Climate Change
Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
We all know that energy from the sun is required for sustaining life on earth. The outer atmosphere deflects approximately 30% of the sunlight that comes to the earth and this light is then scattered back in space. Remaining sunlight reaches the surface of the earth and gets reflected upwards in the form of slow moving energy known as infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases absorb the heat caused by the infrared radiation like CO2, water vapor, methane and ozone, due to which it becomes difficult for the gases to escape the atmosphere.
According to experts, only 1% of the earth’s atmosphere is made up of greenhouse gases and these gases regulate the climate through heat trapping. This is known as the ‘greenhouse gas effect’. According to climate change experts, without the greenhouse gas effect, the average earth temperature will be colder by 30 degrees Celsius. This temperature will be too cold for the sustenance of our ecosystem. Therefore, the greenhouse effect is very much required for the earth; however it must be in a controlled manner.
How are we contributing to the greenhouse effect?
There is no doubt that the greenhouse effects is required for the ecosystem but it becomes a problem when the natural process gets distorted and accelerated by human activities and more greenhouse gases are created in the atmosphere which increase the temperature of the earth more than required. When we burn oil, coal, natural gas and gasoline the level of CO2 increases in the atmosphere. The level of harmful gases like nitrous oxide and methane also increases due to farming methods and changes in the use of land. Dangerous and long lasting industrial gases are produced from factories. These gases don’t occur naturally yet they contribute to global warming and speed up the greenhouse gas effect.
The more greenhouse gases will be emitted in the environment, the more infrared radiation will be trapped and held. This in turn will increase the temperature of earth in a gradual manner, posing threat to the existence of mankind. Some scientists accept global warming as a serious issue while some don’t. But one certainly can’t deny the fact that climate change is here and it will cause more damage in the coming years.
Man-made Climate Change – Fact or Fiction?
In the past dozen years or so a major controversy has developed through out the world about changes that are supposedly taking place with the earth’s climate. There is a large body of opinion that believes the earth’s temperature is getting warmer due to the increase in greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), caused by the burning of fossil fuels and increasing industrial activity, and unless governments take action to remedy the situation then mankind is in serious trouble.
This theory is not believed by everyone. Indeed there are many eminent scientists who have said that the theory has no credibility as the evidence presented by its supporters is inconclusive. So there are two schools of thought on this matter, each adamant that they’re right:
1) Those who believe implicitly that global warming is taking place and that man is entirely responsible by increasing the amount of carbon dioxide ( a ‘greenhouse’ gas) in the atmosphere. I call these people the Scaremongers.
2) Those who believe that much more evidence is needed before any categorical claims can be made. I call these people Idealists.
So lets have a closer look at the issues raised by these two factions:
The Scaremongers predict doom and gloom.
The ‘Yes’ case says emphatically that the earth is getting warmer at an increasing rate, posing a dangerous threat to the future of mankind. They say that the increase in global temperatures over the past 50 years has been caused by a world-wide increase in industrial activity during that same period and earlier. They also suggest that the problem is getting progressively worse and that higher temperatures will lead to melting ice in the polar regions; higher sea levels causing world-wide flooding; more violent storms, hurricanes, typhoons etc; problems in the production of food; and a wide number of other circumstances that could pose problems for life on earth.
The ‘Yes’ case’s solution is to take severe measures today to stop disasters from happening in the future.
They suggest halting and then reversing the situation by eliminating our dependence on oil and coal and embracing ‘clean energy’ such as wind, solar, tidal power; finding an alternative to using oil derivatives for transportation; and most controversially, heavily taxing users of ‘dirty energy’ to force them to switch over to ‘cleaner’ alternatives.
As the biggest users of ‘dirty energy’ the western nations would be exposed to the full impact of these severe impositions.
The Idealists, on the other hand, want more concrete evidence of this forecast change.
The ‘No’ case believes that more credible evidence is needed and collected over a longer period of time, before any definitive conclusion can be determined. They consider that statistically the 50 years period that the Scaremongers quote is nowhere near enough time to establish a long-term trend in the world’s temperatures, taking into account that the age of the earth being 4.5 billion years. They point to the changes, both ups and downs, of the earth’s temperature during its recent history. They also suggest that if a period of climate change is starting then it’s part of a cycle that’s been seen to occur periodically in the past.
The ‘No’ case says that the relationship between possible rising temperatures and man’s industrial activity is at best nothing more than an unproven theory. They suggest that much more concrete evidence than what’ has been presented so far is needed, and as the Scaremongers have been pushing this theory for at least 10 years without producing further evidence, then it’s still a theory.
