Climate change mitigation
From Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia
Global carbon dioxide
emissions from human activities 1800–2007.[1]
The UN defines mitigation in the context of
climate change, as a human intervention to reduce the sources or enhance the
sinks of greenhouse gases. Examples include using fossil fuels more efficiently for
industrial processes or electricity generation, switching to renewable energy (solar energy or wind power),
improving theinsulation
of buildings, and expanding forests and other "sinks"
to remove greater amounts of carbon dioxidefrom
the atmosphere.[4] The IAEA, an international organization using the
UN flag and reporting to the UN, asserts that nuclear power belongs to the set of
options available to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the power sector.[5]
Scientific consensus on global warming,
together with the precautionary principle and the fear of abrupt climate change[6] is leading to increased
effort to develop new technologies and sciences and carefully manage others in
an attempt to mitigate global warming. Most means of mitigation appear
effective only for preventing further warming, not at reversing existing
warming.[7] The Stern Review identifies several ways of
mitigating climate change. These include reducing demand for
emissions-intensive goods and services, increasing efficiency gains, increasing
use and development of low-carbon technologies, and reducing fossil fuel
emissions.[8]
The energy policy of the European Union has set a target of
limiting the global temperature rise to 2 °C (3.6 °F) compared to preindustrial levels, of which 0.8 °C has
already taken place and another 0.5–0.7 °C is alreadycommitted.[9] The 2 °C rise is typically
associated in climate models with a carbon dioxide equivalentconcentration of 400–500 ppm by volume; the current
(April 2011) level of carbon dioxide alone is 393 ppm by volume, and rising at
1-3 ppm annually. Hence, to avoid a very likely breach of the 2 °C target, CO2 levels would have to be
stabilised very soon; this is generally regarded as unlikely, based on current
programs in place to date.[10][11] The importance of change is
illustrated by the fact that world economic energy efficiency is presently
improving at only half the rate of world economic growth.[12]
[edit]Greenhouse gas
concentrations and stabilization
Stabilizing
CO2 emissions at their present level would not
stabilize its concentration in the atmosphere[13]
Stabilizing the atmospheric
concentration of CO2 at a constant level would
require emissions to be effectively eliminated[13]
A distinction needs to be made between
stabilizing GHG emissions and GHG concentrations. [15] The two are not the same.
The most important GHG emitted by human activities is carbon dioxide (chemical formula: CO2).[16]Stabilizing
emissions of CO2 at current levels would not
lead to a stabilization in the atmospheric concentration of CO2. In
fact, stabilizing emissions at current levels would result in the atmospheric
concentration of CO2 continuing to rise over the
21st century and beyond (see the graphs opposite).
The reason for this is that human activities
are adding CO2 to the atmosphere far
faster than natural processes can remove it (see carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere for a more complete explanation).[13] This is analogous to a flow
of water into a bathtub.[17] So long as the tap runs
water (analogous to the emission of carbon dioxide) into the tub faster than
water escapes through the plughole (the natural removal of carbon dioxide from
the atmosphere), then the level of water in the tub (analogous to the concentration
of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere) will continue to rise.
Stabilizing the atmospheric concentration of
the other greenhouse gases humans emit also depends on how fast their emissions
are added to the atmosphere, and how fast the GHGs are removed. Stabilization
for these gases is described in the later section on non-CO2 GHGs.
[edit]Alternative
energy sources
Wind power: worldwide
installed capacity[19]
In terms of power generation, renewable
energy currently provides 18 percent of total electricity generation worldwide
and this percentage is growing each year. Renewable power generators are spread
across many countries, and wind power alone already provides a significant
share of electricity in some areas: for example, 14 percent in the U.S. state
of Iowa, 40 percent in the northern German state of Schleswig-Holstein, and 20
percent in Denmark. Some countries get most of their power from renewables,
including Iceland (100 percent), Brazil (85 percent), Austria (62 percent), New
Zealand (65 percent), and Sweden (54 percent).[31]
Solar
water heating makes an important and growing contribution
in many countries, most notably in China, which now has 70 percent of the
global total (180 GWth). Worldwide, total installed solar water heating systems
meet a portion of the water heating needs of over 70 million households. The
use of biomass for heating continues to
grow as well. In Sweden, national use of biomass energy has surpassed that of
oil. Directgeothermal
heating is also growing rapidly.[31]
Renewable biofuels for transportation, such as ethanol fuel and biodiesel, have
contributed to a significant decline in oil consumption in the United States
since 2006. The 93 billion liters of biofuels produced worldwide in 2009
displaced the equivalent of an estimated 68 billion liters of gasoline,
equal to about 5 percent of world gasoline production.[31]
Nuclear power plants
produce electricity with about 66 g equivalent lifecycle carbon dioxide emissions per kWh, while renewable
power generators produce electricity with 9.5-38 g carbon dioxide per kWh.
