What is the threat and can it be fixed?

SCIENTIFIC BASIS, FUTURE PREDICTIONS, AND

PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACT OF GLOBAL WARMING

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Established by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program in 1988

“The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.”

Bases assessments on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature

IPCC Structure Working Group I – “assesses the scientific

aspects of the climate system and climate change”

Working Group II – “assesses the vulnerability of socio-economic and natural systems to climate change, negative and positive consequences of climate change, and options for adapting to it”

Working Group III – “assesses options for limiting greenhouse gas emissions and otherwise mitigating climate change”

Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories – “responsible for the IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme”

IPCC Assessment ReportsFirst (1990); Second (1995); Third (2001)Fourth Assessment Report (2007)

WGI: “The Physical Science Basis” Summary for Policymakers available 600 authors from 40 countries; reviewed by over

620 experts and representatives from 113 countriesWGII: “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability”

Summary for Policymakers available WGIII: “Mitigation of Climate Change”The Synthesis Report

“The Physical Science Basis” “Global atmospheric concentrations of CO2,

methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceeds pre-industrial values determined from ice cores”CO2 fossil fuel and land use changeMethane and nitrous oxide agriculture

Changes expressed in terms of radiative forcingMeasure of influence of human and natural factors

that alter the balance of energy in the atmosphere

Changes in Greenhouse Gas From Ice Core and Modern Data

Observations of Temperature ChangeEleven of the past twelve years rank

among the twelve warmest since 1850The average atmospheric water content has

increased since at least the 1980sThe average ocean temperature has

increased to depths of at least 3,000mOcean absorbs at least 80% of heatLeads to seawater expansion

Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined in both hemispheres

Rate of Sea Level Rise (mm/yr)Source of sea level rise 1961 - 2003 1993 - 2003

Thermal Expansion 0.42 ± 0. 12 1.6 ± 0.5

Glaciers and ice caps 0.50 ± 0.18 0.77 ± 0.22

Greenland ice sheet 0.05 ± 0.12 0.21 ± 0.07

Antarctic ice sheet 0.14 ± 0.41 0.21 ± 0.35

Sum of contributions 1.1 ± 0.5 2.8 ± 0.7

Observed total sea level rise

1.8 ± 0.5a 3.1 ± 0.7a

Difference 0.7 ± 0.7 0.3 ± 1.0

Long Term Changes in ClimatePhenomenon and direction of trend

Likelihood that trend occurred in late 20th century

(post 1960)

Likelihood of a human contribution

to observed trend

Likelihood of future trends based on

projections for 21st century using SRES

Warmer and fewer cold days and nights over most land area

Very likely

(>90%)

Likely

(>66%)

Virtually certain

(>99%)

Warmer and more frequent hot days and nights over most land

areas

Very likely Likely (nights) Virtually certain

Frequency of warm spells and heat waves increases over most

land areas

Likely More likely than not

(>50%)

Very Likely

Long Term Changes in Climate (2)Phenomenon and direction of trend

Likelihood that trend occurred in late 20th century

(post 1960)

Likelihood of a human

contribution to observed trend

Likelihood of future trends based on

projections for 21st century using SRES

Frequency of heavy precipitation events increases over most

areas

Likely More likely than not

Very likely

Area affected by droughts increases

Likely in many regions since 1970s

More likely than not

Likely

Intense tropical cyclone activity

increases

Likely in some regions since 1970s More likely than

notLikely

Increased incidence of extreme high sea level Likely More likely than

notLikely

Causes of Climate Change“Most of the observed increase in globally

averaged temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”Volcanic and anthropogenic aerosols have

offset some warmingExtremely unlikely that change can be

explained without external factorsVery likely not due to natural causes alone

Future PredictionsProjected warming of .2ºC per decade over

the next two decades under range of emissions scenarios

Projected warming of .1ºC if greenhouse gases and aerosols are kept constant at year 2000 levels

Warming and sea level rise will continue for centuries even if greenhouse gas concentrations are stabilized

