PLEASE NOTE:
*
CCNet TERRA 1/2002 - 23 August 2002
-----------------------------------
"You can see with this dataset that what is happening in the
Antarctic is not what would be expected from a straightforward
global
warming scenario, but a much more complicated set of
events."
--Claire Parkinson, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, 22
August 2002
"It is also interesting to note that the [Solheimajokull]
glacier
has been growing in length since about 1970 and that, in the
words of
the authors, "the recent advance (1970- 1995) resulted from
a combination of
cooling and enhancement of precipitation." These
observations from
high northern latitudes, where global warming is supposed to be
most
evident, provide no evidence for that dramatic phenomenon, which
is supposed
to be wreaking havoc on the planet. Indeed, they suggest nothing
whatsoever
out of the ordinary."
--CO2 Science Magazine, 21 August 2002
(1) SATELLITES SHOW OVERALL INCREASES IN SEA ICE COVER
Mark Hess <mhess@pop100.gsfc.nasa.gov>
(2) SHOCK, HORROR: "GLOBAL WARMING MAY STOP DEADLY CYCLE OF
ICE AGES FOR GOOD"
Nature Science Update, 23 August 2002
(3) OBSERVATIONAL HISTORY OF AN OUTLET GLACIER IN SOUTHERN
ICELAND
CO2 Science Magazine, 21 August 2002
(4) GLOBAL WARMING, GLOBAL SCEPTICISM
Tech Central Station, 21 August 2002
(5) EXPERTS SCALE BACK ESTIMATES OF WORLD POPULATION GROWTH
The New York Times, 20 August 2002
====================
(1) SATELLITES SHOW OVERALL INCREASES IN SEA ICE COVER
>From Mark Hess <mhess@pop100.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Krishna
Ramanujan
August 22, 2002
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.
(Phone: 301/286-3026)
Release No: 02-128
SATELLITES SHOW OVERALL INCREASES IN ANTARCTIC SEA ICE COVER
While recent studies have shown that on the whole Arctic sea ice
has
decreased since the late 1970s, satellite records of sea ice
around
Antarctica reveal an overall increase in the southern hemisphere
ice over
the same period. Continued decreases or increases could have
substantial
impacts on polar climates, because sea ice spreads over a vast
area,
reflects solar radiation away from the Earth's surface, and
insulates the
oceans from the atmosphere.
In a study just published in the Annals of Glaciology, Claire
Parkinson of
NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center analyzed the length of the sea
ice season
throughout the Southern Ocean to obtain trends in sea ice
coverage.
Parkinson examined 21 years (1979-1999) of Antarctic sea ice
satellite
records and discovered that, on average, the area where southern
sea ice
seasons have lengthened by at least one day per year is roughly
twice as
large as the area where sea ice seasons have shortened by at
least one day
per year. One day per year equals three weeks over the 21-year
period.
"You can see with this dataset that what is happening in the
Antarctic is
not what would be expected from a straightforward global warming
scenario,
but a much more complicated set of events," Parkinson said.
The length of the sea ice season in any particular region or area
refers to
the number of days per year when at least 15 percent of that area
is covered
by sea ice. Some areas close to the Antarctic continent have sea
ice all
year long, but a much larger region of the Southern Ocean has sea
ice for a
smaller portion of the year, and in those regions the length of
the sea ice
season can vary significantly from one year to another.
To calculate the lengths of the sea ice seasons, Parkinson used
satellite
data gridded to 25 by 25 kilometer grid cells for the Southern
Ocean region.
For each grid cell, the satellite data were used to determine the
concentration, or percent area, of the sea ice cover. Whenever
the
percentage was at least 15 percent, the grid cell was considered
to have
ice. Using this method, Parkinson went through the entire data
set and for
each grid cell had a computer count how many days of each year
had ice, then
calculated trends over the 21-year record.
Overall, the area of the Antarctic with trends indicating a
lengthening of
the sea ice season by at least one day per year was 5.6 million
square
kilometers (2.16 million square miles), about 60 percent the size
of the
United States. At the same time, the area with sea ice seasons
shortening by
at least one day per year was 3 million square kilometers (1.16
million
square miles).
Regionally, the Ross Sea, on average, had its sea ice seasons
getting
longer, while most of the Amundsen Sea and almost the entire
Bellingshausen
Sea had their sea ice seasons getting shorter.