Renewable electricity technologies are thus "two to seven times more
effective than nuclear power plants on a per kWh basis at fighting climate
change".[32]
Nuclear power currently produces 13-14% of
the world's electricity. Since about 2001 the term nuclear
renaissance has been used to refer to a possible nuclear power industry revival, driven by
rising fossil
fuel prices and new concerns about meeting greenhouse gas emission limits. At the
same time, various barriers to a nuclear renaissance have been identified.
These barriers include unfavourable economics compared to other sources of
energy and slowness in addressing climate change.[33][34][35][36]
New reactors under construction in Finland
and France, which were meant to lead a nuclear renaissance, have been delayed
and are running over-budget.[37][38][39] China has 20 new reactors under
construction,[40] and there are also a
considerable number of new reactors being built in South Korea, India, and
Russia. At least 100 older and smaller reactors will "most probably be
closed over the next 10-15 years".[41]
Nuclear power brings with it important waste disposal, safety, and security risks which are unique
among low-carbon energy sources.[42] Public attitudes towards
nuclear power remain ambiguous in many developed countries, with significant anti-nuclear opposition even when majority opinion
is in favour.[43]
[edit]Carbon
intensity of fossil fuels
Most mitigation proposals imply — rather
than directly state — an eventual reduction in global fossil fuel
production. Also proposed are direct quotas on global fossil fuel production.[44][45]
Natural gas (predominantly methane) combustion
produces less greenhouses gases per energy unit gained than oil which in turn produces less
than coal,
principally because coal has a larger
ratio of carbon to hydrogen. The combustion of natural gas emits
almost 30 percent less carbon dioxide than oil, and just under 45 percent less
carbon dioxide than coal. In addition, there are also other environmental
benefits.[46]
A study performed by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the Gas Research Institute (GRI) in 1997 sought to
discover whether the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from increased
natural gas (predominantly methane) use would be offset by a possible increased
level of methane emissions from sources such as leaks and emissions. The study
concluded that the reduction in emissions from increased natural gas use
strongly outweighs the detrimental effects of increased methane emissions. Thus
the increased use of natural gas in the place of other, dirtier fossil fuels
can serve to lessen the emission of greenhouse gases in the United States.[47]
[edit]Carbon
capture and storage
Schematic showing both
terrestrial and geological sequestration of carbon dioxide emissions from a
coal-fired plant.
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a method
to mitigate climate change by capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from large
point sources such as power plants and subsequently storing it away safely
instead of releasing it into the atmosphere. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says CCS could contribute
between 10% and 55% of the cumulative worldwide carbon-mitigation effort over
the next 90 years. The International Energy Agency says CCS is "the most
important single new technology for CO2 savings" in power
generation and industry.[48] Though it requires up to
40% more energy to run a CCS coal power plant than a regular coal plant, CCS
could potentially capture about 90% of all the carbon emitted by the plant.[48] Norway, which first began storing CO2,
has cut its emissions by almost a million tons a year, or about 3% of the
country's 1990 levels.[48] As of late 2011, the total
CO2 storage capacity of all 14 projects in operation or under construction is
over 33 million tonnes a year. This is broadly equivalent to preventing the
emissions from more than six million cars from entering the atmosphere each
year. [49]
[edit]Energy efficiency and
conservation
A spiral-type integrated compact fluorescent lamp, use has grown among North
American consumers since its introduction in the mid 1990s.[50]
Efficient energy use, sometimes simply called
"energy efficiency", is the goal of efforts to reduce the amount of
energy required to provide products and services. For example, insulating
a home allows a building to use less heating and
cooling energy to achieve and maintain a comfortable temperature. Installing fluorescent
lights or natural skylights reduces the amount of
energy required to attain the same level of illumination compared to using
traditional incandescent light bulbs. Compact fluorescent lights use two-thirds less energy
and may last 6 to 10 times longer than incandescent lights.[51]
Energy efficiency has proved to be a
cost-effective strategy for building economies without necessarily growing energy consumption. For example, the state of California began implementing
energy-efficiency measures in the mid-1970s, including building code and
appliance standards with strict efficiency requirements. During the following
years, California's energy consumption has remained approximately flat on a per
capita basis while national U.S. consumption doubled. As part of its strategy,
California implemented a "loading order" for new energy resources
that puts energy efficiency first, renewable electricity supplies second, and new
fossil-fired power plants last.[52]
Energy
conservation is broader than energy efficiency in that it
encompasses using less energy to achieve a lesser energy service, for example
through behavioural change, as well as encompassing energy efficiency. Examples
of conservation without efficiency improvements would be heating a room less in
winter, driving less, or working in a less brightly lit room. As with other
definitions, the boundary between efficient energy use and energy conservation
can be fuzzy, but both are important in environmental and economic terms. This
is especially the case when actions are directed at the saving offossil fuels.[53]
Reducing energy use is seen as a key solution
to the problem of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. According to the International Energy Agency, improved energy
efficiency in buildings, industrial processes and transportation could reduce the world's
energy needs in 2050 by one third, and help control global emissions of
greenhouse gases.[54]
Increased use of biofuels (such as ethanol fuel and biodiesel that can be used in today's
diesel and gasoline engines) could also reduce emissions if produced
environmentally efficiently, especially in conjunction with regular hybrids and plug-in hybrids. For
electric vehicles, the reduction of carbon emissions will improve further if
the way the required electricity is generated is low-carbon (from renewable energy sources).
