Ch 19 & Energy Problems Quiz
How do clouds, aerosols and soot particles factor into climate? Will they counteract or amplify climate change?
A major unknown in global climate models is the effect that changes in the global distribution of clouds might have on the temperature of the atmosphere. Warmer temperatures increase evaporation of surface water and create more clouds. Depending on their content and reflectivity, these additional clouds could have two effects. An increase in thick and continuous light-colored clouds at low altitudes could decrease surface warming by reflecting more sunlight back into space. But an increase in thin and discontinuous cirrus clouds at high altitudes could warm the lower atmosphere. In addition, infrared satellite images indicate that the wispy condensation trails (contrails) left behind by jet planes might have a greater impact on atmospheric temperatures than scientists once thought. Although air travel is responsible for less than 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions, NASA scientists found that jet contrails expand and turn into large cirrus clouds that tend to release heat into the upper troposphere. If these preliminary results are confirmed, emissions from jet planes could be responsible for as much as half of the warming of the lower atmosphere in the northern hemisphere. Air travel is increasing rapidly and there is no technological fix for this problem unless hydrogen is phased in as a fuel for planes. Much more research is needed to evaluate the effects of clouds on global warming and climate change. Aerosols (suspended microscopic droplets and solid particles) of various air pollutants are released or formed in the troposphere by volcanic eruptions and human activities. They can either warm or cool the air and hinder or enhance cloud formation depending on factors such as their size and reflectivity. Most aerosols, such as light-colored sulfate particles produced by fossil fuel combustion, tend to reflect incoming sunlight and cool the lower atmosphere. Sulfate particles also cool the lower atmosphere by serving as condensation nuclei that form cooling clouds. Scientists estimate that sulfate particles played a roll in slowing global warming between 1880 and 1970. However, a 2008 study by atmospheric scientist V. Ramanathan and his colleagues found that the black carbon particulate matter emitted into the air by diesel exhaust, burning forests and grasslands, and cooking with solid fuels (such as coal, wood, charcoal, and cow dung) has a warming effect on the atmosphere four times greater than was estimated earlier. Climate scientists do not expect aerosol and soot pollutants to counteract or enhance projected global warming and the resulting climate change very much in the next 50 years for two reasons. First, aerosols and soot fall back to the earth or are washed out of the lower atmosphere within weeks or months, whereas CO2 remains in the lower atmosphere for about 120 years. Second, aerosol and soot inputs into the lower atmosphere are being reduced because of their harmful impacts on plants and human health—especially in developed countries. According to the IPCC, the fall in sulfate concentrations in most developed countries since 1970 has played a role in the warming of the atmosphere, especially since 1990. This trend will allow further increased global warming as sulphate concentrations continue to drop because of improved air pollution regulations.
What is carbon capture and storage (CCS)? What are the problems with it?
A third output approach is carbon capture and storage (CCS). It involves removing CO2 from the smokestacks of coal-burning power and industrial plants and then storing it somewhere. CO2 gas could be pumped deep underground into coal beds and abandoned oil and gas fields. Or the gas could be liquefied and injected into thick sediments under the sea floor. Analysts point to several problems with this approach. One is that power plants using CCS are much more expensive to build and operate than conventional coal-burning plants and thus would sharply raise the price of electricity for consumers. Without strict government regulation of CO2 emissions, carbon taxes to bring coal prices in line with environmental costs, or generous subsidies and tax breaks, coal-burning utilities and industries have no incentive to build such plants. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the current costs of CCS systems will have to be reduced by a factor of ten before these systems will be widely used. A second problem is that CCS is an unproven technology that would remove only part (perhaps 25-35%) of the CO2 from smokestack emissions. No plants using CCS exist, and building and testing them could take 20-30 years and huge amounts of money with no guaranteed successes. A third problem is that this process requires large inputs of energy, which could increase CO2 emissions and cancel out some of the gains made from collecting and storing some of the CO2. A fourth problem is that CCS promotes the continued use of coal, which should probably be phased out. Coal companies talk about a future based on greatly increased use of clean coal technologies, such as coal-tosynfuels. But even with successful CCS and cleaner coal technologies, coal is by far the world's dirtiest fuel to dig up and burn. And if coal's harmful environmental costs were included in its price, burning coal would be a very costly way to produce electricity compared to most other alternatives. It is not surprising that coal companies are pushing for a shift to CCS coal-fired plants to be funded with the help of generous taxpayer subsidies and tax breaks. Indeed, without CCS, the conventional coal industry probably will not survive in the long term. And because converting coal to synfuels produces twice as much CO2 per volume of fuel as burning gasoline, CCS also helps to make the coal-to-synfuels industry more feasible. This helps to assure a future for the coal industry, which will ensure continued increasing CO2 emissions. A fifth problem is that providing huge government subsidies and taxbreaks for developing and testing CCS technology would divert or reduce the huge subsidies and taxbreaks needed for the rapid development of solar, wind, geothermal, and other forms of renewable energy that reduce rather than