Mitigation of global warming

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mitigation of global warming involves taking actions aimed at reducing the extent of global warming. This is in contrast to adaptation to global warming which involves taking action to minimize the negative effects of global warming.

Contents 1 Overview 2 Energy efficiency and conservation 2.1 The energy landscape 2.2 Urban Planning 2.3 Building Design 2.4 Transport 3 Alternative energy sources 3.1 Renewable energy 3.1.1 Biofuels 3.1.2 Renewable Energy in the European Union 3.2 Nuclear energy 3.3 Decentralised generation 4 Burning Waste Methane 5 Carbon capture and storage 6 Geoengineering 6.1 Carbon sequestration 6.1.1 Seeding oceans with iron 6.2 Screening out sunlight 6.3 Albedo enhancement 7 Governmental and Intergovernmental Action 7.1 Kyoto Protocol 7.2 Encouraging use changes 7.2.1 Carbon emissions trading 7.2.2 Carbon tax 7.3 U.S. government attempts at suppression 8 Non-governmental approaches 8.1 Legal action 8.2 Personal choices 9 Business Opportunities and Risks 10 Mitigation in developing countries 11 Population Control 12 Nanotechnology 13 References 14 See also 15 External links 15.1 Official 15.2 NGO/academic 15.3 Academic 15.4 Business 15.5 Commentary

[edit] Overview

The scientific consensus on global warming, together with the precautionary principle and the fear of non-linear climate transitions^[1] is leading to increasing action to mitigate global warming.

The European Union has set a target of limiting the global temperature rise to 2 °C compared to preindustrial levels, of which 0.8 °C has already taken place and another 0.5 °C is already committed.

The 2 °C rise is typically associated in climate models with a carbon dioxide concentration of 400-500 ppm by volume; the current level as at 2007.Jan is 383 ppm by volume, and rising at 2 ppm annually. Hence, to avoid a very likely breach of the 2 °C target, CO₂ levels would have to be stabilised very soon; this is generally regarded as unlikely, based on current programs in place to date.^[2]

There are five categories of actions that can be taken to mitigate global warming:

1. Reduction of energy use (per person)
2. Shifting from carbon-based fossil fuels to alternative energy sources
3. Carbon capture and storage
4. Geoengineering including carbon sequestration
5. Birth control, to lessen demand for resources such as energy and land clearing

Strategies for mitigation of global warming include development of new technologies; carbon offsets; renewable energy such as biodiesel, solar power, tidal and ocean energy, geothermal power, and wind power; electric or hybrid automobiles; fuel cells; energy conservation; carbon credits; carbon taxes; enhancing natural carbon dioxide sinks; population control; and carbon capture and storage. Many environmental groups encourage individual-lifestyle and political action against global warming, and there has been business action on climate change.

Pacala and Socolow of Princeton ^[3] have proposed a program to reduce CO₂ emissions by 1 billion metric tons per year − or 25 billion tons over the 50-year period. The proposed 15 different programs, any seven of which could achieve the goal, are:

1. efficient vehicles − increase fuel economy from 30 to 60 mpg for 2 billion vehicles,
2. reduce use of vehicles − improve urban design to reduce miles driven from 10,000 to 5,000 miles per year for 2 billion vehicles,
3. efficient buildings − reduce energy consumption by 25%,
4. improve efficiency of coal plants from today's 40% to 60%,
5. replace 1,400 gigawatts of coal power plants with natural gas,
6. capture and store carbon emitted from 800 gigawatts of new coal plants,
7. capture and reuse hydrogen created by #6 above,
8. capture and store carbon from coal to synfuelsconversion at 30 million barrels per day,
9. displace 700 gigawatts of coal power with nuclear,
10. add 2 million 1 megawatt windmills (50 times current capacity),
11. displace 2,000 gigawatts of coal with solar power (700 times current capacity),
12. produce hydrogen fuel from 4 million 1 megawatt windmills,
13. use biomass to make fuel to displace oil (100 times current capacity),
14. stop de-forestation and re-establish 300 million hectares of new tree plantations,
15. conservation tillage − apply to all crop land (10 times current usage).

