The fact that global warming may be happening more slowly than critics
thought is irrelevant to the danger it poses. It’s time for the world to focus
a new lens on how to deal with it.
Global warming is so intrinsic
to the society that we never think about it – just the way we never think about
the internal organs of our body until they start to deteriorate. Broadly, bad
things will happen if the world governments do nothing to cool the planet. When
we look at our planet (the earth) as a great part of the universe, we will not fail to discover that a big part
of what made it so great – and habitable – is its climate. As the world began
to neglect its climate through human activity, accelerated industrialization
and emission of greenhouse gases, the planet kept getting hotter with natural
disasters piling up. From 1900 through 2008, the global emissions of greenhouse
gases(such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and fluorinated gases)
mainly through the burning of fossil fuels and through human activities
increased over 16 times(United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2012).
This whole build-up means that our planet is fast reaching a potentially
catastrophic tipping point and is groaning under “greenhouse gas” loads that it
was never supposed to handle.
Why Bother?
When more greenhouse gases
are pumped out on a daily basis globally, we gradually poison and change the
climate of our planet –a climate which both humans and other living things have
depended on for tens of thousands of years. That could put the planet in great
peril: High frequency in the occurrence of devastating floods, scorching
draughts, and mega-storms that could wreck economies as well as cost lives. The
bottom line is that while it is tempting to dismiss the fears of the
environmentalists, in actuality the flashing light that should worry us most of
all is the fact that it is all of us – and generations to come – that will be
in peril if we fail to deal with climate change, and not just the planet. This
further means that if we are not willing to halt the warming of our dear
planet, then every hopes of saving it – and hence of protecting our lives –will
be dashed(Walsh, 2012).
Today, the warnings of the
activists in the field and the scientists in the lab on the potential effects
of climate change can no longer be dismissed as mere sentimentality but as an
accepted scientific reality. The single biggest climate change natural disaster
looming over the world may well be here: the surge in tropical diseases.
There’s reason to believe that those countries in the tropics are paying the
price for human activities that veered out of control because they tend to
suffer disproportionately from deadly infectious diseases. The gradual increase
in heat and humidity in these countries draws in and entrench pathogens,
particularly those born by parasites and insects. A good example of these
diseases is malaria. According to the available published evidence, this
disease kills 660,000 people each year and afflicts as many as 219 million
people each year(World Health Organization, 2013), particularly in the
developing countries of Africa, Latin America and Asia. As the global
temperature rises, a variety of life stages of both the mosquito and the
malaria parasite is affected, making it easier for the infected mosquito to
transmit the disease as well as widen the geographical distribution of the
parasite.
Other bad effects of global
warming abound. Two of them stands out. The first one is drought. Unlike other
natural disasters that occurs suddenly, such as earthquakes, windstorms and
floods, drought is a creeping disaster – a slow onset disaster that always
leaves devastation behind. Though droughts destroys no homes and yields no
direct death tolls, a deeper worry is that it can unleash a storm of disruptive
devastation(including wild fires) that can not only cost billions of dollars to
the agriculture industry(Rice, 2013) but can have an impact that could linger
for years to come. In 2011 and 2012, for instance, a crippling drought took its
toll over much of the southern and western U.S. The effects was catastrophic:
it ignited massive wildfires in places like Colorado and Montana, dried up
riverbeds and creeks in Texas, and caused widespread crop failures in the
affected areas. Because of years of extremely dry weather, very little water
has flowed into vital waterways like the Colorado River, even as growing
development put stress on existing water sources. As the world’s climate warms
scientists expect the amount of land affected by drought to continue to grow -
most climate models shows that those atmospheric and oceanic dynamics that
inhibit rainfall and favor prolonged drought can intensify, and this could
spell disaster for already arid places like the Southwest U.S. and lead to large
scale food and humanitarian crises in the country. Credible reports also
amplified this assertion by indicating how more tragic the fate of the countries in
Sub-Saharan Africa could be, given that poverty and drought have become intractable
problems that serve as recipes for human disaster(Walsh, 2012).
The rate with which flood
occur, which is the second biggest water problem posed by global warming, has also
set off alarm bell around the world. Given that a hotter atmosphere can hold
more moisture, heavier precipitation is expected in the years to come due to
global warming. As the climate warms, storm systems becomes supersized, with
the rise in temperature increasing the frequency and intensity of heavy rainfall
events worldwide(National Wildlife Federation, 2013). The result can be
damaging floods, such as the one that occurred in Bangkok in 2011, the year the
country experienced the worst flooding in half a century – a flood that killed
almost 450 people nationwide and cost the country $3.3 billion in post-flood
reconstruction(Gray, 2011). Climate scientists expects more catastrophic
regional floods to swamp coastal cities - where a good percentage of the
world's population now lived - in the future. When this happens, more people
and property will be put in harm’s way(“The Discovery of Global Warming,”2013).
