Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Why we need to worry about global warming, now

Expand Messages
  • npat1
    Fw: [fuelcell-energy] ... Perspective Section April 9, 2006 Why we need to worry about global warming, now With climate-related changes occurring faster than
    Message 1 of 3 , Apr 13, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Fw: [fuelcell-energy]
      ---------- Forwarded Message ----------

      Perspective Section April 9, 2006

      Why we need to worry about global warming, now

      With climate-related changes occurring faster than
      expected,scientists say we have 10 years to slash carbon fuel use --
      or else

      By Ross Gelbspan

      In 1995, a panel of the world's leading climate scientists
      declared that unless humanity cuts its use of coal and oil by 70
      percent toward the end of this century, the world will suffer
      significant disruptions from global warming toward the end of this

      Just six years later, that same body, the U.N.-sponsored
      Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), declared that the
      warming had "already affected physical and biological systems" in
      many areas of the world -- a finding which "should sound alarm bells
      in every national capital and every local community," according to
      the UN's top environmental official.

      Today, all bets are off.

      In January, the famed British ecologist James Lovelock
      declared that we have already passed the "point of no return."
      Others, including NASA'S James Hansen, one of the world's pre-eminent
      climate scientists, think we still have about a 10 year grace period
      in which to make major changes.

      Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC, also sees a 10-
      year timeline and says dramatic cuts in carbon fuel use must be
      made "if humanity is to survive." Added British climate expert Peter
      Cox: "The scientific agenda has moved from improving predictions to
      thinking about . . . the chances of something awful happening."

      By contrast, the current Kyoto Protocol, which was
      essentially rendered comatose by the Bush Administration two years
      ago, calls for emissions cuts of a mere 8 percent by industrial
      countries by 2012.

      What's truly alarming -- aside from the totally unexpected
      speed of these changes -- is the fact that most leaders are just
      beginning to accept the reality of global warming. Most still think
      we have far more time to begin to wean the world off oil and coal.

      Those groups include not only the Bush administration, but also
      the mainstream media. For years, the press has cast the issue of
      global warming as a debate -- thanks to the public relations experts
      of big coal and big oil who insisted journalists "balance" the
      findings of the IPCC with pronouncements of a handful of dissident
      researchers, most of whom were on the payroll of the fossil fuel

      As a result, the press accorded the same weight to the
      industry-sponsored naysayers as they did to the IPCC -- which
      represents the largest and most rigorously peer-reviewed scientific
      collaboration in history.

      Today the calculus is changing; some press titans like Time
      magazine and ABC News are taking note of scientists' new urgency.
      Time's recent cover on global warming warned: "Be worried. Be very
      worried." But that warning seems to have been ignored by America's
      political leaders.

      Instead, the President followed his recent call to overcome
      our "addiction to oil" by promoting auto efficiency standards which
      would amount to less than 2 miles a gallon for certain light trucks
      over the next five years -- and exempt nearly 80 percent of all SUV's
      and small trucks from stricter standards altogether.

      Even environmental groups are unwilling to sound the alarm
      clearly -- in good part because they work in Washington, where most
      change is a matter of slow negotiation -- but also because they're
      afraid of being marginalized. It is, after all, hard to tell
      Americans just how much change is needed when they're only now
      understanding that change is needed at all.

      Why the new urgency? Planetary changes which were supposed
      to occure toward the end of the century, according to scientific
      computer models, are actually happening today. Dr. Paul Epstein, a
      leading climate researcher at Harvard Medical School, citing the
      rapid intensification of storms around the world, said: "We are
      seeing [storm] impacts today that were previously projected to occur
      in 2080."

      Other examples include:

      * The Greenland ice sheet, one of the largest glaciers on

      planet, is melting from above and losing its stability as meltwater
      from the surface trickles down and lubricates the bedrock on which
      the ice sheet sits. Should that ice sheet slide into the ocean, it
      would raise sea levels on the order of 20 feet. The rate of sea level
      rise has already doubled in the last decade as a result of melting
      glaciers and the thermal expansion of warming oceans.

      * The proportion of severely destructive hurricanes that

      reached category 4 and 5 intensity has doubled in the past thirty
      years, fueled by rising surface water temperatures.

      * Oceans are becoming acidified from the fallout of our

      fuel emissions. The ph level of the world's oceans has changed more
      in the last 100 years than it did in the previous 10,000 years.

      Those troubling signals are made all the more disturbing by
      the fact that climate change does not necessarily follow a linear,
      incremental trajectory. As the climate system crosses invisible
      thresholds, it is capable of large-scale, unpredictable leaps.

      "[T]here are tipping points out there that could be passed
      before we're halfway through the century," said Tim Lenton, an earth
      systems modeller at Britain's University of East Anglia.

      That reality is compounded by the fact that carbon dioxide,
      the main heat-trapping gas, stays in the atmosphere for at least 100
      years. Some of the impacts that are surfacing today were likely
      triggered by carbon emitted in the 1980s, before the recent burst of
      carbon-powered development in China, India, Mexico, Nigeria and other
      developing countries.

      And then there is the problem of "feedback loops," which
      means that small changes caused by warming can trigger other much
      larger changes.

      For example, the Siberian and Alaskan tundras, which for
      centuries absorbed carbon dioxide and methane, are now thawing and
      releasing those gases back into the atmosphere. A rapid release of
      greenhouse gases from these regions could trigger a spike in warming.

      Scientists recently detected a weakening of the flow of
      ocean currents in the Atlantic basin because of an infusion of
      freshwater from melting sea ice and glaciers. At a certain point,
      they say, the change in salinity and water density could change the
      direction of ocean currents, leading to much more bitter and severe
      winters in northern Europe and North America.