[edit] Energy efficiency and conservation

Main article: Energy conservation

Energy which is saved by improvements in efficiency has, in practice, often provided good environmental benefit and provided a net cost saving to the energy user. Building insulation, fluorescent lighting, and public transportation are some of the most effective means of conserving energy, and by extension, the environment. However, Jevons paradox poses a challenge to the goal of reducing overall energy use (and thus environmental impact) by energy conservation methods.

Energy conservation is the practice of increasing the efficiency of use of energy in order to achieve higher useful output for the same energy consumption. This may result in increase of national security, personal security, financial capital, human comfort and environmental value. Individuals and organizations that are direct consumers of energy may want to conserve energy in order to reduce energy costs and promote environmental values. Industrial and commercial users may want to increase efficiency and maximize profit.

On a larger scale, energy conservation is an element of energy policy. The need to increase the available supply of energy (for example, through the creation of new power plants, or by the importation of more energy) is lessened if societal demand for energy can be reduced, or if growth in demand can be slowed. This makes energy conservation an important part of the debate over climate change and the replacement of non-renewable resources with renewable energy. Encouraging energy conservation among consumers is often advocated as a cheaper or more environmentally sensitive alternative to increased energy production.

[edit] The energy landscape

Residential buildings, commercial buildings, and the transportation of people and freight use the majority of the energy consumed by the United States each year. Specifically, the industrial sector uses 38 percent of total energy, closely followed by the transportation sector at 28 percent, the residential sector at 19 percent, and the commercial sector at 16 percent. On a community level, transportation can account for 40 to 50 percent of total energy use, and residential buildings use another 20 to 30 percent.^[4]

In developed nations, the way of life today is completely dependent on abundant supplies of energy. Energy is needed to heat, cool, and light homes, fuel cars, and power offices. Energy is also critical for manufacturing the products used every day, including the cement, concrete and bricks that shape our communities.^[5]

While the U.S represents only five percent of the world's population, it consumes 25 percent of its energy and generates about 25 percent of its total greenhouse gas emissions. U.S. citizens, for example, use more energy per capita for transportation than do citizens of any other industrialized nation--which in part, reflects the greater distances traveled by Americans compared with citizens of other nations.^[6]

One alarming problem with the close connection between energy and land use is the relative inflexibility of the built environment in relation to energy shifts. Energy availability and pricing are volatile and dependent on changing political and economic factors. While energy shifts can be quick and capricious, land development patterns can be difficult and expensive to alter.

[edit] Urban Planning

Urban planning also has an effect on energy use. Between 1982 and 1997, the amount of land consumed for urban development in the United States increased by 47 percent while the nation's population grew by only 17 percent.^[7] Inefficient land use development practices have increased infrastructure costs as well as the amount of energy needed for transportation, community services, and buildings.

At the same time, a growing number of citizens and government officials have begun advocating a smarter approach to land use planning. These smart growth practices include compact community development, multiple transportation choices, mixed land uses, and practices to conserve green space. These programs offer environmental, economic, and quality-of-life benefits; and they also serve to reduce energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions.

Approaches such as New Urbanism and Transit-oriented development seek to reduce distances travelled, especially by private vehicles, encourage public transit and make walking and cycling more attractive options. This is achieved through medium-density, mixed-use planning and the concentration of housing within walking distance of town centers and transport nodes.

Smarter growth land use policies have both a direct and indirect effect on energy consuming behavior. For example, transportation energy usage, the number one user of petroleum fuels, could be significantly reduced through more compact and mixed use land development patterns, which in turn could be served by a greater variety of non-automotive based transportation choices.

See also: Smart Growth

[edit] Building Design

Emissions from housing are substantial,^[8] and government-supported energy efficiency programmes can make a difference.^[9]

Buildings can be made more efficient through the use of insulation, high-efficiency appliances (particularly hot water heaters and furnaces), double- or triple-glazed gas-filled windows, and building orientation and siting. Alternative energy sources such as geothermal power and passive solar energy reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses emitted. In addition to designing buildings which are more energy efficient, there is the possibility of using lighter-coloured, more reflective materials in the development of urban areas (e.g. by painting roofs white) and planting trees.^[10][11] This saves energy because it cools buildings and reduces the urban heat island effect thus reducing the use of air conditioning.