Some people even suggest that the Scaremongers are inciting public opinion to advance their political ambitions.
However, many of the Idealists agree that a switch to cleaner and renewable energy resources would be beneficial for mankind in the long term, but that the measures put forward by the ‘Yes’ people go too far. Generally, the Idealists agree with the need to find alternate means of energy for when the present sources of fossil fuels – coal, natural gas, oil, uranium - expire, and to get away from suppliers in politically sensitive areas.
The ‘No’ people suggest that as there is a very slim chance of the Scaremongers being proved correct, other world-wide problems should be tackled first and given a greater degree of emphasis than is the present case. Here the Idealists are referring to major issues of world-wide poverty; the ever-increasing gap between the rich and the poor countries; the decline in health services to poorer countries; the deterioration in the quality of political governance in Africa; threats of religious confrontation; as well as the many regionalized issues that have been a source of continuous friction between nations for decades.
This is an attempt to put some balance into the ongoing international controversy that is the theory of man-made climate change.
What Makes a Home a Green Home?
What Makes a Home a Green House?
One of the hottest topics today is about being environmentally friendly. There are many ways to become environmentally friendly about the home including water preservation and energy reduction. This not only helps with a positive action by reducing your impact on the environment, but will also save you money!
Lets take a look at what makes a home environmentally friendly.
Reduced Energy Use
Energy comes in many forms such as electricity, natural gas, oil, etc. The creation or use of this energy results in greenhouse gas emissions that affect our planet in a negative way.
Methods of Reducing Energy Usage
Insulation, One of the best things that you can do to make a green house is to ensure that the walls, windows, attic, and floors are all well insulated and draft free. The majority of the energy used in a home goes towards heating the house. Good insulation will prevent the air temperature from escaping the home and save you money on your utilities.
Energy Star Appliances When one of your appliances has reached it’s end of life, or when you areconstructing a new home, consider installing an appliance that meets energy star requirements. This will ensure that it will use over 30 percent less electricity or fuel than a typical appliance of that type.
Other options include advanced mechanical Systems On demand tankless water heaters, geothermal HVAC equipment, and even solar power is a great way to reduce the amount of energy that is wasted to run the plumbing, heat and air, and electrical systems in the home. While they can have a higher upfront cost than a typical unit of its kind, tax incentives from the government can offset a good deal of the extra cost and allow you to make the money back within a few years time.
Reduced Water Use
Water is another essential resource that can be preserved in our day to day use around the house.
Low Flow Fixtures Many low flow shower heads and toilets developed a bad reputation in the past because they could not live up to their less efficient counterparts. Fortunately, todays better engineered models and aerators allow you to experience the luxury and ease of use that you prefer, while additionally using a significantly lower amount of water.
Efficient Clothes Washers Many of the newer front loading clothes washers use as little as half of the water of a typical top loading washer. For families who are constantly putting in a new load of dirty clothes, this can lead to a significant savings in cost and water usage over time.
Use Rain Water For Irrigation For those who want to really cut down on water usage, storage tanks that collect rain water during a storm for latter use to water the garden and lawn can save thousands of gallons over the span of a summer.
These are just a few of the many ideas out there that will help ensure that your home is green. Environmentally friendly decisions in the home can lead to wallet friendly results over time and allow for the satisfaction of knowing you are reducing your negative impact on the planet.
At Be Seen Go Green, we offer solutions for a variety of Environmental issues. Please click on the following link to contact us.
Climate Change – Impacts on the Development of Real Estate
The fact that climate change will affect our future does not need introduction. Our buildings and infrastructure are important elements in how we influence and adapt to the changes associated with climate change. Greenhouse gas emissions during construction and operation, climate change resilience and changes in the way people will organise their lives are all important factors to consider when preparing to develop new real estate.
To a certain extent these factors are being considered in most new development projects. The partial provision of energy through low carbon technologies is becoming the norm as part of the planning application process for major development. Standards controlling the way flood risk assessments are carried out take into account future precipitation patterns. These considerations are often driven by current requirements from planning authorities or other statutory bodies and focus on the greenhouse gas element of climate change management.
Appraising the effects of climate change on development projects will gain in importance and a strategic and pro-active approach to its integration in the management of these projects has many benefits. These include the improved management of risks, for instance by providing protection against litigation for failing to take into account known future risks, the protection of future asset values and strengthening a forward looking reputation of the organisation.
The near future will see significant changes in the way climate change is being addressed within development projects. The awareness of client organisations and local planning authorities about the effects climate change will have on the future usability of buildings is increasing rapidly. This will lead to a range of new requirements, tools and appraisal methodologies that professionals within the property development sector cannot afford to miss.
