MUDI 2008

H/A/R Global Warming

Contents
1NC – Clean Coal CP .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1
How Serious is the Global Warming Threat? .......................................................................................................................... 3
IPCC Reports subject to political manipulation ..................................................................................................................... 5
The Big Problem in Understanding Climate Change ........................................................................................................... 6
How We Know Global Warming is Real. .................................................................................................................................12
Stronger Evidence of Human Influences on Climate. ........................................................................................................13
1NC – Clean Coal CP

Text:The USFG, specifically Congress should pass H.R. 6170: Clean Coal-Derived Fuels for Energy
Security Act of 2008.
(Summary of H.R. 6170: Introduced on 6/3/08. Clean Coal-Derived Fuels for Energy Security Act of 2008 - Directs the President to promulgate
regulations to ensure that aviation fuel, motor vehicle fuel, home heating oil, and boiler fuel sold or introduced into commerce in the United States, on an
annual average basis, contains the applicable volume of clean coal-derived fuel, determined in accordance with this Act. Exempts small refineries from
compliance with such regulations until 2018. Directs the Secretary of Energy to study and report to the President and Congress on whether compliance
with the requirements of this Act would impose a disproportionate economic hardship on small refineries. Requires the President to extend such
exemption if it would. Allows a small refinery to: (1) petition the President for an exemption at any time for the reason of disproportionate economic
hardship; and (2) opt-in and be subject to such regulations if it notifies the President that it waives the exemption.)

Contention 1: Competes based on DAs linked to reduction of coal usage.

Contention 2: Solvency

A) Clean Coal Solves – Less CO2 emission if tech is funded

CBS News, “Clean Coal - Pipe Dream Or Next Big Thing?” POLK COUNTY, Fla., June
20,2008.(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/20/eveningnews/main4199506.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4199506)

Both presidential candidates, BarackObama and John McCain, are pushing clean coal. But exactly what is
the technology?The cleanest coal plant in North America is operated by Tampa Electric, in the middle of
rural Florida. They call it clean because they don't burn coal exactly - they mix it with water and
oxygen and convert it into a gas.According to company president John Ramil,gasifying coal allows the company to
remove pollutants like sulphur, nitrogen and soot, which virtually eliminates acid rain. "And you can do
it much cleaner than with the conventional coal technology," says Ramil. That's the good news. But here's the
problem. "There is no such thing as clean coal," says James Hansen, NASA's expert on global warming, who says all coal plants,
even TECO's,still emit millions of tons of carbon dioxide - the most threatening greenhouse gas. "There is no
coal plant that captures the carbon dioxide and that's the major long-term pollutant," says Hansen.But if carbon dioxide pollution is the
problem with clean coal, many scientists believe there is a solution. They believe it's possible to
recover most of the carbon dioxide and store it underground. The idea is called "capture and
sequester," and a global race is on to learn how it should be done . One Norwegian firm is storing tons of carbon dioxide
in rock caves beneath the North Sea.America's efforts to sequester carbon have stalled.The Department of Energy planned to
fund a plant, but pulled all funding when the price grew too high.

1
B) Clean coal Solves – Technology makes it more cost effective & environmentally friendly
Arndt, Michael. (Business Week Editor.) “The New Clean Fuel: Coal Producer Goes Green American Electric Power, once the nemesis of
greens, may show the way.” Sept. 26,2005 (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_39/b3952102.htm)

To environmentalists,the
biggest plus relates to climate change. Instead of blowing CO2 into the
atmosphere, where it traps heat. The new design could one day extract the gas from the chemical
reactor and then "sequester" it deep underground. That would allow power generators to stick with
coal even if the U.S. joins other industrialized nations in cutting carbon emissions, notes Jana Milford, a senior
scientist at advocacy group Environmental Defense. Daniel A. Lashof, science director for the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate center,
agrees: "Gasification is the future for coal-fired power plants." The building project is only part of Morris' cleanup plan. Since taking over as AEP's chief
in January, 2004, he has pledged to reduce the $14 billion utility's CO2 emissions by 6% by 2010, in part by upgrading old, inefficient plants and by
substituting wind power. A biologist whose first job was preparing environmental impact statements, Morris, 58, also has promised to spend $3.5 billion
to lower emissions of other pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide. Utility analyst Justin C. McCann of Standard & Poor's (MHP ) says Morris' environmental
emphasis helps investors in two ways.Becausecoal-gas plants are more efficient, they should lift earnings by
$175 million when they're online in 2010. These efforts also might keep greens from pushing for more
costly investments. Morris says he has little choice if AEP wants to get a full 40 years of output from its new plants. Carbon-emission
mandates are inevitable, he says, noting: "We are a coal-based utility." If the alliance between AEP and environmentalists is surprising, so is the
comeback of King Coal.As
cheap and abundant as dirt, coal was always the power industry's favorite
combustible. Electricity generators burned a record 1 billion tons of it last year, accounting for 50% of
the nation's power supply. And after 2005's scorching summer, they're on track to top that handily this year. But while the Energy Dept. was
dishing out more than $100 million a year on clean-coal projects, utilities began turning their backs on coal in the 1990s, opting instead for natural gas,
which was almost as cheap and didn't require huge capital investments for emission controls. From 1999 to 2003, the nation added 133,600 megawatts
of gas-fired generating capacity, vs. 500 megawatts for coal. But that collective rush boomeranged on power producersas
gas prices
doubled, and then doubled again. All of a sudden, with electricity consumption climbingand most utilities still afraid of
the nuclear option, coal looked like a bargain again.The Bush Administration fanned the trend by adopting less stringent
requirements on mercury emissions -- power plants are far and away the No. 1 source of the airborne contaminant -- and by repudiating the Kyoto
Protocol, which binds signatory nations to reduce emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.The latest tallies show that at least
115 coal-fueled plants are at some stage of construction in the U.S.