See also: Sustainable architecture, Green building, and Passive solar building design

[edit] Transport

The development of new technologies, such as electric cars (and hybrids, including PHEVs), and hydrogen cars, may reduce the consumption of oil and emissions of carbon dioxide. CO₂ emissions standards could be applied to conventional vehicles to spur technology development and economical vehicle sizing. Increased use of biofuels such as biodiesel also reduce emissions, especially in conjunction with hybrids and PHEVs. For electric and hydrogen cars, the reduction of carbon emissions will improve further if the way the required electricity is generated is low-emission. A shift from air transport and truck transport to rail transport would reduce emissions significantly.^[12][13] Effective urban planning to reduce sprawl would decrease Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT), lowering emissions from transportation. Increased use of public transport can also reduce greenhouse gas emissions per passenger kilometer.

See also: Sustainable transport

[edit] Alternative energy sources

Main article: Energy development

[edit] Renewable energy

Main articles: Renewable energy and Renewable energy development

One means of reducing carbon emissions is the development of new technologies such as renewable energy. Most forms of renewable energy generate no appreciable amounts of greenhouse gases except for biofuels derived from biomass.

Generally, emissions are a fraction of fossil-fuel-based electricity generation. In some cases, notably with hydro power--once thought to be one of the cleanest forms of energy--there are unexpected results. One study shows that a hydropower plant in the Amazon has 3.6 times larger green house effect per kW·h than electricity production from oil, due to large scale emission of methane from decaying organic material.^[14] This effect applies in particular to dams created by simply flooding a large area, without first clearing it of vegetation.

Currently governments subsidise fossil fuels by an estimated $235 billion a year.[1] However, in some countries, government action has boosted the development of renewable energy technologies—for example, a programme to put solar panels on the roofs of a million homes has made Japan a world leader in that technology, and Denmark's support for wind power ensured its former leadership of that sector. In 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger promised an initiative to install a million solar roofs in California.

In June 2005, the chief executive of BT allegedly became the first head of a British company to admit that climate change is already affecting his company, and affecting its business, and announced plans to source much of its substantial energy use from renewable sources. He noted that, "Since the beginning of the year, the media has been showing us images of Greenland glaciers crashing into the sea, Mount Kilimanjaro devoid of its ice cap and Scotland reeling from floods and gales. All down to natural weather cycles? I think not"[2].

[edit] Biofuels

Main article: Biofuel

Biofuels include organic matter that is continuously produced and renewable (unlike fossil fuels) such as slurry or plants or their derivatives such as wood or turf. Methane can be extracted from animal slurry, or waste treatment plants, or landfills. Ethanol and biodiesel can be received from the anaerobic breakdown of certain plants. Slurry (often from cows and cattle) is used worldwide in generators. Ethanol is very often used as car fuel in South America now, mixed with petrol to make gasohol. Both, although they produce some carbon dioxide, are much more environmentally friendly than traditional fossil fuels. Because, unlike the limited supply of fossil fuels, they will never run out, their prices will continuously improve relative to fossil fuel prices.

Biofuels are not free of greenhouse gas emissions, unlike (for instance) wind power. The greenhouse gas benefit comes because biofuels are ultimately produced from plants which captured carbon from the atmosphere within the last few years, unlike fossil fuels (where the carbon was captured millions of years ago). From a greenhouse gas perspective, the ideal biofuels are generated from waste material which is already being generated for other purposes (such as chaff from grain production) and would otherwise decompose and generate greenhouse gases without producing energy. The next best choice are plants which grow (and thus capture carbon) very quickly.

As of 2005, bioenergy covers approximately 15% of the world's energy consumption^{[citation needed]}.Most bioenergy is consumed in developing countries and is used for direct heating, as opposed to electricity production. Much of this takes the form of wood, the longest-used biofuel, but one of the less effective from a greenhouse gas perspective, because most trees take a relatively time to grow. It is a significant contributor to indoor air pollution, local air pollution and health problems worldwide^{[citation needed]}. Household use also poses a risk of accidents, most importantly fires.

Thermal depolymerization (TDP) is a new process for the conversion of complex organic materials including non oil based materials (for example waste products such as old tyres, offal, wood and plastic) into light crude oil. It has been estimated that in the United States, agricultural waste alone could be used with the process to produce 3.7 billion barrels of oil per year. The USA currently consumes 7.5 billion barrels of oil per year.

