Global
Climate Change: Threat
To Nature And Human Society
By Sanjeev Ghotge
& Ashwin Gambhir
05 October, 2007
Countercurrents.org
Anthropogenic causes of global climate change
The
last two decades have witnessed a sharply accelerated global concern
over climate change. The first indications of global climate change
emerged from observations of a gradual yearly increase of average temperature,
measured continuously in the island of Hawaii in the middle of the Pacific
ocean. Many years were lost in the debate on whether the increase of
global average temperature was due to anthropogenic causes or due to
natural causes such as a slight change in the tilt of the Earth's axis,
increased solar activity impinging on the Earth's surface etc. As the
amount and accuracy of measured data increased, the consensus in the
scientific community coalesced solidly behind the emerging paradigm
that global warming was being caused by human industrial activity around
the world - the increasing combustion of fossil fuels such as coal,
petroleum and natural gas to power activities such as power generation,
transportation and all types of industrial production. Needless to say,
the emergence of this scientific consensus has been opposed by many
global vested interests – both political and economic –
who have sensed the imminent threat to their position of dominance and
privilege. Leading these vested interests have been industrialized countries
such as the US and Australia in which fossil fuel companies play a major
controlling role in their internal political processes. They have managed
to increase their global lobby by harnessing the fears of the oil producing
nations of West Asia whose economies survive on massive oil revenues.
From the beginning, it has been clear to these countries and their vested
corporate interests that any rapid cut back in the emissions of carbon
dioxide by their economies will lead to a collapse of industrial production
and consumption in their economies, an end to their global dominance
and the material privileges conferred by wealth. This is the core of
the global politics centred around the question of global climate change
and the possible ways of dealing with it. It is, therefore, imperative
to understand the scientific and institutional basis that has been established
for determining the phenomena and consequences of climate change.
Establishment of
the scientific basis of global climate change
If the Earth were the size
of an onion, the atmosphere around the Earth would be as the outer skin
of the onion. Since the start of the industrial revolution in the mid-eighteenth
century in England , all industrial societies started burning coal to
obtain motive power which was used to power machines. The decisive invention
was the steam engine, which used energy from burning coal. Through the
nineteenth century, more sophisticated energy converting inventions
were created – the internal combustion engines (petrol and diesel)
for powering transport, the steam turbines for generating electrical
power and so on. In the twentieth century, millions of automobiles started
using the internal combustion engine. In addition, the new invention,
the jet engine, also used the combustion energy of hydrocarbons to power
turbines to power air transportation. All these processes released carbon
dioxide in large quantities into the thin onion-skin atmospheric of
the Earth. Unfortunately, carbon dioxide has a property like glass –
it allows solar energy to reach the surface of the earth but obstructs
the release of heat energy back into space, thereby trapping the heat
in the atmosphere. This was discovered as the basic cause of global
warming and these emitted gases – carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides,
methane etc – were named as Green House Gases or GHGs.
Since the size of the atmosphere
around the Earth is finite and very thin compared to the size of the
Earth, being about 100 km thick, the continuously growing burden of
GHGs in the global atmosphere started disturbing the delicate balances
that had created a stable atmospheric envelope around the Earth.
Through their decade long
deliberations, scientists from all countries of the world concluded
that the two major earth systems – ocean surfaces and land surfaces
– have a limited capacity to reabsorb carbon dioxide and to reconvert
it to carbon and oxygen. Their current estimates indicate that the oceans
can reabsorb about 1.7 to 2.2 billion tonnes of carbon every year whereas
the land surfaces can reabsorb 0.9 to 1.4 billion tonnes of carbon every
year. In total, these two systems can reabsorb about 3.1 billion tonnes
of carbon every year. This is the maximum annual limit above which the
carbon dioxide starts accumulating in the global atmosphere, leading
to the end-effect of global warming.
