7/30/2019 2 (c) (group 5)

1/2

2 (c) Does the picture above depict a successful approach to solving the global

warming problem? Give four reasons for your answer.

Formal diplomatic talks on global warming began more than twenty years agoyet have had almost no real impact on global pollution. Efforts to rewrite and expand

the Kyoto Protocol, which were scheduled to finish in 2009, have ended in gridlock.

This talk will explain why the huge efforts made to slow global warming, so far, have

not achieved much success and will explore ways to make diplomacy more effective.

It is based on a new book, Global Warming Grid lock and will focus on the special

roles that emerging markets, such as Korea, can play.

The talk will suggest that many of the difficulties stem from failures in the

design of international institutions. They have tried to engage too many countries

with diverse interests, which have led to overly complex negotiations that are prone

to fail. International talks also have failed to give serious attention to the need for big

investments in new technologysuch as advanced coal, nuclear and renewable

energy systemsthat will be essential to making deep cuts in emissions. The talk

will include some discussion of the implications of prolonged diplomatic failure,

including the possibility that countries will need to resort to "geo engineering" to

offset some of the most damaging effects of climate change.

The main human cause of warming is carbon dioxide (CO2). Other gases also

change the climate, but compared with CO2 they are marginal players. Making a big

dent in global warming requires making a big dent in CO2. Most of the economic and

political challenges in slowing global warming stem from the fact that CO2 lingers in

the atmosphere for a century or longer, which is why climate policy experts call it a

stock pollutant. the stock of CO2 builds up from emissions that accumulate in the

atmosphere over many years. As the stock rises global warming follows in tandem.

Because the processes that remove CO2 from the atmosphere work very slowly, big

changes in the stock require massive changes in emissions. Just stopping the build-

up of CO2, for example, requires cutting worldwide emissions by about half.

Lowering the stock, this is whats ultimately needed to reverse global warming,

demands even deeper cuts. Exactly how much of a cut will be needed is hard to pin

down because the natural processes that remove CO2 are not fully understood.

7/30/2019 2 (c) (group 5)

2/2

Theres a chance they will become a lot less effective as the stock of CO2 rises,

which would imply the need for even deeper cuts.

It is because CO2 is a stock pollutant the problem of warming is global.

Emissions waft throughout the atmosphere worldwide in about a year, which is much

faster than the hundreds of years needed for natural processes to remove the

excess CO2. Politically, this means that every nation will evaluate the decision to cut

emissions with an eye on what other big emitters will do since no nation, acting

alone, can have much impact on the planetary problem. Even the biggest polluters,

such as China and the US, are mostly harmed by pollution from other countries that

has wafted worldwide.

Other than that our chief pollutant is CO2, we know that serious regulation will

mainly focus on energy policies. CO2 is an intrinsic by-product of how society burns

fossil fuels today, and the vast majority of useful energy that powers modern

economies comes from fossil fuels. Tinkering at the margins of the energy system

wont make much of a difference. Deep cuts in CO2 will probably require a massive

re-engineering of modern energy systems. Such an effort will alter how utilities

generate electricity and the fuels used for transportation, among many other

implications. Such a transformation is not impossible; in fact, over history it has

happened several times. But no country let alone the world community has ever

planned such a transformation in energy infrastructure. At this stage nobody knows

what it will cost, but most likely it will be expensive. Some studies suggest the cost

will be in the range of 1%-2% of global GDP, but if policy is implemented poorly or

troubles arise then that fraction could be even larger. Because energy systems are

based on complicated infrastructures it is likely to unfold slowly. And because this

transformation will require new technologies and business models that do not yet

exist at scale the cost and complexity are hard to fathom. The pace of this

transformation will be impossible to plan and predict to exacting timetables.