[edit] Renewable Energy in the European Union

Main article: Renewable energy in the European Union

The European Union claims that, taken together, the EU states constitute the leading world powers in the development and application of renewable energies^{[citation needed]}. Promotion of renewable energies is intended to play an important role both in the reduction of the EU dependence on foreign energy imports and in the measures which it intends to take to combat climate change. However, Germany is the only member of the EU that is on track to achieve the objectives set by the Kyoto protocol on climate change.

The Maastricht Treaty set an objective of promoting stable growth that is also protective of the environment. The Amsterdam Treaty added the principle of sustainable development to the objectives of the EU. Since 1997, the EU has been working towards a having renewable energies supply 12% of total EU energy consumption in 2010.

The EU and other nations have formed the group of "pioneer countries", and it promised to establish ambitious national or even regional goals to achieve global targets. The Johannesburg Renewable Energy Coalition (JREC) has a total of more than 80 member countries, the EU, Brazil, South Africa and New Zealand among others.

In the European Conference for Renewable Energy of Berlin 2004, the EU defined ambitious goals of its own. The recommendation is to meet a 20% of total energy consumption requirements with renewable energy sources by 2020. Up until that point, the EU had only hoped to duplicate this percentage of 12.5% by 2010. No goal had been set for 2020.

[edit] Nuclear energy

In some countries (such as the UK and Australia, the latter of which has no commercial nuclear energy) there are also discussions about the future role of nuclear power as a possible alternative to fossil fuels with low carbon emissions. Different life cycle studies of nuclear power have come to wildly different conclusions about their emissions. According to one study (van Leeuwen and Smith 2001-2005)[3], carbon dioxide emissions from nuclear power per kilowatt hour are around 20-40% of those for natural gas-fired power stations and about 4 or 5 times greater than that produced by some renewables. But several others show similar emissions from nuclear power and renewables [4]. An important fact to keep in mind is that the bulk of this CO₂ is in fact generated by burning coal to generate electricity for the uranium enrichment process. Coal generation is by far the most polluting form of electricity generation from the global warming point of view.[5] If instead nuclear power plants generated this electricity, then this pollution would be eliminated. This sort of pollution also applies to renewables since the construction of the power plants require the mining and refinement of raw materials.

One study argues that certain gas cogeneration plants are 3-4 times more cost effective than nuclear power for abating CO₂ emissions, if all the heat produced can be used onsite or in a local heating system. However, nuclear power also produces heat which could be used in similar ways. The study found similar costs for windpower and nuclear power if not including external costs (such as back-up power).[6]

It is sometimes said that, using current nuclear technologies, if all fossil-fuel power stations were replaced by nuclear ones, there would only be enough uranium to supply them for a few years. It is true that all known ore bodies would run out very quickly. But the definition of an ore body is "an occurrence of mineralization from which the metal is economically recoverable". If the cost of uranium were to double, the amount of available uranium would increase many times.[7] Such a cost increase would have only a small effect on the consumer, as the cost of fuel is a fraction of the other operating costs, but the lower-quality ores involved would contribute to higher CO₂ emissions.[8] There are a number of alternative nuclear fission technologies, such as already existing breeder reactors, which could vastly extend fuel supplies if required, but they are not without their own issues. Lower-risk thorium cycles are being investigated, but this technology is still years away. [9] [10] [11]

The use of nuclear energy to combat global warming conflicts with some countries' decisions to phase out nuclear power for environmental, social, cost and political reasons.

In the past, nuclear energy was a source of other potent greenhouse gases such as chloro- and fluorohydrocarbons [12]. Most of these emissions were traditionally produced because of leaks in freon cooling systems. Those systems have since switched over to more environmentally friendly cooling gases. [13]

[edit] Decentralised generation

A variety of technologies permitting decentralised electricity generation may permit the reduction of electricity transmission losses and in some cases higher efficiency. These include small-scale solar and wind generation, and small-scale combined heat and power plants. UK power company Powergen markets a microCHP plant which it says allows a household to save 20% of its CO₂ emissions per year (1.5 tons).[14]

[edit] Burning Waste Methane

Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Burning one molecule of methane generates one molecule of carbon dioxide. Accordingly, burning methane which would otherwise be released into the atmosphere (such as at landfills, coal mines, waste treatment plants, etc.) provides a net greenhouse gas emissions benefit.