Scientists have mathematically
correlated the increasing atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide
(and its equivalent in terms of other gases) to the gradual rise of
global average temperature. Sometimes, some degree of confusion is created
in the public mind since scientists sometimes speak in terms of emissions
of carbon or carbon dioxide equivalent. This can be avoided by remembering
basic chemistry that one tonne of carbon is equivalent to 3.66 tonnes
of carbon dioxide. Similarly, scientists have worked out the global
warming equivalents of other important gases – thus, methane has
about 22 times greater power to create global warming effects as compared
to carbon dioxide, whereas nitrogen oxides have about 296 times greater
power. However, the relative quantities of these two gases emitted into
the atmosphere are much smaller. The main quantitative culprit is carbon-dioxide,
emitted from fossil fuel origins. Moreover, scientists have also concluded
that carbon dioxide emitted from burning biomass does not pose a significant
threat as it is part of the recycled CO2 which was earlier absorbed
into the biomass whereas fossil fuels combustion result in the release
of carbon stored in the earth over millions of years. Thus, keeping
a track of the carbon emitted and absorbed to and from the atmosphere
is the simplest way of understanding the global phenomenon now under
way and uses the smallest magnitude involved. Another simplification
is to remember that 2.1 billion tonnes of additional carbon in the atmosphere
results in an increase in concentration of 1 part per million (ppm).
The scientists also estimated
the total quantity of GHG gases emitted annually into the atmosphere.
In 1990, the estimation was 5.4 billion tonnes of carbon emitted per
year, by 2001 this had increased to 6.3 billion tonnes carbon per year
and by now it would be about 7.2 billion tonnes carbon per year –
an increasing trend well above the absorption capacity of the ocean
and land systems combined. Converted into atmospheric concentration,
this is about 1.5 -2.0 ppm increase every year
A simple analogy may serve
to clarify the global situation. It is like pouring water into a leaking
barrel – if the rate at which water is poured into the barrel
exceeds the rate of which water leaks out of the barrel, there will
be a net rise of water level inside the barrel. Replace the barrel in
the analogy with the global atmosphere and we begin to understand what
we are doing – we are pouring more carbon dioxide every year into
the atmosphere than can leak out in terms of ocean and land uptake.
Like the rise of water level in the barrel, the concentration of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing year by year, in turn accelerating
global warming.
At this stage, it would
seem that obvious good sense necessitates that we should be firstly
stopping the increase of annual carbon emissions and then bringing the
annual emissions below 3.1 billion tonnes carbon to enable the Earth
systems to reabsorb the atmospheric carbon and reduce the levels of
concentration. But obvious good sense is far removed from global economics
and politics. This departure from good sense is even more startling
when viewed against the backdrop of the consequences to be unleashed
by the anthropogenically induced global warming.
Consequences of anthropogenic
global warming
Beyond quantifying the global
emission and absorption rates and establishing the mathematical correlation
between increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and temperature
rise, the scientific debate has also mapped out the major likely consequences
of climate change.
The first consequence will
be the melting of both polar ice caps which will lead to a gradual rise
in sea levels across the world. This has placed all the small island
countries of the world as well as several low lying countries such as
Holland and Bangladesh under threat.
The second consequence will
be the gradual drying out of the major land masses of the various continents
due to the higher temperatures, leading to prolonged drought like conditions
in many parts of the world.
The third consequence will
be changes in oceanic and atmospheric circulation patterns which may
lead to changes in monsoon and precipitation patterns and climate changes
due to changes in hot and cold ocean currents.
The fourth consequence will
be likely increases in the intensity and frequency of extreme weather
events such as storms, cyclones, typhoons etc and these will affect
coastal areas in various parts of the world.
The fifth consequence will
be greater climatic variability leading to alternation between droughts
and floods, hot and cold waves in different parts of the world.
The sixth consequence will
be gradual acidification of oceans which in turn may lead to the extinction
of oceanic species which have exo skeletons made of calcium carbonate
which dissolves in an acidic environment. Indeed, most life forms do
badly in an acidic environment and if particular species are eliminated
then entire natural food chains in the oceans may get disrupted, placing
many other oceanic life forms under threat of extinction.
