Download Global Warming- Boon or Bane

Rui Dong
Diane
Matthew Katcher
Yannis Paulus
Freshman Seminar 93
Prof. R. Wilson
Global Warming: Boon or Bane?
Introduction
Global warming has become an important issue dividing the scientific community,
politicians, and the public. While many argue that the earth’s temperature is rising at a dangerous
rate, some view the situation as a natural trend. Even among those who agree that people should
take an active role regarding global warming, much disagreement still exists as to which strategy is
best.
At the heart of the debate lies the emission of greenhouse gases and its impact on the
climate. Many chemical compounds found in the earth’s atmosphere act as “greenhouse gases.”
These gases allow sunlight to enter the atmosphere, some of which is radiated outward as heat
energy. This heat is either absorbed by the surrounding air, water, and land or radiated back into
space as infrared radiation. However, greenhouse gases such as water vapor, carbon dioxide, and
methane absorb this heat as it is reflected back towards space, reradiating it back to earth and
trapping the heat in an Earth-wide greenhouse.
Many gases exhibit such “greenhouse” properties, including those that occur naturally in
the atmosphere, such as water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, and those that
are
man-made,
such
as
chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs),
hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs),
perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). The principal greenhouse gas
2
concentrations that have increased over the industrial period are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane
(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons CFC-11 (CCl3F) and CFC-12 (CCl2F2).
Atmospheric concentrations of these important greenhouse gases have increased by about
25 percent since large-scale industrialization began some 150 years ago. The growth in their
concentrations can be directly attributed to human activity. Of the greenhouse gases, carbon
dioxide’s increase in concentration has received the most attention as a potential hazard due to it
being the largest component of the “human-induced” warming some scientists foresee. The
observed increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from about 280 ppm in the pre-industrial era to about
364 ppm in 1997 is due largely to fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, and cement production.
The greenhouse effect is a natural process that warms the planet, thus allowing it to sustain
life. The Global Warming Theory maintains that human emissions of greenhouse gases are so
significant that they are accelerating the natural greenhouse effect and causing global warming
beyond acceptable levels. Many aspects of this theory are uncertain, and the science behind
climate change and global warming is still being developed. The following will discuss both sides
and the methods of action and solutions that may be involved in this ongoing debate, presenting
several views and evaluating them in the context of scientific investigation. Additionally, we will
examine the impact of global warming on the environment as well as the world economy and
possible solutions to the problem, both through the use of economic coercion and alternative
methods. In the context of current actions, we will suggest a public policy to deal with this
dilemma in a way that is fair and beneficial to all inhabitants of planet Earth.
The Science Behind It
3
Both the issue and mechanisms of global warming involve many uncertainties. Therefore,
a review of the certain facts will provide the proper context in which to understand the scientific
uncertainties that exist. The average temperature of the Earth, in data was obtained by combining
satellite and ground-based measurements, has risen by approximately 0.5o Celsius in the past 100
years. Along with this rise in temperature, we have released larger amounts of greenhouse gases
into the environment. As humanity burns more fossil fuels to meet increasing energy demands,
emissions of these gases have drastically altered the make-up of the Earth’s atmosphere.
These facts are generally agreed upon within the scientific community.
However,
scientists do not agree that a correlation can be drawn between the increase in temperature and the
increase in emissions of greenhouse gases. Research has shown that these gases can increase the
temperature of the planet, but the Earth’s atmosphere is a complex system. Because it is extremely
difficult to model the Earth’s atmosphere, we cannot accurately conclude whether these gases are
causing the current temperature increase. Additionally, very little is known about the Earth’s
climate and how it will react to changes of this sort. For years, scientists have attempted to make
models of the climate using past trends and other indicators. However, no model has been
sophisticated enough to account for observed climate changes.
Model-making is complicated by the fact that climate changes in the past 100 years have
been inconsistent. The general trend has been an increase in temperature, but certain spans of time
(e.g. 1940-1970) have experienced a net decrease in temperature. Due to the complexity of the
climate interaction system, any number of changes in the delicate equilibrium could result in
global warming. Many scientists are skeptical about models, saying they are too unsophisticated
to account for the beautiful complexity of the atmosphere, and refuse to rely on them for future
predictions. Therefore, they doubt that global warming will continue into the future.
