Download Great Decisions Energy Use and Global Warming — Fact Sheet

Great Decisions
12 April 2002
Energy Use and
Global Warming —
Fact Sheet
U.S. oil consumption projections for 2010
Source
Consumption estimate (Mbbl/d)
1950 Actual use
1990 Actual use
2000 Actual use
Department of Energy (AOOG91)
Gas Research Institute
Data Resources, Inc.
Wharton Econometric Forecasting Assoc.
National Energy Policy Development Group (’01)
1984 to 2000 trend continued to 2010
1949 to 2000 trend continued to 2010
Imports
6.46
16.99
19.48
20.27
23.24
21.25
19.97
22.5
22.0
24.3
Why we should support the Kyoto Treaty
Oil use
Where oil is found
2
Why we should support the Kyoto Treaty
Electricity sources:
US oil supply
The Hubbert prediction was what actually occurred. See detail below—he predicted 1969 would be the
maximum production for the lower 48 states. The above curve includes Alaskan oil.
3
Why we should support the Kyoto Treaty
The number of rigs is decreasing because the US is so
thoroughly surveyed
End uses of oil
4
Why we should support the Kyoto Treaty
Mileage and related
5
6
Why we should support the Kyoto Treaty
30
Fleet Mileage (mi/gal)
25
20
15
10
5
0
1960
1965
1970
av. mi/(av. gal)
1975
1980
1985
cars alone
1990
1995
trucks alone
2000
combined
SUVs have low mileage.
Comparison of fuel taxes
$4.50
Gasoline Price and Tax ($/gal, 2001)
$4.00
$3.50
$3.00
$2.50
$2.00
$1.50
$1.00
$0.50
United Kingdom
Netherlands
Italy
France
Belgium
Germany
United States
$0.00
Cheap oil encourages profligacy. American taxes (a way to take externalities into account) are extremely
low.
Why we should support the Kyoto Treaty
SUVs are less safe than ordinary cars overall.
7
Why we should support the Kyoto Treaty
SUVs get worse mileage.
Note that as foreign car companies compete in the American market, they power-up their cars.
8
Why we should support the Kyoto Treaty
Air pollution
by source
About half of air pollution is due to transportation.
9
Why we should support the Kyoto Treaty
Sources of smog in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. (Source: South Coast Air Quality Management
District )
10
11
Why we should support the Kyoto Treaty
Percent by which states have to lower NOx emissions
under EPA 2003 rules
State
West Virginia, Ohio, Missouri, Indiana, Kentucky
Percentage reduction required
> 40%
Illinois, Alabama, Maryland, Georgia, Tennessee
Wisconsin, North Carolina, Michigan, Massachusetts,
between 30% and 40%
Pennsylvania, South Carolina
Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut, Virginia
between 20% and 30%
Rhode Island, New York
19%
District of Columbia
9%
PM 2.5
PM 2.5 gets into the lungs and causes myriad health problems. This refers to particles of diameter 2.5 µm
or less.
12
Why we should support the Kyoto Treaty
VOCs
Examples of the connection between exposure and shortening of life due to air pollution
pollutant (amount), effect studied
effect per person per exposure
particulates (change in µg/m3)
lost life expectancy (years shortening)a
7.2 x 10-4
hospital visits with respiratory symptoms b
2.07 x 10-6
respiratory symptoms in adults with asthma (days)c
6.06 x 10-2
chronic obstructive respiratory illness in adults d
5.4 x 10-5
cases of chronic bronchitis in children e
1.61 x 10-3
sulfur dioxide (change in µg/m3)
lost life expectancy (years shortening)f
5.34 x 10-6
ozone (change 6-h concentration in ppb)
lost life expectancy (years shortening)g
8.7 x 10-6
respiratory symptoms (days)h
6.60 x 10+1
Why we should support the Kyoto Treaty
Visibility in National Parks—Acadia, Yosemite, Great Smokies
13
Why we should support the Kyoto Treaty
14
Why we should support the Kyoto Treaty
Temperatures over the last millennium
15
16
Why we should support the Kyoto Treaty
Ten warmest years,
United States and world
through 2001
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
U. S.
Temperature
(°C)
1998
12.74
1934
12.73
1999
12.52
1921
12.50
1931
12.42
2001
12.37
1990
12.36
1953
12.33
1954
12.29
1987,
12.27
1986, 1939
World
Temperature
(°C)
1998
2001
1997
1995
1990
1999
2000
1991
1987
1994,
1988, 1983
14.55
14.42
14.40
14.32
14.31
14.30
14.29
14.26
14.24
14.23
The fact that the years cluster in the last decade is not clear evidence of human-caused
warming, but it is clear evidence of warming.