attempt to deal with CO2 emissions. A sixth very serious potential problem with CCS is that essentially no leaks are allowed. In effect, the stored CO2 would have to remain sealed from the atmosphere forever. Any large-scale leaks due to earthquakes, other geological events, or wars, as well as any number of smaller continuous leaks from storage sites around the world, could dramatically increase global warming and the resulting climate change in a very short time. According to a 2007 estimate by environmental scientist Peter Montague, if 25% of the carbon in the world's estimated remaining fossil fuels were sequestered, any leakage greater than 0.16% of the total amount stored per year could eventually result in runaway global warming and climate change. And if 75% of the world's estimated remaining carbon in fossil fuels were sequestered, it would take a leakage of only 0.05% of the amount stored per year to lead to the same result. Montague contends that we cannot bury several trillion tons of CO2 in the ground or under the sea with complete confidence that leaks totaling 0.05% of the total amount stored per year will not occur at any time in the future. According to the precautionary principle, we should not rely on a technology that commits us to an essentially irreversible threat. Reliance on nuclear power commits human societies to fail-safe storage of dangerous radioactive wastes for up to 240,000 years. But Montague points out that relying on CCS to store much of the CO2 we produce commits human societies to fail-safe storage of the CO2 forever. To coal companies, CCS is the wave of the future that will help to keep them in business. To scientists like Peter Montague, CCS is an extremely risky output solution to a serious problem that can be dealt with by using a variety of cheaper, quicker, and safer input approaches. To these scientists, when we face a problem such as CO2 coming out of a smokestack or exhaust pipe, the most important question to ask is not what do we do with it, but how do we avoid producing the CO2 in the first place?
Know regarding sea level rise: What accounts for most of the expected sea level rise?
About two-thirds of the increase will result from expansion of water as it warms.
What specific activities have increased CO2, CH4 and N2O in the troposphere? (know at least one for each gas)
Agriculture, deforestation, and burning of fossil fuels
What is the correlation between CO2 and temperature over the past 400,000 yrs?
As CO2 increases, temperature increases.
What is geo-engineering? What are some drawbacks?
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is one proposed geoengineering scheme for helping us to slow global warming and the resulting climate change. Most scientists oppose using such large-scale solutions, because the long-term effects of such projects on the earth's energy flow, chemical cycling processes, and vital biodiversity are unknown. However, in recent years, some scientists have become discouraged by the glacially slow response of governments to what they see as the global emergency of climate change with its projected serious harmful effects. Some of these scientists are suggesting that we at least look at the possible implications and costs of using large-scale geo-engineering schemes as a last resort, if humanity fails to deal with the world's climate change emergency soon enough. For example, some scientists have suggested using balloons, large jet planes, or giant cannons to inject sulfate particles into the stratosphere where they might reflect some of the incoming sunlight into space and thus cool the troposphere. It is thought that the effect would be similar to the cooling effect that lasted about 15 months after the 1991 volcanic eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. Huge amounts of SO2 would have to be injected into the stratosphere about every 2 years. Other scientists reject this idea as being too risky because of our limited knowledge about possible unknown effects. In addition, such a scheme could accelerate ozone depletion by boosting levels of ozonedestroying chlorine in the stratosphere; it could also increase acid rain in the troposphere. This short-term technological fix would also allow CO2 levels in the lower atmosphere to continue rising, which would increase the acidity of the oceans, thereby decreasing their ability to absorb CO2 and disrupting ocean life. This could then accelerate global warming and climate change. Some scientists would deal with this problem by building a global network of thousands of chemical plants that would remove hydrochloric acid from seawater to reduce ocean acidity. But this also could have unpredictable and possibly harmful ecological effects. Scientist James Lovelock has suggested that we anchor huge vertical pipes in the sea as part of a system that would allow wave motion to pump nutrientrich water up from the deep ocean to fertilize algae on the ocean surface. He contends that the resulting algal blooms would remove CO2 from the atmosphere and emit dimethyl sulfide, which would contribute to the formation of low clouds that would reflect sunlight. Another scheme is to tow 8,000 ice-making barges to the Arctic each year to re-ice the Arctic Sea. And another is to wrap large areas of glaciers with insulating blankets to slow down their melting and to help preserve ski resort businesses. The major problem with these techno fixes is that if they ever fail while we continue adding CO2 to the atmosphere, the rebound effects could be calamitous. Geo-engineering schemes all depend on complex machinery running constantly and flawlessly, and essentially forever, mostly to pump something from one place to another in the environment. Once the machines break down, natural processes would overwhelm such a system, and atmospheric temperatures would soar at a rapid rate and accelerate climate change. Critics of large-scale geo-engineering schemes argue for slowing climate change by using prevention approaches, such as improving energy efficiency, replacing fossil fuels with already available renewable energy resources, and drastically reducing tropical deforestation. They say this makes more sense than gambling on large-scale, costly changes to the global environment that could have unknown and potentially long-lasting harmful effects.
