO2
emissions when this is remedied by converting salt water to potable water.
Desalinization plants such as those in Israel, Saudi Arabia and Tampa, Florida
require much energy and this is now obtained by burning fossil fuels.
There are a number of tree planting programs in various areas of the world. But
clearing of tropical forests has continued, notably in Brazil and Indonesia.
The increase in CO2 emissions per person from 1990 to 2004 has been: U.S. +19%,
Europe +6%, China + 67%, India + 88%.
In the U.S. The increased practice of no-till agriculture sequesters more CO2 in the
soil than does conventional plowing.
The U.S. Congress has rejected attempts to mandate improved auto mileage by
adopting stricter CAFÉ mileage standards. These were regulations adopted in the
1970s when we had a gasoline shortage.
In recent years several U.S. Federal regulations have been enacted to increase the
efficiency of various appliances, thus reducing their energy use. Subsidies and tax
benefits have encouraged more use of wind and solar cells to generate electricity.
At present the high gasoline prices has led to Federal programs to increase the use
of ethanol derived from corn and biomass and for use of biodiesel fuel to replace
diesel fuel derived from petroleum. However these steps have had little overall
effect to date and emissions of greenhouse gases in the U.S. Increased 16% from
1990 to 2004.
One line of research being carried out in several countries is to separate out the
carbon dioxide in the stack gases at electricity generating power plants, compress
this, and then store it in one or more of several existing types of deep underground
reservoirs. This process is known as CCS - Carbon Capture and Storage. Installing
the equipment and pipelines for this will need higher capital investments. And the
added steps would use up energy and be expensive to operate so at best this
process will be an increase in the cost of generating electricity. But this will
probably be an essential step to combat climate change since at best it will be
decades before we can expand the use of renewable energy sources to supply
essential energy needs.
The U.S. Department of Energy is also sponsoring a $1 billion, 10 year
demonstration power plant (FutureGen) which would not only sequester its carbon
dioxide generated by the usual production of electric power but would also produce
hydrogen which would be used as a source of power for transportation and
heating. Several utilities have agreed to take a partnership in this plant and
provide part of the funding. Its location will be somewhere in the United States,
where there is a suitable underground area for storage of the CO2. Coal will be the
raw material. It is expected to be in operation by 2012. It will use IGCC technology
which has been in operation at a Tampa utility for ten years. It will include CCS
technology, which has been used for a number of years to store CO2 in oil fields
but has not yet been used to store CO2 at a power
6. What Should the U.S. Government Be Doing About Climate Change?
The broad principles of U.S. Actions to slow global warming and reduce its eventual
effects should be:
1. Subscribe to Kyoto Agreement and work to strengthen it.
2. Of the various greenhouse gases, concentrate on reducing the emissions of
carbon dioxide, the principle one, and the one we best know how to control.
3. Keep in mind that prompt action is crucial. While we are delaying, the CO2 we
are putting into the atmosphere will be there for about 100 years. The longer we
wait, the more drastic the actions that will be needed.
4. Recognize that as a practical matter, while voluntary actions by people and
companies are helpful, only the government can bring about the big emission
reductions that are essential. The government must provide rules and subsidies
that will give industries and individuals the incentives to make the necessary big
changes.
5. Recognize that our economic system depends on continual growth in production
and consumption. In new regulations and taxes, a slowdown in action and
employment in one activity must be balanced by increases in other activities.
Produce fewer SUVs and more hybrids, smaller houses but better insulated ones.
6. Higher taxes on some products and activities should be as much as possible
what economists call “revenue neutral.” For example, receipts from higher gasoline
taxes could be used to reduce payroll taxes.
7. Promote a change in our culture; we need a culture that applauds simple living
and views extravagant energy-consuming life styles as being anti-social, a
handicap to the well-being of mankind. Encourage all government officials to set
good examples.
Some specific actions requiring government actions are:
1 Start with correcting a conspicuous extravagance—oversized and overpowered
cars and light trucks. Set new CAFÉ standards that will each year increase the mpg
of autos sold by each manufacturer with the aim of reaching 40-60 mpg in a few
years. Set a 55 mph speed limit—the one we had in the 1970s for a few years.