Considering climate change in real estate development projects should be considered a strategic issue. At an early stage in the project a developer should prepare a project climate change strategy and consider three issues:
1. How can the greenhouse gas emissions as part of the development be reduced?
2. How will a changing climate effect the usability of my building?
3. Is the building required in its currently proposed form in the mid to long term future?
A Brief History of the Earth's Climate
Here we will explore some of the major trends in the study of climate change. As far as we know the Earth is a unique planet in that it is the only one in our solar system that has an atmosphere and oceans of water. Currents in these carry heat and moisture around the globe so that life is basically widespread. These currents also create the weather. The pattern of weather in a particular place is its climate and climates vary slowly over time forcing life to adapt to new conditions. However, recently the rate of change has increased.
In the 1890s the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius claimed that past ice ages might have been caused by fewer volcanic eruptions pumping gases such as carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. These gases maintain heat so reducing them would make Earth cool down. He then wondered what would happen if intense industrial activity produced more of these gases by burning fuels such as coal. He really discovered the factor that linked industrialization and fuel use with changing global temperatures. For a really clear exposoition of the basic theories in climate change please read the DK guide to Climate Change 2008.
The most important greenhouse gases are water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone. Like all gases they exist as clusters of atoms called molecules. A molecule of carbon dioxide is made up of one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. A methane molecule has one carbon atom and four hydrogen atoms. Not all greenhouse gases contain carbon e.g. nitrous oxide. However, of the main atmospheric greenhouse gases carbon dioxide is one of the most important. It absorbs a lot less energy per molecule than other greenhouse gases such as nitrous oxide and methane but there is much more of it.
Measurements of carbon dioxide in the air by US scientist Charles Keeling show its concentration has been increasing every year since 1958. This brings us to a brief description of the carbon cycle itself. Basically carbon is constantly being absorbed and released by living things. Plants and other photosynthesizers absorb carbon dioxide and use some of the carbon to build their tissues. The carbon is released as carbon dioxide or methane when plants die and decay. If animals eat the plants they use some of the carbon to build their own tissues but eventually die too. Meanwhile both plants and animals release carbon dioxide when they turn sugar into energy by respiration. In fact carbon uptake is one of the main checks on the greenhouse effect involving plants and marine plankton, as the more carbon dioxide there is the more they absorb.
There are a number of checks and balances that work for climate stability. These may be either via negative or positive feedbacks. Some natural processes resist change. For example when intense sunlight warms the ocean surface water evaporates and rises into the air as invisible water vapour. As it rises it cools and forms clouds which shade the ocean so it cools down. Eventually evaporation and cloud formation stops so sunlight can warm the ocean again. This is an example of negative feedback. When ice forms and snow falls the white surface acts like a mirror. It reflects solar energy so that less heat is absorbed by the ground and more ice forms. This is called the albedo effect and is an example of a positive feedback which promotes change rather than resisting it.
The British scientist James Lovelock is famous for his theory that living things regulate the climate and the chemistry of the atmosphere in their own interest. Over the long term a web of negative feedbacks ensures that life survives despite catastrophes that cause mass extinctions. The theory is named after Gaia, the Greek goddess of the Earth.
Natural Causes of Climate Change
Before considering the human impact on global climate change let us first briefly examine some of the factors in natural climate change. Climate changes have occurred on Earth many times before humans came on the scene. These shifts were caused by natural cycles that affect the Earth’s orbit around the sun, by changes in solar radiation levels and by catastrophic natural events such as massive volcanic eruptions. Some of these changes seem to have triggered positive feedback events that dramatically increased their effect. We know for example that the Earth has passed through several ice ages that were caused at least partly by orbital cycles. We are now living in a warm phase of an ice age that peaked 20,000 years ago. In a much longer view evidence from rocks, fossils and other sources show how Earth’s average temperature has changed since it was formed 4,600 million years ago. During most of geological time it has been warmer than it is now but with ice ages during the Pre-Cambrian and Palaeozoic eras.
The Mesozoic age of dinosaurs was a warm period but temperatures fell during the Cenozoic era until they reached the coldest phases of the current ice age. In addition to the Earth’s orbit we should also consider variations in tilt of the Earth, Axis drift, sunspots and plages, effects of continental drift, volcanic eruptions and mini ice ages in a full discussion of natural climate change. For example from the 1300s to around 1850 the Northern hemisphere suffered a little ice age which reached its coldest point in the mid 15th century.
