Final Term Paper_global Warming_fidel&pooja

 

NRM Term Paper­ Global War’n’ing?                                                                                                                                                                                  

                                                 Submitted to: Prof. C.Shambu Prasad 

                                                                          Submitted by                                                              Fidel Mehra ‐16                                                             Pooja Menon‐22                                                              PGDM‐RM(II)     

 

Introduction  The buzz around the word ‘global warming’ can be heard in all the corners of the world. A simple Google search of the word ‘global warming’ yields about 59,700,000 results. This is just an indicator of the fact that it is indeed a widely circulated and discussed topic of the present day world, although it does not offers a plausible explanation of its impact. The formation of IPCC, Kyoto Protocol, Al gore’s documentary ‘The Inconvenient Truth’ and IPCC reports are the outcome of realization of the fact that global warming indeed poses a ‘ present and clear danger’. The Stern’s Review on Economics of Climate Change gave a different perspective linking the economic setback which global warming may lead to. This paper is divided into four sections: 1) IPCC Report Climate Change 2007 ‘AR4 Synthesis Report’ 2) Stern Review 3) Inconvenient Truth 4) Clean Development Mechanisms. The IPCC report review begins with the introduction about IPCC followed by a comment on some of the previous reports and then the analysis of the AR4. The Stern’s report review is mainly the criticism of the overstating of the facts in the report. The Inconvenient Truth is then analyzed for the facts stated in the movie.

   IPCC Report                                                                                                                 

The IPCC was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP). Its purpose is to assess scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant to understanding the risks associated with human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. The IPCC does not undertake new research, nor does it monitor climate-related data, but it conducts assessments on the basis of published and peer-reviewed scientific and technical literature. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage. The IPCC fourth assessment report ‘Climate Change 2007’ is the latest report available explaining the global climate change phenomenon. Some of the points taken from the report are mentioned below: Observed changes in climate and their effects   

•

Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850).

•

Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3]mm per year over 1961 to 2003 and at an average rate of about 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8]mm per year from 1993 to 2003.

•

Satellite data since 1978 show that annual average Arctic sea ice extent has shrunk by 2.7 [2.1 to 3.3]% per decade, with larger decreases in summer of 7.4 [5.0 to 9.8]% per decade.

•

There is observational evidence of an increase in intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970, and suggestions of increased intense tropical cyclone activity in some other regions where concerns over data quality are greater.

  Cause of Change   

•

Global atmospheric concentrations of CO2, CH4 and N2O have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years. The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4 in 2005 exceed by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years.

•

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.

•

Anthropogenic warming over the last three decades has likely had a discernible influence at the global scale on observed changes in many physical and biological systems

Projections for future 

•

Continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century.

•

The report also suggests that due to climate change there will be direct impact on most of the nations of the world. The food, ecosystem, industry , water etc all will be affected in the 21st century.

•

Altered frequencies and intensities of extreme weather, together with sea level rise, are expected to have mostly adverse effects on natural and human systems.

Comparison with TAR (Third assessment report) 

The Third Assessment Report ( TAR) released in 2001 has found most of its stated fact strengthened in the AR4. The AR4 Concludes that human influences on climate are ‘very likely’(>90% chance) detectable in observational record which increased from ‘likely’(>66% chance) of the TAR. The conclusions have been significantly strengthened relative to what was in the TAR, something which is expected given the numerous additional studies that have since been done all point in the same direction.

 

The conclusion that large-scale recent warmth likely exceeds the range seen in past centuries has been extended from the past 1000 years in the TAR, to the past 1300 years in the current report, and the confidence in this conclusion has been upped from "likely" in the TAR to "very likely" in the current report for the past half millennium.

   Stern’s  Review on the Economics of Climate Change                                                                                                      The Stern Review the Economics of Climate Change is a report to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom. A team of 23 people, led by Sir Nicholas Stern and supported by many consultants, worked for a little over a year to produce a report of some 700 pages on the economics of climate change. The report says many things, some better supported than others. The main points outlined in the stern’s report are enlisted below: •

On current trends, average global temperatures will rise by 2C to 3C within 50 years.

•

If emissions continue to grow, the Earth could warm by several more degrees, with severe consequences that would hit poor countries most.

•

Stabilising greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will cost about one per cent of annual global output by 2050. If no action is taken, climate change will reduce global consumption per head by between five and 20 per cent.

•

The global power sector will have to be at least 60 per cent decarbonised by 2050 to stabilise greenhouse gases.

•

Markets for low-carbon energy products are likely to be worth at least £265 billion per year by 2050.

•

Worldwide incentives to encourage the use of new low-carbon technologies should be raised by two to five times from the current level of some £18 billion a year.

