HOW THE INTERNATIONAL GOVERNMENT STOPED THE CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING?

Climate Change, Global warming is a term widely used to describe a potentially dramatic rise in the annual average global surface Temperature of the Earth. Estimates of how big that temperature increase will he range from 1L5"C to 4"C. If such a change in temperature occurs it is most likely that there will be other alterations to our climate. The rainfall distrib­ution might change and the frequency of severe weather events, such as hurricanes and typhoons, might increase. All the variables that we use to describe the weather and climate might undergo a profound alteration. Most scientists believe that there is good evidence that this change is due to increas­ing amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases in the Earth's atmosphere. These greenhouse gases act to trap outgoing thermal radiation which then warms the Earth. But why is carbon dioxide increasing, what is the real cause? To answer that question we need only to look around at our homes, our schools and our workplaces. Since fire was discovered we have been burn­ing fuels that release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. With The onset of the industrial revolution in the 1700s, increasing use has been made of fossil fuels which release large amounts of carbon dioxide when burnt. The industrial and domestic energy demands of our mod­ern society mean that approximately 7 gigatonnes (Gt) of carbon from car­bon dioxide is released every year. Consequently, as our technological ability has increased so has our potential for altering the environment in which we live.

With such profound consequences, and the culprit for the changes known, it might be thought negligent of the global community if no attempt was made to address the situation. Consequently, there have been world-wide efforts to tackle global warming. By 1988 the global scientific community had been canvassed and the consensus opinion was that the predicted changes in climate were significant enough to warrant action to curb greenhouse gases. The Toronto Conference in Canada that year led to the netting up of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPPC] by the World

Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The role of the IPCC was to examine the scientific evi­dence and report back to the world's leaders. There Followed a series of high profile meetings aimed at addressing this problem which led to the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. At this meeting, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC] was adopted by the signatories. This was essentially a commitment to stabilize greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a level that would not endanger the climate system and was interpreted by most signatories as meaning a return to 1990 emission levels of greenhouse gases by the year 2000. Most developed nations will fail to meet this reduction.

There were no targets set in 1992 and when the signatories met in Berlin in spring 1995, little was agreed other than that emission targets for beyond the year 2000 needed to be set by 1997. In July 1996 the second Conference of Parties was held jn Geneva (CoP-2) and this was more positive. The USA, perhaps the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, endorsed action. By December 1997 and the third meeting in Japan [CoP-3], the Kyoto Protocol agreed- targets for a group of six greenhouse gases. An overall target, rather than individual targets for each gas, was set, thereby allowing rising emissions of one gas to be offset by extra reductions of another gas. It was agreed that developed countries would cut emissions by 5.2 per cent by 2008-2012, The USA agreed to a reduction of 7 per cent and the European Union (EU) to 8 per cent. In November 1998, the fourth meeting in Buenos Aires [CoP-4] was to decide on the implementation strategy for the Kyoto Protocol, Instead, most of the decisions were left for a rolling programme over the next two years. Many issues were left unresolved and it is unclear whether enough has been done to stabilize the climate. By mid 1999 the USA was still refusing to cut its own emissions until certain key developing countries accept greenhouse gas emission targets. Without some sort of resolution soon the whole policy process is m danger of stalling. It looks increasingly likely that we will be unable to stop global warming.

Why has so little been achieved despite dire warnings, increased public environmental commitment and exhortations for businesses to 'go green'? Partly the answer lies in the complexity of the problem; there is no quick fix. Every facet of life in the modern developed world seems to require the consumption of fossil fuels, but the most serious impediment to change is the perception that for increased economic growth there must be continuously rising energy consumption, and consequently increasing greenhouse gas emissions. The argument is that to put the brakes on carbon dioxide emissions will seriously impede our economic welfare. Some of the most powerful lobbying groups in the world have been highly successful at getting this message across, not only to politicians and policy-makers, but also to the public.

Alarming Weather and Global Warming (Global Warming Problem)

Alarming Weather and Global Warming

By Andrew C. Revkin

Our provocative science columnist John Tierney endured a hailstorm of responses for a column and blog post this week on the tendency of some climate campaigners to focus on extreme weather as a selling point for cutting greenhouse gases. Today he’s posted an explanation and defense of his view, echoing a lot of what I’ve been writing over the past several years.

My take is that the tug of war over what’s causing today’s telegenic heat waves, floods, tempests — and even Arctic sea-ice retreats — distracts from the high confidence scientists have in the long-term (but less sexy) picture: that more CO2 will lead to centuries of climate and coastal changes with big consequences for a growing human population (for better and worse in the short run, and likely mostly for the worse in the long run).

And, as I blogged recently, the media definitely have a tendency to get seduced by the “front page thought” when dealing with questions about climate and, say, hurricanes, and thus can miss the legitimate questions still surrounding the science that explores links of that sort. Journalists often migrate too quickly to conflict, as well, and thus can miss the strong consensus on the basics by paying outsize attention to stray, but loud, voices.

John and I often disagree, and we definitely have different roles in the media landscape. But on this overarching theme there’s a bit of synchrony.

To be continue in other article...

(Jakarta, Senin 18 February 2008, 15.44 siang)

Re-publish by Jacob Paradox from link (www.nytimes.com)