      In the face of these changes, the press remains largely in
      denial. The environmental movement seems to have gone into
      hibernation. And the Bush Administration has turned its back on the
      challenge. We are, as the British paper, The Independent, put
      it, "sleepwalking into an Apocalypse."

      President Bush has been especially antagonistic toward the
      climate issue. Shortly after taking office, the President reneged on
      his campaign promise to cut emissions from power plants. He then
      called for the construction of 1,900 new power plants, most of them
      coal-fired. The President withdrew the U.S. from the Kyoto talks in
      2001 and two years later the White House ordered the EPA to remove
      all references to the dangers of climate change from its website. At
      the end of 2004, the U.S. used its diplomatic leverage to prevent
      delegates to the Kyoto talks from formulating any action plans. (The
      delegates were forced to limit the talks to "informational
      seminars.") Most recently, the Bush Administration tried to silence
      NASA's Hansen -- and now requires all contacts between government
      climate scientists and the press to be monitored by
      government "minders."

      For their part, many large environmental groups tell
      members they can help by, among other things, buying compact
      fluorescent bulbs, carpooling more, keeping tires properly inflated,
      using stingier showerheads and turning down home thermostats by one
      or two degrees.

      But unlike many other environmental problems, climate

      cannot be solved by lifestyle changes. Even if we all sat in the
      dark and rode bicycles, it would not stop global warming.
      Efficiencies can cut emissions by up to 30 percent -- not 70 percent.

      Even those groups that promote more large-scale changes --

      capturing carbon dioxide from power plants and burying it
      underground, for instance -- fail to acknowledge the limitation of
      those measures. These piecemeal measures may reduce U.S. carbon
      emissions to 1990 levels during the next decade. That is far short of
      the 70 percent reduction required by nature to keep this earth
      hospitable to civilization.

      Even the mainstream press also seems reluctant to put the
      true magnitude of the challenge squarely in front of readers and
      viewers. (It might help if the media made the connection between
      global warming and the escalating number of flood, droughts and
      severe storms that occupy ever larger portions of news budgets. Every
      time the press covers an extreme weather event it should insert a
      line saying, "Scientists associate this pattern of violent weather
      with global warming." That would likely mobilize the public around
      the issue in a very short time).

      By contrast, European media coverage of climate change has
      been far less qualified. As a result, Holland is now cutting its
      emissions by 80 percent in the next 40 years. Tony Blair has
      committed the UK to cuts of 60 percent in 50 years. Germany has
      vowed to cut its emissions by 50 percent in the next 50 years. And
      French President Jacques Chirac recently called on the entire
      industrial world to cut emissions by 75 percent in 45 years.

      What is needed -- yesterday -- is a coordinated worldwide
      effort to transform the world's energy diet from oil and coal to a
      mix of wind, solar, tidal power, small-scale hydro and, eventually,
      clean hydrogen fuels.

      There are solutions -- but they require unprecedented
      global coordination to address this problem.

      One such plan was conceived by the author and refined by a
      group of energy company executives, economists and energy policy
      specialists who met several years ago at Harvard Medical School. It
      would cut emissions by the 70 percent required by nature while
      simultaneously creating millions of jobs around the world.

      That plan would:

      * Redirect energy subsidies in industrial nations. The
      United States spends more than $20 billion a year to subsidize coal
      and oil; industrial countries overall spend about $200 billion. If
      those subsidies were withdrawn from carbon fuels and put behind
      renewable energy sources, oil companies would follow the money and
      use it to retool and retrain their workers to become aggressive
      developers of fuel cells, wind farms, and solar systems.

      * Create a fund of about $300 billion a year to transfer

      energy to poor countries. Virtually all developing countries would
      love to go solar; virtually none can afford it. China is home to some
      of the most air-polluted cities in the world. Others include Bangkok,
      Thailand, Santiago, Chile and Mexico City.

      * The fund could be financed by a small tax on international currency
      transactions, which total more than $1.5 trillion every day. A tax of
      a quarter-penny-per-dollar on those transactions would yield about
      $300 billion a year for windfarms in India, solar assemblies in El
      Salvador, fuel cell factories in South Africa, and vast solar-powered
      hydrogen farms in the Middle East. Alternatively, financing could
      come from a carbon tax in industrial countries or a tax on
      international airline travel.

      * Establish a mandatory fossil fuel efficiency standard
      that rises 5 percent per year. Starting at its current baseline, each
      country would produce the same amount of goods next year with 5
      percent less carbon fuel or produce 5 percent more with the same
      amount of carbon fuel -- until the 70 percent reduction was attained.

      Nations would initially meet the goal through low-cost
      efficiency measures. When those efficiencies were exhausted,
      countries would meet the rising efficiency goal by drawing more and
      more energy from non-carbon sources. That would create the mass
      markets for renewables that would lower their costs and make them
      economically competitive with coal and oil.

      This plan is one model. There may be better approaches.
      But we no longer have the luxury of thinking in terms of nationalism.
      The global climate does not recognize man-made boundaries. The
      countries of the world need to join together in a project to rewire
      the world with clean energy as quickly as humanly possible.
      Otherwise, our history as a civilized species will soon be truncated
      by the momentum of runaway climate change.

      Ross Gelbspan, a 30-year-journalist, is author of The Heat Is On
      (1998) and Boiling Point (2004) and maintains the website:
      www.heatisonline.org. He wrote this article for Perspective.



      Yahoo! Groups Links
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.