Effective urban planning to reduce sprawl would decrease Vehicle
Miles Travelled (VMT), lowering emissions from transportation. Increased use of public transport can also reduce greenhouse
gas emissions per passenger kilometer.
Urban planning also has an effect on
energy use. Between 1982 and 1997, the amount of land consumed forurban development in the United States
increased by 47 percent while the nation's population grew by only 17 percent.[57] Inefficient land use development practices have
increased infrastructure costs as well as the amount of energy needed for
transportation, community services, and buildings.
At the same time, a growing number of
citizens and government officials have begun advocating a smarter approach to
land use planning. These smart growth practices include compact
community development, multiple transportation choices, mixed land uses, and
practices to conserve green space. These programs offer environmental,
economic, and quality-of-life benefits; and they also serve to reduce energy
usage and greenhouse gas emissions.
Smarter growth land use policies have both a
direct and indirect effect on energy consuming behavior. For example,
transportation energy usage, the number one user of petroleum fuels, could be
significantly reduced through more compact and mixed use land development
patterns, which in turn could be served by a greater variety of non-automotive
based transportation choices.
Emissions from housing are substantial,[58] and government-supported
energy efficiency programmes can make a difference.[59]
For institutions of higher learning in the
United States, greenhouse gas emissions depend primarily on total area of
buildings and secondarily on climate.[60] If climate is not taken
into account, annual greenhouse gas emissions due to energy consumed on
campuses plus purchased electricity can be estimated with the formula,E=aSb,
where a =0.001621 metric tonnes of
CO2 equivalent/square foot or 0.0241 metric
tonnes of CO2equivalent/square meter and b = 1.1354.[61]
[edit]Eliminating
waste methane
Methane is a significantly more
powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
Burning one molecule of methane generates one molecule of carbon dioxide.
Accordingly, burning methane which would otherwise be released into the
atmosphere (such as at oil wells, landfills, coal mines, waste treatment
plants, etc.) provides a net greenhouse gas emissions benefit.[47] However, reducing the
amount of waste methane produced in the first place has an even greater
beneficial impact, as might other approaches to productive use of
otherwise-wasted methane.
In terms of prevention, vaccines are in the
works in Australia to reduce significant global warming contributions from methane released by livestock viaflatulence and eructation.[64]
[edit]Sinks
and negative emissions
A carbon sink is a natural or artificial
reservoir that accumulates and stores some carbon-containing chemical compound
for an indefinite period, such as a growing forest. A negative carbon dioxide emission on the other hand is a
permanent removal of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, such as directly
capturing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and storing it in geologic formations underground.
[edit]Reforestation and avoided
deforestation
Almost 20% (8 GtCO2/year) of total
greenhouse-gas emissions were from deforestation in 2007. The Stern Review
found that, based on the opportunity costs of the landuse that would
no longer be available for agriculture if deforestation were avoided, emission
savings from avoided deforestation could potentially reduce CO2 emissions for under $5/tCO2,
possiblly as little as $1/tCO2. Afforestation and reforestation could save at least another
1GtCO2/year, at an estimated cost of $5/tCO2 to $15/tCO2.[8] The Review determined these
figures by assessing 8 countries responsible for 70% of global deforestation
emissions.
Pristine temperate forest has been shown to store
three times more carbon than IPCC estimates took into
account, and 60% more carbon than plantation forest.[65] Preventing these forests
from being logged would have significant effects.
[edit]Negative carbon dioxide
emissions
In combination with other mitigation
measures, sinks in combination with negative carbon emissions are considered
crucial for meeting the 350 ppm target,[70] [71] and even the less
conservative 450 ppm target.[67]
Geoengineering is seen by some[who?] as an alternative to
mitigation and adaptation, but by others[who?] as an entirely separate
response to climate change. In a literature assessment, Barker et al. (2007) described
geoengineering as a type of mitigation policy.[72] IPCC (2007) concluded that
geoengineering options, such as ocean fertilization to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, remained
largely unproven.[73] It was judged that reliable
cost estimates for geoengineering had not yet been published.