4
Past historic evidence may also indicate that there is little reason to worry about
temperature variations. Approximately 10,000 years ago during the Younger Dryas, the Earth’s
temperature increased about 7 o Celsius in a forty year span. This climate change, as well as
countless others, occurred without any human intervention. Therefore, the recent climate change
may simply be another natural fluctuation in the Earth’s climate.
Nevertheless, the current period of Earth’s history is profoundly different from other
periods. With extensive industrialization and urbanization, humans have completely altered the
face of our planet. We know that our actions are producing harmful chemicals, so it is reasonable
to assume that we are having some effect on the environment. The Earth’s climate exists in a
delicate equilibrium, and a little disruption is bound to bring change. Since the climate has
remained in this balance without human intervention, the danger is in the usurping the balance. By
analyzing the possible effects of global warming, we can examine the severity of the problem.
The Effects of Global Warming, a Scientific Analysis
Many uncertainties remain concerning the scientific effects of global warming, leading to
a spectrum of views concerning what the effects will be. While some uncertainties concern issues
of everyday scientific interest, the majority of uncertainties involve the interactions between the
various components of the Earth. Some scientists claim that, due to positive feedback, global
warming will lead the Earth to become the next Venus, in which the increased carbon dioxide
increases the temperature, leading to increased evaporation. With more water vapor in the air, the
temperature will rise again since water is the main greenhouse gas, which would cycle
continuously to cause a large increase in temperature. Since the temperature increase would be
focused most on the polar latitudes, this rise in temperature will cause the polar ice caps to melt,
5
which would have catastrophic consequences, both in terms of a rise in ocean level and
unpredicted responses from the Earth. Such an event occurred in the Earth’s history during the
Younger Dryas, when a large amount of melted ice flowed from the St. Lawrence Gulf into the
North Atlantic, spreading a thin layer of fresh water over the Atlantic. This disrupted the
Atmosphere-Ocean circulation, causing a dramatic seven degree Celsius increase in temperature in
only 40 years. Some climate models predict a decrease in rainfall in areas of farmland and an
increase in hurricanes and typhoons. It is proven that an increase in temperature would increase
the possible intensity of hurricanes. Overall, these changes threaten to flood low-lying nations like
Bangladesh and many Pacific island nations and destroy the economies of developing nations due
to their lack of resources to cope with the change in climate.
However, a scientific consensus is lacking on this issue. Some scientists begin by arguing
that in the 1970’s, many scientists thought that global cooling was occurring, suggesting costly
solutions to prevent the Earth from entering a human-induced Ice Age. Lowell Ponte’s book The
Cooling begins with the statement, “Our planet’s climate has been cooling for the past three
decades,” and he was reading scientific measurements correctly. However, while this data
concerning global cooling from 1940 to 1970 is irrefutable, scientists question the validity of
present global warming estimates. Accurate satellite measurements, available since 1979, show a
significant worldwide cooling trend in the lower atmosphere. Thus, while surface temperature
data has risen by half a degree in the past 100 years, balloon and satellite models show a high
degree of correlation among each other and show a net cooling in this period of time. Scientists
often attribute this increase in “surface temperature” to the city effect, whereby environmentalists
over the past century have put more stations in cities, which have a higher average temperature
than their surroundings. In addition, these scientists claim three categories of negative feedbacks
6
would mitigate if not nullify the effects of increasing temperature: increased clouds, increased
cooling properties of clouds, and aerial fertilization effect. Clouds increase the Earth’s albedo
dramatically by reflecting the sun’s rays back into space. Albedo is so important that a one percent
increase in the Earth’s albedo would completely counter the greenhouse warming of a doubling the
atmosphere’s carbon dioxide concentration. Thus, the increase in water vapor would increase both
the size and number of water participles in a cloud, thus effectively increasing the Earth’s albedo.
