POL310 Chapter 03

3
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
Section 3.1 Sources of Climate Change: What We Know
CHAPTER 3
3.1 Sources of Climate Change: What We Know
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.
What Is Happening to Planet Earth?

To understand global warming, and the changes it produces in the Earths atmosphere, we need first to review the global carbon cycle. Carbon is an abundant element on the planet and an essential component of all living organisms. When combined with oxygen to form carbon dioxide, however, the resulting chemical is one of the most critical greenhouse gases. Historically, much of the Earths carbon has been stored in oceans, soils, and organic (living) matter. The capacity of these vectors to absorb and maintain carbon makes them ideal as carbon sinks, essentially, holding pens for the gas. At the same time, these entities release (or emit) carbon as part of their normal processes (e.g., photosynthesis in plants). The released carbon adds to the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere. With a few exceptions, sinks and emissions have operated in a dynamic equilibrium for most of the Earths existence. That is, the amount of carbon absorbed was roughly equal to the amount emitted. However, since the advent of the industrial revolutiondated roughly to the end of the 18th centuryatmospheric concentrations of carbon have substantially increased. Since that time, human activity has led to the release of large amounts of carbon and other greenhouse gases (methane, ozone, and nitrous oxide) into the atmosphere, to the point where carbon emissions now exceed the sinks capacity to absorb them. At the same time, global temperatures have gradually increased. Scientists now understand that the increase in greenhouse gases causes a warming effect. The gases create a reflective shield that allows the suns rays to reach Earth as normal, but then it traps more of those rays in the atmosphere rather than reflecting them. As the balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation is altered, temperatures rise (see Figure 3.1). Scientists call this process radiative forcing. Three sets of data are of particular interest to scientists when it comes to assessing the impact of human activity on global climate change (see Figure 3.2): (a) global emissions of carbon, which show a clear and dramatic increase starting with the industrial revolution; (b) global concentrations of carbon, which show that as more carbon is emitted, the atmosphere has retained a proportionate amount; and (c) global temperature changes, which show a sudden exponential increase starting with the industrial revolution. All three graphs reveal a strikingly similar pattern, suggesting that these variables are related.
Sources of Climate Change

After years of extensive research, we now know quite a bit about the human activities that influence climate change. We also know a lot about natural variations that occur as part
52
daL6660X_03_c03_p051-086.indd 52
8/25/11 5:27 PM
CHAPTER 3
Figure 3.1 The climate change process.
Solar Radiation
Climate Variability and Change Atmospheric Composition Atmosphere Biosphere Interaction
Clouds Water Cycle
H20, CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, etc. Aerosols Ecosystems
Heat Exchange
Terrestrial Radiation Evaporation Precipitation Volcanoes Cities Glaciers
Carbon Cycle Ice Sheet
Rivers Atmosphere Ice Interaction Industries Transportation Oceans Human Contributions and Responses Agriculture Vegetation-Soil Interaction Vegetation
Sea Ice Land Surface Ocean Circulation, Sea Level, Biogeochemistry
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
Metric tons of Carbon/year (Billions)
Total Petroleum Coal
Natural Gas Cement production Gas flaring
1800
1850
1900
1950
2000
Year 400 CO2 Concentration (ppmv) 350 300 250 200

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
Figure 3.3 Breakdown of CO2 emissions sectors.

Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector Industrial processes 16.8% Transportation fuels 14.0% Agricultural by-products 12.5% Fossil fuel retrieval, processing, and distribution 11.3% Power stations 21.3% Waste disposal and treatment 3.4% Land use and biomass burning 10.0% Residential, commercial, and other sources 10.3%
Carbon Dioxide
(72% of total)
20.6% 29.5% 29.6%
Methane
(18% of total)
40.0%
Nitrous Oxide
(9% of total)
62.0%
19.2% 12.9% 9.1%
8.4%
18.1% 6.6% 4.8%
26.0% 5.9% 2.3%
1.1% 1.5%
Carbon emissions come from all sectors of modern life.
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.
Figure 3.4 Historical range of variability.