Why we should support the Kyoto Treaty
Vostok ice cores
(Antarctica)
Note how the three correlate. While correlation is not causation, this is suggestive.
17
Why we should support the Kyoto Treaty
Why we should support the Kyoto Treaty
Prepared for the Great Decisions 2002
segment on Global Warming (summary)
Monetary cost of compliance
Many strands of evidence say—
We can achieve many goals at a cost of zero or savings to industry!
Various costs of noncompliance
costs for air conditioning of southern cities grows, disease may spread farther, there will be
more and severer storms, more floods, sea level will rise, and the historical evidence is that
weather and climate have led to the rise and fall of civilizations
Is it worth it to pay real money, “insurance money,” to prevent the
unwanted consequences of global warming?
Equity issues
Developed countries caused the current situation
Equity says that them as made the mess should have to pay to clean it
up, even if it costs something.
Stewardship issues
we have a moral duty to preserve Earth for future generations, a moral obligation to the
many species of plant and animal that will be affected
We have a moral/religious obligation to those injured as a result of our
actions, even if it costs us to address the injuries or prevent them.
18
Why we should support the Kyoto Treaty
Why we should support the Kyoto Treaty
Prepared for the Great Decisions 2002
segment on Global Warming
Gordon J. Aubrecht, II
Monetary cost of compliance
First, let’s tackle the issue of cost. There are a lot of numbers being thrown around about
cost. Mr. Bush said joining Kyoto would cost “$400 billion and 4.9 million jobs.” Not
very many of the figures used are very solid, and I certainly include Mr. Bush’s in that
category.
I’d like to draw your attention to a National Academy study made quite some time ago,
1992.(1) This voluminous study pointed out that there were many things that could be done
for a cost less than or equal to zero. In other words, despite or because of the “free
market” there were measures that one could take on energy that would REDUCE
emissions, SAVE energy, and SAVE money. These measures have come to be known as
“no regrets” measures. Despite that, this country has not taken these measures, under Mr.
Clinton’s or Mr. Bush’s leadership. I know it sounds silly and unbelievable, but it’s true.
The reason may be that it would cost money initially and involve change. It has been
estimated that emissions of CO2 can be reduced 35% below that of 1987 levels within 25
years without need for technological breakthrough.(2a) Reduction in energy intensity in
industry and end use could show spectacular real savings to the industries.(2b)
A more recent National Academy study, made at the request of the Bush Administration,(3)
has reinforced the conclusion that global warming is real, and that “no regrets” policies
should be implemented. Mr. Bush has so far declined to do so.
Additionally, the International Panel on Climate Change, a group of nonpolitical scientists
from all over the world, has endorsed a “no regrets” policy as the first step in addressing
the issues of climate change.(4)
Number 1, IN SUM: We can achieve many goals at a cost of zero or savings to
industry!
