Global Warming And Climate Change The New York Times

Global warming has become perhaps the most complicated issue facing world leaders. Warnings from the scientic 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. Global emissions of carbon dioxide jumped by the largest amount on record in 2010, upending the notion that the brief decline during the recession might persist through the recovery. Emissions rose 5.9 percent in 2010, according to the Global Carbon Project, an international collaboration of scientists. The increase solidied a trend of ever-rising emissions that scientists fear will make it difcult, if not impossible, to forestall severe climate change in coming decades. However, 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. For almost two decades, the United Nations has sponsored annual global talks, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, an international treaty signed by 194 countries to cooperatively discuss global climate change and its impact. The conferences operate on the principle of consensus, meaning that any of the participating nations can hold up an agreement. The conicts and controversies discussed are monotonously familiar: the differing obligations of industrialized and developing nations, the question of who will pay to help poor nations adapt, the urgency of protecting tropical forests and the need to rapidly develop and deploy clean energy technology. But the meetings have often ended in disillusionment, with incremental political progress but little real impact on the climate. The negotiating process itself has come under re from some quarters, including the poorest nations who believe their needs are being neglected in the ght among the major economic powers. Criticism has also come from a small but vocal band of climate-change skeptics, many of them members of the United States Congress, who doubt the existence of human inuence on the climate and ridicule international efforts to deal with it. A New International Initiative Led by the U.S. In mid-February 2012, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was expected to announce a new international effort focused on reducing emissions of common pollutants that contribute to rapid climate change and widespread health problems. Impatient with the slow pace of international negotiations, the United States and a small group of countries Bangladesh, Canada, Ghana, Mexico and Sweden as well as the United Nations Environment Program are starting a program that will address short-lived pollutants like soot (also referred to as black carbon), methane and hydrouorocarbons that have an outsize inuence on global warming, accounting for 30 to 40 percent of global warming. Soot from diesel exhausts and the burning of wood, agricultural waste and dung for heating and cooking causes an estimated two million premature deaths a year, particularly in the poorest countries.

Scientists say that concerted action on these substances can reduce global temperatures by 0.5 degrees Celsius by 2050 and prevent millions of cases of lung and heart disease by 2030. The United States intends to contribute $12 million and Canada $3 million over two years to get the program off the ground and to help recruit other countries to participate. The United Nations Environment Program will run the project. Ofcials hope that by tackling these fast-acting, climate-changing agents they can get results quicker than through the laborious and highly political negotiations conducted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2011 Global Talks in Durban At the 2011 conference delegates from about 200 nations gathered together in Durban, South Africa. One of the issues left unresolved was the future of the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 agreement that requires major industrialized nations to meet targets on emissions reduction but imposes no mandates on developing countries, including emerging economic powers and sources of global greenhouse gas emissions like China, India, Brazil and South Africa. The United States is not a party to the protocol, having refused to even consider ratifying it because of those asymmetrical obligations. Some major countries, including Canada, Japan and Russia, have said they will not agree to an extension of the protocol next year unless the unbalanced requirements of developing and developed countries are changed. That is similar to the United States position, which is that any successor treaty must apply equally to all major economies. Expectations for the meeting were low, and it ended with modest accomplishments: the promise to work toward a new global treaty in coming years and the establishment of a new climate fund. The deal on a future treaty renewed the Kyoto Protocol for several more years. But it also began a process for replacing the protocol with something that treats all countries including the economic powerhouses China, India and Brazil equally. The future treaty deal was the most highly contested element of a package of agreements that emerged from the extended talks among the nations here. The expiration date of the protocol 2017 or 2020 and the terms of any agreement that replaces it will be negotiated at future sessions. The delegates also agreed on the creation of a fund to help poor countries adapt to climate change though the precise sources of the money have yet to be determined and to measures involving the preservation of tropical forests and the development of clean-energy technology. The reserve, called the Green Climate Fund, would help mobilize a promised $100 billion a year in public and private nancing by 2020 to assist developing countries in adapting to climate change and converting to clean energy sources. Background Scientists learned long ago that the earths 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 inuence on the climate, as well. A growing body of scientic evidence indicates that since 1950, the worlds 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 atmospheres invisible blanket of carbon dioxide and other