2 1
NAO Index
0 -1 -2 100
Number of Predictors 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000
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
Section 3.2 Impacts of Climate Change: Whats Already Occurred?
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.
3.2 Impacts of Climate Change: Whats Already Occurred?
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.
Figure 3.5 Ten Indicators of a warming world.
Air Temperature Near Surface (Troposphere)
Humidity
Glaciers Snow Cover
Temperature Over Oceans Sea Surface Temperature
Sea Ice
Sea Level Ocean Heat Content
Temperature Over Land
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
Case Study: Mountain Pine Beetle in the Western United States

Throughout history, lodgepole pine trees have been susceptible to short-term and occasionally intense infestations of the mountain pine beetle. The insects burrow into the bark of the tree and lay their eggs. When the new larvae hatch, they attack the tree. It may take up to 3 years for the tree to begin to die, during which time the needles gradually turn reddish brown. Until recently, infestations of the beetle were on a small scale. A stand of trees or a few acres would turn brown and die over a period of a decade. The weather would eventually grow cold enough in the winter that the beetles would die, and the infestation would naturally end.
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
How Do We Know What We Know?

Recall that scientists publish the results of their research in peer-reviewed, scientific journals that are often highly technical and discipline specific (see Chapter 2). A chemist might seek to publish in the Journal of Organic Chemistry, while a meteorologist might approach the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology. After an exhaustive review process by the authors peersother scientists with expertise in the same area of researcha scientist may succeed in having an article published. The article will most likely be read only by other scientists working in a similar or related field. In this way, scientists can keep abreast of the latest research being done in their field. In the last several decades, thousands of such articles have addressed some aspect of climate change. They cover a wide range of topics. Some, for example, present findings on the correlation between airline travel and cloud cover. Others focus on soil salinity and agricultural productivity. Still other studies review the results of multiple studies in order to assess the big picture. One meta-study of 928 peer-reviewed articles published between 1993 and 2003 found 100% convergence on two points: Climate change is happening, and human activity is contributing to it (Oreskes, 2004). In an effort to summarize what has become an unwieldy amount of published research, many scientific organizations have released reports that synthesize the findings from within their discipline. For example, the American Geophysical Union (Showstack, 2003), the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, 2003), the American Meteorological Society (AMS, 2009) and others have issued statements confirming that the evidence for climate change is convincing. Another organization, the National Academy of Sciences, begins a report by stating Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earths atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise (National Research Council, 2001).
The Role of Scientific Advisory Groups

In 1988, overwhelmed by an avalanche of scientific information from around the world, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme established an international scientific group to evaluate the emerging data on climate change. This new panel, called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), brought together top scientists with a range of political affiliations to sift through scientific information and synthesize the findings. The group has since issued four comprehensive Assessment Reports, each organized into detailed topical summaries. The IPCC is the worlds most reliable source for unbiased information on the topic of climate change, and its reports have become a resource that political leaders and policymakers can draw from when crafting international agreements (http:/ /www.ipcc.ch/). Following the IPCCs lead, scientists from diverse disciplines are collaborating on the multifaceted issue of climate change. Annually, U.S. scientists produce a State of the Climate report that presents the latest scientific insights in a way that even nonscientists can understand (http:/ /www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate .html) By pooling knowledge, scientists have access to a rich set of data sources, including satellite evidence, weather balloons, ships, and field surveys from around the world. They are then able to compare their independently collected findings and identify points of consensus as well as disagreement.
60
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.
The Difficulty of Making Predictions

