ProudPersian
07-16-2005, 09:22 PM
Here is an interesting article on global warming. Bush has screwed the world over with his global warming policy. While Kyoto Protocal was unfair, Bush's blatant disregard is messing up the world's weather. How the weather will change, that is unpredictable, because one tiny differences might do nothing or might change the whole world over. What do u guys think. I know Iran, especially Tehran isn't the most enviromentally healthy place either.
While it is now a widely accepted scientific fact that our climate is changing
in alarming and unnatural ways and humans bear a large part of the responsibility for those changes, debate over reducing greenhouse gas emissions has remained contentious. OneWorld presents a three-part series on climate change and our energy choices this week from its new "treeless" magazine, Perspectives, which offers more background and context on the issue, viewpoints from non-profit organizations, and ways for individuals to get involved.
ADVERTISEMENT
Climate Change 101: Understanding the Basics
"Climate change, deforestation, the voracious drain on natural resources cannot be ignored. Unchecked, these forces will hinder the economic development of the most vulnerable nations first and, ultimately, all nations."
Tony Blair
U.K. Prime Minister
Address to U.S. Congress, July 2003
The earth's climate has fluctuated for centuries and, therefore, any warming trends should be no cause for concern, say some. We are, after all, living in an inter-glacial period. Despite this view, there is a growing scientific assessment that warming trends are accelerating and that such "climate change" will have damaging impacts on the global environment.
Whatever side of the debate one is on, the facts speak for themselves. Several of the hottest years on record, for example, have occurred since 1990. Numerous studies conducted in the polar regions have shown the steady melting of glaciers, sea ice, and permafrost. In a special issue on global warming,
National Geographic chronicles the facts behind rising sea levels, shrinking lakes, bleached coral, and mistimed migrations for animals and birds--all attributed to climate change. The report further notes that "the atmosphere's level of carbon dioxide is higher than it has been for hundreds of thousands of years."
Views still differ, however, over the degree to which human activity has contributed to global warming. Even here though, there is a growing international consensus that human-induced emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases like methane and nitrous oxide are a major factor causing climate change. These emissions come from, among other sources, burning ever greater quantities of oil, coal, and gasoline. These gases trap the sun's energy in our atmosphere and cause what is known as a "greenhouse effect." While carbon dioxide occurs naturally and keeps the planet habitable, current CO2 levels are about 40 percent higher today than before the industrial revolution. Although the burning of forest biomass results in direct emissions of CO2, there is disagreement over the exact impacts of deforestation on climate change, or the degree to which forests naturally absorb CO2 emissions. Groups like the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), however, claim that deforestation accounts for about a quarter of human-induced global warming.
Impacts of Climate Change
Warmer temperatures may sound like a welcome development, but they come with dire consequences for some regions. Among these are predictions of more extreme weather events, a drop in agricultural yields, the spread of disease, and a drying of continental interiors. Many of us who live in the U.S. may not directly see the impacts of climate change today--except perhaps in the carbon pollution in our cities. Nonetheless, increased coastal flooding, a decline of crop yields in the southern United States, and more frequent storms and wildfires in certain areas are all possible. Several communities in Alaska have already moved entire towns further inland, at quite high state costs.
Most observers agree, however, that developing countries are more susceptible to the effects of climate change than the West because they do not always have the infrastructure and resources to counter its effects. As noted by the Worldwatch Institute, "people in poor countries face a far greater threat due to risk factors that include inadequate housing located on flood plains and steep hillsides, weak healthcare systems, and heavy economic dependence on agriculture. It is not uncommon for single weather events, such as tropical cyclones and floods, to kill thousands of people in regions such as South Asia, southern China, and Central America."
The opposite problem is occurring in some parts of Africa where the UN reports that total water has decreased by 40 to 60% in large catchment basins of Niger, Lake Chad, and Senegal. In a continent already struggling with poverty and famine, these climate changes are a matter of life and death. In fact, the
World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that 150,000 human deaths in 2000 could be attributed to changes in global climate over the previous decade. As a consequence of climate change, WHO also predicts that diseases like malaria will become more widespread.
Because the effects of climate change are likely to impact the world's poorest countries the most, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are increasingly viewing climate change as a major development concern. Friends of the Earth notes, for example, that the developing world is most likely to feel the effects of climate change through flooding and drought. But it is the industrialized nations, they say, that produce most of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming. The organization thus campaigns for solutions to environmental injustice, a topic often left out of mainstream discussions about climate change.