Chapter 28 of the National Academy of Sciences report Policy Implications of
Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base(1992) defined
geoengineering as "options that would involve large-scale engineering of
our environment in order to combat or counteract the effects of changes in
atmospheric chemistry."[74] They evaluated a range of
options to try to give preliminary answers to two questions: can these options
work and could they be carried out with a reasonable cost. They also sought to
encourage discussion of a third question — what adverse side effects might
there be. The following types of option were examined: reforestation,
increasing ocean absorption of carbon dioxide (carbon sequestration) and
screening out some sunlight. NAS also argued "Engineered countermeasures
need to be evaluated but should not be implemented without broad understanding
of the direct effects and the potential side effects, the ethical issues, and
the risks.".[74] In July 2011 a report by
the United States Government Accountability Office on geoengineering found
that "[c]limate engineering technologies do not now offer a viable
response to global climate change."[75]
[edit]Carbon
dioxide removal
Carbon dioxide removal has been proposed as a
method of reducing the amount of radiative forcing. A
variety of means of artificially capturing and storing carbon, as well as of
enhancing natural sequestration processes, are being explored. The main natural
process is photosynthesis by plants and single-celled
organisms (see biosequestration).
Artificial processes vary, and concerns have been expressed about the long-term
effects of some of these processes.[69]
It is notable that the availability of cheap
energy and appropriate sites for geological storage of carbon may make carbon dioxide air capture viable commercially. It is,
however, generally expected that carbon dioxide air capture may be uneconomic
when compared to carbon capture and storage from major sources —
in particular, fossil fuel powered power stations, refineries, etc. In such
cases, costs of energy produced will grow significantly.[citation needed] However, captured CO2 can be used to force more crude oil out of oil fields, as Statoil and Shell have made plans to do.[76] CO2can also be
used in commercial greenhouses, giving
an opportunity to kick-start the technology. Some attempts have been made to
use algae to capturesmokestack emissions,[77] notably the GreenFuel Technologies Corporation, who have
now shut down operations.[78]
[edit]Solar
radiation management
The main purpose of solar radiation
management seek to reflect sunlight and thus reduce global warming.
[edit]Pacala
and Socolow: 15 programs
Pacala and Socolow of Princeton [80] have proposed a program to
reduce CO2 emissions by 1 billion metric tons per
year − or 25 billion tons over the 50-year period. The proposed 15
different programs, any seven of which could achieve the goal, are:
1.
more efficient vehicles − increase fuel economy from 30
to 60 mpg (7.8 to 3.9 L/100 km) for 2 billion vehicles,
2.
reduce use of vehicles − improve urban design to reduce
miles driven from 10,000 to 5,000 miles (16,000 to 8,000 km) per year for
2 billion vehicles,
3.
efficient buildings − reduce energy consumption by 25%,
4.
improve efficiency of coal plants from today's 40% to
60%,
5.
replace 1,400 GW (gigawatt) of coal power plants with
natural gas,
6.
capture and store carbon emitted from 800 GW of new coal
plants,
7.
capture and reuse hydrogen created by No. 6 above,
8.
capture and store carbon from coal to syn fuels
conversion at 30 million barrels per day (4,800,000 m3/d),
9.
displace 700 GW of coal power with nuclear,
10.
add 2 million 1 MW wind turbines (50 times current
capacity),
11.
displace 700 GW of coal with 2,000 GW (peak) solar power
(700 times current capacity),
13.
use biomass to make fuel to displace oil (100 times
current capacity),
14.
stop de-forestation and re-establish 300 million
hectares of new tree plantations,
15.
conservation tillage − apply to all crop land (10 times
current usage).
Nature.com argued in June 2008 that
"If we are to have confidence in our ability to stabilize carbon dioxide
levels below 450 p.p.m. emissions must average less than 5 billion metric
tons of carbon per year over the century. This means accelerating the
deployment of the wedges so they begin to take effect in 2015 and are
completely operational in much less time than originally modelled by Socolow
and Pacala."[81]
Another method being examined is to make
carbon a new currency by introducing tradeable "Personal Carbon
Credits". The idea being it will encourage and motivate individuals to
reduce their 'carbon footprint' by the way they live. Each citizen will receive
a free annual quota of carbon that they can use to travel, buy food, and go
about their business. It has been suggested that by using this concept it could
actually solve two problems; pollution and poverty, old age pensioners will
actually be better off because they fly less often, so they can cash in their
quota at the end of the year to pay heating bills, etc.[citation needed]
Population control efforts are impeded by
there being somewhat of a taboo in some countries against considering any such
efforts.[87] Also, various religions discourage or prohibit some or all forms of birth control.