Know how the following positive feedback mechanisms accelerate climate change: melting of glaciers
Climate models predict that global warming will be the most severe in the world's polar regions, the Arctic and Antarctica. Light colored ice and snow in the polar regions help to cool the earth by reflecting incoming solar energy. The melting of such ice and snow exposes much darker land and sea, which absorb more solar energy. This will likely cause polar regions to warm faster than lower latitudes, which will further accelerate global warming and the resulting climate change, which in turn will melt more sea ice, which will raise atmospheric temperatures more, and faster, in a runaway positive feedback loop.
Know some examples of the evidence that supports the conclusions of the IPCC
Here is some of the evidence that supports the major conclusions of the 2007 IPCC report: • Between 1906 and 2005, the average global surface temperature has risen by about 0.74 C° (1.3 F°). Most of this increase has taken place since 1980. • Annual greenhouse gas emissions from human activities rose 70% between 1970 and 2005 and average CO2 concentrations are higher than they have been in 650,000 years (and 800,000 years, according to a 2007 study). • Over the past 50 years, arctic temperatures have risen almost twice as fast as average temperatures in the rest of the world have risen. • In some parts of the world, glaciers and floating sea ice are melting and shrinking at increasing rates, rainfall patterns are changing, and extreme and prolonged drought is increasing. • During the last century, the world's average sea level rose by 10-20 centimeters (4-8 inches), mostly because of runoff from melting land-based ice and the expansion of ocean water as its temperature increased.
What sources of data can scientists use to get information about past climate?
Past temperature changes are estimated by analysis of radioisotopes in rocks and fossils; plankton and radioisotopes in ocean sediments; tiny bubbles of ancient air found in ice cores from glaciers; temperature measurements taken at different depths from boreholes drilled deep into the earth's surface; pollen from the bottoms of lakes and bogs; tree rings; historical records; insects, pollen, and minerals in different layers of bat dung deposited in caves over thousands of years; and temperature measurements taken regularly since 1861. Such measurements have limitations, but they show general changes in temperature, which in turn can affect the earth's climate.
Know regarding sea level rise: Why melting sea ice is less of a concern than melting land ice
Some good news is that because sea ice floats, it does not contribute to a rising sea level when it melts. The Arctic's contribution to a rising sea level will come from land-based ice that melts and runs into the sea faster than new ice forms. This is especially true of Greenland.
What are the cycles of freezing and thawing throughout Earth's history called?
These alternating cycles of freezing and thawing are known as glacial and interglacial (between ice ages) periods.
Know the following units and be able to solve problems using them (and without a calculator!): Watts/ Kilowatts/ megawatts (know conversion)
Watts are a unit of power (rate of energy flow - energy per unit of time). 1 Watt is 1 joule/second. To solve for power, divide energy by time. If energy is the volume of the water in a stream, power is the speed of water. 1 kilowatt (kW) = 1000 W (house). 1 megawatt (MW) = 1000kW = 1 million W (city).
Know how climate change would affect the following: Particularly vulnerable species and ecosystems
According to the 2007 IPCC report, changes in climate resulting from global warming are now affecting physical and biological systems on every continent and are altering ecosystem services in some areas. According to the 2007 IPCC study, approximately 30% of the land-based plant and animal species assessed so far could disappear if the average global temperature change exceeds 1.5-2.5 C° (2.7-4.5 F°). This percentage could grow to 70% if the temperature change exceeds 3.5 C° (6.3 F°). The hardest hit will be plant and animal species in colder climates, such as the polar bear in the Arctic and penguins in Antarctica; species at higher elevations; plant and animal species with limited ranges, such as some amphibians; and those with limited tolerance for temperature change. The ecosystems most likely to suffer disruption and species loss from climate change are coral reefs, polar seas, coastal wetlands, high-elevation mountaintops, and alpine and arctic tundra. Some types of forests unable to migrate fast enough to keep up with climate shifts will decline, and others, such as oak-pine and oak-hickory forests in the United States, may expand northward. Mostly because of drier conditions, forest fires may increase in some areas such as the southeastern and western United States. This would severely degrade some forest ecosystems, add more CO2 to the atmosphere, reduce total CO2 uptake by plants, and accelerate global warming and climate change through still another positive feedback loop. A warmer climate can also greatly increase populations of insects and fungi that damage trees. In the Canadian province of British Columbia, for example, warmer winters have led to surges in mountain pine beetle populations that have infected huge areas of lodgepole pine forests, which are now dying. Pine beetles have also damaged about 60% of the lodgepole pines in the U.S. state of Colorado, which has been experiencing warmer winters. In Yellowstone Park in the United States, global warming has increased beetle infestations of white bark pine trees that grow at high altitudes. This threatens the park's grizzly bears, which feed on white bark pine seeds.