[edit] Carbon capture and storage

Main article: Carbon Capture and Storage

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a plan to mitigate climate change by capturing carbon dioxide (CO₂) from large point sources such as power plants and subsequently storing it away safely instead of releasing it into the atmosphere. Technology for capturing of CO₂ is already commercially available for large CO₂ emitters, such as power plants. Storage of CO₂, on the other hand is a relatively untried concept and as yet (2006) no powerplant operates with a full carbon capture and storage system.

CCS applied to a modern conventional power plant could reduce CO₂ emissions to the atmosphere by approximately 80-90% compared to a plant without CCS. Capturing and compressing CO₂ requires much energy and would increase the energy needs of a plant with CCS by about 10-40%. This and other system costs is estimated to increase the costs of energy from a power plant with CCS by 30-60% depending on the specific circumstances.

Storage of the CO₂ is envisaged either in deep geological formations, deep oceans, or in the form of mineral carbonates. Geological formations are currently considered the most promising, and these are estimated to have a storage capacity of at least 2000 Gt CO₂. IPCC estimates that the economic potential of CCS could be between 10% and 55% of the total carbon mitigation effort until year 2100.

[edit] Geoengineering

Main article: Planetary engineering

Chapter 28 of the National Academy of Sciences report Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base (1992) defined geoengineering as "options that would involve large-scale engineering of our environment in order to combat or counteract the effects of changes in atmospheric chemistry." They evaluated a range of options to try and give preliminary answers to two questions: can these options work and could they be carried out a reasonable cost. They also sought to encourage discussion of a third question - what adverse side effects might there be. The following types of option were examined: reforestation, increasing ocean absorption of carbon dioxide (Carbon sequestration) and screening out some sunlight. NAS also argued "Engineered countermeasures need to be evaluated but should not be implemented without broad understanding of the direct effects and the potential side effects, the ethical issues, and the risks.".

Some conspiracy theorists use this report as an argument when discussing so-called chemical contrails, or chemtrails, as the chapter on mitigation specifically regards large scale spraying of the skies as a possible solution to solving global warming, among others.

[edit] Carbon sequestration

Main article: Carbon sequestration

Carbon sequestration has been proposed as a method of reducing the amount of radiative forcing. Carbon sequestration is a term that describes processes that remove carbon from the atmosphere. A variety of means of artificially capturing and storing carbon, as well as of enhancing natural sequestration processes, are being explored. The main natural process is photosynthesis by plants and single-celled organisms. Artificial processes vary, and concerns have been expressed about their long-term effects.

Natural sinks can be enhanced by reforestation and afforestation carbon offsets, which fix carbon dioxide for as little as $0.11 per metric ton[15]. However, it requires land.

In practice, artificial capture is likely to be uneconomic unless applied to major sources - in particular, fossil fuel powered power stations. In such cases, costs of energy could well grow by 50%. However, captured CO₂ can be used to force more crude oil out of oil fields, as Statoil and Shell have made plans to do.[16] Some proposals have been made to use algae to capture smokestack emissions, but this has not reached commercial level yet.

[edit] Seeding oceans with iron

The so-called Geritol solution to global warming is a carbon sequestration strategy whimsically named for a tonic advertised to treat the effects of iron-poor blood. It is motivated by evidence that seeding the oceans with iron will increase phytoplankton populations, and thereby draw more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. A report in Nature, 10 October 1996, by K. H. Coale et al, measured the effects of seeding equatorial Pacific waters with iron, finding that 700 grams of CO₂ were fixed by the resulting phytoplankton bloom per 1 gram of iron seeded.^[15]. Given the US EPA's current estimate of 1.2×10¹³ kg of annual atmospheric CO₂ surplus, and the current 2006 market asking price of US$ 35/tonne for 65% iron ore fines, less than US$ 800 million worth of iron ore distributed in the equatorial Pacific annually would suffice to entirely offset surplus carbon emissions. Opponents of this approach argue that fertilizing the ocean is a dangerous proposition. They argue that it would not be possible to control the areas that are fertilized because the ocean is turbulent. They express concern that this approach would upset the current balance of the entire oceanic food chain. They point out that, considering the immense damage caused by adding nutrients to lakes and ponds, it would be a logical conclusion that adding nutrients to the ocean would also cause environmental damage. They suggest that there is even the possibility that blooms would release more carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gas in the form of methane than it would sequester.^[16]