Population size has a different per capita
effect on global warming in different countries, since the per capita
production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases varies greatly by country.[88]
[edit]Non-CO2 greenhouse
gases
CO2 is not the only GHG
relevant to mitigation[89], and
governments have acted to regulate the emissions of other GHGs emitted by human
activities (anthropogenic GHGs). The emissions caps
agreed to by most developed countries under the Kyoto Protocol regulate the emissions of
almost all the anthropogenic GHGs.[90] These gases are CO2, methane (chemical formula: CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), the hydrofluorocarbons (abbreviated HFCs),
perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur
hexafluoride (SF6).
Stabilizing the atmospheric concentrations of
the different anthropogenic GHGs requires an understanding of their different
physical properties. Stabilization depends both on how quickly GHGs are added
to the atmosphere and how fast they are removed. The rate of removal is
measured by the atmospheric lifetime of the GHG in question (see the main
GHG article for a list). Here, the lifetime is defined as
the time required for a given perturbation of the GHG in the atmosphere to be
reduced to 37% of its initial amount.[13] Methane has a relatively
short atmospheric lifetime of about 12 years, while N2O's lifetime
is about 110 years. For methane, a reduction of about 30% below current
emission levels would lead to a stabilization in its atmospheric concentration,
while for N2O, an emissions reduction of more than 50% would be
required.[13]
Another physical property of the
anthropogenic GHGs relevant to mitigation is the different abilities of the
gases to trap heat (in the form of infrared
radiation). Some gases are more effective at trapping heat than
others, e.g., SF6 is 22,200 times more
effective a GHG than CO2 on a per-kilogram basis.[91] A measure for this physical
property is the global warming potential (GWP), and is used in the
Kyoto Protocol.[92]
Although not designed for this purpose, the Montreal Protocol has probably benefitted
climate change mitigation efforts.[93] The Montreal Protocol is an
international treaty that has successfully
reduced emissions of ozone-depleting substances (e.g., CFCs),
which are also greenhouse gases.
The Stern Review proposes stabilising the
concentration of greenhouse-gas emissions in the atmosphere at a maximum of
550ppm CO2e by 2050. The Review estimates that this would mean
cutting total greenhouse-gas emissions to three quarters of 2007 levels. The
Review further estimates that the cost of these cuts would be in the range −1.0
to +3.5% of World GDP,
(i.e. GWP),
with an average estimate of approximately 1%.[8] Stern has since revised his
estimate to 2% of GWP.[94] For comparison, the Gross
World Product (GWP) at PPP was estimated at $74.5
trillion in 2010,[95] thus 2% is approximately
$1.5 trillion. The Review emphasises that these costs are contingent on steady
reductions in the cost of low-carbon technologies. Mitigation costs will also
vary according to how and when emissions are cut: early, well-planned action
will minimise the costs.[8]
One way of estimating the cost of reducing
emissions is by considering the likely costs of potential technological and
output changes. Policy makers can compare the marginal abatement costs of different methods to
assess the cost and amount of possible abatement over time. The marginal abatement
costs of the various measures will differ by country, by sector, and over time.[8]
Total extreme weather cost
and number of events costing more than $1 billion in the United States from
1980 to 2011.
Yohe et al. (2007) assessed the
literature on sustainability and climate change.[96] With high confidence, they
suggested that up to the year 2050, an effort to cap greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions at 550 ppm would benefit developing countries significantly.
This was judged to be especially the case when combined with enhanced adaptation.
By 2100, however, it was still judged likely that there would be significant
climate change impacts. This was judged to be the case even with aggressive
mitigation and significantly enhanced adaptive capacity.
One of the aspects of mitigation is how to
share the costs and benefits of mitigation policies. There is no scientific
consensus over how to share these costs and benefits (Toth et al., 2001).[97] In terms of the politics of
mitigation, the UNFCCC's ultimate objective is to stabilize concentrations of
GHG in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent "dangerous"
climate change (Rogner et al., 2007).[98] There is, however, no
widespread agreement on how to define "dangerous" climate change.
GHG emissions are an important correlate of
wealth, at least at present (Banuri et al., 1996, pp. 91–92).[99] Wealth, as measured by per
capita income (i.e., income per head of population), varies widely between
different countries. Activities of the poor that involve emissions of GHGs are
often associated with basic needs, such as heating to stay tolerably warm. In
richer countries, emissions tend to be associated with things like cars, central heating,
etc. The impacts of cutting emissions could therefore have different impacts on
human welfare according wealth.
[edit]Distributing emissions
abatement costs
There have been different proposals on how to
allocate responsibility for cutting emissions (Banuri et al., 1996, pp. 103–105):[99]
§ Egalitarianism: this system interprets
the problem as one where each person has equal rights to a global resource,
i.e., polluting the atmosphere.
§ Basic needs and Rawlsian
criteria:
this system would have emissions allocated according to basic needs, as defined
according to a minimum level of consumption. Consumption above basic needs would
require countries to buy more emission rights. This can be related to Rawlsian philosophy. From
this viewpoint, developing countries would need to be at least as well off
under an emissions control regime as they would be outside the regime.