2
SOCIAL SCIENCE AND PUBLIC POLICY

How Serious is the Global Warming Threat?

Roy W. Spencer
Published online: 3 August 2007
Society; Jul2007, Vol. 44 Issue 5, p45-50

Global Warming to Date

Globally averaged temperatures as measured by surface thermometers have warmed by about 0.6°C (about 1°F)
over the last 100 years (see Fig. 1). Three major features are evident in this temperature record. The first is a
warming trend up until 1940, which is believed by many to represent the end of the “Little Ice Age.” Then, a
gradual cooling trend is seen from the 1940s to the 1970s. This cooling could have been due to man-made
aerosol pollution, which reflects sunlight, but this explanation is somewhat speculative. Finally, stronger
warming has occurred since the 1970s up to the present. This warming is widely attributed to man-made
greenhouse gases. This recent warming trend is what worries many scientists, and has led to considerable media
hysteria. Some believe that global temperatures are now warmer than they have been anytime in the last 1,000
years. The claims that current temperatures are warmer than anytime in the last 1,000 years depend critically on
proxy measurements—primarily tree ring data from a handful of locations that have long-lived species of trees.
No doubt, most of the paleoclimate experts that perform this kind of research are fully convinced of the
accuracy of these proxy estimates; however, many of the assumptions involved, tested, and verified. Therefore,
conclusions based upon proxy data are very suspect.
A central question is, “How much of the present warmth is due to mankind‟s activities?” While several climate
modelers have indeed come up with assumed magnitudes for aerosol cooling and greenhouse gas warming
effects that explain the current warming trend, these are by no means the only possible explanations. Because
we really do not understand, and thus are unable to model, the decadal scale natural variability of the climate
system, we really cannot know with any certainty how much of the present warming is due to burning fossil
fuels. For instance, due to
an lack of sufficient observational data, changes in ocean circulation or cloud amounts could have occurred
without being detected. But science can only deal with what is understood, not with what is unknown. As a
result, science has fallen into the bad habit of attributing most climate changes to human activities. Anecdotal
evidence such as melting sea ice and retreating glaciers would seem to provide convincing evidence. But
thermometer measurements suggest that the Arctic region was at least as warm in the late 1930s as it is now.
We only have reliable sea ice measurements since about 1979, when satellite measurements first began, thus,
we really do not know whether recent sea ice trends are outside the realm of natural variability. Similar points
can be made about receding glaciers.
Glaciers respond to a variety of influences, especially precipitation. Only a handful of the thousands of the
world‟s glaciers have been measured for decades, let alone for centuries. Some of the glaciers that are receding
are uncovering tree stumps, indicating previous times when natural climate fluctuations were responsible for a
restricted extent of the ice fields. The bottom line is that, while we are indeed in a period of unusual warmth, it
is not at all clear whether it is either unprecedented, or directly attributable to man-made greenhouse warming.
Though scientists have suggested explanations for current warming that involve only man-made aerosols and
greenhouse gas emissions, these are by no means the only possible explanations.

3
IS THIS WHAT IT TAKES
TO SAVE THE WORLD?
Oliver Morton reports.
Morton, Oliver1 Source:
Nature; 5/10/2007, Vol. 447 Issue 7141, p132-136, 5p, 8 color
Mount Pinatubo‟s eruption in 1991 made sunsets
much brighter (right) than before (left).
NASA
132
NEWS FEATURE NATURE|Vol 447|10 May 2007