The IPCC and many scientific organizations have issued detailed predictions for climate change. Before we review these, it is critical to note that no matter how good the science, no expert can predict the future with total accuracy. Predicting the impacts of climate change is especially challenging, for four reasons. First, scientists often rely on computer models to generate predictions. These models function by taking data that scientists have enteredchanges in temperature over time, for exampleand extrapolating the trend line to make educated predictions about future change. While models have shown many complex data patterns, they are only as good as the data entered. If scientists have incomplete data, the model will automatically make incorrect assumptions about the future trajectory. Thus, scientists nearly always couch their predictions in terms of the likelihood of something happening. This may be presented in statistical terms, called a confidence interval. This uncertainty may also be presented in lay language as being highly likely or possible. Another reason that climate change has been so difficult to predict is that it doesnt proceed in a consistent, linear fashion. Consistent change would be reflected in, say, a 1-degree (F) increase in global temperature each year. But the multiple variables that are used to assess climate change do not provide this kind of predictable picture. The rate is shifting. One year global temperature might increase just a little bit, and the next year it leaps. One reason for this kind of nonlinear change is the way these variables interact with one another. For example, when temperature rises, arctic sea ice melts, and the ocean level at the pole rises. That part seems straightforward. But the sea, now comprised of less ice and more water, also absorbs more of the suns raysdark sea absorbs heat, while white ice reflects itthereby making temperatures in the sea rise even more dramatically. This is an example of a positive feedback loop. Similarly, negative feedback loops can serve to slow down or even reverse the progression of climate change. The ocean, for example, absorbs carbon at an uneven rate; if the seas begin to uptake carbon at a faster rate than they have historically, increased carbon emissions wouldnt necessarily lead to proportionate increases in atmospheric concentration. Untangling the many variables and complex feedback loops makes accurate prediction challenging. Third, the multidisciplinary nature of climate change means that scientists are almost always working with incomplete information. A hydrologist, for example, may be able to understand the way climate change is affecting ocean levels and water quality. But without a fish scientist (ichthyologist) or a marine biologist, the hydrologist cannot fully grasp the impact of such changes on sea life. Predictions are thus based on particular areas of expertise. Finally, predictions are made based on current conditions, technology, and modes of behavior. These factors amount to what is called business as usual (BAU), and scientists cannot account for all possible new technologies, changes in human behavior, and other
61
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.
Figure 3.6 Confidence intervals.

Changes in temperature, sea level, and Northern Hemisphere snow cover Global average surface temperature
0.5 (C) 0.0 -0.5 14.5 14.0 13.5 Temperature (C) (million km2)
Difference from 19611990
Global average sea level

50 0 (mm) -50 -100 -150
Northern Hemisphere snow cover

(million km2) 4 0 -4 1850 1900 1950 2000 40 36 32
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
Figure 3.7 BAU line with other scenarios.

3 In a business-as-usual (i.e., trend), scenario the emission level due to electricity will 29 Gt approximately triple. A full application of mature technologies will only limit the increase.
CO2 emission level (Gt)
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
Likely Future Impacts of Climate Change

The IPCC details short- and long-term impacts by sector. A total global warming of approximately 0.28C per decade is projected. This kind of warming will have myriad impacts on human and natural systems (see Figure 3.8). Global precipitation will increase throughout the coming century, although variation by region will be profound. For example, areas that have high population concentrations along a low-lying coast will be most heavily damaged by sea-level rise. See the Kiribati Case Study (page 000) for an example of a country that is facing particularly intense and immediate outcomes from rising seas. Global sea level will rise as glaciers and arctic ice melt (see Figure 3.9); scientists predict 7.2 to 23.6 inches of total ocean level increase by 2100 (EPA, 2010). Increased weather intensity is also likely; as ocean temperatures increase, storms will gain power.
Figure 3.8 Projected impacts of climate change.

Falling crop yields in many areas, particularly developing regions Possible rising yields in some high latitude regions Falling yields in many developed regions
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
Extensive Damage to Coral Reefs
Rising number of species face extinction
Ecosystems
Rising intensity of storms, forest fires, droughts, flooding and heat waves
Extreme Weather Events Risk of Abrupt and Major Irreversible Changes 0C 1C

Increasing risk of dangerous feedbacks and abrupt, large-scale shifts in the climate system
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
Figure 3.9 Climate change and sea level.

Atlantic Ocean Jacksonville Gainesville Daytona Beach Cape Canaveral
Panama City Pensacola
Tallahassee
Orlando Gulf of Mexico Saint Petersburg Area that will experience flooding and loss of landmass
FLORIDA
Tampa Fort Meyers
Fort Lauderdale Miami
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
Alaska Northwest Midwest Islands Great Plains Southwest
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
Local and regional impacts are likely to vary.
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.
What Shapes Popular Perception of Climate Change?