In response to an initial warming, ocean phytoplankton would bloom, resulting in an increase in a
by-product of algal metabolism, dimethyl sulfide, which serve as cloud-condensation nuclei in the
atmosphere, thus increasing once again cloud cover.
The last negative feedback, aerial
fertilization, is based on the principle that plants grow better at higher levels of atmospheric carbon
dioxide, thus using the carbon dioxide to produce oxygen in photosynthesis and offsetting the
increase in carbon dioxide.
Even if the temperature does increase, scientists argue that the consequences are not
exactly how other scientists would view them. Studies have shown that as temperature increases,
both the number and the intensity of hurricanes decreases as well. Trends have shown that, while
the doomsday preachers claim that global warming would decrease the precipitation reaching the
United States, trends in the past show the opposite, that precipitation has been rising in the United
States over the past hundred years in a time that was experiencing “global warming.”
In fact, not only will these harmful effects not occur, but the increase in carbon dioxide is
proven to be beneficial to plants. With twice as much carbon dioxide in the air, plants increase in
productivity by 52% and double their leaf efficiency in utilizing water, since their stoma do not
have to remain open for as long. 95% of all plants (all C3 species) respond positively to increases
in carbon dioxide concentration. With 75% more carbon dioxide, some trees get twice as much
7
biomass and three times more fruit. This increase in carbon dioxide would open whole new
regions to plant life where at present they lack water, nutrients, or sunlight, since with added
carbon dioxide plants can grow in conditions of scarce water, nutrients, and sunlight in which the
same plants with normal levels of carbon dioxide cannot grow. In addition, increased carbon
dioxide increases the activity of nitrogen fixing bacteria in the roots of plants. With a warmer
climate, the growing season would also lengthen. And while all these separate phenomena have
been proven in laboratories, present data shows that the biosphere is responding positively to the
increase in carbon dioxide over the past hundred years.
Accurate data from Mauna Loa
Observatory first shocked the world when it showed seasonal changes in carbon dioxide
concentrations, dubbed the breath of the biosphere since the carbon dioxide decreases in the spring
and summer as terrestrial plants take up more carbon dioxide and increases in the fall and winter.
This breath of the biosphere, the difference between the seasons, has been increasing over the
years, proving that the biosphere is growing larger and plants are growing better with increased
carbon dioxide.
Some scientists go even further to extend the beneficial effects of global warming from just
plants to also include humanity. An analysis of the correlation between human populations and
global temperatures in Thomas Moore’s essay Global Warming: A Boon to Humans and Other
Animals led him to the conclusion that mankind has flourished in warmer eras and that an increase
in temperature is beneficial. Warmer temperatures lead to a longer growing season, more rainfall,
and fewer and less violent storms overall. Thus, while any change is disruptive and not everyone
will benefit, the majority of people will benefit, thus costly measures to reduce carbon dioxide
emissions seem hasty and foolish to stop something beneficial from occurring.
8
The Effects of Global Warming, an Economic Analysis
Due to the limitations of scientific models in predicting accurately the effects of global
warming on production, the only consensus in the academic community in calculating the
economic costs of global warming is its unpredictability.
Yet, in the IPCC report,
recommendations are made that policy makers should take into account the following economic
conditions:
“a) If warming occurs, it will impose significant damage;
b) that the damage is irreversible;
c) that the initial costs of controlling greenhouse gas emissions are low,
d) that greenhouse gas controls bring incidental or joint benefits besides the
containment of global warming.”
While the evidence of the first condition is disputed, the other proposals should be taken
into account when calculating social effects of global warming.
In general, scientists tend to focus on two possible consequences of climate change on the
United States economy. First, weather patterns can affect productivity in the agricultural and
forestry industry. Estimates show that temperature increases combined with precipitation changes
would lead to an agricultural loss of $568 billion in the United States alone. While agriculture and
forestry account for only a small percentage of our total GDP, the relative inelastic demand of
products from both sectors would translate into skyrocketing prices and considerable consumer
losses should supply decline. Changing climate can also translate into more extreme weather.
