Predictions, skepticism, victims, trends

A product of the burning of coal, which is immediately objected to, is smog. As discussed by Sean McDonagh, ₆ in industrial states such as the United States, England, Germany, and Japan, the preferred way of combating smog was building taller smoke stacks. This measure helps reduce the smog in the vicinity of the plant, but results in acid rain that affects lakes, forests, and farmlands in countries hundreds of miles away. Thousands of freshwater lakes in Canada and Scandinavia have become so acidic that all life-forms are dying. Canadian scientists estimated that 4.4 million tonnes of acid reaching eastern Canada originated in the US. In reply, the Reagan administration insisted on more scientific studies before limiting the emissions from heavy industries and coal burning utilities. ₆ Note that in 1984, the Thatcher and Reagan governments refused to sign an agreement on the reduction of the emission of Sulphur dioxide (by 30% over the next 5 years) which is the constituent of acid rain causing the problems. ₆ The story has a familiar ring to it.

As to the burning of coal itself, Montana and Wyoming together have more energy in coal reserves than Saudi Arabia has in oil reserves. Most of the coal is used to produce electricity via coal-fired steam turbines operating at 25% efficiency. A pound of coal releases about 3.5 pounds of CO₂ into the atmosphere. This makes coal the dirtiest resource in terms of acid rain, regional air pollution, and global warming. Like the U.S., China, too, has huge coal deposits and is predicted to double its coal production in order to build up its industrial capacity. On the plus side is that China signed onto the Marrakesh Accord (the follow-on to the Kyoto protocol), according to which the industrial nations must, on average, decrease their greenhouse gas emissions to 7% below the 1990 levels by the year 2012; the U.S. did not participate in the Marrakesh Accord!

Unfortunately, carbon dioxide (CO₂) is well mixed in the Earth's atmosphere. That is, the level of CO₂ everywhere on the planet is influenced by each country's CO₂ emissions. One country could drastically lower its emissions, and have little effect on the main greenhouse gas everywhere. Only a joint effort by the countries producing major emissions would have a significant impact on greenhouse gas levels.

Skepticism towards global warming:

There is general unwillingness to tackle global warming, to face this enormous environmental challenge. There are, of course, still those who deny that any warming is taking place, and/or who maintain that global warming can be explained by already well known natural phenomena. Not surprisingly, few of them are climatologists, and fewer still are climatologists who are not funded by the fossil fuel industry.

Outside the political institutions the ranks of the global-warming skeptics seem to be growing thinner:

"Over the last few decades there's been much more evidence for the human influence on climate. We reached the point where it's only by including human activity that we can explain what's happening."

We cannot yet say that the higher temperatures we are getting are the result of global warming. What we can say is that they correspond to the predictions made by climate scientists.

Who are victimized by global warming?

With about 4% of the world's population, the U.S. use about a quarter of world's energy. Each U.S. inhabitant uses twice the energy of a Western European, 12 times that of a resident of China, 33 times more than a citizen of India, and 147 times that of a Bangladeshi. While the U.S. and other industrialized countries produce most of the CO₂ and other greenhouse gases, the effects of global warming are felt worldwide, most dramatically among the fringe cultures and species of the world whose homelands are degraded or destroyed.

Some of the regions hardest hit by global warming will be in the developing nations of the tropics. Since the damage is primarily the result of gas emissions by the rich nations, this is of global justice concern. Among the big losers will be the inhabitants of tropical islands who could lose their homes to the rising seas.

The targets set in the Kyoto Protocol are merely scratching the surface of the problem. The aim is to reduce emissions from industrialized nations only by around 5%, whereas the consensus among many climate scientists is that in order to avoid the worst consequences of global warming, emissions cuts in the order of 60% across the board are needed. The 60% reduction was effectively rejected by the British Government - the US Government refused to accept even a modest 5% reduction by signing up to the Kyoto Protocol.

Recent trends:

Industrial countries cut their overall emissions by about 3% from 1990 to 2000. However, even this minimal cut happened because a sharp decrease in emissions from the collapsing economies of former Soviet countries masked an 8% rise among rich countries. In the words of Jeffrey Kluger:

"When it comes to the atmosphere, there is no such thing as creative accounting. If the world's population won't bring their climate ledger back into balance, the climate will surely do it for them." ₇

Unfortunately, the political processes are not moving at a speed to satisfy scientists who want to see large cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. It is unfortunate that the climate resembles a speeding train that takes a long time to slow down, i.e., if we move quickly to clean energy, stop deforesting the tropics, and move to more sustainable agriculture, the effect will not be immediate.

References used:

The following information sources were used to prepare and update the above essay. The hyperlinks are not necessarily still active today.

1. McDonagh Sean, "Johannesburg 2002," http://eapi.admu.edu.ph/eapr003/sean.htm
2. Goldsmith Edward, "The Way," Themis Books, (1996),
3. Rincon Paul, "Greenland ice swells ocean rise," BBC News, 2006-FEB-16.
4. Monbiot George, "Sleeping to Extinction," The Guardian, 2003-AUG-12.
5. Mazza Patrick, "Transportation and Global Warming Solutions," 2004-MAY, at:
   http://www.climatesolutions.org
6. McDonagh Sean, "To Care for the Earth," Geoffrey Chapman, (1989).
7. Kluger Jeffrey, "Evidence is Mounting that Human Activity is Helping Fuel These
   Monster Hurricanes," Time, 2005-OCT-03.