Various costs of noncompliance
Second, even if mitigation does cost money, we must look at the cost of the coming
warming. The EPA has estimated annual additional electricity costs of $33 to $73 billion
for cities in the southern US for more air conditioning.(5) The United Nations has estimated
the cost as about $300 billion/yr to pay for losses from the greater number and increased
intensity of storms, loss of land to the sea, problems with fisheries, and so on.(6) At least
some of that money will have to be paid by the US (Hurricane Andrew was only an example
of what might be coming). Flooding will occur more often, and cost more to clean up after
(see the picture below, Fig. 2 from Milly et al., Ref. 7).(7) Further, reducing global warming
will reduce cost of medical care in the US and other developed as a side result by reducing
pollution.(8) In addition, there have been many predictions (albeit controversial) that tropical
19
Why we should support the Kyoto Treaty
diseases could escape from their current boundaries and affect countries such as the US
(malaria, dengue fever, lassa fever, etc.).(9)
Even more, a rise in sea level of 1 cm translates on average to a loss in shoreline land of 1
meter (a 100 to 1 ratio). According to reports from the 2002 AAAS meeting, the sea level
could rise by up to 30 centimeters over the next century, twice as much as the IPCC reckons
on.(10) The costs of protecting low-lying cities such as New York, Baltimore, and
Charleston are incredibly huge, far in excess of the numbers cited by Mr. Bush above. If
paying some money now prevents even some these abovementioned expenditures, it may
well have been worth it. After all, people commonly buy insurance at substantial expense to
prevent having to lose all their assets if disaster strikes; this is a similar argument.
Finally, natural climate change has been implicated in the destruction of civilizations. While
we have more technological know-how than peoples in earlier times, we’ve never lived
through a 30-year drought, as many people in the midwest did in the late 1500s. Do we
want to take this chance?(11)
Number 2, IN SUM: Is it worth it to pay real money, “insurance money,” to prevent
the unwanted consequences of global warming?
Equity issues
Third, the United States, with 4% of the world’s population, uses 25% of the world’s
energy, and is responsible for more than 25% of the total carbon dioxide released at present.
Historically speaking, the US is responsible for far more than 25% of the carbon dioxide
released until now. If we believe in equity, the US should shoulder AT THE VERY LEAST
25% of the world burden in the cleanup. The standard of living we enjoy was bought by the
release of these gases.
Does it make a difference that we didn’t know the consequences when we engaged in the
actions? I don’t think so, personally. If I break something in a china shop, I should expect
20
Why we should support the Kyoto Treaty
to pay for it even if I didn’t get the use of the thing I broke. In the case of energy
production, I have benefited; how can I justify not paying for the mess I made. Obviously,
this expense far outstrips our proportion of the world population, but our past benefits also
far outstripped the proportion of the world population. We should be prepared to pay much
more than many others to help clean up the mess we made.
Number 3, IN SUM: Equity says that them as made the mess should have to pay to
clean it up, even if it costs something.
Stewardship issues
Fourth, religious principles tell us that we are stewards of God’s Earth and we are our
brothers’ keeper. Even if we are not religious, we have a moral duty to preserve Earth for
future generations. We have an obligation to prevent island states from rolling under the
ocean waves. We have an obligation to ameliorate the problems that a warmer world will
bring because agriculture will suffer in many regions (see figure below).
Areas of Earth that would have greater of less agricultural productivity in a warmer world of 2080. Source:
Max Planck Institute of Meteorology, Climate model ECHAM4 (Ref. 12)
We have a moral obligation to the many species of plant and animal that will be affected to
prevent the changes.(13) A warmer world is likely to be a more violent world, and we have an
obligation to hold the innocents harmless. A study suggests that a 1 °C increase in average
temperature would result in about 9 more murders or assaults per 100,000 people (around
24,000 additional murders and assaults for the US Population).(14) There will be more fires
in a warmer world, and more attendant deaths.(15)
Number 4, IN SUM: We have a moral/religious obligation to those injured as a
result of our actions, even if it costs us to address the injuries or prevent them.
21
Why we should support the Kyoto Treaty
Citations:
(1) Panel on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming, D. J. Evans et al., Policy Implications of
Greenhouse Warming (Washington, D.C: National Academy Press, 1992); E. S. Rubin et al., Science
257, 148 (1992).
(2a) R. M. Bierbaum, R. M. Friedman, H. Levenson, R. D. Rapoport, and N. Sundt, in B. G. Levi, D.
Hafemeister, and R. Scribner, eds., Global Warming: Physics and Facts (New York: American Institute of
Physics, 1992), 237.