2.Institute a carbon tax and increase this each year by as much as our economy
can tolerate. Use the receipts from this to subsidize the industries that produce
products and services that reduce our use of energy from fossil fuels.
3.Do more to encourage use of wind turbines, solar panels, tidal power, and
geothermal sources for the production of electricity. These should have long-term
subsidies so as to encourage investments in them. Federal approval of these
installations should override local Nimby (Not In My Back Yard) objections.
4.Continue to encourage production of ethanol and biodiesel fluids for
transportation. Heavily fund research to enable use of various forms of biomass
rather than corn for production of ethanol.
5. Take in account the fact that in spite of expediting more use of renewable
sources of energy and making more efficient use of all forms of energy, we will still
have to continue use of fossil fuels to a considerable degree. The government
should speed up and expand use of IGCC technology and CCS in the new power
plants to be constructed. And we need to study the feasibility of adding CCS to
existing coal-fired power plants
6. Get both industries and the public to put to use the technology we have already
developed that enables us to use energy more efficiently. In most of these cases,
this has not been done because the pay back period in company profits or in
savings by individuals is not short enough to encourage their use.
7. By means of taxes and regulations, discourage both commercial and recreational
activities that stand out as exceptional users of energy. Imported fruits and
vegetables are often cheaper than those grown in the U.S. but need more energy
for transportation. Ban recreational snowmobiles.
8. Provide to developing nations, starting with China and India, the technologies
we have developed that achievemore efficient generation of electricity and more
efficient use of energy. Some of this can be done in accordance with Kyoto rules.
Notes:
During the oil shortage in the 1970s, Congress instituted CAFÉ standards for auto
manufacturers. The average mileage of all cars sold by a manufacturer had to meet a
miles- per-gallon standard that was to be increased each year. But then Congress
allowed pickup trucks and SUVs to be exempt from this requirement. The average mpg
of cars and light trucks reached its best level in 1985 and has been declining since
then. We should have new CAFÉ standards that would include non-essential light
trucks and SUVs and have steady annual increases in mpg to take advantage of known
technologies. Auto manufacturers would then find it advantageous to lower the prices
of high mpg cars and raise prices of gas guzzlers.
Five northern European countries in the past 10 years have put taxes on carbon
dioxide emissions and offset these with reduced taxes on wages and/or personal
income.
Wind turbines are said to be capable of providing ¼ of U.S. electricity needs if installed
on 1.5% of continental U.S. land area. Installations on grazing lands such as the
western high plains do not interfere with their use for grazing cattle. With present
technologies, wind turbines are the best alternative to fossil fuels for generating
electricity.
The DOE has spent $24 million in developing technologies for a wide variety of
electricity saving projects. It is estimated that these can save $8.9 billion if these
technologies were all put to use. Electricity consumption of electric motors can be cut
by 20% by use of adjustable speed drives. 40% of electricity for lighting can be saved
by use of compact fluorescent bulbs
Most utilities generating electricity operate at about 35% efficiency. Replacement with a
modern efficient design increases this to 60%. But the lifetime of these generators is
40-50 years so replacing them before this would be very expensive. Transmission of
the electricity from large central generators is very wasteful and smaller localized units
offer substantial savings in transmission loss.
Efficiency in generation of electricity can be increased to 80-90% by locating generators
where waste heat can be used by industries or residences. Denmark leads in this. A
growing forest absorbs in a hectare 200-500 tons of CO2 per year. An economical
means of offsetting CO2 emissions is to use mature trees as fuel for heat or power
generation.
7. Why Is the U.S. Doing so Little to Counter Climate Change?
Business and industry depend on continued economic growth which in our present
economy requires increases in use of fossil fuels to produce the energy we use in
numerous ways. And politicians depend on obtaining funds for their next election
campaign from contributions from business and industry. Labor unions join this
opposition because they see a threat to jobs if industry has to reduce its use of
energy.
When Congress rejected joining Kyoto several years ago a principal objection was
that Kyoto did not obligate any action by China and India. Under the present
Republican administration there is no longer any prospect of joining Kyoto so the
question has not had the discussion it needs.