Henry Kamen wrote and excellent book about this period and Braudel’s works in history show the link between climate and short term events. In Europe harvests failed and people starved and the bitterly cold winters created the frozen landscapes portrayed in many paintings of the period such as the work of Dutch artist Hendrick Avercamp in the early 1600s. The cause of this particular little ice age is still not clearly understood but may have resulted from volcanic activity.
Human Impact
Now we move on to the human impact on global climate change. The last century has seen an average global air temperature rise of nearly 0.8 degrees C measured at ground level. This does represent a relatively sharp upturn in the rate of warming since in the 20,000 years since the peak of the last ice age the temperature has risen only by 4 degrees C. Most of man’s advances have been made using fuel that when burned releases carbon dioxide. This has increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air and this closely matches the rise in global air temperature so it is very likely that accelerated global warming is being caused by our modern energy hungry way of life. From ice core samples we know that in the 1700s the level of carbon dioxide was roughly 280 parts per million of air. Today it is 380 ppm. Let us now consider some of the ways in which humans are increasing the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. We will look at two major aspects of this – the burning of forests and the use of fossil fuels. We will then conclude this section with a note on the production of other greenhouse gases.
Burning the Forests
The most basic of all fuels is wood which people have been burning for thousands of years. Huge increases in human population have greatly increased the amount of wood that is burned and at the same time vast forests are being felled for farming, ranching and road building – this also contributes to climate change by releasing all the carbon that the forest trees have absorbed in their lifetimes. Brazil has lost more than 423,000 square kilometers of forest. Indonesia has lost nearly 300,000 square kilometers. It is true that wildfires are part of the natural carbon cycle and that the carbon dioxide they release is soon absorbed by young trees but if a forest is felled, burned and not allowed to regrow all the carbon is turned into carbon dioxide that increases the greenhouse effect.
Fossil Fuels
Coal fueled the rise of modern industry as well as the steamships and railways of the 1800s. In the 20th century oil and natural gas have been developed into fuels for road vehicles and aircraft. The world’s first oil wells were sunk at Baku on the Caspian shore in 1847 but the oil industry really took off in the early 20th century when refined forms of oil could be used as fuel for cars. All these are carbon rich fossils fuels created from long dead organisms by processes that take millions of years. They are being burned far more quickly than they were formed thus releasing carbon back into the atmosphere and adding to the greenhouse effect.
Different fossil fuels release different quantities of carbon dioxide. Coal is the worst, followed by oil then gas. Coal contains other pollutants such as soot and sulphur dioxide which can combine with water vapour to form smog and acid rain. For a more detailed discussion please read Harding and Starzynska’s 2008 work on a comparison of fuel types.
Other aspects of modern life
Other aspects of modern life also add to the problem . Methane, nitrous oxide and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are released in much smaller quantities than carbon dioxide but they have a serious impact because they are much more powerful. A molecule of methane for example has the same effect as 25 molecules of carbon dioxide. We will look at several aspects of modern life that add to the problem of greenhouse gases and global climate change.
Some of these are obvious but some less well known. Firstly there is the landfill problem. Developed countries produce huge amounts of waste - a lot is burned releasing carbon dioxide and noxious gases but a lot is also buried where it is broken down by bacteria which produce methane – a very potent greenhouse gas as we have seen. Therefore even burying rubbish can increase global warming. Perhaps a less well known issue concerns the production of cement. Cement is made from limestone in a process that turns the rock into calcium oxide and carbon dioxide. Pulverizing and heating uses a lot of fuel. Cement is also heavy so transportation also uses a lot of fuel. Cement production releases huge amounts of carbon dioxide in total for every bag of cement made. Harding and Starzynska will release a more detailed study of the impact of the construction and cement manufacturing industries on world climate change.
Thirdly artificial fertilizers also release nitrous oxide and this is 300 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide ! In fact food production can cause problems. Our taste for beef encourages cattle ranching yet cows produce a lot of methane. Rice growing also produces relatively high levels of methane.
Results
Therefore by burning , felling, excessive use of fossil fuels, cement production, transportation, intensive agriculture, use of fertilizers, and CFC gases humans accelerate the greenhouse effect.
Lets us now turn to an examination of some of the major results of climate change. We can broadly divide these into topics such as heatwaves and droughts, melting ice, warming oceans, and effects on wildlife. Scientists can record temperature rise but to many people the evidence of climate change is much more obvious in the form of heatwaves, shrinking lakes, desertification, droughts, famine and wildfires. Higher extreme temperatures are becoming more common. These are not always he highest temperatures recorded but they are sustained periods of exceptional heat such as the European heatwave of August 2003.