The scientific discussions
and debates have uncovered patterns and correlations that link changes
in physical and chemical parameters with changes in the ecological conditions
necessary for the continued existence of many life forms on earth. It
has forced us to consider the great fragility of all the supportive
ecosystems that have hitherto permitted human societies to flourish
at the apex of these ecosystems, laying them waste in the process of
development. In a sense, the debates have closed the circle, bringing
human societies face to face with the present and future consequences
of our actions. The dilemmas that confront us are both deeply ethical
and deeply political, with one element of certainty – there is
no escaping the web of consequences of our present actions. There is
no scope for the continued pretence that life and economics can continue
as usual, that continued economic growth is the only answer to all our
problems.
Webs of ecological
consequences
As if the story uncovered
thus far by the scientists were not sufficiently dismal, there is worse
to follow in terms of webs of consequences that may follow from the
processes unleashed by global warming. In the language of scientists,
these are referred to as "positive feedbacks". In simple terms,
when the consequence of a particular change in a system tends to bring
about a further change in the system orientation in the magnitude and
direction of the original change, the scientists refer to it as "positive
feedback" i.e. change leading to further acceleration of change.
A simple analogy may serve
to clarify. Most of us are familiar with the automobile. When the steering
wheel of an automobile in motion is turned in a particular direction,
the steering linkage is designed in such a way that it will automatically
revert to the straight position – this would correspond to "negative
feedback", restoring the system to stability. Suppose, on the contrary,
that the steering linkage was designed such that a small turn of the
steering wheel kept on turning the whole automobile further in the direction
of the initial turn of the steering wheel – that would correspond
to "positive feedback", and an accident would result.
The scientific community
is deeply concerned that global warming may initiate a chain reaction
due to several identified mechanism of "positive feedback",
driving the entire climate system towards further instability. The identified
feedback mechanisms are :
§ global warming leads to polar ice melt, replacing ice with water;
whereas ice reflects incoming solar radiation back into space, water
tends to absorb and retain incoming solar radiation, thereby increasing
the warming effect;
§ atmospheric warming
increases evaporation of water, adding water vapour into the atmosphere
and this water vapour is itself a contributor to the greenhouse effect,
trapping heat in the atmosphere;
§ atmospheric warming
leading to drying out of forests and grasslands, leading to spontaneous
fires over large areas which will contribute large volumes of carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere
§ shorter winters leading
to earlier melting of ice on land, opening the land to greater absorption
of solar radiation and contributing further to atmospheric heating
§ atmospheric warming
leading to warming of ocean surface layer, causing it to release dissolved
carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere, increasing the greenhouse effect
§ atmospheric warming
causing pools of water to form on polar ice surfaces; these warming
pools of water tunnel through the polar ice caps to land surfaces below,
lubricating the interface between land and ice cap and causing ice shelves
to disintegrate rapidly into the surrounding seas, decreasing the ice
areas which reflect solar radiation back into space
§ atmospheric warming
leading to heating of permafrost areas in high northern latitudes; these
permafrost areas release huge quantities of trapped methane gas, accelerating
atmospheric heating
These seven "positive
feedback" cycles, many scientists feel, will start becoming operational
at a stabilized atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration level of 450
ppm. Today, we are already at a CO2 equivalent level of 430 ppm, and
increasing at the rate of about 2 ppm per year. It does not take any
great mathematical skill to arrive at the conclusion that we have at
most 10 years time to stabilize concentration at 450 ppm, which corresponds
to a stabilized global temperature increase of 2º C. However, even
the 2º C limit to prevent "positive feedbacks" from getting
triggered is, at best, an educated guess by scientists. The simple truth
is that nobody knows the exact limit, beyond which an irreversible ecological
chain reaction would be set into motion. Moreover, the meaning of a
2º C average rise in temperature needs to be understood within
the overall context of the climate system. In climate terms, the difference
between the last ice age and present average temperature is 6º
C, so that a 2º C temperature is very significant.
The reason we have called
these ecological consequences as a "web" is because they are
not likely to be linear but will probably interact with and affect each
other.