•

Deforestation emissions are estimated to represent more than 18 per cent of global emissions, more than the global transport sector.

•

The poorest developing countries will be hit earliest and hardest by climate change.

 

The points outlined in the report attracted lots of criticism from the scientific community and were said to be overhyped. Some of the criticisms that were highlighted within a year of publishing of the report have been illustrated below. According to an editorial in Wall Street Journal “The review is one sided, focusing almost exclusively on carbon emission cuts as the solution to the problem of climate change”. The author in the article argues about Stern’s claim of increasing hurricane damage in the U.S being linked to carbon controls. Further certain errors like the cost of hurricanes in the U.S is said to be both 0.13% and ten times of the same figure in the review also the cost of emitting each extra ton of CO2 is said to be $85 in his report while the well recognized climate economist like William Nordhaus puts the cost at $2.50 per ton of CO2. So the report is suggested as based on fearmongering arguments which are being sensationalized. One of the author while concluding his review says “The bottom line here is that the Stern Review should receive an incredible amount of scrutiny based on the bold claims it makes and the rather dubious “evidence” upon which it relies. I have not read the entire 700 page report, but in my brief review I was able to pick out several suspicious assertions and one blatant falsehood. What will happen when a real scientist delves into this meaty analytical offering? I expect it fall fall apart like the meat from a rack of Memphis ribs.” The following defects come out in the review of various articles on the stern’s report: First, the likely temperature and other climatic effects of global warming are exotically overstated, producing conclusions that are in many respects more extreme than those of the UN. Secondly, the likely cost of investment now to prevent future cataclysm is exotically underestimated, suggesting that just 1% of GDP spent now and forever will be enough to solve the problem, when previous UN estimates have put the cost at not less than 5% of GDP pa. Given that Kyoto is costing $50 billion and counting to achieve a temperature reduction of 0.04C (and only then if all Kyoto signers meet their targets, which most won't), spending $450bn pa won't solve the problem. The UN's draft shows that previous CO2 emissions will continue to provide half the projected temperature increase even if emissions are capped at present levels. Stern makes no allowance for this.

 

Thirdly, Stern's proposal amounts to a prodigious misallocation of resources. On the UN's own figures, $75 billion pa, or less than a fifth of the $450 billion annual spending on climate-change remediation proposed by Stern, would permit eradication of several major diseases, and the supply of clean water, basic health care and elementary education to the entire population that now lacks these benefits. The real problem is not emission of ghgs: it's the coming worldwide energy shortage. Fourthly, Stern's rate of discounting to present value the future income-stream from investment now in remedial measures is less than half the minimum rate which a commercial entity would use, and the economic convention that when deciding when as well as whether to invest one does not invest until the N.P.V. of the return is shown to be at least double the investment is altogether ignored.    

 

Inconvenient Truth   The movie inconvenient truth brought out a lot of points about global warming that immediately caught the attention of world, fetching Al Gore a Nobel for his contribution in making the global warming phenomenon public and spreading awareness. However the movie has attracted a lot of criticism from the scientific and non scientific community alike. A Gallop poll of the Meteorological society and the American geophysical Society suggested that 83% of the scientists disagreed that global warming is caused by human action. The movie shows that the dramatic melting of Antarctic and Greenland ice caps could raise sea level to 20 feet by 2100. While “the consensus” of climate scientists as represented in UN’s IPCC is that the sea level is likely to increase between 4 inches to 35 inches with a central value of 19inches which disproves Florida being under sea water as shown in the movie. The movie shows that mountain glaciers are melting away all around the world- glaciers in Alaska , Europe and Mount Kilimanjaro are responding to increased warming while the Glaciers in Mount Kilimanjaro are said to be melting away because of changes in rainfall patterns as suggested in a study. One of the World Wildlife Fund study in 2002 suggests that polar bears are becoming cannibalistic in nature and another study suggest that the population of polar bears has gone up which debunks the claim in the movie that polar bears are dying because of global warming.  

                                                                                                  Gore points to the devastation of the Hurricane Katrina and flatly says that global warming is increasing the intensity of hurricanes. But that claim is highly contested by climate scientists. For example, a recent study in Geophysical Research Letters finds "based on data over the last twenty years, no significant increasing trend is evident in global ACE [accumulated cyclone energy]." Of course, the increase of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels is thought to be the chief contemporary driver of global warming. All things being equal higher