Irrigation projects make the problems of shrinking lakes worse. One classic example of this the dramatic shrinking of Lake Chad – now one twentieth of its original size. Desertification is also taking place. The Gobi and Sahara deserts are both expanding with the Sahel region of Africa most influenced. Many people who live on the dry fringes of deserts rely on seasonal rain to make crops grow and provide water for livestock. If the rains fail owing to climate change disaster follows as in Ethiopia in 2006.
Wildfires are also becoming more common in Australia, California and other regions as the land becomes drier – there are even wildfires in parts of Amazonia – a region unused to wildfires generally. Just as dramatic is the phenomenon of melting ice in the world’s polar regions. Arctic pack ice is shrinking and vast Antarctic ice shelves are collapsing and mountain glaciers everywhere retreating. On the polar fringes higher temperatures are also melting ice that lies beneath the ground , transforming tundra landscapes.
Since 1979 the size of the summer Arctic ice sheet has dwindled by about 1.5 million square kilometers. In the 1990s its thickness also decreased by 1m. We see other effects on the 3km thick Greenland ice sheet with the fringes melting more each summer and ice berg formations breaking away faster. This phenomenon will cause a rise in sea level. About a quarter of the land in the Northern hemisphere is so cold that it is permanently frozen beneath the surface. This permafrost is covered by a surface layer that is frozen in winter but thaws in summer creating vast areas of swampland. In many areas of the lower Arctic the active surface layer is getting deeper each year, melting ancient ice.
Glacial retreat in highland areas is also dramatic as examples such as the retreat of the Upsala glacier in Upper Patagonia show. In Antarctica the ice is melting fastest on the Antarctic Peninsula where temperatures are rising faster than anywhere else on Earth with a 3 degree C rise since 1951. The collapse of the Larsen Ice shelf in 2002 shows the power of global climate change. Warming Oceans The effects of global warming on land are therefore obvious in terms if wildfires, desertification, heatwaves etc but the impact on the ocean is less obvious. However, warming oceans mean rising sea levels and meltwater adds to this problem.
In addition warmer water at the ocean surface reduces plankton growth and carbon dioxide absorption. In fact rising sea levels are already causing serious flooding e.g. on the coral island nation of Tuvalu in the Pacific where most of the land lies just 2-3 meters above sea level. Since sea levels will continue to rise for a time even if global warming slows down it seems inevitable that such areas will be destroyed. The Maldives are also particularly vulnerable. Just as serious is the phenomenon of current slowdown.
Dense salty water at the surface of the northern Atlantic sinks and pushes currents through the deeper parts of the world’s oceans but melting icebergs, glaciers and permafrost adds fresh water to the oceans reducing salinity and this effects the driving of deepwater currents. Finally we are seeing more intense storms caused by warmer oceans. In the temperate north we see rainfall increasing by 5-10% causing floods like those that hit England in 2007 or Mumbai in 2005.
Effects on wildlife
In the long term wildlife evolves to cope with both warmer and cooler climates but the process of evolution can be harsh and recent wildlife losses may be signalling that we are at the beginning of a time of extinctions. We will look at the effects of global climate change on wildlife with respect to acidified oceans, disruptions to the food webs, altered patterns of migrations and expansions, early losses of species, overheated reefs and disappearing wetlands. When rain dissolves atmospheric carbon dioxide it forms weak carbonic acid and the same process is effecting the oceans as they absorb extra carbon dioxide from the air. This is making the oceans less alkaline and this can make life more difficult for more marine animals such as corals, clams and lobsters that need alkaline materials for shell formation.. We also see disruptions in marine food webs. The oceanic food chain relies on the drifting micro-life of the plankton feeding fish and finally seabirds.
Warmer oceans are changing the distribution of plankton so fish move away from seabird nesting sites. We see this in falling numbers within Guillemot communities in the north Atlantic for example. Our chapter on the Deepwater Environment also provides examples of how global warming may effect marine life. We also see altered patterns of migrations and expansions. Some animals seem to be adapting to climate change. For example, insects have short life spans and rapid breeding rates enabling them to evolve quickly and move into habitats easily.
These include disease carrying mosquitoes which are spreading diseases such as malaria and West Nile virus to areas that were once too cold for the insects. In fact climate change may already have made some animals extinct. The golden toad was discovered in the Monteverde cloud forests of Costa Rica in 1966. By 1991 it was deemed to be extinct because the toads’ young were attacked by a fungal disease that flourished as nights became warmer. As the tropical oceans get warmer coral reefs also start to suffer with coral bleaching occurring. Rising ocean temperatures will probably cause more bleaching events thus threatening vulnerable corals with extinction.