"The Antarctic sea ice changes match up well with regional
temperature
changes," Parkinson said. "The one region in the
Antarctic where the
temperature records have shown prominent warming over this period
is the
Antarctic Peninsula, and indeed it's immediately to the west and
east of the
Antarctic Peninsula, in the Bellingshausen/Amundsen and western
Weddell
seas, respectively, that the sea ice seasons have been shortening
rather
than lengthening."
The Arctic also shows a mixed pattern of sea ice trends over the
1979-1999
period, but in contrast to the Antarctic, the area with
shortening seasons
in the Arctic is far greater than the area with lengthening
seasons. The
Arctic patterns suggest some connections with major oscillations
in
large-scale atmospheric pressures, called the Arctic Oscillation
and the
North Atlantic Oscillation, and it is possible the ice covers of
both
hemispheres could be influenced by oscillations that are still
not fully
identified, Parkinson said.
The study used data from NASA's Nimbus 7 Scanning Multichannel
Microwave
Radiometer (SMMR) and the Defense Meteorological Satellite
Program (DMSP)
Special Sensor Microwave Imagers (SSMIs) and in the future will
be extended
with data from the National Space Development Agency of Japan's
Advanced
Microwave Scanning Radiometer for the Earth Observing System
(AMSR-E)
recently launched on board NASA's Aqua satellite.
For more information, please see:
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020820southseaice.html
============
(2) SHOCK, HORROR: "GLOBAL WARMING MAY STOP DEADLY CYCLE OF
ICE AGES FOR GOOD"
>From Nature Science Update, 23 August 2002
http://www.nature.com/nsu/020819/020819-9.html
Next ice age on ice? Another big freeze might never happen.
23 August 2002
PHILIP BALL
Mankind could lock the world into an irreversible greenhouse
effect,
banishing future ice ages, warn (sic!) two Belgian scientists.
Global
warming caused by emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases
could tip the
Earth into a completely new climate state in which cycles of
freezing and
thawing are switched off, they suggest1.
The notion that we're due another ice age is still occasionally
peddled as a
reason not to worry about global warming. But just about all the
predictions
made today are very different to those when this idea was hatched
30 years
ago, point out André Berger and Marie-France Loutre of the
Catholic
University of Louvain.
Back then, climatologists agreed that, because the previous two
warm spells
between ice ages had lasted about 10,000 years, the present one,
the
Holocene, should be over soon. It started more than 10,000 years
ago.
But we now know that today's conditions are not like those of the
last warm
period, the Eemian, which was around 125,000 years ago. The
ice-age cycle is
caused by slow, periodic changes in the shape and position of the
Earth's
orbit around the Sun. This time around, those changes are less
pronounced
than they were during the Eemian.
On such grounds alone, scientists have predicted since the 1980s
that the
present interglacial period might last up to 70,000 years.
On top of that, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
today is
already almost one-third more than during any recent
interglacial. Over the
next two centuries, it could rise to double the present-day
value.
Some climate models that take this into account predict that peak
ice-age
conditions might return in around 100,000 years' time. But the
outcome could
be even more dramatic than that, say Berger and Loutre. If the
Greenland and
West Antarctic ice sheets were to melt completely, an ice age
might not get
underway at all.
Although ice ages are ultimately caused by orbital changes, they
seem to
rely on feedbacks within the Earth's climate system. The ice
sheets provide
such a feedback - the bigger they get, the more sunlight and heat
they
reflect, and so the more the Earth cools.
It is hard to know what the ice sheets will do, says
climatologist Thomas
Crowley of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. He thinks
that the ice
in Antarctica is very unlikely to disappear. Long after we've
burnt up all
the fossil fuels, "there should still be a pretty big chunk
of ice down
there", he says. The Greenland ice sheet might be more
susceptible, but
possibly not enough to rule out an eventual return to ice-age
conditions.
Perhaps, says Crowley, the ice-cycle will merely "skip a
beat" this time
round.
References
Berger, A. & Loutre, M. F. An exceptionally long interglacial
ahead?.
Science, 297, (2002).
© Nature News Service / Macmillan Magazines Ltd 2002
==============
(3) OBSERVATIONAL HISTORY OF AN OUTLET GLACIER IN SOUTHERN
ICELAND
>From CO2 Science Magazine, 21 August 2002
http://www.co2science.org/journal/2002/v5n34c1.htm
Reference
Mackintosh, A.N., Dugmore, A.J. and Hubbard, A.L. 2002. Holocene
climatic
changes in Iceland: evidence from modeling glacier length
fluctuations at
Solheimajokull. Quaternary International 91: 39-52.
