Today I read an article about how the most recent report from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) could have miscalculated the ability of technological advances to help stabilize carbon dioxide emissions.
The IPCC was created to investigate global warming, and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize along with Al Gore. Their findings were that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level.” In addition to researching the problem of warming they developed the most sophisticated climate models to date, and ran several scenarios. The goal was to determine what role governments would need to play to regulate carbon dioxide emissions and prevent catastrophe. These models were developed by top scientists, and basically are a carbon-focused version of the IPAT equation. In truth, there is nothing basic about them. They analyze the incredibly complex relationship between hundreds of different variables, such as variations in weather, changes in the economy, changes in energy consumption worldwide, re-forestation and deforestation, and the advances in technology that would increase energy efficiency.
The authors of the article I read today argue that “two-thirds or more of all the energy efficiency improvements and decarbonization of energy supply required to stabilize greenhouse gases is already built into the IPCC reference scenarios. This is because the scenarios assume a certain amount of spontaneous technological change and related decarbonization. Thus, the IPCC implicitly assumes that the bulk of the challenge of reducing future emissions will occur in the absence of climate policies. We believe that these assumptions are optimistic at best and unachievable at worst, potentially seriously underestimating the scale of the technological challenge associated with stabilizing greenhouse-gas concentrations.”
In layman’s terms, the authors suspect that the climate models estimated that better technology would make us far more efficient faster than it is reasonable to expect, and diminished the sheer amount of technological change necessary to curb warming. Therefore, the IPCC figured that the successor to the Kyoto Protocol would not need to be as strict as it should be to prevent serious losses due to the consequences of climate change. This is troubling because the U.S. is already balking at the IPCC’s allegedly watered-down recommendations.
Further challenges to the successor of Kyoto because there is still debate as to whether it is right for developed nations to require less developed nations to sign on to the next emissions protocol. Already countries such as the U.S. say they will not sign such an agreement unless the entire globe is willing to sign on, while developing nations argue that they will not be able to increase their standard of living and eradicate poverty under such strict emissions rules. This is a timely question while all our attention is focused on China and the upcoming Olympics. China’s rapid industrialization is bringing wealth and hope to China’s poor, however it is decimating their environment and ours. Every ten days a new coal-fired power plant opens in China, sending sulfur dioxide, mercury, and other biproducts of coal combustion around southeast Asia and to the western U.S. This pollution is causing acid rain to fall in the U.S., seriously damaging ecosystems. It also has major consequences for human health. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that over two million people suffer premature death each year because of poor air quality.
As time goes on it seems less and less likely that the global south will remain exempt from carbon dioxide emission regulations. Initially it was argued that even though nations like China and India were developing rapidly, it would be several years until these countries surpassed emissions giant the U.S., and could be exempted from the next major protocol. The IPCC forecasted that China would not pass the U.S. in total carbon emissions until 2020; however, China surpassed the U.S. in 2006, and by a whopping 8%. It appears that we have reached the point in world history where the relative wealth or development of a nation can no longer be taken into account when drafting carbon dioxide regulations. Furthermore, we can no longer ignore the global problem of air pollution. In the U.S., under the Acid Rain Program, we have reduced sulfur dioxide emissions by 40% (below 1990 levels) and the NOX Budget Trading Program has reduced NOX levels by 74% (below 1990 levels). It is possible to achieve the same results overseas, but only if countries with the technology send it overseas, at a price developing countries can afford.
To bring this back to the Olympics, and the recent media coverage of protests, I’d like to point out that environmental abuses in China have garnered relatively little press. (One exception is this article from Fox News.) I understand that violations against the most basic human rights may take higher priority than the environment, but to me the right to breathe clean air seems to be one of the most important and basic human rights. Furthermore, I am disappointed by the lack of coverage of the IOC’s efforts to green (or in truth not green) the games. In 2004, China wanted to make “being green” one of the 3 main themes of this year’s games, but it seems to have fallen by the wayside. The Olympic Torch relay will release over 11 million pounds of carbon dioxide, and the air travel of athletes, coaches, and spectators will only add to the Olympic footprint. I am sure that with all the new buildings and other infrastructure being built for the games some sustainable technology is being incorporated, but I certainly haven’t read anything about it. I wish the media would broaden their focus on abuses in China’s strict society, and drop the environmentalists a bone.
New York Times article on China and coal: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/business/worldbusiness/11chinacoal.html?pagewanted=all
EPA Clean Air Markets Division Annual Reports: http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/progress-reports.html
No comments:
Post a Comment