Finally as droughts become more common and human populations grow and use more water wetlands such as marshes and lakes are starting to dry up. These wetlands are vital to many animals as places to live and drink so their shrinkage or disappearance can be disastrous for wildlife. Perhaps the more famous examples of global climate change on wildlife are to be found in the Arctic. The ice is shrinking each year and summer ice may disappear altogether by 2070 or even earlier.
The most vulnerable species is the one at the top of the food chain – the polar bear. If the food webs are disrupted by global warming they will be severely effected. In addition polar bears are adapted to hunting on the ice shelf. If this disappears the bears may disappear too. Rising temperatures mean that large areas of ocean that once stayed frozen throughout the year now become open water. Polar bears may have to swim long distances in order to hunt.The ice also melts earlier in summer and forces bears ashore before they have built up fat reserves.
Global Warming: More Inconvenient Truths
It’s not just the planet that’s hotting up, it’s the whole debate about global warming. Especially now that we can see and feel its effects every day. Yet you’ve probably noticed that when it comes to taking action, the focus always seems to be on what each of us can do personally. We the people must use energy-saving light bulbs, fly less, recycle, use green energy, take our appliances off standby, and so on. But perhaps, like me, these entreaties leave you feeling a bit ripped off. Perhaps you, too, are wondering what part business, industry and governments have to play? It’s certainly true that there are things individual citizens can and must do, but surely really significant reductions ultimately depend on tough, international legislative action. After all, if personal responsibility were all that has ever been necessary to solve problems, why were political systems and governments invented in the first place? Once we’ve taken individual action, is that it? Or is there more to be done? What really seems to be needed is a way of acting collectively to ensure that governments around the world start co-operating to solve global warming instead of talking more hot air while the planet burns.
In his film, An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore rightly points out that collective action depends on political will, but this, he says, is in short supply. Right again! The reasons for its scarcity, he suggests, are that it’s simply not in the short-term interests of the main polluting nations and their industries to take substantive action. So far so good, but the cartoon image he uses to hammer his point home is an unfortunate one: a pair of scales with gold bars on one side and the entire planet on the other. Gore uses this to demonstrate the absurdity of those who see economic prosperity and a healthy planet as an either/or choice: after all, what value could gold bars have if there’s no habitable planet in which to enjoy them? It’s plainly ridiculous, and so too, suggests Gore, is the reluctance of some to give up the gold bars.
But rather than ridicule those who fear for their short-term interests, shouldn’t we be trying to look at what may be their perfectly legitimate point, and trying to understand the forces that keep it relevant? Gore may have faced the inconvenient truth of global warming, but he is yet to face a second inconvenient truth: that stiff action on the part of the rich countries WILL have adverse economic effects, at least in the short term. And if global warming is dealt with in isolation, those costs WILL fall heaviest on the USA and on other big polluters. To deny the barrier to action that these short-term costs and disincentives represent, as Gore seems to, is to fall into the same trap as those who deny global warming itself.
I laughed along with everyone else when I saw the gold vs earth cartoon, but making fun of those who are wary of economic backlash is hardly likely to elicit the consensus Gore seeks. It also seems like a cheap shot when you keep in mind that had Gore actually become President in 2000, he would inescapably have joined the ranks of those he’s poking fun at. The president of the U.S. has only four years before facing another election, so Gore’s popularity and tenure in office would have been directly influenced by his corporate funders and their support for short-term gains to the US economy.
Today, there may only be few people who still cling to denying global warming. But knowledge and acceptance can’t effect change by themselves. What is urgently needed is a means to unlock the short-term barriers and disincentives that prevent decisive collective action – nationally and internationally. Make no mistake: in today’s globalised and largely borderless world, capital and jobs generally move to wherever in the world environmental and social costs are lowest and profits therefore highest. Any government moving first to significantly increase environmental costs or regulations in a bid to reduce emissions would definitely see investment and jobs moving elsewhere, thus making the nation uncompetitive. That’s why nothing changes except the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere just keeps on rising. Prime Minister Tony Blair at least seemed to recognise these realities when he pointed out that “The blunt truth about the politics of climate change is that no country will want to sacrifice its economy in order to meet this challenge”.i
Unlike Gore, Blair clearly recognises this second inconvenient truth and he should not be blamed for stating it. But his statement only holds true IF nations fail to act together. This is the barrier that keeps the gold bars firmly on one side of the scales. However, if all nations co-operated, the necessary regulations could be implemented without any nation fearing capital or employment flight because there would be no low-cost haven for them to run to. Corporations, too, would have nothing to fear because all corporations would be subject to the same additional costs, so maintaining their relative competitiveness and their relative profitability. Think about that for a minute.