What was done
Among other things, the authors report what is known about the
history of
the Solheimajokull outlet glacier of the Myrdalsjokull ice cap
located on
the southern coast of Iceland.
What was learned
In 1705, the glacier had a length of approximately 14.8 km; and
by 1740, its
length had grown to 15.2 km. Thereafter, however, the glacier
began to
shrink, exhibiting a length of only 13.2 km in 1783. Rebounding
rapidly, the
glacier returned to its 1705 position by 1794; and by 1820 it
equaled its
1740 length. This maximum length was maintained for about the
next
half-century, after which the glacier began a slow retreat that
continued to
about 1932, when its length was approximately 14.75 km. The
glacier then
wasted away more rapidly, reaching a second minimum-length value
of
approximately 13.8 km at about 1970, whereupon it began to
rapidly expand
once again, growing to about 14.3 km in length by 1995.
What it means
The current position of the outlet glacier terminus is by no
means unusual.
In fact, it is about midway between its maximum and minimum
positions of the
past three centuries. It is also interesting to note that the
glacier has
been growing in length since about 1970 and that, in the words of
the
authors, "the recent advance (1970-1995) resulted from a
combination of
cooling and enhancement of precipitation."
These observations from high northern latitudes, where global
warming is
supposed to be most evident, provide no evidence for that
dramatic
phenomenon, which is supposed to be wreaking havoc on the planet.
Indeed,
they suggest nothing whatsoever out of the ordinary.
Copyright © 2002. Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide
and Global Change
=========
(4) GLOBAL WARMING, GLOBAL SCEPTICISM
>From Tech Central Station, 21 August 2002
http://www.techcentralstation.be/2051/wrapper.jsp?PID=2051-100&CID=2051-082102A
by Hans H.J. Labohm and Dick Thoenes
In the 1970s and 1980s climate experts started to worry about the
measured
increase in the carbon dioxide (CO2) content of the atmosphere.
On the basis
of the known principle of the greenhouse effect, it could be
expected that
the temperature on the earth would rise. It seemed likely that
the change
was the result of the sharp increase in the use of fossil fuels
(coal,
mineral oil and natural gas). In 1988, under the auspices of the
United
Nations (UN), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) was set
up with the object of interpreting and reporting on developments
in climate
research around the world. These reports were intended to serve
as advice
for the participating governments. The main task was to examine
whether
there was indeed any question of climate change and in particular
of global
warming. If that were to be the case, international agreements
might be
needed to limit the use of fossil fuels.
The principle of the greenhouse effect is as follows. The earth
is heated by
solar radiation. This penetrates the earth's atmosphere and warms
the
earth's surface. The surface of the earth reaches a certain
temperature, and
incoming radiation is compensated by outgoing radiation. The
atmosphere
plays an important role in this interchange, because it retains a
portion of
the outgoing heat radiation. As a result, the average surface
temperature of
the earth has a pleasant value of around 15°C. Incidentally,
this is not
caused by the air itself, but mainly by the water vapour it
contains and
also by traces of a number of other gases, of which CO2 is the
most
important (alongside methane, nitrogen oxides and others). These
allow the
sun's rays to pass through but retain a portion of the outgoing
heat
radiation. Because of the similarity with a greenhouse, this
effect of the
atmosphere is known as the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse
gases, such as
water vapour and CO2, act like the glass panes in a greenhouse.
If the CO2
content increases (through human agency), it can be expected that
the
surface temperature of the earth will also rise. This is known as
the extra
greenhouse effect.
What we need to do is establish whether climate change is
currently under
way, whether there is already any global warming, and what can be
expected
for the future. It should be borne in mind that the climate
cannot be
predicted owing to its capricious behaviour, but that we can at
most give
projections for the future. And these are always based on a range
of
assumptions that will always be open to discussion. However, even
if
uncertainties remain about the possible consequences of an extra
greenhouse
effect, many people find it necessary to limit the use of fossil
fuels on
the basis of the precautionary principle. Another argument
advanced for this
is the inevitable future scarcity of fossil fuels.
Alarmist Standpoint of the IPCC
IPCC's reports contain three sections (drawn up by Working
Groups):
projected climate change; consequences of projected climate
change; and
possible measures to limit climate change.
Projected climate change has been examined by climate experts in
several
ways: first of all on the basis of worldwide measurements and
additionally
on the basis of models.