heat-trapping greenhouse gases. Recent research has shown that methane, which ows from landlls, livestock and oil and gas facilities, is a close second to carbon dioxide as an impact on the atmosphere. That conclusion has emerged through a broad body of analysis in elds 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 worlds leading organizations of climate and earth scientists. In the last several years, the scientic case that the rising human inuence on climate could become disruptive has become particularly robust. Some uctuations in the earths 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, a group that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore. In addition, a report released by the I.P.C.C. in November 2011 predicted that global warming will cause more dangerous and unprecedented extreme weather in the future. Despite the scientic 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 economists and earth scientists say that level of risk justies an aggressive response. Other questions have persisted despite a century-long accumulation of studies pointing to humandriven warming. The rate and extent at which sea levels will rise in this century as ice sheets erode remains highly uncertain, even as the long-term forecast of centuries of retreating shorelines remains intact. Scientists are struggling more than ever to disentangle how the heat building in the seas and atmosphere will affect the strength and number of tropical cyclones. The latest science suggests there will be more hurricanes and typhoons that reach the most dangerous categories of intensity, but fewer storms overall.

Look After Your Planet! It seems that nearly every day we hear something about Global Warming. Australia's drought is now the worst in our history. Intense storm cells lashing parts of South East Queensland, frequent Category 4 and 5 tropical storms worldwide, erce bushres, melting glaziers, ooding, the list goes on. With the ever increasing threat of global warming, we need to know how we can look after the planet as it is the only one we have. If we don't make changes now, what hope will our young children have for their future on this planet? Electricity causes 35 per cent of Australia's greenhouse pollution which makes it the biggest single source of Australia's greenhouse pollution. Here are a few tips on what we can do to help cool our planet. Switch off the TV, VCR, microwave and stereo at the power point instead of leaving them in stand-by power mode. Purchase appliances with the highest Energy Star rating. Run air-conditioning units only when needed and adjust the temperature control to 25 degrees. Defrost the freezer regularly and set the temperature to -18C. Only use your dishwasher when it is full. Consider solar lighting for your porch and garden. Decorative solar garden lights are now available in inexpensive kits. Dry washing on a clothesline. Your clothes will smell fresh, look better and wear longer. Replace light bulbs with compact uorescents. They provide just as much light and they use 75 per cent less power. Install movement sensors in outdoor areas, they provide security while saving money and energy. Turn off your hot water system when you go on holidays. Switch off the light when you leave the room. Greenpeace believes the problem that we face is that the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) for energy, which is changing the climate. The fossil fuel industry is resisting change, funneling millions of dollars into advertising and campaigns to oppose global warming solutions. What's worse, our governments are listening to them! Climate change is caused by human activity; it is the warming of our planet. It's the worst environmental and economic problem we face today. Most scientists and governments around the world now agree that climate change will damage or destroy many natural ecosystems and human communities. Our atmosphere is made up of a balanced blanket of gases. The gas blanket traps in the earth's heat and sustains life on earth. This is known as the greenhouse effect. Industrial activities create more greenhouse gases, disrupting the natural balance and increasing greenhouse warming.

It's like we're putting a thicker blanket over the planet, causing it to overheat. Our greenhouse gas pollution comes from burning coal and gas to make energy. Deforestation also releases large amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. After that, changes in our climate may become rapid, unpredictable and irreversible. Coal provides nearly 90 per cent of Australia's electricity and is also destroying the environment. Coal use also causes signicant health problems. Studies around the world show worrying incidences of asthma, lung diseases and cancers. We must stop our use of coal powered electricity! Clean, renewable energy is the solution to climate change and to a better planet. Just as we rely on coal in Australia, we feed other countries in our region. We export about three times as much coal as we currently use. The Newcastle port has more coal leaving from there every day than our entire country uses. The world relies on crude oil and it's running out! The world's transportation and commercial industries rely heavily on oil. Unfortunately, in recent years, we've been consuming much more oil than we've been discovering. Some scientists are suggesting that the Earth may have reached its peak oil. "Peak oil" is the point at which we consume more petroleum per year than we produce, and when peak oil happens worldwide, it will no longer be worth the time or money it takes to nd new oil reserves. Some people believe there will be a war as the result of a battle to gain control over the world's last oil reserves. Saudi Arabia possesses both the world's largest oil reserves and produces the largest amount of the world's oil. The Middle East has about 50 per cent of the known remaining world oil reserves. The truth is, peak oil could affect you more than you realize. The average Australian consumes six and a half litres of oil every day, three quarters of that is being used for transportation. Australia passed peak oil as a nation in 2000, and now imports 30% of all its oil. By 2010, it's estimated that that gure will be closer to 50%. It's hard to say exactly what will happen once peak oil hits across the globe. Some scientists say that it will be the end of civilization as we know it, while others claim there will really be no difference at all due to recent advances in energy technology. No one can say exactly when the world's peak oil will occur, estimates say sometime around 2015. The United States Energy Information Administration believes the world supply of oil shale to be 2.6 trillion barrels of usable oilthat's approximately 66 years worth of fuel at current consumption rates. The problem is, by relying on oil shale and other such sources of petroleum, we're merely delaying the problem. If we don't investigate other types of energy, we'll have the same problem we do now in half a century. Although we can stretch our supply for a while longer, we will eventually run out of oil. There are currently efforts underway to reduce or eliminate oil consumption. Auto companies are developing hybrid cars that run partly off rechargeable batteries, and a new fuel called "biodiesel" Individual actions make a difference, too. Try cutting down on petrol consumption by using public transportation or carpooling with friends and coworkers. When possible, ride a bike or walk to your destinationyou'll be keeping the planet and the economy healthy and also yourself too! Nuclear Australia

