Scientists are convinced the accumulation in the atmosphere of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is heating up the earth, but they cannot say exactly how much warming will occur. Global warming is likely to produce much more erratic weather because a warmer atmosphere means the evaporation of more water from the oceans, leading to greater precipitation. It also means the exchange of more energy, leading to greater atmospheric violence. Which means some areas might be hit by droughts, while others could suffer more frequent and violent storms. Thus, it would hurt developing economies.
A prudent evaluation of the risks of global warming must also consider the possibility that climate change will be much more severe and/or much more rapid than the most likely scenario projected by climate
models. The IPCC noted that there are a number of potential feedback mechanisms not currently included in climate models that could increase greenhouse gas concentrations in response to the initial warming, amplifying climate change (IPCC 1990: xviii). These mechanisms include the potential for reduced carbon uptake by the oceans, increased CO2 emissions from the dieback of forests and the decay of soils, and increased methane emissions from wetlands and hydrates. Because these feedbacks interact with each other and other climate processes in a non-linear way, there is a risk that the overall climate sensitivity could be as much as twice as great as the upper bound of the uncertainty range adopted by the IPCC.
(Lashof: 213 (1989).
The transitional period as result of global warming will be a challenge for the nations of the world. If these changes are swift (not allowing humans to adjust) then food production will decrease (causing food shortages) and coastal flooding will increase (causing thousands of deaths of coastal and island people), especially in the developing economies.
The Kyoto agreement is good start for global cooperation among countries in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, even if it succeeds 100% in meeting its goals, greenhouse gases will continue
to rise. In a clear statement on its front page in early November, the New York Times declared that "a growing number of scientists and policy makers" believe it will be impossible to avoid a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. "...[M]any experts believe that it is already too late to avoid serious climatic disruption, that the task ahead is one of keeping it from becoming truly catastrophic," the Times said. "The reason, [these experts] say, is that the world's economic and political systems cannot depart from business as usual rapidly enough." (Stevens: A1, A12.)
Is this what the American people want? On December 11 the New York Times reported taking a poll which revealed that 65% of Americans feel the United States should cut its greenhouse emissions "regardless of what other countries do" and only 17% feel that cutting emissions "will cost too much money and hurt the United States economy." (Bennet: A1, A10). Another poll, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, nearly three out every four of 1,200 Americans survey say they would pay a nickel a gallon more for gasoline to address global warming.
There is need for more conferences like Kyoto to bring together different ideas and solutions from countries around the world to find ways of reducing greenhouse gases from the business-as-usually scenario. It is imperative that next step we take include action from both developed and developing counties in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Developing countries must leapfrog from high CO2 emission fuel source (e.g. coal) to a lower CO2 emission fuel source (e.g. natural gas) in order to reduce greenhouse gases. These developing and developed countries must try to use the newest technologies presently available. Developed countries could trade emission releases in exchanged for helping to setup these technologies in
developing countries.
A prudent evaluation of the risks of global warming must also consider the possibility that climate change will be much more severe and/or much more rapid than the most likely scenario projected by climate
models. The IPCC noted that there are a number of potential feedback mechanisms not currently included in climate models that could increase greenhouse gas concentrations in response to the initial warming, amplifying climate change (IPCC 1990: xviii). These mechanisms include the potential for reduced carbon uptake by the oceans, increased CO2 emissions from the dieback of forests and the decay of soils, and increased methane emissions from wetlands and hydrates. Because these feedbacks interact with each other and other climate processes in a non-linear way, there is a risk that the overall climate sensitivity could be as much as twice as great as the upper bound of the uncertainty range adopted by the IPCC.
(Lashof: 213 (1989).
The transitional period as result of global warming will be a challenge for the nations of the world. If these changes are swift (not allowing humans to adjust) then food production will decrease (causing food shortages) and coastal flooding will increase (causing thousands of deaths of coastal and island people), especially in the developing economies.
The Kyoto agreement is good start for global cooperation among countries in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, even if it succeeds 100% in meeting its goals, greenhouse gases will continue
to rise. In a clear statement on its front page in early November, the New York Times declared that "a growing number of scientists and policy makers" believe it will be impossible to avoid a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. "...[M]any experts believe that it is already too late to avoid serious climatic disruption, that the task ahead is one of keeping it from becoming truly catastrophic," the Times said. "The reason, [these experts] say, is that the world's economic and political systems cannot depart from business as usual rapidly enough." (Stevens: A1, A12.)
Is this what the American people want? On December 11 the New York Times reported taking a poll which revealed that 65% of Americans feel the United States should cut its greenhouse emissions "regardless of what other countries do" and only 17% feel that cutting emissions "will cost too much money and hurt the United States economy." (Bennet: A1, A10). Another poll, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, nearly three out every four of 1,200 Americans survey say they would pay a nickel a gallon more for gasoline to address global warming.
There is need for more conferences like Kyoto to bring together different ideas and solutions from countries around the world to find ways of reducing greenhouse gases from the business-as-usually scenario. It is imperative that next step we take include action from both developed and developing counties in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Developing countries must leapfrog from high CO2 emission fuel source (e.g. coal) to a lower CO2 emission fuel source (e.g. natural gas) in order to reduce greenhouse gases. These developing and developed countries must try to use the newest technologies presently available. Developed countries could trade emission releases in exchanged for helping to setup these technologies in
developing countries.
No comments:
Post a Comment