While scientists rely on studies published in peer-reviewed journals, the average citizen isnt likely to read and understand the material in those sources. So how do most people learn about current research in climate science? We rely largely on the media and political leaders to keep us informed about the latest news.
The Role of the Mainstream Media

While the mainstream media can be a robust source of current information, it can sometimes also provide a skewed representation of the facts. Some journalists write with a bias that reflects their employer; for example, writers for politically conservative media outlets will cover issues in a way that slants toward that political orientation, and writers for liberal media outlets will do the same. Even more independent journalists, however, may report issues in a way that fails to accurately portray the science. The problem, ironically, is that most journalists seek to present a balanced picture for every story they report. If, for example, a reporter is writing about an upcoming election, he will usually try to find people who support each of the candidates. He will explore the relevant issues and gather quotes from people who hold opposing opinions. Ideally, the reporter will work to convey the complexity of the issue and the range of opinions that exist about it without injecting his own view into the story. Many reporters apply this same model when they write about climate change. The news of the day may be a new scientific discovery that sheds light on future risks associated with climate change. As the reporter builds her story, she will interview people who were part of the research team, those who work in areas that are now potentially implicated, and those who have doubts about the findings. While the research may be compelling, and the counterargument less so, the reporter may manage to create doubt about the validity of the science as she attempts to present a balanced story. Thus, even when there is little doubt in the peer-reviewed journals, the media may present a more clouded picture.
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.
Where Does the Average Person Stand on the Issue?

The average American citizenwho has not studied the science of climate change, does not access scientific information, and relies on the popular media for interpretationis understandably confused, as reflected by recent poll results (see Figure 3.11). Given the discussion about the difficulty of definitively proving anything in science, it is possible that some of the people who think climate change is still an unproven theory are aware of scientific consensus but acknowledge that even that level of agreement falls short of proof (see Table 3.1). Still, the substantial disagreement among the voting public is one main reason politicians are often hesitant to act.
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
Public polls show Americans are confused about climate change.

68
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
1. http://www.british-gazette.co.uk/tag/copenhagen/; 2. http://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/1753-pat-michaels-global-warmings-corrupt-science .html; 3. http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html; 4. http://www.masterresource .org/2009/11/simple-model-leaves-expensive-climate-models-cold/; 5. http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/index.php?option=com_content&view =article&id=64&Itemid=1; 6. http://inhofe.senate.gov/pressreleases/climate.htm
69
daL6660X_03_c03_p051-086.indd 69
8/25/11 5:28 PM
Section 3.3 History of Climate Change Policy
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?
3.3 History of Climate Change Policy
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.
Dimensions: Adaptation and Mitigation

With so many climactic changes already under way, immediate attention has been devoted to improving the capacity of individuals and communities to adapt. Any action that seeks to minimize the effects and disruptions of climate change falls into the policy category of adaptation. Insurance companies are adjusting their rates in flood-prone areas. Emergency managers are developing detailed evacuation plans for those same areas. City planners are planting trees to provide shade for residents. At the same time that policymakers work to adapt to current and predicted impacts, actors in all sectors of government and civil society are working to slow or reverse climate change itself. Those activities that seek to reduce concentrations of greenhouse gases, whether by decreasing emissions or improving sinks, are categorized as mitigation. Mitigation can happen on a large, national scale, such as when the EPA regulates emissions from industry. Mitigation can also be addressed at the state or regional level: Some states have developed renewable energy standards (see Chapter 1). Mitigation can also be the focus of individual behavior, such as turning off lights when you leave the house. All of these activities, happening largely independently from one another, conActively planting trees is one way to tribute to a global awareness of climate change mitigate climate change. and the beginning of efforts to mitigate it. Any
70
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.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

Scientists became more certain of the trends they were seeing in the climate data by the 1980s. Concerned citizens read about the emerging scientific consensus and began to contact their political leaders, asking for action. The issue eventually reached the international agenda. A landmark environmental conference in June 1992 provided a unique opportunity for heads of state to begin to tackle this environmental problem. The conferenceofficially called the UN Conference on Environment and Development, but better known as the Earth Summitallowed political leaders to establish a cooperative framework for future action. The resulting United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is now more notable for what it didnt do than what it did. The treaty, to which 192 countries are currently party, didnt set any mandatory emissions targets. It didnt establish any legally binding pledges for action. Instead, it encouraged member countries to monitor and report on their emissions. That data has been collected in national greenhouse gas inventories and has been useful for later treaty development. Most important, the UNFCCC began an ongoing process of cooperation and commitment to future progress. Signatories acknowledge climate change as a problem in need of attention. Countries agreed to begin efforts to reduce emissions. In this sense, the UNFCCC marks the starting line for international efforts to govern climate change.
The Kyoto Protocol