But there is a further problem: the biggest polluter, the USA, would have the biggest adjustment cost, so it has the least incentive to sign up to any cooperative agreement. This is why the Kyoto Protocol is not supported by the USA and Australia, another big polluter. It is also why the provisions of the Kyoto agreement are so mild and relatively ineffectual. Because if the nations supporting Kyoto agreed to tougher, more significant curbs, the costs involved would make them uncompetitive with nations, such as the USA and Australia, who refuse to participate.
The net result is a recipe for missed targets and an intergovernmental dead-lock of a kind which raises the third, final and most important inconvenient truth; this time one that concerns not so much governments or businesses but each of us as individual citizens. It’s a truth which all citizens around the world must urgently take on board: that we can no longer abdicate responsibility for taking collective action to politicians and governments alone. If free-riding governments are to be compelled to co-operate, then it must be citizens who force them to do so. We have no choice but to take the initiative, and stop assuming that politicians are in the driving seat of the global economy. It’s time to grab hold of the steering wheel and find a way of driving our politicians and governments toward co-operation. What’s needed is a method of achieving cooperation which removes the barriers and objections, takes away the fears of being uncompetitive, and replaces those fears with an enthusiasm for shared problem-solving.
When Al Gore became fully aware of the dangers of global warming, he travelled far and wide to gain a deeper understanding of the science and its real-world effects, and justifiably so (although I do hope he planted plenty of trees to personally offset his carbon emissions). But Gore and the rest of us have so far failed to embark on another, far more urgent line of enquiry. If we genuinely wish to solve global warming and other global problems, we need to gain a deeper understanding of the barriers to collective government action under globalisation. For the deeper truth is that global warming and many other global “problems” are not the real problems at all. They are merely symptoms, albeit terrifying ones, of our failure as a global human society to co-operate. Until we understand the dynamics of co-operation and how to achieve it, and what we as citizens can do to unblock the barriers to it, international inaction, missed targets and deepening chaos will continue and global warming may well destroy human civilisation.
The Simultaneous Policy, a global citizen’s initiative, claims to have begun this vital journey and to offer a plausible and effective way that citizens can use their right to vote in a new way that drives the politicians of all parties and nations to collectively implement the measures we so desperately need. It seems that political representatives would find it a welcome relief to be freed from the restrictions that keep them beholden to big business interests and confined to wholly inadequate policies dictated by the need to keep their nations “internationally competitive”. This is reflected in the fact that already politicians from opposing sides of the spectrum – nationally and internationally – are pledging their support for the Simultaneous Policy as a result of voter pressure and/or enlightened social responsibility. Check it out for yourself at www.simpol.org – as Noam Chomsky commented, “Can it work? It’s certainly worth a serious try!”
The Lowdown on Global Warming
Global warming and climate change are matters that have increasingly been in the public eye in recent times and worldwide action is being taken to tackle the affect these two factors have on the environment.
Global warming results in climate change which in turn has implications for everyday activities and factors, such as growing crops and nature conservation.
Global warming is an increase in the average temperature of the earth’s atmosphere and a sustained increase causes climatic change and alters long-term weather patterns. The world is experiencing global warming because too much carbon dioxide is being released into the atmosphere.
The carbon rises to the earth’s upper atmosphere where it acts like an insulating coat, reflecting heat from the sun back to the earth’s surface.
Changes to the climate come with potentially damaging consequences. Ice caps are starting to melt at the Poles, which could cause sea levels to rise. Higher temperatures and less rainfall are being recorded in areas which already suffer from drought.
One of the main sources of carbon is the burning of fossil fuels for energy, typically used to heat homes and run vehicles like cars and motorbikes.
More and more energy providers are recognising the negative effects of climate change and introducing different ways of tackling the issue.
There are several ways in which you can also help to combat climate change. Buying green energy is a good way of helping to reduce some of the causes of climate change.
Look for providers who use clean, renewable sources which are better for the environment. Some providers offer green energy at the same price as the standard service so doing your bit for the earth wouldn’t cost you any extra.
You could also investigate the possibility of making your own energy. Solar panels can generate electricity and hot water for your home which saves you money and reduces carbon emissions. Some providers even offer to buy back any excess electricity you generate so you can be sure energy is not being wasted.
There are also ways you can save energy around the home. Cavity walls and roofs account for the majority of heat lost in the home so insulating these areas significantly reduces consumption. Fitting a jacket around your hot water tank also helps to conserve gas and electricity.