But things went the other way. Once global warming started to be seen as real and important, climate scientists
shied away from such speculation, preferring to hammed home the message that greenhouse-gas emissions had
to be cut quickly and deeply. „Geo engineering‟ the climate through artificial modifications was seen as a
dangerous distraction from the business of slashing emissions. In the decade and a half that followed Pinatubo,
talk of geo engineering went into eclipse. From 1995 to 2005, more research went into technological responses
to asteroids that might one day endanger the Earth than into direct responses against the sunlight already heating
the planet. Much of the climate community still views the idea with deep suspicion or outright hostility. Geo
engineering, many say, is a way to feed society‟s addiction to fossil fuels. “It‟s like a junkie figuring out new
ways of stealing from his children,” says Meinrat Andreae, an atmospheric scientist at the Max Planck Institute
for Chemistry in Mainz, Germany. But in the past year the idea has begun to re-emerge, and it now seems to be
making up for lost time. In particular, the idea of blocking some of the Sun‟s light before it gets to the Earth —
sometimes euphemistically referred to as „radiation management‟ — is receiving more attention now than ever
before, with new ideas about how, why and when such an approach might be taken. The most recent IPCC
report, released last week, scoffs at such of capping atmospheric carbon dioxide levels at 450 parts per million
around the middle of the century. (Before the industrial revolution the level of carbon dioxide was 280 parts per
million, and today it is 381 parts per million.)Never going above 450 parts per million would offer a decent
chance of limiting future warming
at or below 2 °C. But such restraint looks increasingly implausible to many. A little geo engineering might
make an equivalent objective a lot more achievable, Wigley argued2. Imagine an aerosol effort that starts fairly
soon and is quickly ramped up to a Pinatubo‟s worth of sulphates being injected into the upper atmosphere
every two years, before being phased out completely after 80 years. The resulting cooling effect would allow
carbon dioxide emissions to keep climbing for a few more decades without the world warming any more than if
they leveled immediately. In Wigley‟s model the peak level of atmospheric carbon dioxide could climb to well
over 500 parts per million without the Earth‟s temperature getting any higher than it would with stabilization at
the much-harder-to-obtain 450 parts per million. Emissions would still have to be cut very steeply from the
middle of the century on. But for Wigley, those extra decades of room to maneuver are all important.

4
IPCC Reports subject to political manipulation
ATTACKS ON IPCC REPORT HEAT CONTROVERSY OVER GLOBAL WARMING

Feder, Toni
Physics Today; Aug96 Part One, Vol. 49 Issue 8, p55, 3p, 3 bw

Articles attacking the writing of chapter 8 have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times Energy Economist and Energy Daily, among other places, and have
"The IPCC: Institutionalized `Scientific
also been distributed to reporters and congressional representatives. A nine-page GCC analysis entitled
Cleansing"' compared the 9 October 1995 draft of chapter 8, sent out before the Madrid meeting, to the published version, and repeatedly called the
latter "revisionist" and "scientifically cleansed." This analysis claimed that the changes made "change the
fundamental character of the chapter, for they obscure and in several important instances entirely delete,
scientific analysis that casts serious doubts about current ability to attribute climate change to human
activities." John Schlaes, executive director of the GCC, says, "The context of the report was changed.... Words are
important." And Donald Rheem, a GCC spokesman, says, "We do not oppose the conclusions of the 1995 SAR. We support more scientific research,
and object that the changes [to chapter 8] make the claim [of a human influence on climate] appear to be more
certain than it is." Gardner says, "The changes look like political manipulation, and they shift the essence of
chapter 8."

Similar charges have been made by others, such as Frederick Seitz, whose impressive resume includes stints as president of the American Physical Society,
the chairman of the George C. Marshall
president of Rockefeller University and president of the National Academy of Sciences. He is currently
Institute, a conservative Washington, DC-based think tank. "I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-
review process than the event that led to this IPCC report," Seitz wrote in an op-ed published in the 12 June
Wall Street Journal. "If the IPCC is incapable of following its most basic procedures, it would be best to
abandon the entire IPCC process, or at least that part that is concerned with the scientific evidence on climate
change, and look for more reliable sources of advice to governments on this important question." Santer says that Seitz
never contacted him or any of the other lead authors or IPCC officials before writing his op-ed piece.

5
The Big Problem in Understanding Climate Change
STEPHANOS ANASTASIADIS
Climate change threatens economies and affects societies across the world. It
could lead to increased conflict and insecurity. Although it is caused directly
by changes to the physical environment, solutions will have to come at least
partly from social and economic change in countries that emit great quantities
of greenhouse gases. The perception that it is an “environmental
problem” hinders appropriate action.
At the end of 2004 the world was shaken by one of the biggest natural
disasters ever recorded. At the time of this writing, the Indian Ocean earthquake
had killed at least one hundred and fifty thousand people in Asia and
Africa, with the death toll almost certain to rise further. Millions were
destitute. The UN was saying that reconstruction would take decades.
Although the earthquake had nothing to do with climate change, its
impact on low-lying areas in countries like Indonesia and Sri Lanka, and
on islands like the Maldives, gives us a foretaste of what we can expect as
the effects of global warming become increasingly manifest. If nothing
changes, we can expect climate change to kill more people and be more disruptive
over time than the earthquake. But, to coin a phrase, it does not have
to be this way. If human activity influences global warming, then we can do
something to prevent it. The terms by which we understand the problem, and
what we do about it, are therefore of crucial importance.