Since 1992, the signatories to the UNFCCC have continued to meet annually. Their most dramatic progress took place in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997 when the Kyoto Protocol was created. Unlike the nonbinding treaty that first brought these countries together, the Protocol established emissions targets for high-income, industrialized countries. Those countries were placed into a category called Annex I. Developing countries were placed into a separate category and were not held to binding emissions targets. It is important to understand the rationale for these differing standards. Policymakers approached the issue of mitigating climate change on the international scale with two primary questions. First, which countries have historically contributed to the buildup of greenhouse gases? Second, which countries now have the capacity to reduce their
71
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
Focus: Flexible Mechanisms Authorized by Kyoto Protocol

Clean Development Mechanism (CDM): The CDM allows industrialized countries to achieve their own emissions targets by funding projects in developing countries instead of at home. For example, Japan might help Peru retain its tree cover in the Amazon Basin. Since those trees act as carbon sinks, the credit for the project could go to Japan and count toward its mitigation progress. Joint Implementation: Similar to CDM, Joint Implementation allows two Annex I countries to collaborate on emissions reduction projects. One country may invest in the greenhouse gas reductions taking place in another country, rather than at home. In this way, inexpensive opportunities for reducing emissions may be seized by any Annex I country, which will then have those credits shared. For example, Germany might invest in a new power plant in Russia that can replace an older coal-fired plant. The emissions saved as a result of the new project will be credited jointly to Germany and Russia.
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.
The Copenhagen Accord

Despiteor maybe due toyears of anticipation and preparation, disagreement about treaty details remained intense at the Copenhagen meeting. Many participants hoped for a binding treaty that would require all countriesrich, industrialized countries in particularto commit to meaningful reductions in their emissions. But leaders could not agree on the mechanisms for tracking, reducing, or enforcing those cuts. Myriad details led to all-night meetings, and by the third day of the conference journalists reported a process in disarray. The outcome was disappointing for everyone because policymakers managed to sign only a politicalnot legaltreaty called the Copenhagen Accord. The agreement acknowledges the scientific argument for reducing emissions and notes that global temperature rise should be contained to 28C. However, the agreement does not provide any binding targets, nor does it spell out a strategy for achieving the suggested reductions. Perhaps the only meaningful piece of the failed Copenhagen meeting was a pledge by industrialized states, including the United States, to assist developing states as they adapt to a changing climate. Other provisions, including one that helps reduce deforestation in tropical countries, were also included. Still, the treaty is nonbinding. Many scholars and policymakers have concluded that the international treaty process is ill fitted to the scale and scope of the climate change issue. Generating enforceable promises from 194 countries, tracking emissions of all greenhouse gases and the web of mechanisms that have sprung up at all levels of government, is an impossible task. Instead, some have argued that only the free market will be able to advance change. Thomas L. Friedman, a columnist for the New York Times and a commentator on climate change governance, argues that instead of an Earth Summit, we need an Earth Race. He says that the financial promise of new technology in so-called green industries, such as renewable energy and carbon capture, will create its own incentive. Countries can compete with one another on technical innovation much as they did during the Space Race in the 1960s, when the United States and the Various political and environmental Soviet Union raced to be the first to land astroleaders meet to discuss the Kyoto nauts on the moon. To spark such a race, FriedProtocol in Copenhagen, Denmark, man (and others) argues that we dont need interin 2009. Pictured are British Prime national negotiations. Instead, we need the right Minister Gordon Brown, second right, market incentives and strong political leadership. and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, left.
73
daL6660X_03_c03_p051-086.indd 73
8/25/11 5:28 PM
CHAPTER 3
Case Study: Kiribati

The small island nation of Kiribati (pronounced KEER-uh-bass) in the central Pacific Ocean is comprised of 33 tiny coral atolls (see Figure 3.12). The country became independent from the United Kingdom in 1979 and was formally recognized as a sovereign state in 1999. Spread out over 3.5 million square kilometers (over a million square miles), Kiribatis islands are all equatorial (see Figure 3.12). Residents live in dispersed communities across the many tiny islands. The country relies on tourism, agriculture, and foreign aid to keep its economy in motion, and it is considered one of the worlds least developed states. Based on IPCC predictions of sea-level rise, the leaders of Kiribati have become increasingly concerned for the viability of their country. Several smaller, unpopulated islands that were once part of the country have already been submerged. Soil salinization from increases in sea-salt proportions will likely contribute to the erosion of the land base, leading many to predict that Kiribati will be the first country to disappear due to climate change. When delivering an impassioned speech to the United Nations in 2003, President Anote Tong said, Our very lives are at stake. In 2008, Kiribatis political leaders issued a formal request to neighbors Australia and New Zealand, asking those countries to accept its 100,000 citizens as climate refugees. So far, only New Zealand has said yes. Some residents of the island are already leaving. Those with the ability to do so have gone to New Zealand, which currently admits about 75 emigrants from Kiribati annually. Some (continued)
Figure 3.12 Map of Kiribati.
South China Sea North Pacific Ocean
KIRIBATI Indonesia
Gilbert Islands Phoenix Islands Line Islands
AUSTRALIA
NEW ZEALAND
Indian Ocean
South Pacific Ocean
Tasman Sea
The small island state of Kiribati is threatened by rising sea levels.
74
daL6660X_03_c03_p051-086.indd 74
8/25/11 5:28 PM
Section 3.4 Actions of the United States
CHAPTER 3
Case Study: Kiribati (continued)