 

carbon dioxide levels lead to higher temperatures. Gore illustrates the relation between carbon dioxide and temperatures with a chart showing data taken from ice cores from Antarctica. These ice cores contain tiny bubbles of air from the earth's atmosphere all the way back 650,000 years ago. Scientists measure them to see the proportion of various gases that were in the atmosphere when the bubbles were trapped. Gore points out that temperatures and carbon dioxide go up in tandem over the last four ice ages. Gore fails to mention something interesting. Temperatures go up first and then the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases some 800 or more years later. One interpretation is that orbital changes start periods of warming which then affect ocean circulation such that the oceans begin to release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere which leads to further warming. West Nile virus (WNV) is a mosquito-borne virus that first appeared in New York City in 1999. It has been shown in the movie that the virus spread because of global warming, while it is a well known fact that the virus has got no relation with higher temperatures. The virus found its way there just like diseases like malaria find their way with an appropriate carrier. There are many such incidences in the movie which can be pointed out. But on a larger view the movie recommends people to cut back on their carbon emissions—install compact fluorescent light bulbs; take mass transit; adjust thermostats two degrees up in summer and two down in winter; use less hot water; and plant carbon-absorbing trees. He urges people in his own country to come forward and openly contribute in abating the Global Warming phenomenon. The messages from the movie can be taken only for the purpose of reducing our contribution to the GHG emissions but cannot be argued as the sole reason for the temperature increase and other related phenomenon as human contribution to the green house gas emissions remains minuscule with not even 1% in the total emissions.

  Clean Development Mechanisms                                                                                

The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM, hereafter) allows industrialized countries which have accepted emissions reduction targets to develop or finance projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions in certain countries in exchange for emission reduction credits. If the technology used in a CDM project is not available in the host country but must be imported, the project leads, de facto, to a technology transfer. This technology may consist of “hardware” elements, such as machinery and equipment involved in the production process, and/or “software” elements, including knowledge, skills, and know-how.

Some terms Certified Emission Reduction (CER) The name given to a carbon credit from a CDM project. Credits from JI-Joint Implementation projects are called Emission Reduction Units (ERU). CERs are equal to one tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e). Designated National Authority (DNA) for the CDM The DNA is the focal point for CDM matters in your country. It is frequently a unit in a government ministry that is responsible for administering CDM implementation and overseeing approval of projects. Designated Operational Entity DOEs are accredited by the Executive Board and perform two functions : validating CDM projects, and verifying and certifying emissions reductions from projects. The same DOE cannot perform both functions for one project unless it is a small-scale project. Adaptation Fund Two percent of the CERs (Certified Emission Reduction) from every CDM project are deposited in a special registry run by the Executive Board. Revenues from their sale will be used to fund climate change adaptation projects in developing countries. Projects in Least Developed Countries are exempt.

 

Baseline The baseline describes what will happen, and how many greenhouse gas emissions will eventuate, in the absence of the CDM project, ie. the business as usual outcome. It is the alternative, or “counter-factual” scenario that is used as a comparison with the proposed CDM project to estimate the emissions reductions that will be achieved, and helps to determine additionality.

Additionality The EU’s PROBASE program on accounting and baselines offers the following explanation of the concept: “It is generally recognised that credits for GHG emissions reduction should only be granted for projects that are additional; that is, for projects which would not have taken place in the absence of the crediting procedure or trading scheme”. Additionality is a critical issue. Registering a non-additional CDM project will result in no additional benefit to the climate and thus represents wasted investment. Furthermore, a nonadditional project will generate fake carbon credits that an Annex I(mentioned at www.ipcc.ch) country can use to avoid making real emission reductions domestically, and ultimately leads to an increase in global emissions above what was expected due to the Kyoto Protocol. Crediting period The crediting period is the length of time during which the project will generate carbon credits. Under the Marrakech Accords projects can choose between a 7 year period which can be renewed twice to make a total of 21 years, or a one-off 10 year period. If they chose the former they must renew the baseline after every 7 year period. The crediting period is different from the project lifetime ; a dam, for example, may have an estimated life of 50 years, but only be a CDM project and generate credits for 10 of those years. Project Design Document (PDD) The document that describes the prospective CDM project and how it meets the validation requirements spelt out in the Marrakech Accords. The PDD is the main document assessed by the validator and is made available during the 30-day public comment period.

 

The Kyoto Protocol does not explicitly indicate the project categories that are eligible for the CDM. However under Marrakech Agreements, land use, land use change and forestry projects are not eligible during the first period of commitment (2008-2012). The project categories like energy sector, housing and tertiary sector, agriculture sector, forestry sector, transport and industrial sector are eligible for the CDM.