T here is overwhelming scientific evidence that climate change is real, and

substantially caused by humans. We add to global warming by burning
fossil fuels, thus increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,
where it persists for a long time. This leads to the earth developing a warmer
average temperature. The more greenhouse gases we emit, the warmer it will
be when a new equilibrium temperature is reached. The earth’s average
surface temperature rose by about 0.68C over the twentieth century. That
may not seem like much, but this average hides significant regional variations,
and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has
already reported the negative effects.
Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice, 17:299–306
Copyright # 2005 Taylor & Francis LLC
ISSN 1040-2659 print; 1469-9982 online
DOI: 10.1080/14631370500333039
299
Because human actions are highly variable, the best available predictions
of global temperature evolution cover a broad range. The IPCC
estimates that the average temperature will rise by at least another 1.48C
by 2100, but that it could rise by as much as 5.88C. It expects average sea
levels to rise by 9 cm–88 cm over the same period. Global warming may
bring some benefits; for example it may be easier to grow crops in
extremely cold areas. But these will be outweighed by the significant
negative effects in every region of the world.

T he following indicates what could happen, according to the IPCC’s

scenarios. There is likely to be less water in central Asia, the
Mediterranean region, southern Africa, and Australia, and there could be
6
“around 5 billion [people living in water-stressed regions] by 2025”
compared with 1.7 billion in 2000. Elsewhere, higher rainfall could lead to
more frequent floods of greater severity. Crops will probably suffer from
excessive heat and drought in many areas, leading to increases in global
food prices. Ecosystems are likely to be significantly disrupted. Indeed, a
group of scientists writing in Nature has said that 15–37% of species
(based on a sample of 20% of the earth’s land-surface) will be “committed
to extinction” through climate change by 2050. This does not include
disease-bearing mosquitoes, which are likely to expand their geographical
range, spreading malaria and dengue.
The World Health Organization (WHO) says that, “Concern for human
health is one of the most compelling reasons to study the effects of global
climate change.” Buildings and transport infrastructure will almost certainly
be damaged wherever permafrost melts, and it is very likely that insurance
premiums will rise due to uncertainty in risk-assessment of weather-related
events. Based on research by Munich Re, a leading re-insurance company,
the United Nations Environment Program said in 2001 that losses from
climate change could cost $304 billion annually by 2050. The greatest risk
to human settlements will come from flooding and landslides.
It is also conceivable that less food, and more drought and floods, could
lead to more refugees and contribute to increasing national and regional
tensions. The Pentagon is worried enough to have invested in its own
scenario planning on climate change. Thomas Homer-Dixon writes that
environmental scarcity is most likely to produce two types of violent
conflict: “ethnic clashes arising from population migration caused by
environmental scarcity”; and “civil strife . . . caused by . . . scarcity that
affects economic productivity and . . . [thus] people’s livelihoods.” The
IPCC points out that “those with the least resources have the least capacity
to adapt and are the most vulnerable” to the effects of global warming. As
a result, it is reasonable to conclude that global warming threatens peace
and security.
300 STEPHANOS ANASTASIADIS
Climate change is therefore likely to cause social and economic disruption
and so clearly requires urgent attention. Writing in 1997 in the UN’s
Our Planet magazine, Robin Cook, then-U.K.-foreign-secretary went so
far as to describe it as “a global threat without parallel.”

D espite all the information and public acknowledgment, action by the

world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitters has been rather modest. It
has been largely limited to promoting the development of technologies
and emissions trading schemes, and participating in international conferences
held in glamorous locations. Important as these initiatives doubtless
are, if even the most optimistic scenario is accurate then the political
response is so weak as to border on being irresponsible—even in Europe,
which has said it wants to take a global lead on climate change. The only
global agreement on greenhouse gas emissions (the 1997 Kyoto Protocol)
is widely recognized as unambitious and the biggest polluter, the United
States, refuses to participate. And Kyoto excludes non-industrialized
countries. Although it is fair that the historical big-emitters should take the
lead in reducing emissions in the beginning, countries like China, India,
and Brazil cannot increase greenhouse gas emissions indefinitely.
So, why is too little being done, despite excellent information? This

7
question lies at the heart of the problem. Because there are gaps in our scientific
knowledge, some people dispute climate change. U.S. President George
W. Bush, for example, has reportedly vacillated between accepting and
rejecting the U.S. National Academy of Sciences opinion that global
warming is “due in large part to human activity.” But where there is
honest doubt, the precautionary principle should apply: the evidence is
already strong enough to justify action being taken now despite imperfect
information. The doubters do not seem to be opposed to the precautionary
approach in principle. For example, Peter Singer cites Cass Sunstein as
pointing out that Bush applied that principle in Iraq, choosing to act preemptively
even without full information on the presence of weapons of
mass destruction: precisely what he has refused to do on climate change.
Certainly, climate change is nebulous: we cannot see it directly, nor can
we attribute any individual effect to it. It is therefore difficult to spend
resources now with no immediate return on investment. This is a particular
problem for politicians facing re-election. Yet the answer must go beyond
nebulousness or scientific doubt: these are inadequate explanations for widespread
inaction. We need to look at how we approach the issue of climate
change, as that influences how we understand it and therefore deal with it.