The CO2 content of the atmosphere is measured continuously. This
fluctuates
with the seasons, but the average value increased from 285 ppm in
1900 to
365 ppm in 2000, a relative increase of almost 25% (ppm = parts
per million
by volume). Temperature measurements have been used to see
whether the
average temperature on earth has in fact increased. To that end,
the
measurements collected at all weather stations around the world
are averaged
in a particular way (day and night, every day of the year, across
the
earth's entire surface). The IPCC reports a significant increase
of 0.6°C
during the twentieth century. This comprises an increase of
0.45°C in the
period 1900-1930, a fall of 0.2°C in the period 1930-1975, and
an increase
of 0.35°C in the period 1975-2000. This last increase, which
corresponds to
0.15°C every ten years, coincides with an observed increase in
the CO2
content
Apart from surface measurements, temperature measurements have
also been
taken since 1959 using weather balloons and since 1979 using
satellites. The
latter measure temperatures across the earth's entire surface,
something
which is not possible with ground measurements. According to the
IPCC, these
show an average temperature increase of 0.05°C over ten years,
which does
not differ significantly from zero and falls within the
inaccuracy range.
It has been observed that the length of most of the world's
glaciers has
shrunk significantly over the last fifty years, but this is
related to a
long term natural climate change (see below). Also a large number
of local
climate changes have been reported, but it is not certain that
these are
linked to climate change on a global scale.
In addition, there has been very extensive work in the area of
modeling,
i.e. mathematical descriptions of the processes that occur in the
earth's
atmosphere. These encompass the phenomena which determine the
local climate
in each part of the world, combined with models for air
circulation,
interaction between atmosphere and oceans, and sea flows. Great
progress has
been made in this area over the last two decades in the sense
that an ever
larger number of effects have been incorporated in the models.
The result of
these developments is that there is increasing confidence in the
predictive
value of these models, despite the fact that they have become
much more
sophisticated. It should be noted that the IPCC very correctly
does not
speak about predictions but about projections. These projections
are based
partly on a number of assumptions regarding factors about which
there is
still uncertainty.
The IPCC has so far issued three major reports, the first in
1990, the
second in 1996 and the third in 2001. With the successive
reports, the
warnings about possible temperature increases have become more
serious. The
IPCC assigns a probability to its projections for the future. For
instance,
the third report assigns a probability of 66-90% to the
projection that the
average temperature of the earth will increase by between 0.1 and
0.2°C
every ten years over the coming decades. However, for the entire
21st
century, a larger temperature increase is projected, of between
1.4 and
5.8°C for the hundred-year period. This difference arises from
certain
assumptions about future CO2 content (see below). Thus, there
would appear
to be a prospect of considerable global warming. On the basis of
these
projections, a significant rise in sea level is predicted, with
the danger
that low-lying countries would be submerged.
The way that the IPCC works has important consequences for the
final
reports. First of all, results of scientific research are
collected, but
these are then interpreted by the Working Groups. This means that
a personal
viewpoint is unavoidable. It is striking that the IPCC reports'
Summaries
for Policymakers make constant reference to the uncertainties
surrounding
the projections, whereas they also give explicit warnings about
the
unfavourable consequences of the climate changes that are
depicted as being
probable. In fact, the IPCC takes a clear stand in this respect,
which can
be summed up as follows: future catastrophes are inevitable
unless there is
drastic action by man.
Sceptical Standpoint of a Number of Scientists
The fairly uncompromising stand of the IPCC prompted criticism
from
scientists outside IPCC circles as long ago as 1990. After the
second report
in 1996, the criticism increased considerably. Nevertheless, the
pronouncements of the IPCC were still quite cautious at that
time: "The
balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on
global
climate". Yet statements were issued that could be
interpreted as dramatic
predictions. After the third report in 2001 the criticism
increased further.
Precisely because the media and politicians generally announced
the
predictions of calamity as certainties, many scientists were
prompted to
voice their criticism loud and clear. In America this took the
form of a
public debate, initiated to a large extent by S.F. Singer and
R.S. Lindzen.
In Europe the criticism was until recently mostly ignored by the
media.
Apparently, in political circles it is regarded as
"politically incorrect"
to doubt the doom scenarios (see below).
The most important points of the scientific criticism of the
IPCC's
assertions are as follows. Determination of an increase in the
average
temperature of the earth from surface measurements is
insufficiently
reliable. Satellite measurements, which point to an unchanged
temperature,
seem more reliable. In addition, it is still not possible to
distinguish
clearly between possible short-term climate changes and long-term
climate
changes such as the warming after the last ice age. Moreover, the
predictions of future developments in the CO2 content of the
atmosphere are
based on assumptions that may turn out to be wrong. The greatest
uncertainties concern the rate of CO2 absorption by plants and
oceans.