Although the economic effects of increasing frequency and intensity of storms have yet to be
calculated, they are likely to be high.
9
On a global scale, consequences of global warming are also likely to be costly, especially
for developing countries. Rising water levels and changing climate patterns are likely to reduce
farmland and destabilize society, especially in countries ill-equipped to adapt to change. It seems
ethically unfair that the U.S., Canada, Europe, and Japan account together for more than 70% of
the total global CO2 emissions (World Resources Institute, 1991), yet it is the developing countries
that will suffer most from global warming.
On the other hand, calculations reveal that a carbon tax that would reduce emissions by
50% in the U.S. is likely to reduce GDP by a mere 4% in North America and 1% in Europe.
Reducing emissions through a decrease in energy consumption is also likely to incur many
beneficial effects for public health by reducing both air pollution and noise pollution. The problem
of depletion of fossil fuel reserves will also be abated. Such benefits from reducing global carbon
dioxide emissions make policy action desirable and beneficial, if not essential.
Economic Instruments to Global Warming
Nordhaus classified responses to environmental changes into three categories:
amelioration, abatement, and prevention. Amelioration and abatement both focus on adapting to
changes as they occur. Most economic instruments, however, in global warming are geared
towards preventing build-up of greenhouse gases before they affect the climate and wreak havoc
upon the economy. The effect of such policies is the same: reduction in the use of fossil fuels and
consequent decline in CO2 emissions. The goal is to accomplish this at a minimal cost to society.
Current discussion on economic instruments focuses mainly on two ideas: carbon tax and tradable
licenses.
10
Compared to a regulatory fining system, the concept of taxes seems more appealing to
economists because it reduces losses by allowing the market to adjust and decide the nature of cuts
in CO2 emission. Thus, the cuts in fuel consumption would occur in the least essential and less
productive uses of energy. According to Poterba, a tax of $100/ ton on carbon would reduce U.S.
CO2 emissions to below levels in the late 1980s while raising approximately $200 billion, or more
than 3% GDP, for the government. However, the price to pay for the reduction isn’t easy to
measure. Pearce refers to a Norwegian study that concluded that a carbon tax would result in a
2.76% loss of GNP in the year 2010. This loss may be compensated through tax cuts in other
sectors. Reducing income tax while raising carbon taxes may even result in economic gains.
Carbon tax design, however, has many fallacies. Indeed, our calculation of economic costs
assumes global action where all nations raise carbon taxes. If, however, nations disagree upon
coordinated action, rising energy prices in one country may result in the displacement of
energy-intensive industries to other countries. Such competition among nations to attract investors
makes implementation of a carbon tax difficult to achieve.
To weigh this loss against the risk of incurring environmental and economic losses due to
global warming would result in an arbitrary answer. With the effect of rising oil prices on the
economy in the late 70s in mind, raising carbon taxes would be, politically speaking, a highly
costly choice for decision-makers. Yet, with the lowest tax on oil among all the industrialized
countries, the U.S. market has the potential to absorb an increase in carbon prices. The potential
benefits can be rewarding.
The competing idea to carbon tax is implementation of regulatory limits on carbon
emissions with tradable permits. As the central idea behind the Kyoto agreement, this concept was
highly controversial. The basic concept is to allocate a certain limit to greenhouse gas emissions to
11
each country and industry. Each individual market factor is then allowed to buy permits to emit
more greenhouse emissions from companies that have performed better than expected. The cost,
however, of reducing fossil fuel consumption will be the same. And fines for non-compliance of
limits are but a disguised form of carbon tax afflicted upon industries. And just like for carbon
taxes, success for this program depends upon global cooperation.