The scientific community
has also indicated the likely social consequences of global temperature
rise.
The web of social
consequences
Briefly, the major social
consequences that have been identified in the course of the scientific
discussions are :
Displacement of coastal and island populations due to global sea level
rise. The melting of Greenland ice may add 7 metres to global sea level
rise, while melting of West Antarctic ice will add a further 5 metres
and the East Antarctic ice another 55 metres to global sea level. Small
island nations in the South Pacific such as Tuvalu will be submerged,
as probably will Maldives . Many major coastal cities across the world
will also be severely affected, as will densely populated low lying
countries such as Bangladesh and Netherlands will also be severely affected.
This will be a gradual but inexorable process which has already started
and the earlier estimate was a sea level rise of 3-14 cm from 1990 to
2025. However, many scientists consider this to be an underestimation.
Moreover, the damage will be caused by storm surges or extreme events
around coastal areas that will make them hazardous, while destroying
delicate coastal ecosystems.
§ Long term food shortages
due to decreases in crop productivity in tropical areas. This will be
caused by temperature increases in combination with increased evaporation
from crops. Many tropical crops are already at levels near to the maximum
temperature tolerance so that even small but sustained temperature increases
may result in decreases in crop yields. Tropical societies may have
to face food deficits as a consequence, resulting in, at a mass scale,
in malnutrition or starvation unless social security systems can compensate.
§ Reduction in annual flows of perennial riverine systems which
are fed by glaciers in their upper reaches. The retreat of glaciers
has already begun. Particularly affected will be rivers which do not
have their upper catchments in high rainfall areas such as the Indus
and its northern tributaries.
§ An increase in intensity and/or frequency of extreme weather
events such as storms, floods and cyclones would cause much greater
social damage as compared to present level of damage. It is already
known that, worldwide, the insurance industry paid five times more in
terms of weather related natural events in the nineties as compared
to the previous decade i.e. the eighties.
§ Greater climatic variability
will increase the intensity of heat waves and cold waves. An unprecedented
heat wave hit France in 2003, resulting in an estimated 30,000 additional
deaths. Particularly affected were the elderly, pensioners and those
not in good health
§ Finally, increases in atmospheric temperature and changes in
patterns of precipitation will probably lead to increased incidence
of vector borne diseases such as malaria and dengue as well as diseases
caused by viral and bacterial agents. These may spread to areas and
populations previously unaffected by them, leading to greater mortality
and morbidity in these areas and populations. The affected populations
may number in the tens or hundreds of millions worldwide.
This web of social consequences
will, in general, be accompanied by an unprecedented wave of destruction
of many species of both plants and animals wherein 30-40% of all known
species may face extinction. Less visible though not less real will
be the destruction of life forms in the oceans of the world. Just as
tropical rain forests are considered to be rich treasure houses of plants,
insects, birds and animals similarly, in the oceans, that role is played
by coral reefs. Studies indicate that coral reefs have already started
bleaching and dying due to ocean acidification and temperature increase.
As a community, scientists
across the world are not generally given to flights of fancy or to exaggeration.
Yet, shorn of their myriad qualifications and uncertainties of current
knowledge, the above account may be said to represent the core of the
scientific consensus on the causes and consequences of climate change.
Viewed impartially, this consensus indicates that we are at the brink
of a disaster of our own making.
Before proceeding further,
we need to appreciate the slow and painful institutional process through
which this consensus has emerged.
The institutional
process underlying the findings on climate change
The UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held at Rio
in 1992 saw the emergence of the UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC) and the establishment of the Inter-Governmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC). In due course, 160 countries around the world
have signed the UNFCCC. The process followed by the IPCC has seen the
participation of about 2500 scientists from across the countries of
the world. The IPCC Assessment Reports are part of the UN system; thus
far, the IPCC has presented 3 sets of reports to the UN system and the
governments of the countries of the world. The first report was presented
in 1993, the second report in 1996 resulted in the Kyoto Protocol in
which an agreement was reached that the industrialized countries of
the world would cut back their carbon dioxide emissions to 5.2% below
1990 levels by the year 2012. The Third Assessment Report, published
in 2001, covered the entire range of issues, from the Scientific Basis
to the Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability and also Mitigation. The
Fourth Assessment Report also consists of three volumes along the lines
of the Third Assessment Report along with a Synthesis Report to be released
in November 2007.