(2b) W. Fulkerson, D. B. Reister, A. M. Perry, A. T. Crane, D. E. Kash, and S. I. Auerbach, Science
246, 868 (1989); H. Akbari and A. Rosenfeld, testimony before the California Energy Commission,
“Conservation Supply Curves for Reducing CO2 Emission,” LBL (25 January 1990); K. Yokobon and S.X. Xie, in F. M. Bernthal, ed., Climate Change: the IPCC Response Strategies (Washington, D.C. &
Covela, CA: Island Press, 1991), 45; Enquete-Kommission “Vorsorge zum Schutz der Erdatmosphäre” der
Deutschen Bundestages, Schutz der Erde, V. 2 (Bonn: Economia Verlag and Karlsruhe: Verlag C. F. Müller,
1991); A. H. Rosenfeld and L. Price, in B. G. Levi, D. Hafemeister, and R. Scribner, eds., Global
Warming: Physics and Facts (New York: American Institute of Physics, 1992), 261; J. A. Laurmann, in L.
Rosen and R. Glasser, eds., Climate Change and Energy Policy (New York: American Institute of Physics,
1992), 341; A. Grübler, S. Messner, L. Schrattenholzer, and A. Schäfer, Energy 18, 461 (1993). D. F.
Spencer, “A preliminary assessment of carbon dioxide mitigation options,” Annu. Rev. Energy Environ.
16, 259 (1991); D. F. Spencer, in L. Rosen and R. Glasser, eds., Climate Change and Energy Policy (New
York: American Institute of Physics, 1992), 176.
(3) Committee on the Science of Climate Change, National Academy of Sciences, Climate Change
Sciences (R. J. Cicerone (Chair), E. J. Barron, R. E. Dickinson, I. Y. Fung, J. E. Hansen, T. R. Karl, R.
S. Lindzen, J. C. Mcwilliams, F. S. Rowland, E. S. Sarachik, and J. M. Wallace) (Washington, DC:
National Academy Press, 2001).
(4) B. Bolin (Chair of the IPCC, Chairman of the Drafting Team); J. T. Houghton; G. Meira Filho; R. T.
Watson; M. C. Zinyowera; J. Bruce; H. Lee; B. Callander; R. Moss; E. Haites; R. Acosta Moreno; T.
Banuri; Z. Dadi; B. Gardner; J. Goldemberg; J.–C. Hourcade; M. Jefferson; J. Melillo; I. Mintzer; R.
Odingo; M. Parry; M. Perdomo; C.a Quennet–Thielen; P. Vellinga; and N. Sundararaman, IPCC Second
Assessment Synthesis of Scientific-Technical Information relevant to interpreting Article 2 of the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change (Geneva, Switzerland: ICPP, 1996). D. L. Albritton, L. G.
Meira Filho, U. Cubasch, X. Dai, Y. Ding, D. J. Griggs, B. Hewitson, J. T. Houghton, I. Isaksen, T.
Karl, M. McFarland, V.P. Meleshko, J. F. B. Mitchell, M. Noguer, B. S. Nyenzi M. Oppenheimer, J. E.
Penner, S. Pollonais, T. Stocker, and K. E. Trenberth, “Report of Working Group I,” IPCC Report (2001).
K. S. White, Q. K. Ahmad, O. Anisimov, N. Arnell, S. Brown, M. Campos, T. Carter, C. Liu, S. Cohen,
P. Desanker, D. J. Dokken, W. Easterling, B. Fitzharris, H. Gitay, A. Githeko, S. Gupta, H. Harasawa, B.
P. Jallow, Z. W. Kundzewicz, E. L. La Rovere, M. Lal, N. Leary, C. Magadza, L. J. Mata, R. McLean, A.
McMichael, K. Miller, E. Mills, M. Q. Mirza, D. Murdiyarso, L. A. Nurse, C. Parmesan, M. L. Parry, O.
Pilifosova, B. Pittock, J. Price, T. Root, C. Rosenzweig, J. Sarukhan, H.-J. Schellnhuber, S. Schneider,
M. J. Scott, G. Sem, B. Smit, J. B. Smith, A. Tsyban, P. Vellinga, R. Warrick, and D. Wratt, “Report of
Working Group II,” IPCC Report (2001). T. Banuri, T. Barker, I. Bashmakov, K. Blok, J. Christensen, O.