Emissions ScenariosA1 – very rapid economic growth;

convergence Divided into 3 groups based on primary energy

source A1F1 = fossil intensive A1T = non-fossil A1B = balance across all sources

A2 – heterogeneous world; self relianceB1 – rapid economic growth; convergence;

service and information economyB2 – focus on local solutions to problems

-Relative change in percent for the period 2090-2099 relative to 1980-1999-White area = less than 66% of the models agree-Stippled area = more than 90% of the models agree

Public Health ConcernsAddressed by WGII in summary for

policymakersDisappearing land masses

New Zealand promised to take in global warming refugees

More natural disastersInsurance claims rising

Invasive species on the risePine beetles not killed by winterHigher mosquito line (vector-borne diseases)

Illness from emissions and heatReduction in crop yieldsWater shortages

Criticisms of IPCC FindingsEmphasis on warming may take emphasis

off immediate public health concernsPolitical appointees, not scientists“The Great Global Warming Swindle”

95% of CO2 emissions are not man madeGlobal warming is a product of higher CO2Warming is a natural process

Summer of 1930 was one of the hottest on record

Earth will adapt to changesStress positives of global warming (crop

yields)Economic costs for solutions are too high

Duty to Future GenerationsWe may reach a tipping point soon and

the risks do not outweigh the benefitsGreatest harm will probably be to nations

with the smallest impact on warmingThere are other reasons to switch to

renewable energy sources and emphasize conservationDecrease dependence on oil-rich nationsEnsure resources exist for future generationsImprove health of citizens by reducing

emissions

Are we doing everything we could be doing?

Legislative ResponseThe Clean Air Act of 1990

EPA sets levels of emissions allowable on a nationwide basis

States in charge of implementing many of the specific provisions State Implementation Plans (SIPs) – Each state must have

a SIP that explains how it will implement CAA EPA must approve each state’s SIP States must follow federal minimum levels, but can

implement stricter controls on emissionsNational Permit Program

Permits issued by states (or by EPA if state is noncompliant)

Include information about what pollutants are being released, how much is being released, and steps taken to monitor and reduce pollution

Legislative Response, cont.

Efficacy of the Clean Air ActExample: CFC Ban

In 1978 in response to the discovery of a hole in the ozone layer, the government banned CFC’s as propellants in aerosol products

Clean Air Act of 1990 set a schedule for other ozone-depleting chemicals to be phased out

Significant decrease in the rate of ozone depletion as a result

Administrative ApproachesThe Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Mission: “The mission of the Environmental Protection Agency is to protect human health and the environment.”

Administrative Approaches, cont.The Environmental Protection Agency, cont.

Responsibilities: Develop and Enforce Regulations – Implement

Congressional mandates Financial Assistance – Grants to state

environmental programs Environmental Research Environmental Education and Information

Administrative Approaches, cont.The Environmental Protection Agency, cont.

Organization: Executive Agency headed by a Presidential appointee

Judicial Review: Chevron Standard Did Congress speak clearly about the matter? If so,

Congress’ intent controls If Congress did not speak clearly, courts defer

heavily to agency’s interpretation so long as it is reasonable

Issue: Can Executive Agencies operate truly independently of the political process to protect the environment and public health? Example: The 2005 Climate Change Memo

Administrative Approaches, cont.Emissions Trading (cap and trade)

Currently, all emissions trading is done in a private market (i.e., Chicago Climate Exchange) and the U.S. does not have a carbon emissions trading system in place “Free Market Environmentalism” – Caps are set politically,

but companies make individual choices about how to reduce pollution

Is there room for government regulation of emissions trading? Acid Rain Program of the Clean Air Act

Expected to reduce SO2 emissions 50% by 2010 Government oversight and enforcement are costly, however

Administrative Approaches, cont.Emissions Trading, cont.

Schemes of Enforcement: Regulators measure facilities and fine or sanction

those that fail to comply Expensive Places a heavy burden on agency Risk of corruption of inspectors

Licensed third party verifies that facilities are licensed and have not exceeded emissions Transparent process that can be audited Far less expensive Places burden on the private sector

Administrative Approaches, cont.Emissions Trading, cont.

Problems With Government Regulation: Too many credits might be given by government,

rendering market ineffective Tight controls are necessary to establish such a

market Emissions credits are like money and may take

away funding from development of sustainable technologies

But What Do They Say?