Kyoto and Beyond
As the risks of man-made climate change became better known, the international community began negotiations on a treaty that would mandate limits for greenhouse gas emissions. The Kyoto Protocol, adopted in 1997, required developed countries to reduce CO2 emissions by an overall 5% from 1990 levels by 2008-2012. Even this level, however, was considered minimal since most scientists claimed that a 50% reduction would be needed to achieve climate stabilization (see WHRC link under article sources).
When the Kyoto Protocol was developed, poorer countries felt they needed to prioritize basic needs and that the rich countries should take responsibility for solving problems that they had primarily caused. Emissions reductions for developing countries were, therefore, to be phased in over time while targets for richer countries were to be imposed sooner. At the insistence of the U.S. government, however, several "flexibility mechanisms" were added to the treaty to, in their view, spread the burden more evenly. Among others, these included the ability to trade carbon emission credits between nations--allowing some to emit more if they helped others to emit less.
Although CO2 emissions from developing countries like China and India are now rising rapidly, it remains that developed countries like the United States are among the biggest emitters; the U.S. alone puts nearly 25% of global greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, for example. The U.S. decision to drop out of the treaty in 2001 was, therefore, a major setback that has been widely frowned upon by the international community.
In leaving the treaty, the George W. Bush administration claimed that it would take its own steps to reduce greenhouse gases, in part because of concerns over lowered economic growth if it were required to meet a 7% reduction in emissions levels. Under the Kyoto Protocol, different countries were given different emissions reduction targets--including 8% for the
European Union and 6% for Japan.
Despite the U.S. opting out of the treaty, many other countries--as well as many environmental NGOs and some businesses and local governments--have disputed the likelihood that abiding by Kyoto targets would significantly hurt the American economy. Some NGOs also note that, without specific targets or timetables, meaningful action to tackle the problem is less likely.
U.S. absence aside, the Kyoto Protocol entered into force in February 2005, after Russia's accession to the treaty. The 150 countries that have ratified the treaty (as of May 2005), will now need to meet legally binding commitments to reduce CO2 emissions. Because emissions in most countries have risen since 1990--in some cases substantially--it will not be an easy task. The national statistics in many countries are, in fact, quite sobering. A few countries in Europe, however, have been gradually reducing emissions and some hopeful initiatives are taking place at regional and local levels.
While it is now a widely accepted scientific fact that our climate is changing
in alarming and unnatural ways and humans bear a large part of the responsibility for those changes, debate over reducing greenhouse gas emissions has remained contentious. OneWorld presents a three-part series on climate change and our energy choices this week from its new "treeless" magazine, Perspectives, which offers more background and context on the issue, viewpoints from non-profit organizations, and ways for individuals to get involved.
ADVERTISEMENT
Climate Change 101: Understanding the Basics
"Climate change, deforestation, the voracious drain on natural resources cannot be ignored. Unchecked, these forces will hinder the economic development of the most vulnerable nations first and, ultimately, all nations."
Tony Blair
U.K. Prime Minister
Address to U.S. Congress, July 2003
The earth's climate has fluctuated for centuries and, therefore, any warming trends should be no cause for concern, say some. We are, after all, living in an inter-glacial period. Despite this view, there is a growing scientific assessment that warming trends are accelerating and that such "climate change" will have damaging impacts on the global environment.
Whatever side of the debate one is on, the facts speak for themselves. Several of the hottest years on record, for example, have occurred since 1990. Numerous studies conducted in the polar regions have shown the steady melting of glaciers, sea ice, and permafrost. In a special issue on global warming,
National Geographic chronicles the facts behind rising sea levels, shrinking lakes, bleached coral, and mistimed migrations for animals and birds--all attributed to climate change. The report further notes that "the atmosphere's level of carbon dioxide is higher than it has been for hundreds of thousands of years."
Views still differ, however, over the degree to which human activity has contributed to global warming. Even here though, there is a growing international consensus that human-induced emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases like methane and nitrous oxide are a major factor causing climate change. These emissions come from, among other sources, burning ever greater quantities of oil, coal, and gasoline. These gases trap the sun's energy in our atmosphere and cause what is known as a "greenhouse effect." While carbon dioxide occurs naturally and keeps the planet habitable, current CO2 levels are about 40 percent higher today than before the industrial revolution. Although the burning of forest biomass results in direct emissions of CO2, there is disagreement over the exact impacts of deforestation on climate change, or the degree to which forests naturally absorb CO2 emissions. Groups like the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), however, claim that deforestation accounts for about a quarter of human-induced global warming.