Project Cycle Step 1: Preparing a CDM project for validation (ie. approval) Before a developer can submit a project for validation, they need three things : 1). A Project Design Document (PDD).. 2). Approved methodologies for the baseline and the plan to monitor the emission reductions. 3). Approval of voluntary participation by involved Parties and host country confirmation that the project contributes to sustainable development. The confirmation is provided by the Designation National Authority (DNA) for the CDM. Step 2: Validation and the 30-day public comment period The validation process includes a 30-day public comment period during which stakeholders, the public and NGOs can make submissions to the validator about whether or not the project meets the validation requirements and thus whether it should be approved. Step 3: Registration by the Executive Board It is automatic eight weeks after the validation report has been received, unless one of the countries involved in the project, or at least 3 members of the Executive Board request a review. Step 4: Verification, certification and issuance of emission reduction credits Periodically a DOE (which has to be different from the one that did the validation) must verify that the reductions are taking place and compile a verification report, which must be made

 

public, as must the monitoring report. If the DOE’s assessment is that the reductions have occurred, then they certify this in writing to the Executive Board, and this document must also be made public. The information about which DOE is verifying emissions from a particular project can be found on the UNFCCC website:

Technology transfer through CDM So far, most climate-friendly technologies have been developed and used in developed countries. Therefore, expecting international technology transfer through CDM projects sounds reasonable. However, whether this is true in practice is an empirical question. In a study financed by the French environmental agency (ADEME), a dataset describing the 644 CDM projects registered up to 1 May 2007 was used in order to explore this issue. Data show that international technology transfers take place in 44% of CDM projects, accounting for 84% of the expected annual CO2 emissions reductions (towards 2012). Very few projects involve the transfer of equipment alone. Instead, projects often include the transfer of knowledge and operating skills, allowing project implementers to appropriate the technology. Current technology transfers under the CDM mainly concern two areas. The first area is end-ofpipe destruction of non-CO2 greenhouse gases with high global warming potentials, such as HFCs, CH4 and N2O, which are mainly transfers focused on the chemicals industry, the agricultural sector and the waste management sector. The second category is wind power, with 60% of projects using equipment from abroad. Biomass electricity production projects or energy efficiency measures in the industry sector mainly rely on local technologies. Data also show that host countries are very heterogeneous in their propensity to attract technology transfers. For example, 59% of the Chinese projects involve a transfer while the percentage is only 12% in India. Serious efforts to address the climate challenge face several daunting tasks. Among them is the engagement of developing countries—in particular the emerging markets such as China and India that account for a substantial and growing share of world emissions of greenhouse gases.

 

Another major challenge is the need to design national cap-and-trade systems so that the costs of compliance are sufficiently predictable that industry can plan investment and so that costs do not unexpectedly spiral up to levels that are politically unsustainable. Efforts to implement the Kyoto Protocol have combined these two challenges through the mechanism of CDM offsets. Experience with the CDM suggests that many CDM projects do not reflect real reductions in emissions. Moreover, the actual issuance of emission credits through the CDM mechanism operates at a pace and with exposure to severe administrative bottlenecks that make it unlikely that CDM can supply the emission credits needed, with sufficient reliability, to be a good cost control mechanism. A more transparent “safety valve,” focused solely on the task of cost control, would be much superior. Improving the quality of the CDM would require much stronger regulatory oversight and much improved verification systems. That approach will also imply that CDM will become a smaller market with a possibly even less predictable supply of emission credits. Such conclusions underscore the need for a separate cost control mechanism since failure to have such a mechanism will generate strong political pressure to relax and ease the CDM rules to generate needed supplies of emission credits and keep compliance costs in a cap-and-trade system within politically sustainable limits. Finally, a recent working paper raised concerns about offsets as a mechanism to engage developing countries. Ultimately, in order to address climate change on a global basis, the energy sectors of all major emitters will have to accept binding limits on their emissions of greenhouse gases. Currently however, most important developing countries are unwilling to enter into discussions that contemplate such limits because they are seen as inconsistent with their development path. Ideally, the financial incentives provided by carbon offsets along with other financial and diplomatic tools would encourage changes in behavior now that will ultimately make the transition to binding emissions limits easier for these understandably reluctant nations.

 

Links used:  http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009182  http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1935211,00.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6115644.stm http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=110206B http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2006/10/stern-review-of-stern.html http://asecondhandconjecture.com/?p=224 http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/its-the-cause-of-climate-change-thats-inquestion/ 2006/11/01/1162339915604.html http://thebewilderness.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/10/sterns_greenwas.html http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48bf3b58-6ae0-11db-83d9-0000779e2340.html http://www.thebusinessonline.com/Document.aspx?id=83497085-CFCF-4763-AF81687746BE6F0A

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-03/osu-spi030906.php http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/kaser2004.pdf http://www.grida.no/climate/IPCC_tar/wg1/409.html  http://www.ipcc.ch/  *http://cdm.unfccc.int/index.html