Apart from the Assessment
Reports, the Kyoto Protocol has been one of the most significant outcomes
of the IPCC process. The protocol excludes the developing countries,
including China , from binding obligations for emissions reduction,
at least upto 2012 when it next comes up for discussion. However, the
US and Australia have consistently refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol,
arguing that unless large countries like China and India also undertake
obligations for reduction, it is pointless for developed countries to
reduce their emissions. These two countries are using this argument
to mask their own interests, since the US economy has been the largest
emitter and Australia is the largest exporter of coal and would not
want the future growth of its coal exports to be curbed. China and India
argue that they have a developmental imperative for the removal of poverty
and associated ills for large parts of their population and hence cannot
get tied down with binding obligations. In any case, they argue, the
problem of over loading the atmospheric is the historical creation of
the developed countries so they need to bear the major responsibilities
(and by implication, the costs) of GHG abatement. There the matter rests,
even as emissions keep on accelerating.
Economics and politics underlying the Kyoto Process
Even as the countries of
the world have begun to manouvre for positions of advantage, the emerging
battle lines leading up to Kyoto II are already evident. Ranged on one
side will be the US and Australia; supported by some self-serving West
Asian regimes and possibly some silent support from other developed
countries; targeted on the other side will be China and India and possibly
Brazil and a few of the larger developing countries. China in particular
will come under a lot of pressure because it has recently overtaken
the US as the world's largest emitter. India too will come under pressure
as it is probably the fourth largest emitter in the world, not withstanding
the fact that India's per capita emissions are one quarter of the world
average and probably one-twentieth of the developed country average.
At stake in Kyoto
II will be two central issues:
§ One of the largest cost-free transfers of technology, particularly
energy/fuel technologies from developed to developing countries. The
developed countries would like to receive payment for these technologies
in market related terms which the developing countries cannot afford.
In the absence of such technologies, developing countries cannot escape
the carbon-emitting pathway to "development".
§ One of the largest transfers of wealth from developed to developing
countries to prevent further ecological damage to the world that is
inherent in the present pathway of development that rides on the back
of chaotic, fossil fuel powered industrial development that favours
a small rich world minority at the cost of the poor majority of the
world.
Negotiations on these are possible and imperative if the world is to
emerge relatively unscathed from the current path to disaster. What
needs to be constantly remembered is that we can only negotiate between
ourselves. Nature is beyond all power to negotiate.
Adaptation and Mitigation
Though the language of international
negotiations is rarely simple, the term "adaptation" means
adjusting to climate change by reducing the vulnerability to impacts;
"mitigation" means intervention to reduce carbon sources and
to increase carbon sinks – of these two, since our ability to
increase carbon sinks – both on land and sea, are extremely limited,
mitigation essentially reduces to emission reduction or changing over
to non-emitting sources of energy, transportation and industrialization,
these being by far the major carbon emitting activities. In a similar
way, adaptation essentially implies a rapid transition to sustainable
development in anticipation or response to inevitable climate change.
Many informed observers have commented that the technology for making
a transition to sustainable development already exists but political,
economic and institutional processes are the major obstacles. Some observers
have recently commented that we have wasted too much time and effort
on mitigation, with little success; we should now concentrate on adaptation.
This implies that the battle to halt the rise of carbon concentrations
is already lost, all that time permits is how best to minimize the eventual
damage by adaptation.
Kyoto II will probably represent
the most important collective negotiations in world history, though
too few citizens of the world recognize it as such. These negotiations
will probably be more important to the future of both humanity and nature
than all the previous treaties on security, trade, finance, terrorism
or disarmament.
This time to Kyoto II is
rapidly approaching.
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.