§ Proportionality and
polluter-pays principle: Proportionality reflects the ancient Aristotelian principle that people
should receive in proportion to what they put in, and pay in proportion to the
damages they cause. This has a potential relationship with the
"polluter-pays principle", which can be interpreted in a number of
ways:
§ Historical responsibilities: this asserts that
allocation of emission rights should be based on patterns of past emissions.
Two-thirds of the stock of GHGs in the atmosphere at present is due to the past
actions of developed countries (Goldemberg et al., 1996, p. 29).[100]
§ Comparable burdens and
ability to pay:
with this approach, countries would reduce emissions based on comparable
burdens and their ability to take on the costs of reduction. Ways to assess
burdens include monetary costs per head of population, as well as other, more
complex measures, like the UNDP's Human Development Index.
§ Willingness
to pay: with this approach, countries take on emission
reductions based on their ability to pay along with how much they benefit from
reducing their emissions.
§ Ad hoc: Lashof (1992) and Cline
(1992) (referred to by Banuri et al., 1996, p. 106),[99] for example, suggested that
allocations based partly on GNPcould be a way of sharing the burdens of
emission reductions. This is because GNP and economic activity are partially
tied to carbon emissions.
§ Equal per capita
entitlements:
this is the most widely cited method of distributing abatement costs, and is
derived from egalitarianism (Banuri et al., 1996, pp. 106–107).
This approach can be divided into two categories. In the first category,
emissions are allocated according to national population. In the second
category, emissions are allocated in a way that attempts to account for
historical (cumulative) emissions.
§ Status quo: with this approach,
historical emissions are ignored, and current emission levels are taken as a
status quo right to emit (Banuri et al., 1996, p. 107). An
analogy for this approach can be made with fisheries, which is
a common, limited resource. The analogy would be with the atmosphere, which can
be viewed as an exhaustible natural resource (Goldemberg et al., 1996, p. 27).[100] In international law,
one state recognized the long-established use of another state's use of the
fisheries resource. It was also recognized by the state that part of the other
state's economy was dependent on that resource.
[edit]Governmental and
intergovernmental action
Many countries, both developing and
developed, are aiming to use cleaner technologies (World Bank, 2010,
p. 192).[101] Use of these technologies
aids mitigation and could result in substantial reductions in CO2 emissions. Policies include
targets for emissions reductions, increased use of renewable energy, and
increased energy efficiency. It is often argued that the results of climate
change are more damaging in poor nations, where infrastructures are weak and few
social services exist. The Commitment to Development Index is one attempt to analyze
rich country policies taken to reduce their disproportionate use of the global
commons. Countries do well if their greenhouse gas emissions are falling, if
their gas taxes are high, if they do not subsidize the fishing industry, if
they have a low fossil fuel rate per capita, and if they control imports of illegally
cut tropical timber.
The first phase of the Kyoto Protocol expires
in 2012.[102] The United Nations Climate
Change Conference in Copenhagen in December 2009 was the next in an annual
series of UN meetings that followed the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio. In 1997 the
talks led to the Kyoto Protocol, Copenhagen was considered the world's chance
to agree a successor to Kyoto that would bring about meaningful carbon cuts.[103]
[edit]Encouraging
use changes
A program of subsidization balanced against
expected flood costs could pay for conversion to 100% renewable power by 2030.[30] The proponents of such a
plan expect the cost to generate and transmit power in 2020 will be less than 4
cents per kilowatt hour (in 2007 dollars) for wind, about 4 cents for wave and
hydroelectric, from 4 to 7 cents for geothermal, and 8 cents per kwh for solar,
fossil, and nuclear power.[29]
[edit]Carbon
emissions trading
With the creation of a market for trading carbon dioxide emissions within the Kyoto Protocol,
it is likely that London financial markets will be the centre for this
potentially highly lucrative business; the New York and Chicago stock markets may have a
lower trade volume than expected as long as the US maintains its rejection of
the Kyoto.[104]
However, emissions trading may delay the
phase-out of fossil fuels.[105]
The European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS)[106] is the largest
multi-national, greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme in the world. It
commenced operation on 1 January 2005, and all 25 member states of the European Union participate in the scheme
which has created a new market in carbon dioxide allowances estimated at
35 billion Euros (US$43 billion) per year.[107] The Chicago Climate Exchange was the first (voluntary)
emissions market, and is soon to be followed by Asia's first market (Asia Carbon Exchange). A total of 107 million
metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent have been exchanged through projects
in 2004, a 38% increase relative to 2003 (78 Mt CO2e).[108]
Twenty three multinational corporations have come together in the G8 Climate Change Roundtable, a business group formed
at the January 2005 World
Economic Forum. The group includes Ford, Toyota, British Airways and BP. On 9 June 2005 the Group published a
statement[109] stating that there was a
need to act on climate change and claiming that market-based solutions can
help. It called on governments to establish "clear, transparent, and
consistent price signals" through "creation of a long-term policy
framework" that would include all major producers of greenhouse gases.