Australia is the owner of the world's largest uranium reserves. Most of the energy in Australia is supplied by burning coal or petrol. Currently, 78 per cent of Australia's water is boiled by coal. Coal, is a fossil fuel and creates greenhouse emissions. Nuclear energy is a way to boil water without producing greenhouse emissions. All of the uranium mined in Australia is exported. Every country that buys uranium from Australia must sign an agreement that the uranium will be used only for peaceful purposes (like generating energy). Why aren't we using our own uranium? A great debate has recently opened up in Parliament on Australia's nuclear policy. John Howard has suggested an inquiry into Australia's energy uses, including the proposal of going nuclear. Those who are for a nuclear Australia argue that the introduction of nuclear energy is cleaner. It could possibly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help the environment. Nuclear energy could also provide a cheaper solution to rising petrol prices and could create jobs for thousands of people. Scientists say that only ve per cent of emissions would be cut by 2050, which is well below the target number that has been set to reduce climate change. The opposition doesn't forget the nuclear disaster of the Chernobyl power plant meltdown in 1986. They argue that such a disaster could happen again. Others worry that if Australia goes nuclear, our uranium supply could run out in less than 60 years. Personally I am against the idea of Nuclear Power in Australia. It has some benets but the overall risk of a nuclear disaster and the possibility of it falling into the wrong hands to make nuclear weapons are too much of a risk. There must be a better and safer solution. The Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster on April 25th -26th 1986 is the world's worst nuclear power accident. It occurred at Chernobyl in the former USSR now know as Ukraine. The Chernobyl nuclear power plant was located 80 miles north of Kiev. It had 4 reactors and whilst testing reactor number 4 numerous safety procedures were disregarded. At 1:23am a chain reaction in the reactor became out of control creating explosions and a reball which blew off the reactor's heavy steel and concrete lid. The Chernobyl accident killed more than 30 people immediately, and as a result of the high radiation levels in the surrounding 20-mile radius, 135,000 people had to be evacuated. Health Effects from the Chernobyl DisasterThe ve years (1981-1986) before the accident, the average thyroid cancer rate in young children aged between birth and 15 years old was 4-6 incidents per million. The incidents rose from 4-6 per million to 45 incidents per million between 1986 and 1997. There have also been reports of increases of specic cancers in certain populations living in contaminated areas and among those who helped with the cleanup of the accident. 30 lives were lost during the accident or within a few months after it. Figures from the Ukraine Radiological Institute suggest that over 2,500 deaths were caused by the Chernobyl disaster. Psychological ConsequencesThere have been signicant increases in psychological health disorders and incidence such as:

 Anxiety Depression Helplessness and despair leading to, social withdrawal and loss of hope for the future. Other disorders attributable to mental stress The stress and trauma of the people involved during the evacuation and their concerns about their children's health came from the result of the lack of public information available after the accident. There is much understandable skepticism over ofcial statements as people were not told the truth until several years after the accident. Following the accident 116,000 people had to be evacuated and between 1990 and 1995 an additional 210,000 people were resettled. A new town was named for the personnel of the Chernobyl power plant. Villages had to be decontaminated and major work had to be carried out on infrastructure of water and gas. The closure of Reactor 4 and the "freeze" on construction of new reactors reduced the availability of electricity supplies. Demographic indications in 'contaminated' areas suggest that these areas are experiencing a decline in birth rate. The work force has moved to uncontaminated areas resulting in a shortage of labour and professional staff. The affected areas suffered major disruption to normal life and economic activity in agriculture and forestry production. After the Chernobyl accident radioactive material was widely dispersed and was measured over a vast area. The effects have been felt over the whole of the northern hemisphere. In some local ecosystems within a 10 km radius of the reactor lethal doses were reached particularly with trees and small mammals. However in 1989 the natural environment of these ecosystems began to recover but there is still the possibility of long term genetic effects. With today's ongoing risk of terrorist attacks worldwide and the growing threat of an attack in Australia, it seems going nuclear could be a disaster waiting to happen. Nuclear power does have its advantages but in an unstable world as we live in today I'm not sure it is a good idea. However we need to do something now to help ght the growing concerns of global warming and climate change. Our children deserve the rights for us to nd a solution so they can live in stable and safe environment in the future.

Global Warming Problems And Solutions One of the biggest problems facing the world today is global warming. Many experts believe that our production of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is heating the atmosphere, and this could be very dangerous for human life. This essay will examine the problem of global warming and suggest some solutions for it. Many problems could result from global warming. One of the biggest is rising sea level. This could result in the ooding of low lying coastal areas and cities, such as Egypt, the Netherlands, and Bangladesh. Another problem is changes in weather patterns. Many areas of the world are experiencing increased hurricanes, oods, and other natural disasters. A nal issue associated with this phenomenon is the negative effect on animals. Fish populations could be effected, while some insects which spread disease might become more common. There are several things we can do to deal with global warming. One answer is to stop making C02. We can do this by switching from oil, coal and gas to renewable energy. A second solution is to plant more trees. Trees absorb C02 and produce oxygen, which is not a greenhouse gas. A third idea is to use less energy and recycle more products. If we use less energy and are more environmentally friendly, the earths temperature may not rise too much. In conclusion, making small changes now in the way we live means avoiding huge changes in the future. Scientists, governments and individuals must work together to overcome this serious threat.

Global Warming Solutions-What Can We Do?

National Geographic

The evidence that humans are causing global warming is strong, but the question of what to do about it remains controversial. Economics, sociology, and politics are all important factors in planning for the future. Even if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases (GHGs) today, the Earth would still warm by another degree Fahrenheit or so. But what we do from today forward makes a big difference. Depending on our choices, scientists predict that the Earth could eventually warm by as little as 2.5 degrees or as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit. A commonly cited goal is to stabilize GHG concentrations around 450-550 parts per million (ppm), or about twice pre-industrial levels. This is the point at which many believe the most damaging impacts of climate change can be avoided. Current concentrations are about 380 ppm, which means there isn't much time to lose. According to the IPCC, we'd have to reduce GHG emissions by 50% to 80% of what they're on track to be in the next century to reach this level. Is this possible? Many people and governments are already working hard to cut greenhouse gases, and everyone can help. Researchers Stephen Pacala and Robert Socolow at Princeton University have suggested one approach that they call "stabilization wedges." This means reducing GHG emissions from a variety of sources with technologies available in the next few decades, rather than relying on an enormous change in a single area. They suggest 7 wedges that could each reduce emissions, and all of them together could hold emissions at approximately current levels for the next 50 years, putting us on a potential path to stabilize around 500 ppm. There are many possible wedges, including improvements to energy efciency and vehicle fuel economy (so less energy has to be produced), and increases in wind and solar power, hydrogen produced from renewable sources, biofuels (produced from crops), natural gas, and nuclear power. There is also the potential to capture the carbon dioxide emitted from fossil fuels and store it undergrounda process called "carbon sequestration." In addition to reducing the gases we emit to the atmosphere, we can also increase the amount of gases we take out of the atmosphere. Plants and trees absorb CO2 as they grow, "sequestering" carbon naturally. Increasing forestlands and making changes to the way we farm could increase the amount of carbon we're storing. Some of these technologies have drawbacks, and different communities will make different decisions about how to power their lives, but the good news is that there are a variety of options to put us on a path toward a stable climate.