Finally, the climate models that are used to make projections
about the
future are insufficiently reliable since they fail to take
adequate account
of certain effects, in particular the influence of variations in
solar
activity, changing cloud cover and aerosols (very fine dust
particles).
These points of criticism are examined in more detail below.
Temperature
measurements taken at weather stations around the world are
carefully
averaged, taking account of the uneven distribution of such
stations across
the earth's surface. However, here there might be a question of
various
distorting effects which all point in the same direction. In the
first
place, temperatures are measured primarily on land, whereas more
than 70% of
the earth's surface consists of water. This can create
significant
distortions. Furthermore, the majority of the weather stations
are in
inhabited areas, with only a few in the thinly populated regions
that form a
large portion of the world's surface. Although temperatures can
be measured
everywhere with an accuracy of 0.1°C, there are such large holes
in the
measurement network that it is not easily possible to determine
with the
same accuracy the average temperature of a large country such as
Australia,
which has only a few small and densely populated regions
alongside very
large, almost unpopulated areas. This applies to an even greater
degree for
the world as a whole. It has also emerged that the temperature is
significantly higher in urban areas than in the countryside, with
an even
more marked difference in large agglomerations (up to 2°C). In
the course of
the last twenty years urban areas have expanded almost everywhere
and some
of the more remotely located weather stations have been closed.
This in
itself ought to lead to a measured temperature increase. For
determination
of the average temperature of the earth's entire surface,
enormous local
differences of as much as 100°C have to be taken into
consideration (e.g.
between Verchoyansk and Jeddah). The further apart the extremes
of
temperature, the less accurate the average. Something similar
applies for
differences between day and night, and between the seasons. When
these
aspects are taken into consideration, it must be concluded that
satellite
measurements offer the only possibility for determining a real
average world
temperature accurately.
With regard to the distinction between short- and long-term
changes,
geophysicists in particular warn us for premature conclusions.
Over the last
millennium the temperature has moved up and down, and we are now
on the
upward curve that started about 300 years ago at the end of the
so-called
Little Ice Age. There are reasons to expect that the temperature
will start
to fall again in future centuries.
The behaviour of carbon dioxide is the key to assessing what
extra
greenhouse effect can be expected. The CO2 content of the
atmosphere is the
result on the one hand of emissions, largely from micro-organisms
and
animals, and on the other hand absorption, primarily by plants on
the land
and in the sea. Man adds about 4% to natural emissions. It has
been observed
that natural absorption increased by about 2% in the 20th
century, mainly in
the second half, which means that almost half of human emissions
is now
absorbed. The non-absorbed portion caused an increase in the CO2
content of
the atmosphere of about 25% as compared with the level in 1900.
It is
expected that human emissions will increase further. For this,
several
scenarios can be envisaged. It is also expected that absorption
will
increase, because it is roughly proportional to the concentration
in the
atmosphere. The IPCC is very pessimistic about the extent to
which this will
happen. The IPCC assumes that absorption into the oceans will
fall in
relative terms, whereas not much is expected from the effect of
plant growth
(these two assumptions form the most important basis for the
projected
warming). However, this is expressly contradicted by a wide range
of
experts. If there is more plant growth, absorption by plants must
increase
even progressively (i.e. more than proportionally to the increase
of the CO2
content of the atmosphere). If absorption were indeed to increase
by a few
percentage points, human emissions in the future would be
completely
absorbed. However, there are still insufficient scientific data
in this
area.
But the most serious criticism concerns the models. We now have
supercomputers that can handle highly complicated models, but the
climate is
so complex that we will always have to employ models that are a
simplification of reality. As a result, the accuracy of the
predictions is
necessarily limited. An important complication is that the
climate behaves
chaotically, reducing the accuracy of predictions as the length
of the
period covered increases. Some people argue that predictions can
never be
made for a period of more than a few years, even with the best
models and
the largest computers. Another important point of criticism
relates to
insufficient knowledge of various processes which play an
essential role in
the climate. This relates in particular to the influence of
changing solar
activity, variations in cloud cover and the effect of aerosols
deriving from
human activities. Cloud behaviour is perhaps the most important
factor. It
is clear that higher temperatures generally lead to more
evaporation,
generating more clouds which keep solar heat at bay. Of course,
this effect
is widely known, but due to great local variations it is not yet
possible to
model it adequately. Similar effects seems to play a particularly
important
role over the Pacific Ocean, but a great deal more research needs
to be done
(see Lindzen).