G lobally, the United Nations Environment Program has taken the lead on
general climate change issues, whereas the secretariat for the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change administers the Kyoto
UNDERSTANDING CLIMATE CHANGE 301
Protocol. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 1000-page
Climate Change 2001 is the most comprehensive scientific overview to
date of the likely impacts of climate change, and it was written and
reviewed mostly by natural and environmental scientists.
Presidents and prime ministers often make statements or political commitments
on the issue of climate change, usually at formal gatherings. But
official governmental responses to climate change are run from environment
departments. In the EU, the European Commission’s Directorate General for
Environment has political responsibility. In the United States, it is the
Environmental Protection Agency. Elsewhere, such as in South Africa, it
is the environment department or ministry that takes the lead. Whenever
there is a media story on climate change, it is written or reported on by
the news organization’s environment correspondent. They frequently
interview representatives from environmental groups like Greenpeace or
WWF to get a civil society perspective. It sometimes seems that the environmental
correspondent does little other than report on climate change.
What’s wrong with this picture? Climate change is treated as an
environmental problem: all of society’s institutions deal with it as such,
and public discourse reinforces this perception. Normal, right?
Normal, but wrong. Climate change is not (only) an environmental
problem. Although it certainly has a strong environmental component, it is
clearly just as much a social and an economic issue as an environmental
one. This distinction is of crucial importance. The fact that climate change
is treated as an environmental problem means that it is understood as part
of the “environment” discourse, and is viewed through the “green lens.”

T here are three mutually reinforcing reasons why this is a problem for
dealing with climate change effectively. The first has to do with the seriousness
8
with which the problem is tackled. To see what this means in
practice, one need look no further than the European Union’s Lisbon
strategy. Remember: the EU wants to be (seen to be) an environmental
leader in the world, so it is more likely than other wealthy regions to be
open to environmental arguments.
The “Lisbon strategy” was adopted in 2000. This flagship approach is
supposed to make Europe the most competitive economy in the world. It
features prominently on the European Union’s europa website and the
European Commission brings out an annual progress report, which is the
only formal document on the agenda of the spring European Summit; indicating
great political will. In 2001, governments added an environmental
dimension to the Lisbon strategy, and the drive for European competitiveness
is now supposed to bring together the economy, society, and the
environment. But in practice, the Lisbon strategy does little more than pay
lip-service to environmental concerns.
302 STEPHANOS ANASTASIADIS
Why? Since the turn of the century the influence of the “environment”
has been waning. The reasons for this decline are not relevant here. It is
worth noting only that, in Europe at least, it seems to run parallel with
poor economic performance, and a bottoming out of relatively cheap
environmental technology measures. “Competitiveness” is the name of the
anti-environmentalism sweeping European policy circles. The argument
appears to be: “Yes, the environment is important, and I’m happy to keep
saying so. But it is essentially a luxury, to be dealt with when times are
good and more important issues out of the way.”
Whether or not that argument holds water is open to debate. In the
Lisbon strategy, however, it has clearly meant that issues understood as
environmental play second fiddle to the pursuit of economic growth and
full employment. There is good evidence that climate change policies can
bring economic benefits, but in the present mood, “environment” and “competitiveness”
are usually understood to be mutually exclusive and so the
environment discourse has less influence. Why political leaders act as they
do is unclear; perhaps they are motivated by fear and prefer to stick to
what they know. Whatever the reason, dealing with climate change is not
made any easier by its association with the environment, as environmental
arguments now have less weight, and environment officials less clout, than
they had half a decade ago.
For these reasons, giving an environment label to any issue is now
usually a kiss of death, unless it is so pressing that there is no ignoring it
(like an oil tanker wrecked just off the coast, and leaking). We can expect
that the power of the discourse associated with the environment will
change at a later date, at which point it will be fortuitous for climate
change to be associated with the environment. But it does not help dealing
with climate change now.