President Bush takes the same position as Congress. He says the actions needed
to counter global warming would damage the economy. He has answered critics of
his do-nothing policy by emphasizing that he is having research done to develop a
hydrogen economy and a process for sequestering the CO2 produced by utilities.
Hydrogen-fueled cars are appealing because they have no smog-forming
emissions, but if the hydrogen comes from fossil fuels, CO2 is generated at this
step. Talk of a smog-free hydrogen economy appeals to the public which does not
realize that at present this hydrogen comes from burning the fossil fuels which
cause global warming.
The petroleum and coal industries have funded million dollar campaigns opposing
actions that would cut the use of fossil fuels. The automotive industry fears
regulations that would reduce the sale of SUVs and light trucks – their most
profitable products by far. And the 12 million jobs connected to this industry
represent a lot of votes.
The U.S. public has not shown much interest even now when global warming is
finally getting attention in the media. The public seems concerned only with the
current problems such as the Iraq situation, terrorism, immigration, social security
etc.
It seems that most citizens who are concerned about our future still do not have a
clear understanding of the causes and effects of climate change and so do not
realize the urgency of actions. And we do not know how much a better-informed
voting public would be willing to accept the restrictions and costs that would be
needed for effective counter measures.
8. A Global Problem with Differences in National Views and Responses
The need to take action to slow up global warming is common to all nations. But, in
addition to the normal self-interested spirit of each nation, the wide differences
between the past and present economics of nations means there are wide
differences in the actions suitable for each, and also wide differences in the actions
which each feels it has the responsibility and the means to undertake.
From an ethical viewpoint a non-hazardous atmosphere is a resource shared in
common by all humans, some of whom have been polluting it by their emissions of
greenhouse gases since the start of the industrial age. The peoples of the poorest
nations have polluted it very little both in the past and the present. So the burden
of correcting its pollution by past and present emissions of greenhouse gases rests
with the industrial nations.
From a practical viewpoint, the wealthiest and technologically most advanced
peoples, namely the industrial nations, have the best abilities to make the needed
changes. The peoples of the poorest nations must concentrate their efforts on
improving the near-term welfare of the people so concern for the long-term future
is a relatively low priority. The developing nations such as China and India desire to
advance their economies which means expanding their production of energy and
CO2 emissions. Lacking both money and technology, they need the industrial
nations to provide them with both finances and technologies to do this with a
minimum of CO2 emissions. An outstanding case of this would be for the U.S. to
provide the technologies and all wealthy nations to provide the finances so India
and China could use coal as the main source of energy while burying under the
ground the carbon dioxide normally emitted to the atmosphere.
From a political viewpoint, the situation is reversed. Without question the ill effects
of climate change will be borne the earliest and the heaviest on the people of the
developing nations. The first victims of rising seas and intense storms are likely to
be those who live on the South Pacific islands and in the Bangladesh coastal area.
For some period the U.S. can protect its coastal areas with sea walls and shifting
people to inland areas. So nations’ political incentives for preventive actions are the
reverse of their urgencies.
Notes:
In his book “One World” Prof. Peter Singer of Princeton University has a chapter on
“One Atmosphere” in which he discusses at length how the principles of fairness and
justice as well as practical considerations apply to this global perspective of nations’
actions to curb climate change. And he proposes a solution that meets all these criteria
and also helps to alleviate the poverty in poor countries.
In his book “The Truth About our Climate Crisis” Mark Lynas says an equitable solution
should be based on every person in the world having equal rights for CO2 emissions, a
safe amount being perhaps 2.45 tons per year compared to the 19.6 tons per capita
now emitted in the U.S. He says some support for this has been by the governments of
the U.K., China and India.
In his book “Who Owns the SKY” Peter Banes proposes a Sky Trust, with each person
in the world owning one share and all polluters paying the Trust say $25 a ton for
emitted CO2.
September 14, 2006
* Retired Chemical Engineer
115 Bowerstown Road
Washington, NJ 07882, U.S.A.
jjjburton@verizon.net