The bottom line is that once
we start paying attention we will soon discover that the global warming and its
attendant effects is occurring faster than we think. We can see the evidence
everywhere we turn – signs we may have been missing for years. No part of the
world is safe, not even the Arctic region. The world governments need to take this
phenomenon as a matter of fact: It is a force of Nature waiting to strike, much
like the bolt of lightning.
Slapping Down the Critics
The critics of global
warming and climate change campaign has proved, over the past decade, more
willing to reject the crusade to cool the earth, and readier to band together
to boycott all climate and environmental summits to save the earth. One of
their main arguments is that climate change and global warming are not the
world’s most important problem. Indur Goklany, a researcher affiliated to the
Cato Institute(a think-tank) has long been a critic of global warming theory,
questioning the validity of the theory. In June 2008, he published an article
on the agency’s website entitled “Is Climate Change the World’s Most Important
Problem?”
“In the year 2000,” he wrote “There were a
total of 55.8 million deaths worldwide. Thus, climate change may be responsible
for less than 0.3% of all deaths globally. In fact, it would place climate
change no higher than 13th (see table 1) among mortality risk
factors related to food, nutrition and environment” (Goklany, 2008 para.2).
Table 1 – Priority Ranking of Food, Nutritional and
Environmental Problems, Based on Global
Mortality Rate for 2000
Risk Factor
|
Ranking
|
Mortality(Millions)
|
Mortality (%)
|
Blood Pressure
|
1
|
7.1
|
12.8
|
Cholesterol
|
2
|
4.4
|
7.9
|
Underweight
|
3
|
3.7
|
6.7
|
Low Fruits
|
4
|
2.7
|
4.9
|
Overweight
|
5
|
2.6
|
4.6
|
Unsafe Water
|
6
|
1.7
|
3.1
|
Indoor smoke
|
7
|
1.6
|
2.9
|
Malaria
|
1.1
|
2.0
|
|
Iron Deficiency
|
8
|
0.8
|
1.5
|
Urban Air
|
9
|
0.8
|
1.4
|
Zinc Deficiency
|
10
|
0.8
|
1.4
|
Vitamin A Deficiency
|
11
|
0.8
|
1.4
|
Lead Exposure
|
12
|
0.2
|
0.4
|
Climate Change
|
13
|
0.2
|
0.3
|
Subtotal
|
27.6
|
49.4
|
|
Total from All Causes
|
55.8
|
100.0
|
Culled From Goklany,
2008
A subsequent publication by
Patrick Michaels, Senior
Fellow at Cato Institute, amplified this argument by nothing that climate scientists
tend offer dire predictions about the future of the environment because of the
way scientific study is conducted today, whereby issues compete with each other
for funding from the federal government which researchers considers to be the
monopoly provider of research funds in United States. “This leads to a culture
of scientific exaggeration and a political community that takes credit from
having saved us from certain doom,” he wrote. “A doom played out nightly on the
network news” (Michaels, 2004, para. 1).
From a historical
standpoint, putting a price on carbon emission is often taken as one of the
most paramount solution to global warming. A clutch of academic researchers
considers carbon dioxide to be both a pollutant and a negative externality – a
term which, in economic theory, means any factor that leads to a market failure
by producing a negative effect on a party that is not directly involved in a transaction
(Rezai et al, 2009). The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change is a good
reminder that climate change is actually a prime example of what can be
considered the greatest market failure known to mankind (Stern Review, n.d.).
It is thus surprising that despite the anticipated economic benefits of
addressing this market failure, a significant percentage of the skeptics are still
leery a about putting a price on carbon emissions, arguing that it would
cripple businesses, and hence, the economy. As the available published
evidence on carbon pricing and reduction makes clear, such arguments are
less pragmatic and unduly stringent in that they generally focus solely on the
costs associated with pricing carbon while wholly ignoring the benefits – a
position that has little or no practical utility.
The Heritage Foundation, a
think-tank whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies
(Heritage Foundation, 2013), is among the most prominent critic of carbon
pricing. In the organization’s analysis of the the Waxman-Markey climate
bill proposed by the U.S. House of Representatives for 2009, it claimed that the
implementation of the legislation will cost the average American family as much
as $1,500 per year(Beach et al, 2009).