[edit] Screening out sunlight

Another class of geoengineering approaches to attempt mitigation involves changing the Earth's albedo (reflectivity), to reflect more heat back out into space: a 0.5% albedo increase would roughly halve the effect of CO₂ doubling [17]. Methods which have been proposed could include: releasing dust, sulfuric acid or reflecting micro-balloons into the stratosphere; enhancing low-level clouds [18]; creating a Saturn-like ring of small particles [19], or putting a very large mirror or diffraction grating (thin wire mesh) in space (perhaps at the L1 point between the Earth and the Sun)[20]. The cooling effect that volcanic eruptions often have on the climate due to ash particles in the upper atmosphere can be seen as an analogy of how these methods might work.

A preliminary study by Edward Teller in 1997 presented the pros and cons of various relatively "low-tech" proposals to mitigate global warming through scattering/reflecting sunlight away from the Earth via insertion of various materials in the upper stratosphere, low earth orbit, and L1 locations. [21]

[edit] Albedo enhancement

Some scientists have suggested using aerosols as an emergency measure to increase global dimming and thus stave off the effects of global warming. In 1974, Russian expert Mikhail Budyko suggested that if global warming became a problem, we could cool down the planet by burning sulfur in the stratosphere, which would create a haze. It would, however, increase the environmental problem of acid rain.^[17][18][19]

[edit] Governmental and Intergovernmental Action

Main article: Politics of global warming

[edit] Kyoto Protocol

Main article: Kyoto Protocol

The primary international agreement on combating climate change is the Kyoto Protocol, which came into force on 16 February 2005. The Kyoto Protocol is an amendment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Countries that have ratified this protocol have committed to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases, or engage in emissions trading if they maintain or increase emissions of these gases.

[edit] Encouraging use changes

[edit] Carbon emissions trading

Main article: Carbon emissions trading

The European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS) [22] is the largest multi-national, greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme in the world. It commenced operation on 1 January 2005, and all 25 member states of the European Union participate in the scheme. The scheme has created a new market in carbon dioxide allowances estimated at some Euro 35 billion (US$43 billion) per year.[23] The Chicago Climate Exchange was the first (voluntary) emissions market, and is soon to be followed by Asia's first market (Asia Carbon Exchange). A total of 107 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO₂e) have been exchanged through projects in 2004, a 38% increase relative to 2003 (78 Mt CO₂e).[24]

With the creation of a market for trading carbon dioxide emissions within the Kyoto Protocol, it is likely that London financial markets will be the centre for this potentially highly lucrative business; the New York and Chicago stock markets would like a share (which is unlikely as long as the US rejects Kyoto).[25]

23 multinational corporations have come together in the G8 Climate Change Roundtable, a business group formed at the January 2005 World Economic Forum. The group includes Ford, Toyota, British Airways and BP. On 9 June 2005 the Group published a statement stating that there was a need to act on climate change and claiming that market-based solutions can help. It called on governments to establish "clear, transparent, and consistent price signals" through "creation of a long-term policy framework" that would include all major producers of greenhouse gases.

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is a proposed carbon trading scheme being created by nine by North-eastern and Mid-Atlantic American states; Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont. The scheme was due to be developed by April 2005 but has not yet been completed.

[edit] Carbon tax

Main article: Carbon tax

In 1991, Sweden introduced the world's first carbon tax. The UK has had a Climate Change Levy on fossil-fuel-based electricity generation since 2001. Plans for a carbon tax in New Zealand were abandoned after the 2005 elections.

