| Leadings & Concerns |
|---|
Climate Change/Global Warming Why has there been controversy about what the climate scientists know and project? The earth's climate system is exceedingly complex. Determining global temperature and sea level is not a simple matter. Determining how one factor affects others is more difficult and subject to differing standards of evidence and interpretation. Predicting what will happen in the future is even more complex and basically not possible. This is partly because predictable changes will have unpredictable effects. For example, higher air temperatures will lead to more clouds, but it is not possible to know in advance if more clouds, which both reflect light and trap heat, will hasten or slow the warming trend. The biggest uncertainty is not knowing about consequences of future human activity. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) makes its projections in numerical ranges because areas of known uncertainties make more specific predictions unwarranted. A number of large corporations have opposed the conclusions of the IPCC as “unscientific,” and have helped fund and publicize the work of a very few scientists who challenge its findings. News reports that present "both sides" make it seem as though there is much more disagreement among climate scientists than really exists. What has happened about global warming in international diplomacy? A UN Framework Convention on Climate Change was adopted by more than 160 nations at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. It set a goal of stabilizing global temperature and provides for annual conferences to negotiate agreements until this goal is reached. The United States President signed and the Senate ratified the Framework Convention in 1993. At the 1997 conference in Kyoto, Japan the industrialized nations adopted the Kyoto Protocol, an amendment to the Framework Convention, in which they each agreed to make specific emissions reductions by 2012. The U.S. reduction is to be 6-7% below its 1990 level, which is about 30% below the level of U.S. emissions otherwise projected for 2012. At Kyoto, some important decisions about implementation were postponed. At the Hague Conference, which took place shortly after the 2000 U.S. presidential election, the European Union (EU) insisted that every nation should reduce its domestic emissions. The U.S. did not agree. The U.S. also continued to press developing nations to limit their emissions as a condition for U.S. ratification. The developing nations, led by China and India, insisted that the industrialized nations begin making reductions before they would consider limits. Soon after taking office President George W. Bush stated his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that it could hinder the U.S. economy. This position has generated a great deal of negative publicity in the U.S. and in Europe. In the summer of 2001, the other 178 parties to the UN Framework came to final agreement on the terms of the Kyoto Protocol without the U.S.. Enough of the industrialized nations have now ratified the Protocol so that it will take effect without U.S. participation if Russia ratifies it (which is now doubtful). However, it will not be possible to significantly slow global warming without U.S. cooperation. Can the Kyoto Protocol work if the developing countries don't participate? Opponents of the Kyoto treaty in the U.S. have repeatedly insisted it "won’t work" because developing countries "don’t participate." This assertion is based on a distortion of the Framework Convention and ignores the prior agreements that led to the Kyoto Protocol. All nations that signed the Convention must inventory their domestic emissions, create pilot programs to limit them, and participate in the international efforts to reduce global emissions. Most developing countries have done these things. In 1996 it became clear that the industrialized nations’ 1992 agreement to reduce greenhouse emissions voluntarily wasn’t working. That year in Berlin, all parties, including the U.S., accepted the principle that agreeing to binding reduction targets for the industrialized nations should come first, and then limiting emissions from the developing nations would follow. U.S. per capita energy use is about twice that of Western Europe and Japan, 12 times that of China, and 20 times that of India. Since 1990, China's and India's emissions remained about the same while U.S. emissions increased over 15 percent. Simple justice requires industrial nations, and the U.S. in particular, to take the first steps to slow global warming. It is the U.S., not the developing nations, that is failing to keep its agreements, and it is the U.S. whose participation will be essential if goal of reducing greenhouse emissions on an equitable basis is to be reached. Let us begin to remove the plank from our own eye so we can see more clearly how to help our neighbors consider the speck of sawdust in theirs. What is happening in national policy and politics? In 1997, before the Kyoto conference, the U.S. Senate passed a resolution stating that it would not ratify an agreement that might harm the U.S. economy or did not include participation by developing nations. The Global Climate Coalition, a lobby for certain coal, oil, and auto interests, strongly promoted this resolution and has lobbied the U.S. and other governments against a climate treaty. Soon after taking office, President George W. Bush reversed a campaign pledge to begin limiting CO2 emissions from coal plants. In the spring of 2001, the President released his energy plan, which focuses on increased production of fossil fuels and a renewed commitment to nuclear power. The plan largely disregards energy conservation and offers little support to promote energy efficiency and renewable technologies. It has been estimated that Bush administration’s proposals would result in an increase in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions of as much as 35% above 1900 levels. (by when?) Louis’s note Acting on this pressing issue until reducing greenhouse emissions becomes a priority of U.S. public policy, especially an energy policy is of primary importance. This is a reality that our leaders and our people must come to understand and accept before global warming can begin to be slowed and eventually stopped. What are the alternatives to our present energy system? An essential first step is to replace less efficient equipment and technologies now in use with more efficient equipment and technologies that are already available. Natural gas is less polluting as a fuel than coal or oil, but it still adds both CO2 and methane to the atmosphere. Nuclear power is not a direct cause of greenhouse emissions, but the problems and risks of radioactive contamination are incompatible with caring for the earth as a sacred trust. Nuclear fuel is scarce and expensive. It provides a low net gain of energy which is masked by subsidies. Both natural gas and nuclear power may help make a transition away from our present system, but neither is ecologically sustainable. Wind turbines already produce electricity at a cost that is competitive with fossil fuels. Photovoltaic (solar) cells already produce electricity directly from sunlight and would be much more widely used when the cost of using fossil fuels increases. Fuel cells are being developed to produce electricity without combustion, using hydrogen as a fuel. Hydrogen can also be used in a combustion engine with only water as an exhaust, and electricity from solar, wind or other renewable sources can generate hydrogen. Many people are coming to think a solar/hydrogen energy system can be a solution to our present dilemma. Public policy decisions are needed to hasten the development of a practical energy system based on renewable sources. Hydrogen is not a source of energy. However, any energy technology used on a large scale will disrupt natural eco-systems. The more population and affluence increase, the more disruptive human impacts will become. Creating a culture in which all people can find fulfillment using less energy and fewer of the earth's physical resources is both possible and essential for sustainability. Would complying with the Kyoto Protocol cost jobs and hurt the economy? Predictions by critics of the Kyoto Protocol that it would destroy the U.S. economy are based on unwarranted assumptions about public policy and economics. The National Academy of Sciences found the U.S. can reduce energy use by 20% at a net economic benefit. Eight Nobel economists and 2,400 of their colleagues concluded that cutting greenhouse emissions would increase efficiency, add jobs, and reduce costs, wastes, and oil imports. Compliance with many existing environmental regulations, including recent reductions in sulfur emissions, has cost much less than the industries involved had predicted. However, the Kyoto targets are just a first step. The large reductions needed to stabilize the atmosphere, which is what must be done to deal with global warming, will cost money and will change the way we live our lives. There will probably be more jobs in a solar/hydrogen economy, but they will not be the same jobs. We should not expect it to be easy, and we must be sure the burdens of change do not fall primarily on the poor and those who are most directly affected. We should also understand that the longer we wait to deal with global climate change, the more harm will occur and the more will be the human and economic costs for our children and grandchildren. Faithfulness to God means that we must protect God's earth and God's people regardless of cost. To whom much has been given, much will be required.
|