-
Global warming has become perhaps the most
complicated issue facing world leaders.
On the one hand, warnings from the
scientific community are becoming louder, as an
increasing
body
of
science
points
to
rising
dangers
from
the
ongoing
buildup
of
human-
related
greenhouse
gases
—
produced
mainly
by
the
burning
of
fossil
fuels
and forests. On the
other, the technological, economic and political
issues that have to
be resolved before
a concerted worldwide effort to reduce emissions
can begin have
gotten no simpler,
particularly in the face of a global economic
slowdown.
After years of
preparation for climate talks taking place in
Copenhagen through Dec.
18, 2009,
President Obama and other leaders announced on
Nov. 15 what had already
become evident
—
that no formal treaty
could be produced anytime soon. Instead, the
leaders
pledged
to
reach
a
placeholder
accord
that
would
call
for
reductions
in
emissions and increased aid
to
help
developing nations adapt
to
a changing climate
and get
access to non-polluting energy options.
This would in theory give
the nations more time to work out the all-
important details.
Negotiators would
then seek a binding global agreement in 2010,
complete with firm
emission targets,
enforcement mechanisms and specific dollar amounts
to aid poorer
nations.
At the heart of the debate is a
momentous tussle between rich and poor countries
over
who steps up first and who pays
most for changed energy menus.
Read More...
Within
the
United
States,
Congress
is
similarly
fighting
over
legislation
on
climate
change.
The
House
in
the
summer
of
2009
passed
a
bill
outlining
a
cap-and-trade
system that
could, over the next few decades, lead to an early
end to conventional use
of
coal
and
oil,
fuels
that
have
underpinned
prosperity
and
growth
for
more
than
a
century.
But
between
stiff
opposition
from
energy
interests
and
the
overwhelming
distractions of
health care reform and the economy, the
legislation has stalled in the
Senate.
In international
discussions over climate, Mr. Obama has urged
other countries not to
be
discouraged
by
the
stasis
on
Capitol
Hill,
pointing
to
big
investments
in
energy
efficiency,
solar
and
wind
power
and
his
move
to
restrict
greenhouse
gases
using
environmental
regulations.
In
the
meantime,
recent
fluctuations
in
temperature,
seized
on
by
opponents
of
emissions restrictions, have
intensified the public debate over how urgently to
respond.
The
long-term
warming
trend
over
the
last
century
has
been
well-established,
and
scientists
immersed
in
studying
the
climate
are
projecting
substantial
disruption
in
water supplies, agriculture, ecosystems
and coastal communities. Passionate activists
at both ends of the discourse are
pushing ever harder for or against rapid action,
while
polls
show
the
public
locked
durably
in
three
camps
—
with
roughly
a
fifth
of
American
voters
eager
for
action,
a
similar
proportion
aggressively
rejecting
projections of
catastrophe and most people tuned out or confused.
Background
Scientists learned long ago that the
earth's climate has powerfully shaped the history
of the human species
—
biologically, culturally
and geographically. But only in the
last few decades has research revealed
that humans can be a powerful influence on the
climate as well.
A growing body of
scientific evidence indicates that since 1950, the
world's climate
has been warming,
primarily as a result of emissions from unfettered
burning of fossil
fuels
and
the
razing
of
tropical
forests.
Such
activity
adds
to
the
atmosphere's
invisible
blanket
of
carbon
dioxide
and
other
heat-trapping
gases.
Recent
research has shown that methane, which flows from
landfills, livestock and oil
and gas
facilities, is a close second to carbon dioxide in
impact on the atmosphere.
That conclusion has emerged through a
broad body of analysis in fields as disparate as
glaciology,
the
study
of
glacial
formations,
and
palynology,
the
study
of
the
distribution of pollen grains in lake
mud. It is based on a host of assessments by the
world's leading organizations of
climate and earth scientists.
In the last several years, the
scientific case that the rising human influence on
climate
could become disruptive has
become particularly robust.
Some
fluctuations
in
the
Earth's
temperature
are
inevitable
regardless
of
human
activity
—
because of decades-long
ocean cycles, for example. But centuries of rising
temperatures and seas lie ahead if the
release of emissions from the burning of fossil
fuels and deforestation continues
unabated, according to the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change. The panel shared the
2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice
President Al Gore for alerting the
world to warming's risks.
Despite
the
scientific
consensus
on
these
basic
conclusions,
enormously
important
details remain
murky. That reality has been seized upon by some
groups and scientists
disputing the
overall consensus and opposing changes in energy
policies.
For example,
estimates of the amount of warming that would
result from a doubling
of
greenhouse
gas
concentrations
(compared
to
the
level
just
before
the
Industrial
Revolution
got
under
way
in
the
early
19th
century)
range
from
3.6
degrees
to
8
degrees
Fahrenheit.
The
intergovernmental
climate
panel
said
it
could
not
rule
out
even higher temperatures). While the
low end could probably be tolerated, the high
end
would
almost
certainly
result
in
calamitous,
long-lasting
disruptions
of
ecosystems
and
economies,
a
host
of
studies
have
concluded.
A
wide
range
of