Davidson, M. Grubb, K. Halsnaes, C. Jepma, E. Jochem, P. Kauppi, O. Krankina, A. Krupnick, L.
Kuijpers, S. Kverndokk, A. Markandya, B. Metz, W. R. Moomaw, J. R. Moreira, T. Morita, J. Pan, L.
Price, R. Richels, J. Robinson, J. Sathaye, R. Swart, K. Tanaka, T. Taniguchi, F. Toth, T. Taylor, and J.
Weyant, “Report of Working Group III,” IPCC Report (2001).
(5) J. B. Smith and D. A. Tirpak, The Potential Effects of Global Climate Change on the United States
(Washington, D.C.: Congressional Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, June 1989).
(6) G. Berz, “Insuring against catastrophe,” Our Planet (1/2001). United Nations Environment Programme,
“Impacts of climate change to cost world over $300 billion annually,” United Nations Environment
Programme press release (2001/11), 5 February 2001.
(7) Committee on Abrupt Climate Change, National Academy of Sciences, Abrupt Climate Change:
Inevitable Surprises (R. Alley, chair, J. Marotzke, W. Nordhaus, J. Overpeck, D. Peteet, R. Pielke, Jr., R.
Pierrehumbert, P. Rhines, T. Stocker, L. D. Talley, and J. M. Wallace) (Washington, DC: National
Academy Press, 2002). R. Schnur, “The investment forecast,” Nature 415, 483 (2002). T. N. Palmer and
J. Räisänen, “Quantifying the risk of extreme seasonal precipitation events in a changing climate,”Nature
22
Why we should support the Kyoto Treaty
415, 512 (2002).P. C. D. Milly, R. T. Wetherald, K. A. Dunne, and T. L. Delworth, “Increasing risk of
great floods in a changing climate,” Nature 415, 514 (2002). J. P. Bruce, in R. Bras, ed., The World at
Risk: Natural Hazards and Climate Change (New York: American Institute of Physics, 1993), 3; G. A.
Berz, ibid., 217.
(8) L. Cifuentes, V. H. Borja-Aburto, N. Gouveia, G. Thurston, and D. Lee Davis, “Hidden health benefits
of greenhouse gas mitigation,” Science 293, 1257 (2001).
(9) R. Aktar, R. Cavacavallo, D. Gubler, A. Haines, R. S. Kovats, P. Martens, J. Patz, A. Sasaki, (Lead
authors), K. L. Ebi, D. Focks, L. Kalkstein, E. Lindgren, S. Lindsay, and R. Sturrock, in A. McMichael
and A. Githenko, eds., “Human health,” Ch. 10 in J. J. McCarthy, O. F. Canzini, N. A. Leary, D. J.
Dokken, and K. S. White, eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge
and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001). L. M. Carter, E. Shea, M. Hammett, C. Anderson, G.
Dolcemascolo, C. Guard, M. taylor, A. Barnston, Y. He, M. Larsen, L. Loope, L. Malone, and G. Meehi,
“Potential consequences of climate variability and change for the U. S.-affiliated islands of the Pacific and
Carribean,” Ch, 11 in J. Mellilo, A, Janetos, and T. Karl, eds., (National Assessment Synthesis Team)
Climate Change Impacts on the United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and
Change (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001). K. Broad and S. Agrawala, “The
Ethiopia Food Crisis--Uses and Limits of Climate Forecasts,” Science 289, 1693 (2000). Committee on
Climate, Ecosystems, Infectious Diseases, and Human Health, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and
Climate, National Research Council., Under the Weather: Climate, Ecosystems, and Infectious Disease (D.
Burke (Chair), A. Carmichael, D. Focks, D. J. Grimes, J. Harte, S. Lele, P. Martens, J. Mayer, L. Mearns,
R. Pulwarty, L. Real, C. Ropelewski, J. Rose, R. Shope, J. Simpson, M. Wilson) (Washington, DC:
National Academy Press, 2002). P. R. Epstein, “Is global warming harmful to health?,” Sci. Am. 236(2),
50 (2000). J. A. Patz, M. A. McGeehan, S. M. Bernard, K. L. Ebi, P. R. Epstein, A. Grambsch, D. J.