T he second problem with the environment label is that it limits the

range of conceivable solutions. The policy solution to environmental
problems, at least in the West, has typically been to “treat with
technology”—this has, after all, been a politically easy and apparently
effective method so far. The example par excellence is urban air
quality. Poor air quality in U.S. and European cities has largely been
caused by cars and the problem has been confronted by requiring evercleaner

9
vehicles and fuels. Unfortunately, the rise in car numbers has
cancelled out many of the gains to be had from cleaner vehicles, and
people still get sick and die from air pollution. New technology is
increasingly pricey, and improvements progressively marginal. This
pattern is now repeating itself in cities like New Delhi, where the
focus is also on better vehicles and fuels as a means of improving air
quality.
UNDERSTANDING CLIMATE CHANGE 303
On the one hand, environmental organizations have protested this
limited thinking, pointing out that significant non-technical measures are
needed. On the other hand, however, they have gone along with the
dominant approach by (very sensibly) participating in the discussions on
technical standards as a means of ensuring at least some influence; but in
the process tacitly legitimizing the “technology” narrative. After technology,
the next step in the dominant environmental approach is to develop
economic instruments.
This approach is also being used for climate change; but here, too, it is
limited. At first, the stress was on renewable energy and fuels. More recently,
policies have promoted emissions trading schemes. Attempts to reduce
carbon dioxide emissions through such traditional methods will run up
against essentially social practices. In Europe, for example, transport is the
only sector whose emissions continue to rise (between 1990 and 2002 all
other sectors remained stable or fell, whereas transport emissions grew
strongly, and attempts to increase the price of fuel in 2000 met with
massive popular protest in many EU countries). Increasing wealth in
China and India is leading to an explosion of private car ownership as
people leave public transport in favor of that powerful status symbol. This
means strongly rising emissions, contributing to the prediction that
transport emissions from the “developing world” will overtake those from
the “developed world” by 2010.
Transport is the most problematic economic sector from a climate
perspective, and the key to reducing transport emissions is in personal and
social behavior, not technology. This is already well accepted at both
expert and political levels. There is widespread lip service to the idea that
some form of behavior change is needed in transport if climate change is
to be addressed; even from some car-makers. But it does not fit the
dominant environmental discourse and is therefore conceptually difficult to
act upon.
The third reason for the environment label being a problem is that
understanding climate change as an environmental problem makes it easy
to ignore for people not working in the environment field. It effectively
“ghettoizes” climate change: the problem is visible, and the general public
may even be concerned about it, but the responsibility to do something
about it is seen as lying within the environment field, and others are
reluctant to get involved. That is not conducive to creating the sorts of
political alliances that will be indispensable to dealing effectively with the
causes of global warming. Non-governmental organizations in the mostpolluting
countries also approach global warming using the green lens.
Consequently, only environmental NGOs deal with it. Businesses, too,
when they want to take action on climate change, tend to derogate it to
environmental departments. And at an official level, the environment label
304 STEPHANOS ANASTASIADIS
makes it more difficult for actors outside environment ministries and
10
agencies to perceive it as a broader problem and therefore as something on
which they can or should act. Division of labor is clearly needed: it’s impossible
for everyone to deal with everything. But the scope of the problem
makes climate change special (hence the numerous political statements
from presidents and prime-ministers on this environmental issue).

T here is now general agreement that climate change mitigation needs to

be accompanied by adaptation to those effects that are already inevitable.
Both will take broad measures and, ultimately, social changes.
Individuals and companies clearly have some responsibility, but as governments
set the legal and economic frameworks for their territories, they have
the greatest obligation.
“Greenhouse gas emissions reductions must happen: the longer this
is delayed, the worse the problem will be, and the more disruptive the consequences.”
Twenty years ago that would have been a prophetic voice crying
in the wilderness. Now it is the prophetic voice of mainstream expert
opinion; and it has led most government leaders to formally acknowledge
the problem, most famously in signing the Kyoto Protocol. Now the real
challenge lies in putting this insight into practice, and that is precisely
where the environmental lens serves to confuse matters. Effective mitigation
and adaptation will be difficult even without conceptual barriers: using the
green lens makes it nearly impossible. The ghettoizing effect of the environment
label significantly reduces perceptions of the problem. It restricts
solutions—largely to traditional technology and economic instruments. It
makes social and systemic economic change less likely. The effects of the
catastrophic earthquake of 2004 should serve as an ongoing reminder that
environmental problems really are social and economic issues too, and
should be dealt with as such.
There is no easy solution to the climate conundrum, but it is clear that
existing “solutions” are not working. We need different approaches.
Climate change is the sort of issue that a new Ministry for Sustainability
could take the lead on; failing which, it might not be a bad idea for
economics ministries to be handed the dossier. Whatever form they take,
though, solutions will have to come from greater multidisciplinary collaboration,
cutting across traditional policy and professional divides. There is
already some movement in this direction, so it can be done. Much more is
possible on climate change than the present “environmental” lens allows—
possibly even at lower cost. The range of the possible and conceivable
needs to expand. The environmental lens needs to be recognized for
what it is, and swiftly removed, for as long as climate change is understood
as only or mostly something environmental, progress will certainly be
limited.

