|
Tuesday, 20 March 2007 16:23 |
By JIM GENARO
Though its choices do have a large impact on global warming, the U.S. cannot tackle the problem by itself ó nor can the U.N. without the cooperation of both the developed and the undeveloped nations of the world, according to Lenny Bernstein.
A participant in the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and convening lead author for that panelís Fourth Assessment Report, Bernstein addressed the political issues surrounding climate change at UNC Ashevilleís Humanities Lecture Hall on March 13.
The
talk was the final presentation in the World Affairs Ciy Council at
Western North Carolinaís Great Decisions 2007 lecture series. About 25
people attended.
ìThe nature of climate change affects the policy choices,î Bernstein told the audience.
Global warming
is a complicated problem, he noted, and its various parameters define
the terms of the political debate surrounding it.
The problem,
fundamentally, is that the system by which the earth traps and releases
solar radiation has become unbalanced because of the impact of carbon
dioxide in the environment, he explained.
Carbon dioxide
and other greenhouse gases, such as methane, help trap the sunís rays ó
roughly comparable to ìsix lightbulbsí worth per square yard,î an
amount that without those gases would be insufficient to keep the
planet warm enough, Bernstein said.
However, the
excess greenhouse gases produced by fossil fuels and poor land use have
caused the atmosphere to retain too much heat, which ìultimately
results in the earth getting warmer,î he said.
Furthermore,
because greenhouse gases are equally distributed throughout the
atmosphere, ìthis is truly a global problem,î Bernstein told the
audience. ìThatís different from most environmental problems.î
While greenhouse
gases come from a variety of sources ó many of which are natural ó the
majority of human emissions are from two sources: energy and land use,
he said.
These, he noted, are the two ìmain things that drive the economy.î
ìHow much greenhouse control do we need?î Bernstein asked. ìThe answer is not very encouraging. We need a lot.î
In order to
stabilize the climate, the amount of emissions needs to approach the
amount of CO2 that the environment can naturally dissipate, he said.
The earthís
ecosystem does absorb CO2 through plants, oceanic absorption and other
means.
However, Bernstein noted, ìit is a trivial amount compared to
the amount weíre putting out.î
Four key factors
affect emissions, he said. These are population, gross domestic product
per capita, the amount of energy consumed per unit of GDP and the
amount of CO2 emitted per unit of energy.
The first two of these factors are beyond the control of governments, he said.
ìPopulation and GDP are untouchable from a policy standpoint,î Bernstein elaborated.
However, the way
in which wealth is generated can be changed ó and needs to be if the
current warming trends are to be reversed, he added.
ìControl of CO2 requires a fundamental change in global economic systems,î Bernstein told the audience.
While some
helpful new technologies are available ó such as carbon capture and
storage ó the costs of implementing them would be prohibitive for all
but the most affluent countries, he said.
ìIt would
possibly double or triple the costs of electricity, but that wouldnít
cripple our economy,î he noted. However, countries like India and China
ó which is currently building one new full-size coal-burning power
plant per week ó could not afford to modernize their economies without
emitting CO2s, he said.
He quoted British Prime Minister Tony Blair as saying, ìNo country is going to cripple its economy to address climate change.î
This idea was
even enshrined in the U.N.ís 1992 Framework Convention on Climate
Change, which, while acknowledging intent to combat global warming,
established that combating poverty is a more important goal, Bernstein
said.
One fundamental
problem with the Kyoto Protocol and other U.N. protocols on global
warming is that they are ìbased on Cold War politics, not economics,î
he argued.
The FCCC
established two categories of nations ó developed and developing. While
the developed nations that participated in the protocol agreed to limit
their emissions, no such restriction was placed on developing nations.
However, these
categories did not take into account the dramatic growth that some
so-called ìdeveloping nationsî are experiencing now. China, Bernstein
noted, will soon surpass the U.S. in CO2 emissions.
As the world
community begins debating a new protocol to replace Kyoto, which
expires in 2012, a number of approaches are being presented, including
carbon markets and systems that would tie emissions targets to a
countryís GDP or other indicators, he said.
But he added that ìeach one of these policies has as many problems associated with them as Kyoto.î
For instance, he
said, carbon markets ó which allow countries to trade emission rights
in an open market ó ìonly work if youíve got this government-mandated
scarcity.î
The problem of
climate change has no easy answers, Bernstein concluded. ìIt is the
most serious environmental problem that the world faces.î
However, he added, ìwe are not going to convince the world to sacrifice economic growth for any environmental problem.î
Bernstein then addressed questions from the audience.
Retired
professor Tom Sanders asked, ìIs there any institution within the Bush
administration thatís paying any attention to this?î
Bernstein
replied that the U.S. does ìhave a very good government-sponsored
climate-science program ... What the political spin is on it is another
story, but the science is good.î
ìIím all in
favor of stopping emissions,î one man said. However, he added that the
problems of climate change would not be solved even if all emissions
suddenly stopped.
Furthermore, he
asked about the impact of solar variability ó the flux in the amount of
solar radiation hitting the earth over vast spans of time.
ìSolar
variability dwarfs anything weíre doing,î Bernstein acknowledged.
However, he added, this is a negligible effect in the short term. Over
two 11-year solar cycles, only about one-tenth of one percent variation
in solar radiation has been measured, he noted.
As to the other
part of the manís comments, he countered that ìif we truly stopped all
emissions, we would stabilize the environment at its current
temperature.î
While
temperatures would continue to rise slightly because of the cumulative
effects of past emissions, this would only amount to about two-tenths
of a degree Fahrenheit per decade, he said.
ìDo you think
Americans support the Kyoto Protocol?î a man asked. ìI think, in many
ways, President Bush reflects the tenor of the country.î
ìThat is a very sad story,î Bernstein replied.
He said that the
public largely misunderstands the issue because of a ìdouble failureî
on the part of both environmentalists and the Clinton/Gore
administration.
ìEnvironmental
groups failed to embark on a long-term educational campaign,î Bernstein
said. Instead, they tried to scare people with threats of extreme
weather and tropical diseases.
Threats of
imminent malaria outbreaks were not scientifically founded, he added,
as much of the U.S. is already warm and tropical enough for malaria to
spread. He noted that there were cases of the disease in the U.S. until
it was eradicated in the 1930s.
ìIt doesnít have to get any warmer,î he said. ìAll that would have to happen is a significant introduction of the disease.
However, a
greater failure, he said, was on the part of the Clinton/Gore
administration, which sabotaged its own efforts to get a climate-change
treaty passed.
Prior to the
convention which passed the Kyoto convention, President Clinton urged
the U.S. Senate to pass the Byrd-Hagel resolution, a measure which held
that the U.S. should not sign any treaty that did not include binding
targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations
or that could harm the U.S. economy ó or even a specific sector of the
economy.
This was a problem, Bernstein said, because ìif youíre going to control emissions, thereís going to be winners and losers.î
The resolution
was passed by a 95-0 vote in the Senate. However, when the time came to
negotiate the Kyoto Protocol, Vice President Al Gore flew to Kyoto, and
in the course of ten hours there, agreed to drop many of the objections
that the U.S. had previously made in order to get the treaty passed ó
objections that were based on the Byrd-Hagel resolution.
ìGreat! Al
Goreís a hero, but he also made sure that the Senate would not ratify
it. A lot of those 95 senators were furious,î Bernstein said. ìThatís
why I have a lot of cynicism when I watch Al Gore.î
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