Gubler, P. Reiter, I. Romieu, J. B. Rose, J. M. Samet, J. Trtanj, and T, F. Cecich, “Potential
consequences of climate variability and change for human health in the United States,” Ch. 15 in J.
Mellilo, A, Janetos, and T. Karl, eds., (National Assessment Synthesis Team) Climate Change Impacts on
the United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change (Cambridge and New
York: Cambridge University Press, 2001). P. Martens, “How will climate change affect human health?,”
Am. Sci. 87, 534 (1999). See also L. S. Kalkstein and J. S. Greene, “An evaluation of climate/mortality
relationships in large U.S. cities and the possible impacts of a climate change,” Environ. Health Perspect.
105, 84 (1997). K. J. Linthicum, A. Anyamba, C. J. Tucker, P. W. Kelley, M. F. Myers, and C. J.
Peters, “Climate and satellite indicators to forecast rift valley fever epidemics in Kenya,” Science 285, 397
(1999). See the commentary by P. R. Epstein, “Climate and health,” Science 285, 347 (1999). R. R.
Colwell, “Global climate and infectious disease: the cholera paradigm,”Science 274: 2025 (1996). See also
the story by G. Taubes, “Apocalypse not,” Science 278, 1004 (1997). C. D. Harvell, K. Kim, J. M.
Burkholder, R. R. Colwell, P. R. Epstein, D. J. Grimes, E. E. Hofmann, E. K. Lipp, A. D. M. E.
Osterhaus, R. M. Overstreet, J. W. Porter, G. W. Smith, and G. R. Vasta, “Emerging marine diseases-climate links and anthropogenic factors,” Science 285, 1505 (1999). D. J. Rogers and S. E. Randolph,
“The global spread of malaria in a future, warmer world,” Science 289, 1763 (2000). See the commentary
by C. Dye and P. Reiter, “Temperatures without fevers?,” Science 289, 1697 (2000).
(10) S. Abdulla, “High-water mark,” Nature Science Update, 2 February 2002,
http://www.nature.com/nsu/020218/020218-5.html.
(11) H. Weiss and R. S. Bradley, “What drives societal collapse?,” Science 291, 609 (2001). P. B.
deMenocal, “Cultural responses to climate change during the late holocene,” Science 292, 667 (2001). D.
H. Sandweiss, K. A. Maasch, and D. G. Anderson, “Thansitions in the mid-Holocene,” Science 283, 499
(1999). H. M. Cullen, P. B. deMenocal, S. Hemming, G. Hemming, F. H. Brown, T. Guilderson, and F.
Sirocko, “Climate change and the collapse of the Akkadian empire: Evidence from the deep sea,” Geology
28, 379 (2000). V. J. Polyak and Y. Asmerom, “Late Holocene climate and cultural changes in the
southwestern United States,” Science 294, 148 (2001). R. A. Bryson, Nat. Hist. 89(6), 65 (1980). D. E.
Stahle, M. K. Cleaveland, D. B. Blanton, M. D. Therrell, and D. A. Gay, “The Lost Colony and
Jamestown droughts,” Science 280, 564 (1998).
(12) G. Fischer, M. Shah, H. van Velthuizen, and F. O. Nachtergaele, Global Agroecological Assessment
for Agriculture in the 21st Century (Laxenburg, Austria: International Institute for Applied Systems
Analysis, 2001).
(13) O. E. Sala, F. S. Chapin, III, J. J. Armesto, E. Berlow, J. Bloomfield, R. Dirzo, E. Huber-Sanwald,
L. F. Huenneke, R. B. Jackson, A. Kinzig, R. Leemans, D. M. Lodge, H. A. Mooney, M. Oesterheld, N.
23
Why we should support the Kyoto Treaty
L. Poff, M. T. Sykes, B. H. Walker, M. Walker, and D. H. Wall, “Global biodiversity scenarios for the
year 2100,” Science 287, 1770 (2000). S. D. Smith, T. E. Huxman, S. F. Zitzer, T. N. Charlet, D. C.