This figure can be considered unrealistic, at least for one reason: it is about
10 times higher than that presented by any non-partisan economic analysis (Lyon
& Madrid, 2011). In addition, reducing the emission of greenhouse gases
through carbon pricing is actually a priceless feat, whose cost would be
outweighed by the benefits.
As a practical matter, it
appears that while making their estimates, the Heritage Foundation
inadvertently evaluated the costs of a carbon
cap, and then ignored the distribution of those funds, which explains why they
came up with a very high estimate. The happy truth is that a revenue stream can
be created when a price is put on carbon emissions. But the affected
governments can distribute the funds which are generated from the carbon price in a number of ways that can benefit the
affected corporations. For instance, this fund can be distributed through
corporate tax reductions, funding of energy efficiency programs, and
investment in research and development of 'green' technologies, among others. This
simple explanation revealed one flaw of the Heritage Foundation’s estimate: it
effectively assumed that the generated funds from carbon pricing would
disappear into a black hole. Thus the best analogy for describing their
analysis can be stated in one sentence: It is equivalent of preparing your
household finances by computing your expenditures alone while ignoring your
income. The computation will surely not only look bad but will also give you no
valid information about your overall finances.
Obviously, the reality is that
each of these critics did a good job of pointing to stacks of publications
backing their positions and debunking the independent studies of the climate scientist
that proved otherwise. However the credibility of much of their arguments is
questionable. Simply put, the prime characteristics of the skeptics’ positions
with respect to global warming and climate change is its complete insulation
from all the hard evidences presented by climate scientists to validate the
dangers of global warming.
Don’t Dawdle, Please!
In a sense, it can be
inferred that both the advanced nations and the developing nation are currently
experiencing the same cycle of hope and disappointment that seems to drive
their efforts to save the earth from the vagaries of global warming. What is
certain is that interest in global warming and the environment was very high in
the year 2007. This interest, more than anything else, saw the birth of Al
Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth – a documentary that
did not only got him an Oscar but also made him to share a Nobel Peace Prize
with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for their
combined work on climate change(Nobel Price, 2007; Huffington Post, 2013). What
was clear then was that the United States suddenly seemed ready to partner with
the rest of the world in acting on global warming after what appeared to be
years of paralysis under President George W. Bush. During this era, the hype
was so high that in the 2008 Presidential election, the proposed legislation to
cut carbon emissions was warmly embraced by both the Republican and the
Democratic candidates. Global corporations also joined the clarion call,
building all forms of advertising campaigns around their environmental
efforts(Walsh, 2012). In a practical sense, the years 2007 through 2008 were
really the good years for all the stakeholders crusading about “going green”.
Half a decade later, the world
seems to have lost the drive, and hence have gone backwards. It is as if this
good ideas about cooling the planet is about to die quiet, unnoticed death. For instance, in the United States where
Republicans has turned wholesale against any climate action, global warming has
become a highly political issue(Greenblatt, 2010). The story is the same in the
international arena. With the discovery of new supplies of oil and natural gas,
particularly in the United States, the global energy picture is gradually
changing and it is complicating the promised clean-tech revolution. The
fundamental lesson here is that as we continue to dither, the earth’s
temperature will continue to rise; and given that the coming years are on track
to be the warmest period on record, natural disasters will definitely continue
to pile up. For a world in desperate need for growth and security, even the
most pressing environmental problems are swallowed by the constant crises in
the global economy and security, implying that the worse things gets, the less
we seem to be able to do about it.
In spite of this, for us the
stakes are high, and the reality is more complex than has been described. Academic
research does show that halting the warming of the planet without compromising
the economic growth on which the world depends is a very difficult task. It is
partly this realization that made the case for climate action to be dented and
bruised over the past few years. Nevertheless, we should have realized six
years ago(or even 20 years ago at the Earth Summit)that the crusade to save the
planet was never going to be easy.
More important, though, is
that even though there’s much fear, there is equally some basis for hope for
the revival of the crusade. On the positive side, the credit for the push for
solutions to our most pressing environmental threats still goes to both the
activist in the field and the scientists in the lab. The advent of new
technologies, such as advanced solar and fuel cells serve as convincing
testament to the possibility of getting future energy from sources other than
fossil fuels. However, the broad nature of the activities that is needed at
this hour to meet the huge global warming challenges facing the world goes beyond
the technical points. The matter is too serious to be left to the scientists
and activists alone. In other words, there are roles for the members of the
public to play in cooling our planet without prejudice to the duty and status
of the climate scientists or activists involved. Hence, even some simple, daily
human “green” activities, such as air-drying one’s own laundry or biking to
work(instead of driving), can add up when a large number of the world
population are doing it.