An emissions tax on greenhouse gas emissions
requires individual emitters to pay a fee, charge or tax for every tonne of
greenhouse gas released into the atmosphere.[110] Most environmentally
related taxes with implications for greenhouse gas emissions in OECD countries
are levied on energy products and motor vehicles, rather than on CO2 emissions directly.
Emission taxes can be both cost effective and
environmentally effective. Difficulties with emission taxes include their
potential unpopularity, and the fact that they cannot guarantee a particular
level of emissions reduction. Emissions or energy taxes also often fall
disproportionately on lower income classes. In developing countries,
institutions may be insufficiently developed for the collection of emissions
fees from a wide variety of sources.
Implementation puts into effect climate
change mitigation strategies and targets. These can be targets set by
international bodies or voluntary action by individuals or institutions. This
is the most important, expensive and least appealing aspect of environmental
governance.[111]
Implementation requires funding sources but
is often beset by disputes over who should provide funds and under what
conditions.[111] A lack of funding can be a
barrier to successful strategies as there are no formal arrangements to finance
climate change development and implementation.[112] Funding is often provided
by nations, groups of nations and increasingly NGO and private sources. These
funds are often channelled through the Global Environmental Facility (GEF).
This is an environmental funding mechanism in the World Bank which is designed
to deal with global environmental issues.[111] The GEF was originally
designed to tackle four main areas: biological diversity, climate change,
international waters and ozone layer depletion, to which land degradation and
persistent organic pollutant were added. The GEF funds projects that are agreed
to achieve global environmental benefits that are endorsed by governments and
screened by one of the GEF’s implementing agencies.[113]
There are numerous issues which result in a
current perceived lack of implementation.[111] It has been suggested that
the main barriers to implementation are, Uncertainty, Fragmentation,
Institutional void, Short time horizon of policies and politicians and Missing
motives and willingness to start adapting. The relationships between many
climatic processes can cause large levels of uncertainty as they are not fully
understood and can be a barrier to implementation. When information on climate
change is held between the large numbers of actors involved it can be highly
dispersed, context specific or difficult to access causing fragmentation to be
a barrier. Institutional void is the lack of commonly accepted rules and norms
for policy processes to take place, calling into question the legitimacy and
efficacy of policy processes. The Short time horizon of policies and
politicians often means that climate change policies are not implemented in
favour of socially favoured societal issues. Statements are often posed to keep
the illusion of political action to prevent or postpone decisions being made.
Missing motives and willingness to start adapting is a large barrier as it
prevents any implementation.[112]
Despite a perceived lack of occurrence,
evidence of implementation is emerging internationally. Some examples of this
are the initiation of NAPA’s and of joint implementation. Many developing
nations have made National Adaptation Programs of Action (NAPAs) which are
frameworks to prioritize adaption needs.[114] The implementation of many
of these is supported by GEF agencies.[115] Many developed countries
are implementing ‘first generation’ institutional adaption plans particularly
at the state and local government scale.[114] There has also been a push
towards joint implementation between countries by the UNFCC as this has been
suggested as a cost effective way for objectives to be achieved.[116]
[edit]Territorial
policies
In 2007, Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, with White House approval, urged
governors and dozens of members of the House of Representatives to block
California’s first-in-the-nation limits on greenhouse gases from cars and
trucks, according to e-mails obtained by Congress.[119] The U.S. Climate Change Science Program is a group of about twenty
federal agencies and US Cabinet Departments, all working together to address
global warming.
The Bush administration pressured American
scientists to suppress discussion of global warming, according to the testimony
of the Union of Concerned Scientists to the Oversight and Government Reform
Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives.[120][121] "High-quality
science" was "struggling to get out," as the Bush administration
pressured scientists to tailor their writings on global warming to fit the Bush
administration's skepticism, in some cases at the behest of an ex-oil industry
lobbyist. "Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally
experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change,' 'global warming'
or other similar terms from a variety of communications." Similarly,
according to the testimony of senior officers of the Government Accountability Project, the White House
attempted to bury the report "National Assessment of the Potential
Consequences of Climate Variability and Change," produced by U.S.
scientists pursuant to U.S. law.[122] Some U.S. scientists
resigned their jobs rather than give in to White House pressure to underreport
global warming.[120]
[edit]Developing
countries
An important point of contention, however, is
how overseas development assistance not directly related to climate change
mitigation is affected by funds provided to climate change mitigation.[124] One of the outcomes of the
UNFCC Copenhagen Climate Conference was the Copenhagen Accord,
in which developed countries promised to provide US $30 million between
2010–2012 of new and additional resources.[124] Yet it remains unclear what
exactly the definition of additional is and the European
Commission has requested its member states to define
what they understand to be additional, and researchers at the Overseas Development Institute have found 4 main
understandings:[124]
1.