The problem is that, when such phenomena are inadequately
incorporated in
the climate models, the modelling results may be completely
wrong. This
means that probabilities attached to the IPCC's pronouncements
lose their
significance. These only make sense if we are certain that the
best possible
account has been taken of all relevant effects.
Another important point is the question why the clear increase in
CO2
content has not led to markedly higher temperatures. It should be
remembered
that surface temperatures went up and down in the course of the
20th
century, whereas the temperatures measured by satellites since
1979 have
been virtually constant (see above). According to the greenhouse
theory,
temperatures should have risen continuously since 1930. No
satisfactory
explanation has been found for this discrepancy, which in itself
implies a
criticism of climate models.
The almost blind trust that scientists have in advanced computer
models,
even when they are based on inadequate experimental data, is a
phenomenon
that has spread rapidly to almost all branches of science. When
using
complicated models it is of the greatest importance to indicate
explicitly
the assumptions and simplifications on which those models are
based. The
IPCC has neglected to do this in its Summaries.
Lastly, it should be pointed out that, even if there were no
general
temperature increase (global warming), there may still be climate
change. In
the first place, climate change has been continuous in the
geological
history of the earth. But, in principle, it is conceivable that
the
increasing CO2 content of the atmosphere may still lead to
unforeseen
effects. After all, if the projected extra greenhouse effect of
CO2 were to
be fully offset, for instance through more cloud formation or
increasing
emissions of aerosols, these may in turn have other unforeseen
effects. Not
enough is yet known about this.
Social Consequences
As indicated above, the sceptical standpoint is regarded as
"politically
incorrect", certainly in the Netherlands. Many people
believe that the
western economy is excessively based on squandering raw materials
and
energy, which means that we are heading for a future shortage,
while we
spoil nature irrevocably with the resulting waste products. In
addition,
many have the idea that we live in a world that can be completely
controlled
by man, a world in which human behaviour can in principle be
steered,
preferably by democratic means. People with this basic position
are
antipathetic to the sceptical scientific standpoint regarding
climate change
summarised above. But, in our view, these points of view are open
to
separate discussions. Another important effect is a widely
expressed doubt
about the integrity of sceptical scientists demonstrated by the
media and
politicians. When certain scientists announce a standpoint, it is
all too
readily assumed that this standpoint was dictated by industry
that pays
their research. It is silently assumed that a scientist who
expresses the
sceptical view is paid by the oil industry. He is also
automatically a
proponent of wasteful behaviour and thus partly responsible for
exhaustion
of raw materials and degradation of the environment. Needless to
say, this
is lacking in logic.
The assumption of a controllable world is also an important point
for
debate. Hitherto there are no indications that the world is in a
position to
steer population growth and the associated economic growth
effectively.
From Kyoto to Bonn
Nevertheless, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change
should be regarded as an attempt to manage one element, namely
emissions of
greenhouse gases. Agreements have been reached in this framework,
enshrined
in the so-called Kyoto protocol dating from 1997. In this
protocol the
developed countries committed themselves to reduce their combined
emissions
of greenhouse gases by at least 5% in the period 2008-2012 as
compared with
the level in 1990. It was the original intention that the sixth
conference
of the parties to the climate convention, held in The Hague in
November
2000, would see years of negotiations on reducing emissions of
greenhouse
gases crowned with specific commitments on the measures to be
taken by
countries in order to realise the objectives of the convention.
But this
conference turned into a fiasco. The same was true of the
subsequent
attempts made in April 2001 by Minister Pronk, in his capacity as
chairman
of the conference, with the particular aim of convincing the
Americans to
join the convention The new Bush administration had initially
restricted
itself to rejection of certain technical implementing measures in
the
convention. But the American position had in the meantime
hardened into what
many saw as a rejection of the principles of the convention, a
point that
was later denied by the American administration.
The American refusal to take part also led countries such as
Japan, Canada
and Australia to change their position, as became clear at the
climate
conference in Bonn and the G-8 summit in Genoa (both in July
2001). The fact
that the climate conference in Bonn ended at the last minute with
an
agreement that these countries could endorse must be regarded as
a minor
miracle. There can be no doubt that this should be ascribed to
the
determination of the chairman of the conference, Minister Pronk.
For this,
he has rightly won respect and admiration. Nevertheless, it was a
Pyrrhic
victory. After all, the outcome of Bonn implies a considerable
dilution of
the commitments initially proposed: the agreed (but not yet
ratified)
reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases is now equivalent to
roughly one
third of the original objectives. As a result, the formal
framework of Kyoto
remains in place but the content, in terms of substantial
emission
reductions, has been substantially diluted.