Alternative Scientific Solutions
While emission reduction receives the most attention, two other scientifically viable
options exist for combating global warming: cooling the environment and sequestering
atmospheric carbon dioxide. Plans to cool the climate fall under three categories: increasing the
Earth’s surface or atmospheric albedo, reducing the incident solar energy flux, and modifying
atmosphere and ocean circulation. Since over seventy percent of the Earth is covered with oceans,
which have only a 9% albedo, placing large, white plastic platforms on the ocean would effectively
increase the surface albedo. A similar, yet more viable, option exists for increasing atmospheric
albedo through increasing the concentration of aerosols, sulfates, and other reflective particles into
the stratosphere, which is similar to the effect of a volcanic eruption. The 1991 eruption of
Pinatubo increased the Earth’s surface temperature by .5 degrees Celsius, and this option would be
similar. Already, industries release sulfate aerosols into the atmosphere, which help cool and, due
to their short lifespan in the atmosphere of only a few days, would be readily reversible. Reducing
the incident solar energy flux is even more scientifically and ecologically viable. With the release
of giant solar power stations or other reflective objects to orbit the earth, the energy reaching the
Earth would decrease, offsetting any greenhouse warming. Although modifying the atmospheric
and ocean circulation could offer much promise in the future, too little is known about it at present
12
to offer a viable alternative. However, by using sensitive “pressure points” in the oceans, large
changes could be enacted from minimal activity. In addition, changes in stratospheric ozone could
offer a method to modify atmospheric circulation and offset any warming.
Another scientifically viable option is through sequestering CO2, either by physical means
or biologically. Physical means entail using increased scrubbing devices at sources of CO2
emissions or another source that would absorb carbon, transforming this carbon into liquid carbon
compounds through presently available chemical means, and then injecting this into the deep
ocean. The common biological option is increasing the acreage of forests presently available, but
this proves to be very costly. Another option that has recently gained increased attention is ocean
fertilization, in which vast tracts of the Pacific Ocean, which are rich in many minerals but lack
certain key ones like iron, will be sprayed with iron powder and converted into havens for
phytoplankton, causing a biological explosion of the ecosystem and releasing oxygen while
absorbing carbon dioxide. This theory was proven to work by nature herself during the Mount
Pinatubo eruption in 1991, when a volcanic explosion injected crustal material of 3% iron into the
atmosphere, causing an observable slowdown in the increase of carbon dioxide accumulation.
Sprayed directly on certain tracts of high-nitrate, low-chlorophyll ocean, ocean fertilization is
proving very cost-effective in opening a new ecosystem, thus increasing fishing opportunities and
oxygen concentration while decreasing carbon dioxide concentration.
Although all these
alternative scientific methods require more research, they could prove to be very creative while
being economically and scientifically sound solutions that, with a little more funding, could relieve
the world of its anxiety concerning global warming at a fraction of the costs of cutting emissions.
Current United States Presidential Proposal
13
Bush’s decision to abandon a 1997 Kyoto environmental treaty against global warming has
caused serious concern from countries such as Britain, Japan, and Australia.
Why did Bush reject Kyoto?
According to Bush’s address on Global Climate Change last June, “the Kyoto Protocol was
fatally flawed in fundamental ways”. He first acknowledged an increase in greenhouse gas
concentrations in the atmosphere, especially carbon dioxide, as well as an increase in the Earth’s
surface temperature by 0.6 degrees in the last century, noting the particularly sharp rise in recent
decades after a net cooling from the 1940’s to 1970’s. Bush also pointed out, however, that despite
these known facts, there are many unknowns such as the correlation between climate fluctuation
and warming, and the potential impact of the actions taken to address the issue. While taking into
account the limits of our knowledge, he proposes some course of action be executed with careful
consideration.
One major flaw Bush took note of is the exemption of some major countries that are also
large emitters of greenhouse gases from the Kyoto Protocol requirements. He admitted that the
United States does account for 20 percent of the world’s man-made greenhouse gas emissions, but
criticized that China, the second-largest emitter, was exempt, along with India and Germany.
Bush also observed that Kyoto did not address the impact of two pollutants, black soot and
tropospheric ozone, of which he expressed concern as health hazards and important matters which
should not be left out. Lastly, he remarked that Kyoto is unrealistic; he claimed that its targets for
reduction of emissions cannot be met and are arbitrary in origin and “not based upon science”.