[edit] U.S. government attempts at suppression

The U.S. government has pressured American scientists to suppress discussion of global warming, according to the testimony of the Union of Concerned Scientists to the Oversight and Government Reform Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives.^[20][21] "High-quality science" was "struggling to get out," as the Bush administration pressured scientists to tailor their writings on global warming to fit the Bush administration's skepticism, in some cases at the behest of an ex-oil industry lobbyist. "Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change,' 'global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications." Similarly, according to the testimony of senior officers of the Government Accountability Project, the White House attempted to bury the report "National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variablity and Change," produced by U.S. scientists pursuant to U.S. law.^[22] Some U.S. scientists resigned their jobs rather than give in to White House pressure to underreport global warming.^[23]

[edit] Non-governmental approaches

[edit] Legal action

In some countries, those affected by climate change may be able to sue major producers, in a parallel to the lawsuits against tobacco companies.[26] Although proving that particular weather events are due specifically to global warming may never be possible (Edward Lorenz (1982): "Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get"), methodologies have been developed to show the increased risk of such events caused by global warming.^[24]

For a legal action for negligence (or similar) to succeed, "Plaintiffs … must show that, more probably than not, their individual injuries were caused by the risk factor in question, as opposed to any other cause. This has sometimes been translated to a requirement of a relative risk of at least two." (Grossman, Columbia J. of Env. Law, 2003) Another route (though with little legal bite) is the World Heritage Convention, if it can be shown that climate change is affecting World Heritage Sites like Mount Everest.[27]

Legal action has also been taken to try to force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act,[28] and against the Export-Import Bank and OPIC for failing to assess environmental impacts (including global warming impacts) under NEPA.[29]

According to a 2004 study commissioned by Friends of the Earth, ExxonMobil and its predecessors caused 4.7 to 5.3 percent of the world's man-made carbon dioxide emissions between 1882 and 2002. The group suggested that such studies could form the basis for eventual legal action.[30]

[edit] Personal choices

While many of the proposed methods of mitigating global warming require governmental funding, legislation and regulatory action, individuals and businesses can also play a part in the mitigation effort. Environmental groups encourage individual action against global warming, often aimed at the consumer. Common recommendations include lowering home heating and cooling usage, burning less gasoline, supporting renewable energy sources, buying local products to reduce transportation, turning off unused devices, and various others. A list of some common recommendations is available here.

[edit] Business Opportunities and Risks

In addition to government action and the personal choices individuals can make, the threat posed by global warming provides business opportunities to be exploited and risks to be mitigated.

There has also been business action on climate change.

On 9 May 2005 Jeff Immelt, the chief executive of General Electric (GE), announced plans to reduce GE's global warming related emissions by one percent by 2012. "GE said that given its projected growth, those emissions would have risen by 40 percent without such action." ^[25]

On 21 June 2005 a group of leading airlines, airports and aerospace manufacturers pledged to work together to reduce the negative environmental impact of the aviation industry, including limiting the impact of air travel on climate change by improving fuel efficiency and reducing carbon dioxide emissions of new aircraft by fifty percent per seat kilometre by 2020 from 2000 levels. The group aims to develop a common reporting system for carbon dioxide emissions per aircraft by the end of 2005, and pressed for the early inclusion of aviation in the European Union's carbon emission trading scheme.^[26]

[edit] Mitigation in developing countries

Traditionally, economic growth tends to increase pollution as well as greenhouse gas emissions. In order to reconcile economic development with mitigating carbon emissions, developing countries need particular support, both financial and technical. One of the means of achieving this is the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). The World Bank's Prototype Carbon Fund is a public private partnership that operates within the CDM.

In July 2005 the U.S., China, India, Australia, as well as Japan and South Korea, agreed the Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate. The pact aims to encourage technological development that may mitigate global warming, without coordinated emissions targets. The highest goal of the pact is to find and promote new technology that aid both growth and a cleaner environment simultaneously. An example is the Methane to Markets initiative which reduces methane emissions into the atmosphere by capturing the gas and using it for growth enhancing clean energy generation.^[27] Critics have raised concerns that the pact undermines the Kyoto Protocol.^[28]

However, none of these initiative suggest quantitative cap on the emission from developing countries. This is considered as particularly difficult policy proposal as the economic growth of developing countries are proportionally reflected in the growth of greenhouse emission. Critics of mitigation often argue that, the developing countries' drive to attain comparable living standard to the developed countries would doom the attempt at mitigation of global warming. Critics also argue that holding down emissions would shift the human cost of global warming from a general one to one that was borne most heavily by the poorest populations on the planet.