11
How We Know Global Warming is Real.
Schneider, Tapio
Source:
Skeptic; 2008, Vol. 14 Issue 1, p31-37, 7p
How do we know the increase In carbon dioxide
concentrations are caused by human activities?

Tliere are several lines of evidence. We know approximately how much carbon dioxide is
emitted as a result of human activities. Adding up the human sources of carbon dioxide—
Primarily from fassil fuel burning, cement production, and land use changes (e.g.. deforestation) one finds that only about
half the carbon Dioxide ermined as a result of human activities
has led to an increase in atmospheric concentrations. Tlie other half of the engine carbon dioxide
has been taken up by oceans and the biosphere where and how exactly is not completely
understood: there is a "missing carbon sink." Human activities thus can account for the increase in carbon dioxide
concentrations. Changes in the isotopic composition of carbon
dioxide shows that the carbon in die added carton dioxide derives largely from plant materials,
that is, from processes such as burning of biomass or fossil fuels, which are derived from
fossil plant materials. Minute changes in the atmospheric concentration of oxygen show
that the added carbon dioxide derives from burning of the plant materials. And concentrations of carbon
dioxide in the ocean have increased along with the atmospheric concentrations, showing that the increase in
atmospheric
Carbon dioxide concentrations cannot Be a result of release from the oceans. All lines
Of evidence taken together make it unambiguous That the increase in atmospheric carbon Dioxide
concentrations is human induced and Is primarily a result of fossil fuels burning. (Similar reasoning can be
evoked for other Greenhouse gases, but for some of those, such as methane and nitrous oxide, their sources
are not as clear as those of carbon dioxide.) Concentrations of carbon dioxide are measured In parts per
million, those of methane And nitrous oxide in parts per billion. These are trace constituents of the atmosphere.
Together with water vapor, they Account for less than 1% of the volume of The atmosphere, and yet they are
crucially Important for Earth's climate. Earth's surface is heated by absorption of Solar (shortwave) radiation; it
emits infrared
(Long wave) radiation, which would escape almost directly to space if it were not for
Water vapor and the other greenhouse gases. Nitrogen and oxygen, which account for
about 99% of the volume of the atmosphere, are essentially transparent to infrared radiation. But greenhouse
gases absorb infrared radiation and re-emit it in all directions.
Some of the infrared radiation that would otherwise directly escape to space is emitted
back toward the surface. Without this natural Greenhouse effect, primarily owing to water
Vapor and carbon dioxide. Earth's mean surface Temperature would be freezing,
Instead of the habitable 59°F we currently Enjoy. Despite their small amounts, then, the
Greenhouse gases strongly affect Earth's temperature. Increasing their concentration augments The natural
greenhouse effect. 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, for the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available at ,http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/
wg2/index.htm. (see especially the “Summary for Policymakers”).
Singer, Peter. 2004. The President of Good and Evil: Taking George W. Bush Seriously. London: Granta
Books.
Thomas, Chris D., Alison Cameron, & Rhys Green (lead authors, with 16 others) 2004. “Extinction Risk
from Climate Change.” Nature (January 8), 427: 145–148. Available at ,http://nature.com/cgitaf/
DynaPage.taf?file 1/4 /nature/journal/v427/n6970/full/nature02121_fs.html..
Stephanos Anastasiadis has degrees in psychology, science of religion, and peace studies from Cape Town
and Dublin. He worked for more than five years in European environmental policymaking and will start a
Ph.D. in Corporate Social Responsibility at Nottingham in late 2005. He recently started his own consultancy,
Managing Sustainability.

12
Stronger Evidence of Human Influences on Climate.
Trenberth, Kevin E. Source:
Environment; May2001, Vol. 43 Issue 4, p8, 11p, 1 diagram, 3 graphs, 5 color