It’s
Worth A Go
Back
in 2007, George W. Bush began a
group called the Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change,
a group that represents some of the world’s largest carbon polluters: United
States, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the 27 countries of the European
Union, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, and South Africa.
President Obama, upon arriving in the White House, gave a new name to this
group: Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate(MEF). The main goal of the
participating countries was to further increase their overall efforts to slow
the pace of dangerous global warming by reducing their greenhouse gas emissions
(Roberts, 2013). So far, the main achievement of the MEF include their 2009
pledge to phase out fossil-fuel subsidies(Pittsburg Summit, 2009; Institute for
International Economics, 2010), the creation of the Climate and Clean Air
Coalition to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants(U.S. Department of State,
2012) , and the launching of a
number of efforts on clean energy cooperation through the global Clean Energy
Ministerial(CEM, n.d.).
In view of these efforts, setting a target of generating, say, 40 percent of their electricity from
zero-carbon sources by 2035 will be a laudable goal for the MEF – a goal that
would go a long way towards cooling our planet. The researchers at the Center
for American Progress, a think-tank, described the potential impact of this
approach this way: “Our analysis shows that meeting this target is not only
highly feasible but, if met, would also reduce these countries’ cumulative CO2
emissions by approximately 6.4 gigatons -6,398 million metric tons - by 2035.
While there are other kinds of renewable energy targets that would result in
greater emissions reductions - for example, targets that exclude
hydroelectricity or nuclear power - we argue that the 40 percent all-inclusive
zero-carbon target is more politically feasible and also sufficiently ambitious
to be worth pursuing”(Light et al, 2013 para. 3). In a practical sense, if this
target is achieved by MEF, it would be a significant landmark contribution to meeting the global goal of
the international climate negotiations: To
stabilize temperature increases resulting from climate change at 2 degrees Celsius over
preindustrial levels by the end of 21st century(Roberts, 2013).
It can be
stated, with fair justification, that for many of the parties of MEF, projections for a zero-carbon
electricity mix by 2035 are already quite high. Broadly speaking, a large percentage of MEF member countries are already headed beyond the 40 percent
target on a business-as-usual
(BAU) emission pathway. The unhappy truth is that many of them are yet to make
a documented commitment for achieving any energy goals beyond 2030. Besides,
due to some unanticipated consequences including changes in fuel costs, and currently unforeseen policy changes in
these countries as governments change, it might be tempting for some of them to
backslide from the projected emissions reductions goals. However, the existence
of a set target among these countries will help to prevent this from occurring.
One thing is certain: Not only will a common target by these developed and
developing countries galvanize the range of national-level policies already in
place, it will also increase the ambition of all parties to hit the target.
And, as a concession to practicality, there is a high possibility that the MEF
member countries could make a common commitment to cooperate on technology
development and deployment, to share best practices to expand the renewable
electricity sector, and to strengthen existing bilateral agreements between
parties that support these ends (Light et al, 2013).
There are
good reasons to believe that it would be incredibly beneficial for MEF member nations to pair such a
zero-carbon electricity target with an energy efficiency goal. First, for those MEF member countries that
are likely to see a surge in electricity demand over the coming years , incorporating energy efficiency from
the beginning can create more sustainable smart energy systems within their
domains. Second, among these largely industrial countries, reducing total
energy demand will be a priceless feat since it implies that each investment in
new, zero-carbon generation would counts for more in terms of total emissions
reductions and the stabilization of
temperature increases caused by climate change at 2 degrees Celsius. Besides, with demand reduction, they can more
easily hit the proposed zero-carbon target.
Half a decade after the
formation of MEF, the world governments are still worried about the impending
impact of global warming and climate change. The reason why they are growing more and more impatient is evident:
Even though the U.N. climate process is currently working through the difficult task of creating a new
comprehensive climate treaty by 2015, its ratification by MEF countries is not
expected until 2020. The most troubling thing is that there is little that can
be done to speed this process along, for the simple reason that, when close to 100 parties are involved, the
development of any new treaty can be a
long and cumbersome process that is
fraught with derailments.
In the mean
time, with each new day comes new clarion call for more action to cool our dear
planet, despite the challenges posed by the global warming critics. At this point we have come face to face with
the biggest challenge ever: To close the gap between the targets made by MEF
member countries and the
practical steps for ensuring climate safety in the future.
The lesson gleaned from the
ongoing global warming effects is important. The planet responds when we take
positive action, and the efforts our collective partners put in place today
will pay off in what climate scientists record tomorrow. Of course, in the past
6 years, we had faced lots of disappointment in this crusade. But given that we
have no other planet to call home, believing that the crusade this time will be
different should become our only choice.
