| Return to opening page
for
further information and viewing conditions |
. |
|
The article below was written for Health Politics by Mike Magee. It is good to see that at last some in the US are really beginning to wake up to the problem of global warming. Global Warming From If to WhenYou would have to be living under a rock not to realize the global warming debate -- if it can still be called a debate -- has pretty much reached its boiling point. But I wouldn’t be surprised, particularly if you live in the United States, if you haven’t heard of the Kyoto Protocol, which went into force in February of 2005. This agreement among 38 industrial nations requires them to reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2012.1 On the average for most nations, that’s about a 5% drop-off. If you’re wondering how the Unites States is handling this reduction requirement, the answer is “we’re not, exactly,” because we excused ourselves from the Kyoto table in 2001. However, now, 5 years later, as rising global temperatures have wreaked havoc on everything from glaciers to weather patterns, many government and industry leaders are taking notice, and taking action.2 At last, the weight of the scientific evidence has reached a tipping point and is leading many to realize the debate about global warming has now shifted from “if” to “when” … and we can’t just sit and wait. That said, the United States’ reluctance to be judged in concert with the global community is understandable if you look at the facts and the challenges these facts represent. According to the most recent data from the Energy Information Administration, our carbon dioxide emissions are 64% higher than China’s, a distant number two polluter. U.S. emissions also account for 36% of the total emissions of the world’s top 10 polluters, which, in descending order, are: the United States, China, Russia, Japan, India, Germany, Canada, the U.K., South Korea and Italy.3,4 How did we get here? Geologic studies confirm that C02 levels in the Earth’s atmosphere were 280 parts per million (ppm) in the 1780s. They only rose 35 ppm over the next 150 years. But between 1930 and 2005, they jumped to 380 ppm. Without deliberate efforts, we will exceed 500 ppm of carbon dioxide by 2050.5 The other way to measure carbon dioxide emissions is to count just the weight of the carbon, instead of the full weight of the carbon dioxide. If we look at it this way, which is the preferred way of the scientific community, global emissions of carbon amounted to 7 billion metric tons in 2004. This is expected to rise to 10.5 billion metric tons by 2029 and 14 billion metric tons by 2054. If we reach that level, most scientists say we will be passing a point of no return where atmospheric dynamics would ensure a downward slide, regardless of human intervention.6 The tsunami and Hurricane Katrina gave us a glimpse of where we’re headed.7 In fact, if there is any silver lining to these tragedies, it is that they provided a wake-up call for the United States so that public and private leaders now see the connection between carbonization, warming, weather and security, and they increasingly agree that something must be done. So who is actually taking action? Believe it or not, the automobile industry is making some significant strides. Since 30% of U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions emanate from automobiles, it was viewed as highly significant when in 2005, William Clay Ford Jr., CEO of Ford Motor Company, set a target for lowering atmospheric CO2 produced by his company and its products, placing him ahead of the U.S. administration, which had opposed strong CO2 controls.8 Now, less than a year later, we’re beginning to see other corporate players going “green.” In 2006, Wal-Mart announced its support for a federal program that would cover electric energy producers, large industrial companies and the entire transportation sector. For its part, Wal-Mart has targeted its own truck fleet, one of the nation’s largest, and has pledged to make it 25% more efficient in 2 years and double its fuel efficiency within 10 years.4 Energy providers are speaking up as well. They emit 70% of our carbon through their coal-burning furnaces. But if the burden of carbon clean-up is on the horizon, they want it to be fairly shared. Chris Hobson, a senior vice president with Atlanta-based utility Southern Company, speaks for the industry’s leading edge when he says, “We feel strongly that if there is going to be a mandatory program, it really has to be economy-wide. To do it in any other way would be unduly burdensome to our customers.” 4 This would include controls on the auto industry, as well as some large manufacturers and distributors up and down the consumer supply chain. Under such a plan, higher fuel taxes, more stringent efficiency standards, and incentives to adjust consumer behavior would be expected.4 Where is the government in all of this? It’s showing signs of waking up from a long winter’s nap. The Senate Energy Committee, chaired by Pete Domenici, a Republican from New Mexico, has put out a public call to companies and organizations for blueprint plans to address and control carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Surprisingly, the committee has already received 160 documents from a very diverse group, according to Jonathan Pershing, a climate change expert from the World Resources Institute.4,9 How will the Bush administration respond? That remains to be seen. So far it’s been “voluntary” all the way. But in the fall of 2005, the Senate mustered 53 votes in favor of controls if they “will not significantly harm the United States economy.” 4 This was seen as a step in the right direction by Sen. Domenici, who said, “There will be more good things put down by smart people on this effort than there have been at the beginning of most processes like this.” But with time ticking away, and countries like Japan both addressing the issue and flexing anew their recovering economic muscles, actions must move quickly to displace encouraging words, or the skies will certainly stay cloudy all day. References 1. BBC News Online. "Kyoto Protocol Comes Into Force." February 16, 2005. Available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4267245.stm 2. Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. December 1997. Available at http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/treaties/l07a01.pdf 3. Energy Administration Information. "Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases." Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/1605b_old.html 4. Fialka J. Big Businesses Have a New Take on Warming. The Wall Street Journal. March 28, 2006. A4. 5. Magee M. Healthy Waters. New York: Spencer Books, 2005. 6. Kolbert E. The Climate of Man III- What Can Be Done? The New Yorker. May 9, 2005. 7. Health Politics. In the Wake of Katrina. November 23, 2005. Available at http://www.healthpolitics.com/media/wake_katrina/transcript_wake_katrina.pdf 8. Ford Motor Co. Press Release. "Ford Issues Climate Change Report." December 20, 2005. Available at http://media.ford.com/newsroom/release_display.cfm?release=22233 9. World Resources Institute. "Post 2012 Climate Policy: Architectures and Participation Scenarios." Available at http://www.feem-web.it/cp05/05bio_per.html See also Don't believe the hype On the Kyoto Protocol Global Warming Is Spurring Evolution, Study Says Ongoing climate change The Gulf Stream Biodiversity special On nuclear energy - the solution that dare not speak its name Global warming unstoppable |
||
| meditations |
top |
|