Global Warming – From Campaign to Action

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 13^th (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 21^st  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