The Supreme Court SpeaksMassachusetts v. EPA (05-1120, April 2, 2007)

Closely divided decision (5-4)Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from

cars are pollutants under the Clean Air Act and thus the EPA has the authority to regulate them

Court found that emissions from cars make a “significant contribution” to greenhouse gas emissions and therefore to global warming

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers responded favorably, advocating for national emissions standards rather than state-by-state standards

While the case is historic, it may be years before action is actually taken by the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emissions

The Supreme Court Speaks, cont.Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corp. (05-

848, April 2, 2007)Unanimous decision (9-0)Utilities must comply with “New Source Review”

provision of Clean Air Act when overhauling facilitiesHeld that it was improper for power plants to conduct

renovations without installing required controls to reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions

Overhauled plants can operate for more hours per year, even if hourly emissions do not increase, so “annual test” is required because annual emissions can increase, which significantly increases harm to public health

Decision signals a rejection of the decades-old practice of “grandfathering” old utility facilities

Other Possible Legal ToolsThe Police Power

The Commerce PowerTax and Spend PowerStates as Laboratories

Treaty Power

Conclusions?Global warming is an urgent problem in need

of urgent solutions. Do we have the tools on hand necessary to address it in a timely manner?

Efficacy of legal solutions – Is it all bark and no bite?

What can be done within our current framework to deal with global warming?

What is the rest of the world doing?

Kyoto ProtocolNegotiated – December 1997Entered into Force – February 2005169 Parties – Countries and other entities United States is signatory but has not ratified

and will not under current administration

Kyoto Protocol, cont.The objective is the stabilization of

greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.

Anthroprogenic - effects, processes, objects, or materials that are derived from human activities, as opposed to those occurring in natural environments without human influences.

Kyoto Protocol, cont.Goal is to reduce emissions of six greenhouse

emissions – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, HFCs and PFCs

Overall reduction of 5.2% from 1990 levelsReduction goals vary by country – EU 8%, US

7%, Japan 6%, Russia 0%

Criticisms of KyotoDoesn’t go far enough to curb emissionsGlobal socialism initiative to transfer wealth

to developing nations.Industrial economy will move to third world

countries with no restrictions on emissionsWill not actually curb global emissions

Emissions Trading

Also known as cap and trade An administrative approach used to control

pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants

Emissions Trading, cont.How does it work?

CapsCredits/allowancesTrade

Emissions Trading SystemsKyoto StandardsEuropean Union Emissions Trading SchemeChicago Climate ExchangeAcid Rain ProgramJapan and Canada - 2008

European Union Emissions Trading Scheme

Major component of EU climate policyBegan January 2005Phase 1

2005-2007All EU member statesCovers 45% carbon emissions and

European Union Emissions Trading Scheme, cont.

Phase 22008-2012Will expand to cover all greenhouse emissions,

not just carbonSeveral non-EU countries expected to join

How the EU Scheme WorksNational Allocation Plan

Each country has caps on emissionsFacilities within countries have maximum

“allowances” for a given periodTo comply, must reduce below allowances or

trade with other facilities or countries that have excess allowances

Success of the EU Scheme?To early to tellCritics believe caps are too lenientProgressively tightening caps are foreseen

for each new period, forcing overall reductions in emissions

Inclusion of sinks needed?Planting trees to reduce carbon

Future of Emissions TradingG8+5 Climate Change DialogueWashington Declaration – Feb 2007Group hopes to have global system of

emission caps and carbon emissions trading system involving industrialized and developing nations

Preliminary plans to implement in 2009Designed to replace Kyoto

Al Gore said “choosing between economy and the environment is a false choice”.

Is it really?From BothAnd Project website

Let’s Start at the Beginning…What is cost/benefit analysis?

Method used to make decisionsDecide what the ultimate goal is and then figure out the social welfare implications of enacting such a policyIf standard of living increases from a

given policy, then it should be enacted Our ultimate goal is to curb the effects

of global warming

Costs of Status QuoMany weather-related catastrophes are thought to be by

products of global warming. In the 1990s, damage from weather related disasters was around

$340 billion (300% more than in 1980s) In 2000, the fires across America cost the country $1.7 billion Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma had record losses of $57.6

billionhttp://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_dgr.htm “North America . . . can expect more hurricanes, floods,

droughts, heat waves and wildfires . . . . In the short term, crop yields may increase by 5 to 20% from a longer growing season, but will plummet if temperatures rise by 7.2 Fahrenheit.”