Human Influences
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by about 31 percent since the beginning of the
Industrial Revolution, from 280 parts per million (ppm) by volume to 367 ppm. This increase is due
mainly to combustion of fossil fuels and the removal of forests. Projections of future CO2
concentrations suggest that, in the absence of controls, the rate of increase may accelerate and thus
double the concentrations of CO2 from pre-industrial levels within the next 50 to 100 years. Human
activities (especially biomass burning; agriculture; animal husbandry; fossil fuel extraction,
distillation, and use; and the creation of landfills and rice paddies) have increased the atmospheric
concentrations of several other greenhouse gases (methane, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs)) and tropospheric ozone. These other greenhouse gases tend to reinforce the changes
caused by increased CO2 levels. However, the observed decreases in lower stratospheric ozone
since the 1970s, caused principally by human-introduced CFCs and halocarbons, contribute a small
cooling effect.
Aerosols enter the atmosphere naturally when they are blown off the surface of deserts or dry
regions, blasted into the atmosphere during volcanic eruptions, or released during forest fires. They
impact climate in various ways. For instance, the aerosols introduced into the atmosphere during the
eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines in June 1991 blocked enough radiation for two years to
cause observable cooling. Human activities contribute to aerosol particle formation mainly through
emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) (a major source of acid rain), particularly from coal-burning power
stations and through biomass burning. Sulfate aerosols, visible as a milky, whitish haze from airplane
windows, reflect a fraction of solar radiation back to space and hence work to cool the Earth's
surface. Some aerosols, like soot, absorb solar radiation and lead to local warming of the
atmosphere. Other aerosols absorb and reemit infrared radiation. Aerosols play still another role. By
acting as the nuclei on which cloud droplets condense, they affect the number and size of droplets in
a cloud and thereby alter the reflective and absorptive properties of clouds.( n7) Aerosols from
human activities are mostly introduced near the Earth's surface and are often washed out of the
atmosphere by rain. They typically remain aloft for only a few days near their sources. Aerosols
therefore have a very strong regional affect on the climate, usually producing cooling.
The determination of the climatic response to the changes in heating and cooling is complicated by
feedbacks. Some of these feedbacks amplify the original warming (positive feedback) and others
serve to reduce warming (negative feedback). If, for instance, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere
were suddenly doubled while all other factors remained constant, the amount of energy absorbed by
the atmosphere would increase. With additional energy trapped in the system, a new balance would
have to be reached. To accomplish this balance the atmosphere would have to warm up. In the
absence of other changes, the warming at the surface and throughout the troposphere would be
about 1.2 Celsius.( n8) In reality, many other factors could change as a result of doubled CO2
concentrations, and various feedbacks would come into play. When the positive and negative
feedbacks are considered, the best IPCC estimate of the average global warming for doubled CO2
is 2.5 Celsius. The net effect of the feedbacks is positive and, in fact, roughly doubles the global
mean temperature increase otherwise expected. Increases in water vapor that accompany warming
contribute the strongest positive feedback.
Humans Are Changing the Climate
In 1995, the IPCC assessment concluded that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible
human influence on global climate."( n17) Since then the evidence has become much stronger--the
13
recent record warmth of the 1990s, the historical context provided by the improved paleo-record,
improved modeling and simulation of the past climate, and improved statistical analysis. Thus the
headline in the new IPCC report states, "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the
warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."( n18) The best
assessment of global warming is that the human contribution to climate change first emerged from
the noise of background variability in the late 1970s. Hence, climate change is expected to continue
into the future. The amplification of extremes is likely to cause the greatest impact. Although some
changes arising from global warming may be benign or even beneficial, the economic effects of
more extreme weather will be substantial and clearly warrant attention in policy debates.
Because of the long lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere and the slow heat penetration and equilibration
of the oceans, there is already a substantial commitment to further global climate change, even in the
absence of further emissions of greenhouse gases. IPCC considered implications for stabilizing CO2
and greenhouse gases at various concentrations up to four times pre-industrial levels and concluded
that substantial reductions in emissions, well below current levels, would be required sooner or later
in all cases. Even full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol would merely slow the time of doubling of
CO2 concentrations from pre-industrial values by perhaps 15 years (for instance from 2060 to 2075).(
n19) Moreover, these projections emphasize that even stabilizing concentrations would not stop
climate change because of the slow response of the system; for this reason, temperature increases
and especially sea-level rise would continue for many decades thereafter. As we begin to understand
that our geophysical experiment might turn out badly, we are also discovering that it cannot be turned
off abruptly.
The IPCC report provides the evidence that global warming is happening and now the question
arises, What, if anything, should be done about these findings? The options include: do nothing,
mitigate or stop the problem, adapt to the changes as they happen, or find some combination of these
options. Different value systems come into play in deciding how to proceed. Considerations include
those of population growth, equity among developed and developing countries, intergenerational
equity, stewardship of the planet, and the precautionary principle ("better to be safe than sorry").
Those with vested interests in the current situation frequently favor the first option, extreme
environmentalists favor the second, and those who have a belief that technology can solve all
problems might favor the third. In rationally discussing options, it is helpful to recognize the legitimacy
of these different points of view. This problem is truly a global one because the atmosphere is a
global commons. These immense problems cannot be solved by one nation acting alone.
Unfortunately, to date, international progress toward mitigating and preparing for the possible
outcomes of global warming is inadequate.
The evidence presented by the IPCC report suggests that there is a strong case for slowing down the
projected rates of climate change caused by human influences. Any climate change scenario is
fraught with uncertainties. But a slowing in the warming process would allow researchers to improve
projections of climate change and its impacts. Actions taken to slow down climate change would
provide time to better prepare for and adapt to the changes as they appear. Natural systems and
human systems, many of which have long amortization lifetimes (e.g., power stations, dams, and
buildings), are then less likely to be dislocated or become obsolete quickly. Therefore, we must plan
ahead. Greater energy efficiency and expanding use of renewable resources, such as solar power,
are clearly key steps toward slowing the rate of climate change.

14