Climate finance classified as aid, but additional to
(over and above) the ‘0.7%’ ODA target;
3.
Rising ODA levels that include climate change finance but
where it is limited to a specified percentage; and
4.
Increase in climate finance not connected to ODA.
The main point being that there is a conflict
between the OECD states budget deficit cuts,
the need to help developing countries adapt to develop sustainably and the need
to ensure that funding does not come from cutting aid to other important Millennium Development Goals.[124]
In July 2005 the U.S., China, India,
Australia, as well as Japan and South Korea, agreed to the Asia-Pacific Partnership for
Clean Development and Climate. The pact aims to encourage technological
development that may mitigate global warming, without coordinated emissions
targets. The highest goal of the pact is to find and promote new technology
that aid both growth and a cleaner environment simultaneously. An example is
the Methane to Markets initiative which reduces methane emissions into the
atmosphere by capturing the gas and using it for growth enhancing clean energy
generation.[125]Critics[who?] have raised concerns that
the pact undermines the Kyoto Protocol.[126]
However, none of these initiatives suggest a
quantitative cap on the emissions from developing countries. This is considered
as a particularly difficult policy proposal as the economic growth of
developing countries are proportionally reflected in the growth of greenhouse
emissions. Critics[who?] of mitigation often argue
that, the developing countries' drive to attain a comparable living standard to
the developed countries would doom the attempt at mitigation of global warming.
Critics[who?] also argue that holding
down emissions would shift the human cost of global warming from a general one
to one that was borne most heavily by the poorest populations on the planet.
In an attempt to provide more opportunities
for developing countries to adapt clean technologies, UNEP and WTO urged the international community
to reduce trade barriers and to conclude the Doha trade round "which includes
opening trade in environmental goods and services".[127]
[edit]Non-governmental
approaches
While many of the proposed methods of
mitigating global warming require governmental funding, legislation and
regulatory action, individuals andbusinesses can also play a part in the
mitigation effort.
[edit]Choices in personal actions
and business operations
Environmental groups encourage individual action against
global warming, often aimed at the consumer. Common
recommendations include lowering home heating and cooling usage, burning less
gasoline, supporting renewable energy sources,
buying local products to reduce transportation, turning off unused devices, and
various others.
[edit]Air
travel and shipment
Climate scientist Kevin Anderson raised concern about the
growing effect of rapidly increasing global air transport on the climate in a
paper[129] and a presentation[130] in 2008, suggesting that
reversing this trend is necessary. Part of the difficulty is that when aviation emissions are made at high altitude,
the climate impacts are much greater than otherwise. Others have been raising
the related concerns of the increasing hypermobility of individuals, whether traveling
for business or pleasure, involving frequent and often long distance air
travel, as well as air shipment of goods.[131]
[edit]Business
opportunities and risks
On 9 May 2005 Jeff Immelt, the chief executive of General Electric (GE), announced plans to
reduce GE's global warming related emissions by one percent by 2012. "GE
said that given its projected growth, those emissions would have risen by 40
percent without such action."[132]
On 21 June 2005 a group of leading airlines, airports and aerospace manufacturers pledged to work together to
reduce the negative environmental impact of aviation, including limiting
the impact of air travel on climate change by improving fuel efficiency and reducing carbon dioxide
emissions of new aircraft by fifty percent per seat kilometre by 2020 from 2000
levels. The group aims to develop a common reporting system for carbon dioxide
emissions per aircraft by the end of 2005, and pressed for the early inclusion
of aviation in the European Union's
carbon emission trading scheme.[133]
In some countries, those affected by climate
change may be able to sue major producers, in a parallel to the lawsuits
against tobacco companies.[134]Although
proving that particular weather events are due specifically to global warming
may never be possible,[135] methodologies have been
developed to show the increased risk of such events caused by global warming.[136]
For a legal action for negligence (or similar) to succeed,
"Plaintiffs ... must show that, more probably than not, their individual
injuries were caused by the risk factor in question, as opposed to any other
cause. This has sometimes been translated to a requirement of a relative risk of
at least two."[137] Another route (though with
little legal bite) is the World Heritage Convention, if it can be shown that
climate change is affecting World
Heritage Sites like Mount Everest.[138][139]
According to a 2004 study commissioned by Friends
of the Earth, ExxonMobil and its predecessors caused
4.7 to 5.3 percent of the world's man-made carbon dioxide emissions between
1882 and 2002. The group suggested that such studies could form the basis for
eventual legal action.[141]
.svg)