Have your boiler serviced regularly to make sure everything is in working order and replace any old devices as they can run inefficiently and use more energy than need be.
When it comes to the devices you use around the home you can save pennies by doing a few simple things.
Avoid using the standby button as this can actually use more energy than what is required to operate the appliance in the first place. Simply switching off your electrical items instead of using stand-by can save several pounds each month and decreases energy consumption.
UK Government in Trouble for Climate Change Loans
The UK government is under attack by debt campaigners as well as developing countries, for their plan to give £800 million to poorer countries in preparation for climate change, as a great bulk of the money would be in the form of loans, not grants, and would be sent via the World Bank instead of the UN.
Martin Khor, director of Third World Network, a grouping of international development agencies based in Malaysia believes; “The decision to deliver climate aid in the form of loans and not grants contradicts internationally agreed principles”
These principles clearly define that developed countries should take the main responsibility for fighting climate change, due to their massive role in creating the pollution that is being blamed for it’s occurance, as well as their more advanced technological and economic capabilities.
Khor also felt the money had to be sent through that UN as:
“Developing countries have repeatedly argued that any proposed funds for climate change, particularly in such significant amounts, should come under the direction of the state parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Martin Khor, director of Third World Network, a grouping of international development agencies based in Malaysia believes; “The decision to deliver climate aid in the form of loans and not grants contradicts internationally agreed principles”
“The World Bank’s climate investment funds could undermine the UN’s negotiations for climate change aid,” Khor argued. “It creates parallel structures for financing climate change adaptation and mitigation outside the existing multilateral structures and within a process dominated by the G8 countries.”
Climate Change to Reduce European Holidays to the Mediterranean
Climate changes directly affect tourism. Fewer people are booking flights from Europe to the Mediterranean because of these climate changes, which directly affects popular holiday spots like Majorca and Minorca. Environmental groups expect a steady decline in holiday travel via flights from Europe to the Mediterranean.
How Climate Changes Impact Tourism
People generally plan their holiday based on the temperature at their destination and when they can get the time off from work. Holiday makers have been visiting Majorca and Minorca for decades because of the picture-perfect beaches and perfect climate. Rising temperatures have a direct effect on tourism because travelers will rethink travel destinations based on the ideal temperature for the particular time of year.
Majorca and Minorca will be significantly impacted if holiday makers stop taking flights there from Europe. Over the last few decades these islands off of Spain have become dependent on tourism. The land is not ideal for agricultural use and there is little else that native residents of these islands can do to sustain themselves.
How Environmental Groups Expect Climate to Affect Air Travel
Some environmental groups see flights from Europe to the Mediterranean drastically dropping due to climate changes. A significant change in temperature leaves holidaymakers deciding if the Mediterranean is still the ideal place to be. Mediterranean beaches are too hot and ski trips are going downhill.
Additionally, the climate changes are forcing individuals, companies and environmental groups to look at ways to protect the ozone and participate in carbon offsetting methods. Car companies have already looked at how they make vehicles and ways they can reduce carbon emissions. Just as energy-efficient cars are a wave of the future, ways to offset carbon in the air from air travel are also being studied.
Unfortunately, at this time, there isn’t an environmentally safe way to travel by air and anyone interested in offsetting carbon emissions may change their holiday plans to make them more eco-friendly.
Environmental Groups Respond to Climate Changes
Environmental groups continually work to offset the carbon emitted into the air by international flights. Companies are encouraged to voluntarily offset their usage to balance carbon emissions. Simple ways to reduce emissions include planting trees and conserving energy. Other ideas for conserving energy and offsetting carbon emissions are to reduce flights and change methods for traveling.
Some environmental groups predict that Europeans will stop taking their holiday by flight because of the climate change. Not only has the environment at their destination changed, they are also further damaging the environment by flying overseas and emitting harmful carbon in the air. If airlines are forced to change their methods, if they don’t voluntarily conserve energy to offset carbon and create a balance then it is up to holiday makers to take a stand for the environment and stop supporting companies who continually emit carbon and endanger the environment.
An individual will not make a huge difference in making up for climate change. It is when people rally together and are encouraged by environmental groups whose purpose is to protect our planet and conserve energy that change can be made. Air charter companies may not willingly change unless they are forced by a large number of people boycotting overseas air travel.
Realizing the need for a change, some tourist industry companies are already organizing efforts to help offset the environmental impact of overseas flights. Major players are donating a percentage of their profits to eco-friendly endeavors and beseeching their patrons to donate as well, in the interest of humanity. They realize that their very existence is at stake as is the local economies where they now prosper. Rest assured, the problem is being looked at and addressed.