What does a cost-benefit analysis of Bonn show? Without
contributions from
countries that are responsible for a considerable portion of CO2
emissions
such as the US, the beneficial effect is zero. Incidentally, that
would
already have been the case if the US were to participate. In a
letter to the
editor of the New York Times 27 March 2001, Klaus Heiss wrote on
this
subject: "... there is little chance of reducing energy
consumption in the
United States by 30 to 40 percent within a decade. But beyond
this, Kyoto is
also ineffective. Even if the mandatory targets for emission
reduction were
enforced and one were to accept the computer simulations
underlying the IPCC
speculations as to the next 100 years, global temperature in 2050
would be
reduced by only 0.05 degrees Celsius, an amount too small to
measure with
standard thermometers". According to some authors, the
diluted compromise of
Bonn would further reduce the benefit to 0.02°C. The supporters
of Kyoto
counter that the agreed measures still represent a political
breakthrough:
it is a first step which should be followed by further steps, the
idea being
to reduce use of fossil-based energy by 60-80% in 50 to 100
years.
There is also great uncertainty about the costs of Kyoto. The
IPCC gives a
range of (model) outcomes averaging from 0.2 to 2% of GDP (gross
domestic
product) in 2010 without CO2 emissions trading and from 0.1 to
1.1% of GDP
in 2010 with emissions trading. In the literature we find higher
estimates
of around 4% of GDP in 2010 for the US, but these studies are
based on
extreme and unrealistic assumptions about emission reductions.
How should we weigh these costs and benefits against each other?
Richard
Lindzen, a meteorologist of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology and a
(critical) member of the IPCC, once said: "If we view Kyoto
as an insurance
policy, it is a policy where the premium appears to exceed the
potential
damages, and where the coverage extends to only a small fraction
of the
potential damages".
Tradable CO2 Emission Rights
If we suppose that the IPCC is right, the question remains as to
whether an
effective global policy to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases,
in
particular CO2 , is at all possible. Many economists hold the
view that, if
something is to be done to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases,
this can be
achieved better in a market-based way via trade in emission
rights than
exclusively via regulation.
There is support for such an approach even among greens. Large
portions of
the business community object, but there are also companies, in
particular a
small number of large energy producers, who see advantage in
clear rules for
emissions of greenhouse gases, so that they know where they
stand. They
advocate ceilings, linked to a regime of tradable emission rights
in line
with the Kyoto convention. Although the American administration
has rejected
this convention, it is still considering introduction, at
national level, of
a system of voluntary measures to reduce CO2 emissions, including
tradable
emission rights. However, the Americans Robert Crandall and Fred
Smith have
expressed doubts over this approach. If the American
administration believes
that the scientific basis for the Kyoto convention is too meagre
to justify
far-reaching measures, why should it now be thinking about
introduction of
such a system? Conversely, if the Bush administration believes
that the
current CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is already too high,
why should
it make it easier for companies to emit more greenhouse gases
than would
otherwise have been allowed, by buying emission rights? The logic
is flawed
somewhere.
In a system of emission rights governments create an artificial
shortage of
energy and subsequently allocate rights to use this energy to
individual
companies. These companies then have a sort of monopoly. As a
result, they
have an interest in preventing any reversal of the artificial
shortage, for
instance as a result of technological breakthroughs or new
climatological
insights which show that man-made emissions of greenhouse gases
have hardly
any influence on the climate. After all, in that case, their
emission
rights, which they may have bought for a great deal of money,
would have no
value.
How should emission rights be shared out? Some companies have
already
invested heavily in clean technology. How can we avoid these
companies being
put at a disadvantage vis-à-vis competitors that emit more CO2?
In addition,
an international system of tradable emission rights requires
monitoring of
implementation and, if necessary, enforcement of contracts. For
instance,
who decides how much new forest should be planted somewhere in
the world in
order to offset a given quantity of emissions? The amounts
involved will
probably be considerable and the temptation to cheat will be
great. All this
will require a large international bureaucracy.
Furthermore, such a system runs the risk of conflicts, in the
form of
sanctions to compel enforcement. That could lead to trade wars
or, at the
very least, increasing international tension and accusations of
eco-imperialism. It is also conceivable that purchase of emission
rights by
western companies in the Third World will place a brake on local
industrialisation in those countries because the CO2 emissions
quota have
already been sold.