Panel: Global Warming a Threat to Earth By: Arthur Max. April 6, 2007 http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=3014590 Air pollution will cost Ontario’s health-care system and economy

more than $1 billion and result in approximately 1,900 deaths this year, reports the Ontario Medical Association.

Science and Environment Health Network article June 27, 2000 http://www.sehn.org/tccoma.html.

Costs of Status Quo, cont.Two pictures of

Beijing On the right is a

“sunny/clear” dayOn the left is just

after 2 days of rain

Costs of Status Quo, cont.Unfortunately, the greatest unknown is the

price of inaction. http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/3225/story.htm. Article from 2005

We can predict what might happen if we do not consider the effects of global warming, but we do not know what will happen. We do not know for sure if these weather

related disasters will occurWe do not know for sure what the temperature

increases will be

Benefits of Status QuoNo administrative costs of changing the

system Companies (i.e. auto industries and power

plants) will not have to decide how to reduce emissions, nor will they have to pay to do so

What Some Are Already Doing to HelpWithout government

intervention, some are taking action on their own BP says that it has cut 20%

of its emissions since 1990; this cost them $20 million but it also has saved them $650 million

DuPont admitted to cutting its emissions by 67% since 1990; this has saved the company $2 billion.

http://www.giiexchange.org/guide/energy/16B.shtml

We Need to Reduce EmissionsPolicy makers must balance between the

costs and benefits of reducing emissionsBenefits: lower estimated value of the public

health ramifications from effects of gas emissions Costs: increased production cost and reduced

economic activity“Are All Market-Based Environmental Regulations Equal?” By: Ian W. Parry. Fall 2002 issue of

Issues inScience and Technology. http://www.issues.org/19.1/p_parry.htm

To reduce emissions, law makers must decide among different methods (permits, regulation)

How Can We Do This?Follow KyotoCost of complying is

anywhere between .1% of GDP and 4% of GDP. Low number comes

from purchasing rights from other countries

High number comes from reducing US emissions via government regulation

“The Cost of Reducing Carbon Emissions: An Examination of Administration Forecasts.” By:

Peter VanDoren. March 11, 1999

How Can We Do This? cont.Tradable permits vs. government regulationIn 1995 the US started the Tradable Pollution Permit (TPP) market. Purpose: reduce emissions of SO2 from

power plants by 50%. US saved between $225 million and

$375 million by using TPP instead of government regulation.

Introduction to Environmental Economics. By: Nick Hanley, Jason Shogren, Ben White. Published 2001.

Permits May Be the Best SolutionIdentifiable cost savings with permitsValue of international emissions trading

depends who the trading participants are. The players in this market determine supply and

demand and this is the basis to the economic outcome of tradable permit programs

“The Value of Emissions Trading”. By: Mort Webster, Sergey Paltsev and John Reilly. Report No. 132. February

2006

Auctioned permits v. “grandfathered” permitsAuctioned permits: benefits of “grandfathered”

permits and benefits of tax reductionsUS might be better off to the tune of $20 billion

to $45 billion per year by using auctioned permits “Are All Market-Based Environmental Regulations Equal?” By: Ian W. Parry. Fall 2002 issue of Issues

inScience and Technology. http://www.issues.org/19.1/p_parry.htm

Opportunity Costs of Emissions TradingAuto industry spends money on emission

trading indirectly as well Spent $30 million in 2006 on lobbying alone. Cost of emission trading is not limited to just

the act of trading. Also have to factor in other costs too (e.g. lobbying, advertising, etc.)

“Auto Industry Warming to Emissions Limits”. By: Joe Crea and Osita Iroegbu. Legal Times March 21, 2007.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1174381422263

Can We Really Choose?Al Gore said “choosing between economy and

the environment is a false choice”.Being that we can not accurately predict how

global warming will impact the Earth, its hard to respond to Mr. Gore’s statement.

But if we have to choose, and we decide to take action, permits may be the best solution.