Impacts of Climate Change
Warmer temperatures may sound like a welcome development, but they come with dire consequences for some regions. Among these are predictions of more extreme weather events, a drop in agricultural yields, the spread of disease, and a drying of continental interiors. Many of us who live in the U.S. may not directly see the impacts of climate change today--except perhaps in the carbon pollution in our cities. Nonetheless, increased coastal flooding, a decline of crop yields in the southern United States, and more frequent storms and wildfires in certain areas are all possible. Several communities in Alaska have already moved entire towns further inland, at quite high state costs.
Most observers agree, however, that developing countries are more susceptible to the effects of climate change than the West because they do not always have the infrastructure and resources to counter its effects. As noted by the Worldwatch Institute, "people in poor countries face a far greater threat due to risk factors that include inadequate housing located on flood plains and steep hillsides, weak healthcare systems, and heavy economic dependence on agriculture. It is not uncommon for single weather events, such as tropical cyclones and floods, to kill thousands of people in regions such as South Asia, southern China, and Central America."
The opposite problem is occurring in some parts of Africa where the UN reports that total water has decreased by 40 to 60% in large catchment basins of Niger, Lake Chad, and Senegal. In a continent already struggling with poverty and famine, these climate changes are a matter of life and death. In fact, the
World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that 150,000 human deaths in 2000 could be attributed to changes in global climate over the previous decade. As a consequence of climate change, WHO also predicts that diseases like malaria will become more widespread.
Because the effects of climate change are likely to impact the world's poorest countries the most, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are increasingly viewing climate change as a major development concern. Friends of the Earth notes, for example, that the developing world is most likely to feel the effects of climate change through flooding and drought. But it is the industrialized nations, they say, that produce most of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming. The organization thus campaigns for solutions to environmental injustice, a topic often left out of mainstream discussions about climate change.
Kyoto and Beyond
As the risks of man-made climate change became better known, the international community began negotiations on a treaty that would mandate limits for greenhouse gas emissions. The Kyoto Protocol, adopted in 1997, required developed countries to reduce CO2 emissions by an overall 5% from 1990 levels by 2008-2012. Even this level, however, was considered minimal since most scientists claimed that a 50% reduction would be needed to achieve climate stabilization (see WHRC link under article sources).
When the Kyoto Protocol was developed, poorer countries felt they needed to prioritize basic needs and that the rich countries should take responsibility for solving problems that they had primarily caused. Emissions reductions for developing countries were, therefore, to be phased in over time while targets for richer countries were to be imposed sooner. At the insistence of the U.S. government, however, several "flexibility mechanisms" were added to the treaty to, in their view, spread the burden more evenly. Among others, these included the ability to trade carbon emission credits between nations--allowing some to emit more if they helped others to emit less.
Although CO2 emissions from developing countries like China and India are now rising rapidly, it remains that developed countries like the United States are among the biggest emitters; the U.S. alone puts nearly 25% of global greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, for example. The U.S. decision to drop out of the treaty in 2001 was, therefore, a major setback that has been widely frowned upon by the international community.
In leaving the treaty, the George W. Bush administration claimed that it would take its own steps to reduce greenhouse gases, in part because of concerns over lowered economic growth if it were required to meet a 7% reduction in emissions levels. Under the Kyoto Protocol, different countries were given different emissions reduction targets--including 8% for the
European Union and 6% for Japan.
Despite the U.S. opting out of the treaty, many other countries--as well as many environmental NGOs and some businesses and local governments--have disputed the likelihood that abiding by Kyoto targets would significantly hurt the American economy. Some NGOs also note that, without specific targets or timetables, meaningful action to tackle the problem is less likely.
U.S. absence aside, the Kyoto Protocol entered into force in February 2005, after Russia's accession to the treaty. The 150 countries that have ratified the treaty (as of May 2005), will now need to meet legally binding commitments to reduce CO2 emissions. Because emissions in most countries have risen since 1990--in some cases substantially--it will not be an easy task. The national statistics in many countries are, in fact, quite sobering. A few countries in Europe, however, have been gradually reducing emissions and some hopeful initiatives are taking place at regional and local levels.