There are also dangers outside the material sphere. Granting
power to
politicians to determine who in society may use energy forms a
major threat
to the individual freedom of the citizen. In countries that
practice "crony
capitalism", this could strengthen the position of those
currently in power
and their followers, resulting in discrimination against
companies that do
not enjoy close relations with the local strongmen. It is also
conceivable
that minority groupings will be the losers under politicised
distribution
systems.
Accordingly, CO2 emission rights should be traded via the market.
What
supporter of free markets could object to that? But appearances
are
deceptive. After all, elements of central planning would be
incorporated in
our market economies under the banner of market conformity, which
would
represent a clear change in the development trend of our economic
order
towards more market and less government over the last twenty
years.
All in all, it can be said that there is still great uncertainty
about the
question whether the earth is warming and, if it is, whether this
can be
ascribed to man-made emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
It is also
uncertain whether any global warming has harmful effects or even
positive
effects (e.g. stimulation of plant growth as a result of higher
temperatures
and CO2 concentrations). With regard to the cost-benefit analysis
of
measures to reduce man-made greenhouse gas emissions in line with
the Bonn
agreement, it can be pointed out that the beneficial effect is
zero, whereas
the costs will probably run to trillions of dollars worldwide
over a period
of ten years. Those who attach great value to the precautionary
principle
regard this insurance premium as justified. But critics point out
that
mankind is also confronted with a range of other risks. Rich and
affluent
societies are better able to adjust to changes of all kinds, and
can protect
themselves against various types of risk. For that reason, they
regard the
loss of well-being that flows on from large-scale measures to
prevent
(supposed) global warming as a waste of money. Finally, there are
major
political, economic and technical objections to the proposed
mechanisms to
reduce man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, in particular
tradable CO2
emission rights. A solution is not in sight.
Drs H.H.J. Labohm is a senior visiting fellow at the Nederlands
Instituut
voor Internationale Betrekkingen Clingendael. Professor Dr Ir D.
Thoenes is
a former professor of chemical processes studies at the
Technische
Universiteit in Eindhoven.
Notes:
S.F. Singer, Hot Talk, Cold Science. Global Warming Unfinished
Debate, The
Independent Institute, Oakland CA, 1997
S.F. Singer, The National Academy of Sciences Issues a Distorted
Report.
R.S. Lindzen, Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the
Alleged
Scientific Consensus
R.S. Lindzen, Testimony before the US Senate Commerce Committee,
1 May 2001.
R.S. Lindzen, Scientists Report Doesn't Support Kyoto, The
scientific report
you've heard about does not say what you have heard, says one of
its
authors, Wall Street Journal, 12 June 2001.
A version of this article was first published in the
Internationale
Spectator.
© 2002 Tech Central Station
=============
(5) EXPERTS SCALE BACK ESTIMATES OF WORLD POPULATION GROWTH
>From The New York Times, 20 August 2002
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/20/science/earth/20POPU.html
By BARBARA CROSSETTE
Demography has never been an exact science. Ever since social
thinkers began
trying to predict the pace of population growth a century or two
ago, the
people being counted have been surprising the experts and
confounding
projections. Today, it is happening again as stunned demographers
watch
birthrates plunge in ways they never expected.
Only a few years ago, some experts argued that economic
development and
education for women were necessary precursors for declines in
population
growth. Today, village women and slum families in some of the
poorest
countries are beginning to prove them wrong, as fertility rates
drop faster
than predicted toward the replacement level - 2.1 children for
the average
mother, one baby to replace each parent, plus a fraction to
compensate for
unexpected deaths in the overall population.
A few decades ago in certain countries like Brazil, Egypt, India
and Mexico
fertility rates were as high as five or six.
As a result, United Nations demographers who once predicted the
earth's
population would peak at 12 billion over the next century or two
are scaling
back their estimates. Instead, they cautiously predict, the
world's
population will peak at 10 billion before 2200, when it may begin
declining.
FULL STORY at http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/20/science/earth/20POPU.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
CCNet is a scholarly electronic network. To
subscribe/unsubscribe, please
contact the moderator Benny J Peiser < b.j.peiser@livjm.ac.uk
>. Information
circulated on this network is for scholarly and educational use
only. The
attached information may not be copied or reproduced
forany other purposes without prior permission of the copyright
holders. The
fully indexed archive of the CCNet, from February 1997 on, can be
found at
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/cccmenu.html.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions,
beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the articles and texts and in
other
CCNet contributions do not necessarily reflect the opinions,
beliefs and
viewpoints of the moderator of this network.