Global Climate Change

• Background on climate change
• The Kyoto Protocol
• Domestic Legislation
• New Energy Choices

Background on climate change

As society becomes more technologically advanced, humans must determine the impact this progress has on our environment. Among the most prominent and highly debated environmental issues is global climate change. Scientists know for certain that human activities have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and these gases trap heat, creating a warming effect.¹ The greenhouse effect is a natural phenomenon that allows the planet to retain heat received from the sun; without it, the Earth's temperature would be approximately 60 degrees Fahrenheit (33 degrees Celsius) colder.² However, there has been a warming trend over the past century, and recent research suggests that the rate of climate change has dramatically increased over the last 30 years. In fact, the National Research Council announced in June 2006 that “there is sufficient evidence from tree rings, boreholes, retreating glaciers, and other 'proxies' of past surface temperatures to say with a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years.”³ The climate change controversy lies in determining the exact consequences of the warming trend and the economic impacts of policies to combat global warming.

Most scientists believe that humans are responsible for the warming trend, arguing that the increase in greenhouse gas emissions since the Industrial Revolution has amplified the greenhouse effect's impact on the climate.⁴ However, scientists continue to puzzle over the numerous factors affecting our complex climate system, such as variations in solar radiation, variations in the Earth’s orbit, and water vapor content in the atmosphere.⁵ Furthermore, complex climate models that allow scientists to predict future changes in climate must incorporate hundreds of dynamical processes, and as computer technology advances these models become increasingly accurate.⁶ Through models and other methods, scientists continue to research how fast the warming will occur, how much more warming will occur, and what adverse effects will result.

This uncertainty regarding the effects of the warming trend, as well as the potential economic impacts of reducing emissions, has caused contentious public policy debate. While governments deliberate over solutions, scientists and advocates insist that we must act now to reduce greenhouse emissions because global warming has significant potential to harm agriculture, water resources, and wildlife, as well as lead to more intense hurricanes.⁷ Along with environmental changes, climate change will also impact public health.⁸ Diseases, such as cholera, spread more easily in warm, wet climates.⁹ Additionally, warm weather allows mosquitoes to proliferate rapidly, increasing the spread of diseases such as malaria and dengue and yellow fevers.¹⁰


The Kyoto Protocol

To combat the effects of climate change, policies committing countries to reducing greenhouse gas emissions have been introduced. The Montreal Protocol, signed by over 100 countries in 1987, was the first international treaty regulating the production of various greenhouse gases.¹¹ The Kyoto Protocol, drafted in 1997, called for a 5.2% reduction in greenhouse gases globally from 1990 levels between 2008-2012.¹²

Debate over the Kyoto Protocol has focused on three main issues. First, critics claim that its standards are insufficient. Most scientists call for a reduction of greenhouse gases by 50% by 2050, while Kyoto only calls for a reduction of 8% by the end of the century.¹³ Secondly, developing countries are not subject to binding emissions reductions, as such restrictions may cause economic difficulties and slow much needed growth.¹⁴ However, U.S. government officials object to the burden this would place on the American economy and the advantages it would give to companies in the developing world, as well as the incentive that it would provide for U.S. companies to move their factories abroad.¹⁵ Additionally, President George W. Bush argued that "China and India already account for a majority of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, and it would be irresponsible to absolve them from shouldering some of the shared obligations."¹⁶

The third point of debate surrounds the three controversial "flexibility methods" written into the treaty at the insistence of the United States. The joint implementation provision would allow industrialized countries to meet part of their required cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by paying for projects that reduce emissions in other industrialized countries.¹⁷ Joint implementation has been criticized because there is no good way of determining whether or not the projects' host countries would have instituted the emissions reduction program on their own.¹⁸ The emissions trading agreement is a cap-and-trade system in which countries subject to emissions reduction would be able to "buy" pollution rights from other such countries.¹⁹ Emissions trading is problematic because pollution caps are set based upon estimates of how fast a country's economy will grow. Countries with economies that exceed their predicted growth pay a steep price, as they end up paying millions of dollars to countries that have a surplus of emissions credits because their economies have grown more slowly than predicted. As a consequence, nothing is really being done to reduce emissions in either country.²⁰ Lastly, the clean development mechanism would allow industrialized countries to gain emissions credits by paying for projects to reduce emissions in developing countries.²¹ The clean development mechanism is problematic because it removes incentives for developing countries to reduce emissions, as they can simply wait for industrialized countries to fund these programs.²²

Before the Kyoto Protocol could be implemented, the treaty had to be ratified by a majority of greenhouse gas emitters, accounting for at least 55% of the total carbon dioxide emissions in 1990. These conditions were met in late 2004 when Russia, then the world's third largest polluter, ratified the agreement and the treaty entered into force on February 16, 2005.²³ Australia and the United States are the only developed countries that remain outside the protocol, and leaders of both nations have stated that they do not intend to ratify the agreement.

President Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol in 2001, alleging that its emission cutbacks would be expensive to meet, costing up to $400 billion dollars and resulting in the loss of 4.9 million jobs; that reductions would increase energy costs in the United States; and that some major developing countries were unfairly exempt from emissions reduction targets.²⁴ In 2002, the Bush administration announced its new energy plan, which included the Clear Skies Initiative, as well as a plan to create incentives for corporations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.²⁵ The Clear Skies Initiative addresses air pollution by creating a mandatory cap-and-trade system to reduce mercury, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides emitted from power plants and spur corporate innovation so that Earth-friendly technologies can be developed at a reduced cost.²⁶ International response to Bush's retreat from Kyoto was not favorable; the European Union was particularly critical of the decision.²⁷ Many U.S. environmental organizations have also condemned the decision, pointing out that the Clear Skies Initiative does nothing to reduce carbon dioxide, which is the main cause of global warming.²⁸

In 2005 the Bush administration forged The Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (APP), an international agreement which calls for voluntary measures taken by Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea and the United States to "create new investment opportunities, build local capacity, and remove barriers to the introduction of clean, more efficient technologies." The European Union and environmental groups has criticized the initiative as meaningless because it lacks an enforcement mechanism.²⁹

Domestic Legislation

The lagging federal response to climate change has led local governments to take action. In February 2005 Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels introduced the U.S. Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement, a campaign to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in American cities. The campaign sought the signatures of 141 mayors, the same number of signatories on the Kyoto Protocol, to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions in their cities to the target level outlined in the Protocol. The campaign has well exceeded its goals with the signatories of 284 mayors, representing over 48.8 million Americans, as of summer 2006.³⁰

However, U.S. congressional action has been slower. In the U.S. Senate, the Climate Stewardship Act was introduced in 2003 (and reintroduced in 2005) by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT). The bill calls for an economic framework for reducing greenhouse gas emissions through an emissions permit trading program, commonly known as a cap-and-trade system. The "cap" establishes a limit on the overall pollution from a group of polluters, such as power plants. Companies receive pollution permits that they are then able to buy and sell according to their economic interests. Companies that are able to reduce their pollution at a low cost are able to sell their extra permits to other companies. The same framework has been successful under the Clean Air Act at reducing overall emissions at a lower economic cost to the companies. The downside of cap-and-trade emission laws is that they may cause an increase in localized pollution, which can lead to public health problems such as asthma. Additionally, cap-and-trade is not effective if polluters have identical costs for reducing emissions.³¹

In 2006, two bills were introduced in Congress that would require a gradual reduction in global warming emissions. The Waxman Safe Climate Act, introduced in the House of Representatives, would cut heat-trapping emissions to 80 percent of 1990 levels by 2050 through a cap-and-trade system. Introduced in the Senate was the Jeffords-Boxer Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act that would also reduce emissions by 80 percent by 2050.³²

New Energy Choices

The most dramatic reductions in greenhouses gases will occur not through legislation, but when countries embrace cleaner energy sources. Burning coal produces more CO₂ than any other fossil fuel. Coal-fired plants are the biggest generators of electricity in the world (roughly forty percent.) The United States is no exception, where coal-fired plants provide about half of the country’s power.³³ To reduce the amount of CO₂ released into the atmosphere from coal-burning facilities, researchers have discovered a method to separate out CO₂ from the other gases that burning coal produces, trapping it in underground reservoirs so it cannot escape into the atmosphere.³⁴ Scientists hope that this technique will slow the rate of climate change by limiting the amount of CO₂ released into the atmosphere from coal-fired power plants. However, this solution includes some drawbacks since separating and trapping CO₂ is costly, and there is a risk that some of the trapped CO₂ will leak out of the ground and into the atmosphere.³⁵

Nuclear power plants generate about 20 percent of U.S. electricity and about 16 percent of electricity worldwide.³⁶ Since facilities that produce nuclear power do not emit large amounts of CO₂, nuclear power has also been proposed as a clean alternative energy source to fossil fuels that could help slow climate change.³⁷ However, although 104 commercial nuclear power plants currently operate in the United States, no new facilities have been built or commissioned since 1996.³⁸ Opponents of nuclear energy suggest that nuclear power is not a viable solution to the climate change problem because nuclear power plants are not an economical source of energy, accidents from nuclear reactors could be devastating, nuclear waste disposal sites are not readily available, and building more nuclear power facilities might increase the threat of nuclear proliferation.³⁹

Scientists are currently researching alternative technologies that may have the potential to slow climate change. Solar, wind, geothermal, biomass (such as corn stover),⁴⁰ and hydroelectric power are all potential alternatives to the burning of fossil fuels. In addition, change on an individual level can help to reduce heat-trapping emissions. Buying products with the Energy Star label or the reusable energy label, driving a fuel-efficient or hybrid car, having a home energy audit, and replacing your incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescents are just a few ways to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Click here to learn more about what you can do to slow climate change:

Individual solutions from the Pew Center on Global Climate Change

Suggestions for concerned citizens from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Measure your Ecological Footprint

-Originally submitted by: Matt Mosgin, 2003.
Updated by Kate Amlin and Sharlissa Moore, 2006.