[edit] Population Control

The population explosion is a fundamental factor that has led to global warming. Because of this, various organizations promote population control as a means for mitigating global warming.[31][32][33][34] Proposed measures include improving access to family planning and reproductive health care and information, eliminating incentives to have larger families, public education about the consequences of continued population growth, and improving access of women to education and economic opportunities.

Population control efforts are impeded by there being somewhat of a taboo in some countries against considering any such efforts.[35] Also, various religions discourage or prohibit some or all forms of birth control.

Population size has a different per capita effect on global warming in different countries, since the per capita production of anthropogenic greenhouse gasses varies greatly by country.[36] The United States has the greatest per capita production of anthropogenic greenhouse gasses.

[edit] Nanotechnology

Further information: Nanotechnology and list of nanotechnology applications

Ray Kurzweil, on the Army Science Advisory Board, has testified before Congress that he sees considerable potential in the science of nanotechnology to solve significant global problems such as climate change.^[29][30]

[edit] References

• IPCC/TEAP (2005), "Special Report: Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System: Issues related to Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons - Summary for Policymakers"
• Climate Change:Facts and Impacts An introduction to the issue of climate change along with current and future impacts

[edit] See also

• Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change
• 2000 Watt society
• Climate change response
• Contraction and Convergence
• European Climate Change Programme
• Future energy development
• Global warming and agriculture
• Hell and High Water: Global Warming
• Hydrogen economy
• Proposed Oil phase-out in Sweden
• Overpopulation
• Soft energy path
• Smart growth
• United Kingdom Climate Change Programme

Part of a series on Global Warming

Subtopics

Scientific opinion • Attribution of causes • Effects • Mitigation • Adaptation • Controversy • Politics • Economics

Related articles

Climate change • Deforestation • Global climate modelling • Global cooling • Global dimming • Greenhouse effect • Greenhouse gases Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change • Kyoto Protocol • Peak Oil • Renewable energy • Temperature data

[edit] External links

[edit] Official

• European Union's European Climate Change Programme
• European Union Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS)
• United Kingdom's Climate Change Programme
• U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement signed by 178 mayors representing nearly 40 million Americans
• The Stern Review on the economics of climate change - Parts III and IV of the Stern Review are on climate change mitigation

[edit] NGO/academic

• Climate Change Action Website
• Red Cross / Red Crescent Centre on Climate Change and Disaster Preparedness
• How to be more energy efficient in the home
• Working Group on Climate Change and Development (2004), "Up in Smoke? Threats from, and responses to, the impact of global warming on human development"
• Carbon Mitigation Initiative of Princeton University, BP, and Ford
• Climate Alliance of 1000 European cities
• Friends of the Earth Putting costs into perspective - economic benefits from fighting climate change
• "Meeting the climate challenge: Recommendations of the International Climate Change Taskforce", January 2005
• The buildings and factories that are the greatest contributors of Global Warming in the USA are Mapped on the Green Building public build Google Map.
• New Scientific American article
• Global Warming Newswire - published scientific studies on global warming
• A Clean Energy Future for Australia - a study on how Australia can halve it's energy related greenhouse gas emissions by 2040
• LEAP - a popular software tool for climate change mitigation assessment.

[edit] Academic

• Christian Azar and Stephen H. Schneider (2002) "Are the economic costs of stabilising the atmosphere prohibitive?", Ecological Economics 42 (1-2)
• Rivington M, Matthews KB, Buchan K and Miller D (2005) "An integrated assessment approach to investigate options for mitigation and adaptation to climate change at the farm-scale", NJF Seminar 380, Odense, Denmark, 7-8 November 2005.

[edit] Business

• Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC)
• Investor Guide to Climate Risk: Action Plan and Resource for Plan Sponsors, Fund Managers and Corporations
• Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP)
• [37]

[edit] Commentary

• Oliver James, The Guardian, June 30, 2005, Face the facts: For many people climate change is too depressing to think about, and some prefer to simply pretend it doesn't exist
• Chris Mooney, June 7, 2005, "Global warming and the categorical imperative"
• John Sterman & Linda Booth Sweeney, April 26, 2005, "Why “wait-and-see” won’t do"
• Calvin Jones, Action on climate change, Political and Practical
• Climate blog of the Center for American Progress Action Fund edited by Joseph J. Romm