Specifically for Americans, compliance would have a negative effect, resulting in layoffs of
workers and price increases.
14
These are the main reasons Bush used in his address to vindicate US noncompliance with
the original Kyoto Protocol, which he described as “not sound public policy”.
While Bush continues to support his position and maintains that he sees many flaws in
Kyoto and is not convinced by scientific research that the problem of global warming was all that
serious, he does agree that a global effort and course of action should take place, and ventures to
make some of his own proposals.
In recognition of “our responsibility…at home, in our hemisphere, and in the world,” Bush
would like the U.S. to lead the way by scientific advances in climate change and technology. He
mentioned the establishment of the U.S. Climate Change Research Initiative to address the
uncertainties, pinpoint priority areas of concern, and improve research and technology. His plan
includes full funding of those important areas and continual research investment in climate change
science over the next five years.
Bush also stressed the importance of a combined effort in the matter, especially since “the
Unites States cannot solve this global problem alone”. Bush confirmed that partnerships are being
built within the Western Hemisphere with other countries that share the same concerns, and
advocated an approach based on global participation.
Recently, Bush has unveiled a voluntary plan to reduce global warming. The plan involves
a series of tax credits and other incentives aimed to encourage businesses and farmers to cut down
on emissions. Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, which calls for a required 33% reduction of emissions
by the U.S., Bush’s voluntary plan aims to reduce greenhouse gas emission intensity by 18 percent.
Greenhouse gas emission intensity is the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions to economic output.
So emissions will still continue to grow, but at a lower rate. Christie Whitman supports the
voluntary plan, claiming mandatory plans can be made and implemented in the future, and this
15
plan will “get people to put their creativity behind finding the solutions.” However, some believe
the plan falls short, and greet it with skepticism, partly because of its voluntary nature.
Bush also proposed a separate plan, the “Clear Skies Initiative.” Under this plan, emissions
from sulfur dioxide would be cut by 73 percent, nitrogen oxides by 67, and mercury by 69, all by
2018. Also as part of this plan, Bush called for a “cap-and –trade” program, which would allow
businesses that fall below to sell credits to larger businesses so that they can meet the new
guidelines. Bush believes his plan will work because it provides financial incentives to businesses.
It is included in next year’s $4.5 billion budget for global climate change programs, a $700 million
increase over this year’s budget.
Conclusion
After much debate, name-calling, arguing, and fighting, our group reached the consensus
that we are not content with Bush’s present proposal to combat global warming. We would like to
see more money invested in research, especially in areas such as complex systems analysis to help
make a better climate projection and in inter-disciplinary studies where knowledge is especially
lacking. Other fields such as oceanography that are understudied and far behind meteorology in
scientific understanding should also have increased investment, since the oceans play an integral
part in understanding the unexpected effects that could result from perturbations in the
atmosphere. In addition, we feel more money should be invested in establishing global warming
as a fact through reconciling the balloon and satellite data with the surface data, thus hopefully
uniting scientists on at least the fact of whether global warming is occurring. However, our group
also decided that, due to the severity of the issue we face if it is occurring, amelioration action is
necessary to keep the Earth from disastrous consequences. This should focus on economic
16
incentives to increase efficiency in both industry and the private sector, yet we think Bush’s
voluntary proposal for businesses is not strong enough. Rather, we would like to see the
government increase incentive through a modest carbon tax that would increase the price of oil and
other sources of energy, especially those that produce large amounts of carbon dioxide. This
would also have the added effect of increasing the future outlook for nuclear energy, which would
not be as heavily taxed under this system since it does not produce carbon dioxide, and which we
see as a possible solution to the large emissions. Since global warming is a global issue, we would
like to see Bush increase communication with other countries about possible solutions to the
problem and joint ventures the countries can take to combat global warming. We would also like
to say that this project has been especially fun, despite all our meetings deteriorating into a
squabble about whether global warming is occurring and, if so, whether anything should be done.
We would also like to thank you, Professor Wilson, for a great semester in which we enjoyed
ourselves while learning a lot.