Special thanks to Brenda Ekwurzel from the Union of Concerned Scientists for reviewing this issue brief.

Footnotes

1) “Climate Uncertainties,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Updated January 7, 2000.

2) Diagram from “Greenhouse Effect,” Earthguide by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
Statistics from “Reports to the Nation on Our Changing Planet: The Climate System,” National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration.

3) “High Confidence in Surface Temp Reconstructions Since A.D. 1600,” National Research Council, June 22, 2006.

4) “Climate,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Updated January 7, 2000.

5) “The Natural Climate Change Cycle,” Mariam Koshland Museum of the National Academies.

6) “Climate model forecasts dramatic changes in U.S.,” Purdue University News Service, October 17, 2005.

7) T. Knutson, “Global Warming and Hurricanes,” Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory of the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, Updated March 23, 2006.

8) “Under the Weather: Climate, Ecosystems, and Infectious Disease,” Committee on Climate, Ecosystems, Infectious Disease, and Human Health of the National Academies, 2001.

9) R. Colwell, “Cholera and the Environment,” American Association for the Advancement of Science Annual Meeting, February 14, 2004.

10) N. Bakalar, “Warming Will Lead to Major Disease Outbreaks, Experts Warn,” National Geographic, December 2, 2004.

11) “ Montreal Protocol,” Ozone Secretariat of the United Nations Environmental Program, 2004.

12) “The Kyoto Protocol,” Woods Hole Research Center.

13) L. Evans, “Kyoto Protocol Said to Harm Efforts to Stop Global Warming- But There is Something Better,” UCLA International Institute, May 23, 2002.

14) L. Evans, “Kyoto Protocol Said to Harm Efforts to Stop Global Warming- But There is Something Better,” UCLA International Institute, May 23, 2002.

15) D. Baker and J. Barrett, “Cleaning Up the Kyoto Protocol: Emissions permit trading would let developing nations reap profits from green policies,” Economic Policy Institute, May 21, 1999.

16) “President Announces Clear Skies and Global Climate Change Initiatives,” February 2002.

17) "Joint Implementation," United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

18) L. Evans, “Kyoto Protocol Said to Harm Efforts to Stop Global Warming- But There is Something Better,” UCLA International Institute, May 23, 2002.

19) "Emissions Trading," United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

20) L. Evans, “Kyoto Protocol Said to Harm Efforts to Stop Global Warming- But There is Something Better,” UCLA International Institute, May 23, 2002.

21) "Clean Development Mechanism," United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Online at http://unfccc.int/kyoto_mechanisms/cdm/items/2718.php.

22) L. Evans, “Kyoto Protocol Said to Harm Efforts to Stop Global Warming- But There is Something Better,” UCLA International Institute, May 23, 2002.

23) “Russia Gives Kyoto Kiss of Life,” BBC News, September 3, 2002.

24) “Impact of the Kyoto Protocol on U.S. Energy Markets & Economic Activity,” Energy Information Administration (Department of Energy).

25) “President Announces Clear Skies and Global Climate Change Initiatives,” February 2002.

26) “Clear Skies Initiative,” Environmental Protection Agency, Updated March 2nd, 2006.

27) “Dismay as U.S. drops climate pact,” CNN News, March 29, 2001.

28) “Dirty Skies: The Bush Administration’s Air Pollution Plan,” National Resources Defense Council, Updated September 5, 2003.

29) “Sydney Climate Change Talks Do Not Address Climate Change,” Friends of the Earth International, January 9, 2006.

30) “US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement,” Seattle Mayor’s Office.

31) J. Mathers and M. Manion, “How it Works: Cap-and-Trade Systems,” Catalyst Magazine, Spring 2005.

32) Climate Policy Update, Union of Concerned Scientists, 2005.

33) “U.S. Electric Power Industry Net Generation, 2004," The U.S. Energy Information Administration, November 2005.

34) Jonathan Shaw, “Fueling Our Future,” Harvard Magazine, May-June 2006.

35) Ibid.

36) U.S. Electric Power Industry Net Generation, 2004.

37) “Climate Change,” U.S. Department of Energy.

38) “ U.S. Nuclear Reactors,” U.S. Energy Information Administration, Updated 2006.

39) See Thomas B. Cochran et al, "Position Paper on Commercial Nuclear Power," National Resource Defense Council, October 2005.

40) “Collection, Commercial Processing, and Utilization of Corn Stover,” U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program, September 2004.