References
Beach W.W., Campbell K., Kreutzer D.W,
& Lieberman B.(2009): The Economic Impact of Waxman-Markey. Heritage Foundation. Retrieved May 30,
2013 from http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/05/the-economic-impact-of-waxman-markey
CEM(n.d.): Clean Energy
Ministerial. Retrieved May 30, 2013 from http://energy.gov/pi/office-policy-and-international-affairs/initiatives/clean-energy-ministerial
Goklany I.M(2008): Is Climate Change the World’s Most Important
Problem? Cato Institute. Retrieved
May 28, 2013 from http://www.cato.org/blog/climate-change-worlds-most-important-problem
Gray D.D.(2011): Thailand Floods 2011 – Water Closes in on
Bangkok. Huffington Post. Retrieved
May 27, 2013 fromhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/05/thailand-floods-2011-bangkok_n_1077621.html
Greenblatt A.(2010): How Republicans Learned to Reject Climate
Change. NPR. Retrieved May 31, 2013
from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125075282
Heritage Foundation(2013): About
Heritage. Retrieved May 30, 2013 from http://www.heritage.org/about
Huffington Post(2013): Al
Gore, 'Inconvenient Truth' Author And Global-Warming Expert, Talks About
Change. Retrieved May 29, 2013 fromhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/29/al-gore-inconvenient-truth-global-warming-change_n_2958530.html
Institute for International Economics(2010): A Role for the G-20 IN Addressing Climate
Change. Retrieved May 30, 2013 from http://www.iie.com/publications/wp/wp10-15.pdf
Light A., Hernandez M., & James A.(2013): 40×35: A Zero-Carbon
Energy Target for the World’s Largest Economies. Center for American Progress. Retrieved May 13, 2013 from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2013/03/07/55727/40x35-a-zero-carbon-energy-target-for-the-worlds-largest-economies/
Lyon S., Madrid J.(2011): The Price is Right – Carbon
Pricing Would Cut the Deficit and Create Jobs. Center for American Progress. Retrieved May 31, 2013 from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2011/09/15/10386/the-price-is-right/
Michaels P.J.(2004): Meltdown – The Predictable Distortion of
Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians and the Media. Cato Institute. Retrieved May 29, 2013 from http://www.cato.org/events/meltdown-predictable-distortion-global-warming-scientists-politicians-media
National Wildlife Federation (2013): Global Warming and Floods. Retrieved May 27, 2013 from http://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/Threats-to-Wildlife/Global-Warming/Global-Warming-is-Causing-Extreme-Weather/Floods.aspx
Nobel Prize(2007): The Nobel Peace Prize 2007.
Retrieved May 29, 2013 from http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/press.html
The Discovery of Global Warming.(2013, February). American Institute of Physics. Retrieved
May 27, 2013 fromhttp://www.aip.org/history/climate/floods.htm
Pittsburg Summit(2009): Leaders'
Statement: The Pittsburgh Summit. Retrieved May 30, 2013 from http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/g20/summit-sommet/g20/declaration_092509.aspx
Rezai A., Foley D.K, & Taylor L.(2009): Global Warming and
Economic Externalities. Schwartz Center
for Economic Analysis – Working Paper Series. Retrieved May 30, 2013 from http://are.berkeley.edu/courses/envres_seminar/Armon_Rezai.OptimalGrowthwithCC.F09.pdf
Rice D.(2013): What Caused 2012’s “Flash Drought?” USA Today. Retrieved May 31, 2013 from http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/04/11/causes-of-2012-drought/2075371/
Roberts, T.(2013): Beyond the Climate Impasse: How the Major
Economies Forum Can Lead the Way. Brookings
Institution. Retrieved May 30, 2013 from http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2013/04/08-climate-economies-robertst
Stern Review, (n.d.):The
Economics of Climate Change. Retrieved May 30, 2013 from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Part_I_Introduction_group.pdf
United States Environmental Protection
Agency (2012): Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Data. Retrieved May 22,
2013 fromhttp://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html
U.S. Department of State (2012): The Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce
Short-Lived Climate Pollutants. Retrieved May 30, 2013 from http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/02/184055.htm
Walsh B.(2012): Global
Warming – The Causes, the Perils, The Solutions. New York: TIME Books.
World Health Organization(2013): WHO Campaigns – World Malaria Day. Retrieved May 23, 2013 from
http://www.who.int/campaigns/malaria-day/2013/en/index.html