have sought refuge in other countries where they have family or connections. But others in the country are staying put. Many are there because they lack the means to relocate and will rely on their government to establish a viable living arrangement for them if and when circumstances require it. Others are skeptics. They may choose to stay for the sake of their extended families, many of whom have never known life anywhere outside of the islands, and many of whom speak only Gilbertese, a language not spoken anywhere else on Earth. They may choose to stay because they dont believe the dire predictions will come true. Kiribati is a test case for climate scientists and international political leaders. If the island represents just the first in a chain of countries that need to relocate their citizens, how will the world respond? Consider the social upheaval created by the 1 milThis boy from Kiribati is unlikely to live lion people who were displaced during Hurricane out his life in his home country due to the Katrina in 2005. Those people needed only domesthreat of submersion and erosion of land tic support and housing, so there was no need for from climate change. international repatriation or new citizenship. They spoke English, and many already had relatives in nearby cities. Still, the upheaval was substantial. Thousands of families remained displaced 5 years later, and the estimated cost of those relocations runs into the billions of dollars. Critical Thinking Questions 1. Consider the ethical issues at stake in this case study. Is it relevant that most of the residents of Kiribati are, by global standards, poorly educated and ill equipped to succeed in a technologybased modern society? 2. Explore the ethical dimensions of the pending crisis facing this country and its people.
3.4 Actions of the United States
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).
State and Local Governments

Although there is still no national climate change policy, most other sectors of American life are moving ahead within the context of current and predicted climate changes. Indeed, by many measures, decentralized efforts to tackle climate change in the United States represent an effective strategy for bypassing international negotiations. States have taken it upon themselves to explore some of these dramatic climate solutions. Virtually every state has now undertaken some level of analysis and planning that begins the long effort toward tackling the complex challenge of climate change. For example, in 2007 Governor Christine Gregoire of Washington convened an advisory group to study the likely current and future impacts of climate change and to develop a plan of action for her state. The Climate Action Team recommended reducing total emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, consistent with the Kyoto Protocol; additionally, the team established a goal of exceeding Kyoto targets and reducing GHG emissions to reach 50% below 1990 levels by 2050. Additional goals of the Comprehensive Climate Approach included adding new green jobs to the state and reducing fossil fuel imports. The approach suggests a careful combination of regulation and market-based strategies and urges local involvement.
76
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
Section 3.5 Current Issues
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).
3.5 Current Issues
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.
Emissions and Sinks

Mitigating climate change means accounting for both sides of the carbon coin: sources of emissions, and sinks for those emissions. In other words, if the goal is to reduce total concentration of carbon, there are two ways to approach that task: Reduce emissions, and improve or maintain sinks for emissions. Recall the many sources of emissionssuch as commercial, residential, transportation, and industrial burning of fossil fuelsand you have a sense of how broad the scope for change will have to be if it is to be meaningful. No single sector can succeed in solving climate change without what many believe needs to be transformation across many sectors. Stephen Pacala and Robert Socolow, faculty members at Princeton University, developed a tool in 2004 that demonstrated how existing technologies could be applied across many sectors to reduce carbon emissions. The scholars identified 15 stabilization wedges (see Figure 3.13), each one representing a carbon reduction in a particular sector. For example, one wedge is an increase in fuel economy from 30 miles per gallon (mpg) to 60 mpg. Another wedge is the addition of 4 million new windmills. Each of these initiatives, if undertaken in isolation, would have a smallbut measurableimpact on overall carbon concentration levels. But the authors of the wedge theory demonstrate that incremental, cross-sectoral changes could ultimately stabilize emissions. On the sinks side, one important place for reform is land use. Clearing land for urban development and agriculture is nothing new. Indeed, throughout history the advance of civilization into the wilderness has in many ways been seen as the definition of progress. But deforestation has had a net negative impact on the environment. Reduced biodiversity and soil quality are among the reasons deforestation has long concerned environmentalists; now, deforestation is also seen as a culprit for a decline in sinks. Forested land absorbs carbon, but not all forests are the same. Young, dynamic forestssuch as those in tropical countriesabsorb more. Thus the focus of forest preservation has been on
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
Figure 3.13 Stabilization wedge approach to climate change.