Housman, J. S. Coleman, L. K. Fenstermaker, J. R. Seemann, and R. S. Nowak, “Elevated CO2 increases
productivity and invasive species success in an arid ecosystem,” Nature 408, 79 (2000). E. Sanford,
“Regulation of keystone predation by small changes in ocean temperature,” Science 283, 2095 (1999). T.
S. Sillett, R. T. Holmes, and T. W. Sherry, “Impacts of a global climate cycle on population dynamics of
a migratory songbird,” Science 288, 2040 (2000). B. Wuethrich, “How climate change alters rhythms of
the wild,” Science 287, 795 (2000). A. Mysterud, N. Chr. Stenseth, N. G. Yoccoz, R.Langvatn, and G.
Steinheim, “Nonlinear effects of large-scale climatic variability on wild and domestic herbivores,” Nature
410, 1096 (2001). K. Reid and J. P. Croxall, “Environmental response of upper trophic-level predators
reveals a system change in an Antarctic marine ecosystem,” Proc. Royal Soc. B 268, 377 (2001). B. W.
Alto and S. A. Juliano, “Temperature effects on the dynamics of Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae)
populations in the laboratory,” J. Med. Entomol. 38, 548 (2001).
(14) C. A. Anderson, “Heat and violence,” Currrent Directions Psych. Sci. 10, 33 (2001). W.
Behringer,”Climatic change and witch-hunting: the impact of the Little Ice Age on mentalities,” Climatic
Change 43 335 (1999).
(15) S. H. Millspaugh, C. Whitlock, and P. J. Bartlein, “Variations in fire frequency and climate over the
past 17 000 yr in central Yellowstone National Park,” Geology 28, 211–214 (2000).
24
Why we should support the Kyoto Treaty
Why we should support the Kyoto Treaty
Prepared for the Great Decisions 2002
segment on Global Warming
Monetary cost of compliance
Many strands of evidence say—
We can achieve many goals at a cost of zero or savings to industry!
Various costs of noncompliance
costs for air conditioning of southern cities grows, disease may spread farther, there will be
more and severer storms, more floods, sea level will rise, and the historical evidence is that
weather and climate have led to the rise and fall of civilizations
Is it worth it to pay real money, “insurance money,” to prevent the
unwanted consequences of global warming?
Equity issues
Developed countries caused the current situation
Equity says that them as made the mess should have to pay to clean it
up, even if it costs something.
Stewardship issues
we have a moral duty to preserve Earth for future generations, a moral obligation to the
many species of plant and animal that will be affected
We have a moral/religious obligation to those injured as a result of our
actions, even if it costs us to address the injuries or prevent them.
25
26
Why we should support the Kyoto Treaty
A short parable
Ub Samuel, who owns a disposal business, comes into a
suburban community with tons of sewage sludge and dumps it
over all the lawns. Ub says he sees it as fertilizer, and anyway
he’ll make a lot of money disposing of all that undesirable
material. It’s for everyone’s good, because it will fertilize the
lawns eventually, and the problem will go away anyway in a
few months because it will stop stinking (but of course by then
he’ll have returned dumping another load)—and, worst of all,
Ub says, it would harm his company’s economy if he were
forced to clean up the mess or even to stop fouling the lawns, so
he simply won’t do it.
After more complaints, Ub says he could stop adding to the
sludge heaps. But Ub demands that each homeowner pay him to
stop adding to the heaps to compensate him for the losses
sustained because he’ll lose business if he stops dumping.
Explanation
The Kyoto Protocol will not provide any remedy to the real
problem of the past abuse at all. It would simply stop the growth
in the problem (or reduce it slightly). In my analogy, it would be
like stopping Ub Samuel from dumping more sludge into the
streets and lawns of the suburb. It would not clean up what had
already been dropped there.
We Americans are trying to make others pay our costs for us,
trying to weasel out of responsibility. It is only from the most
selfish and greedy perspective, the one adopted by many
politicians, that it could even appear that adherence to Kyoto is
unfair to us. We have already taxed the less-developed countries
by putting them at risk in this warmer world. It would be
immoral to ask them to pay a second time.