A
Fossil fuel emissions (GtC/y)
16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
*GtC/y: gigatons (billions of tons) of carbon per year
BAU Business as Usual WRE500 Global stabilization at 500 ppm (parts per million)
2000
2010
2020
2030 B
2040
2050
2060
Fossil fuel emissions (GtC/y)
16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
Stabilization triangle Continues fossil fuel emissions
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

POL310 Chapter 03

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

POL310 Chapter 03

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

3

Section 3.1 Sources of Climate Change: What We Know

3.1 Sources of Climate Change: What We Know

What Is Happening to Planet Earth?

Sources of Climate Change

Section 3.1 Sources of Climate Change: What We Know

Figure 3.1 The climate change process.

Climate Variability and Change Atmospheric Composition Atmosphere Biosphere Interaction

Clouds Water Cycle

H20, CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, etc. Aerosols Ecosystems

Terrestrial Radiation Evaporation Precipitation Volcanoes Cities Glaciers

Carbon Cycle Ice Sheet

Sea Ice Land Surface Ocean Circulation, Sea Level, Biogeochemistry

Section 3.1 Sources of Climate Change: What We Know

Metric tons of Carbon/year (Billions)

Total Petroleum Coal

Natural Gas Cement production Gas flaring

Year 400 CO2 Concentration (ppmv) 350 300 250 200

Section 3.1 Sources of Climate Change: What We Know

Figure 3.3 Breakdown of CO2 emissions sectors.

19.2% 12.9% 9.1%

18.1% 6.6% 4.8%

26.0% 5.9% 2.3%

Carbon emissions come from all sectors of modern life.

Section 3.1 Sources of Climate Change: What We Know

Figure 3.4 Historical range of variability.

Number of Predictors 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000

Section 3.2 Impacts of Climate Change: Whats Already Occurred?

3.2 Impacts of Climate Change: Whats Already Occurred?

Section 3.2 Impacts of Climate Change: Whats Already Occurred?

Figure 3.5 Ten Indicators of a warming world.

Air Temperature Near Surface (Troposphere)

Glaciers Snow Cover

Temperature Over Oceans Sea Surface Temperature

Sea Level Ocean Heat Content

Temperature Over Land

Section 3.2 Impacts of Climate Change: Whats Already Occurred?

Case Study: Mountain Pine Beetle in the Western United States

Section 3.2 Impacts of Climate Change: Whats Already Occurred?

How Do We Know What We Know?

The Role of Scientific Advisory Groups

Section 3.2 Impacts of Climate Change: Whats Already Occurred?

The Difficulty of Making Predictions

Section 3.2 Impacts of Climate Change: Whats Already Occurred?

Figure 3.6 Confidence intervals.

Difference from 19611990

Global average sea level

Northern Hemisphere snow cover

Section 3.2 Impacts of Climate Change: Whats Already Occurred?

Figure 3.7 BAU line with other scenarios.

CO2 emission level (Gt)

Section 3.2 Impacts of Climate Change: Whats Already Occurred?

Likely Future Impacts of Climate Change

Figure 3.8 Projected impacts of climate change.

Extensive Damage to Coral Reefs

Rising number of species face extinction

Extreme Weather Events Risk of Abrupt and Major Irreversible Changes 0C 1C

Section 3.2 Impacts of Climate Change: Whats Already Occurred?

Figure 3.9 Climate change and sea level.

Panama City Pensacola

Fort Lauderdale Miami

Section 3.2 Impacts of Climate Change: Whats Already Occurred?

Alaska Northwest Midwest Islands Great Plains Southwest