Know how climate change would affect the following: Human health
According to the IPCC and a 2006 study by U.S National Center for Atmospheric Research, heat waves in some areas will be hotter, more frequent and longer. This will increase the number of deaths and illnesses, especially among older people, those with poor health, and the urban poor who cannot afford air conditioning. During the summer of 2003, a major heat wave killed about 52,000 people in Europe (an estimate based on a detailed analysis in 2006 by the Earth Policy Institute)—almost two-thirds of them in Italy and France. On the other hand, in a warmer world, fewer people will die from cold weather. However, a 2007 study by Mercedes Medin-Ramon and his colleagues suggests that increased numbers of heat-related deaths will be greater than the projected drop in cold-related deaths in a warmer world. A warmer, CO2-rich world will be a great place for rapidly multiplying insects, microbes, toxic molds, and fungi that make us sick, and for plants that produce allergenic pollens. Longer and more intense pollen seasons will mean more itchy eyes, runny noses, and asthma attacks. Insect pests and weeds will likely multiply, spread, and reduce crop yields. In a warmer world, microbes that cause tropical infectious diseases such as dengue fever, yellow fever, and malaria are likely to expand their ranges and their prevalence, if mosquitoes that carry them spread to temperate and higher elevation areas that are getting warmer. And while more frequent prolonged droughts would sharply reduce populations of mosquitoes, populations of their predators, such as dragonflies and damselflies would also decline. In addition, hunger and malnutrition will increase in areas where agricultural production drops. Higher atmospheric temperatures will also increase some forms of air pollution. The greatest effect will be to speed up the rate of the chemical reactions that produce ozone and other harmful chemicals in photochemical smog in urban areas. Increasing illness, hunger, flooding, and drought will likely lead to forced migrations of tens of millions of people. Environmental scientist Norman Myers says that climate change during this century could produce at least 150 million, and perhaps 250 million, environmental refugees. The higher estimate would be equal to about four-fifths of the current U.S. population. A 2005 WHO study estimates that each year, climate change already contributes to the premature deaths of more than 150,000 people—an average of 410 people a day—and that this number could double by 2030. Most of these deaths are the result of increases in malaria, diarrhea, malnutrition, and floods that can be traced to climate change. In addition, the WHO estimates that climate change causes 5 million sicknesses each year. By the end of this century, the annual death toll from climate change could be in the millions.
Know how climate change would affect the following: Changes in precipitation & water availability
According to the IPCC, global warming will increase the incidence of extreme weather such as heat waves and droughts in some areas, which could kill large numbers of people, reduce crop production, and expand deserts. At the same time, because a warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture, other areas will experience increased flooding (especially flash floods) from heavy and prolonged precipitation.
Know regarding sea level rise: Consequences (projected by the IPCC)
According to the IPCC, the projected rise in sea levels during this century (excluding the additional effects of storm surges) could cause the following essentially irreversible effects: • Degradation or destruction of at least one third of the world's coastal estuaries, wetlands, and coral reefs. • Disruption of many of the world's coastal fisheries. • Flooding of low-lying barrier islands and erosion and retreat of gently sloping coastlines (especially on the U.S. Eastern and Gulf Coasts). U.S. states that would loose the most land to flooding are Louisiana, Florida, North Carolina, Texas, and South Carolina. • Flooding of agricultural lowlands and deltas in coastal areas where much of the world's rice is grown. • Contamination of freshwater coastal aquifers with saltwater and brackish water and decreased supplies of groundwater currently used for irrigation, drinking, and cooling power plants in such areas. • Submergence of low-lying islands in the Pacific Ocean, the Caribbean Sea, and the Indian Ocean, which are home to 1 of every 20 of the world's people. • Flooding of coastal areas, including some of the world's largest cities, and displacement of at least 100 million people, especially in China, India, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Indonesia, Japan, Egypt, the United States, Thailand, and the Philippines. A 2007 study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) estimated that, by 2070, coastal flooding from a sea level rise of 0.5 meter (1.6 feet) would affect 150 million people and cause property and other damages of $35 trillion (roughly equal to the current global world product). The United States would suffer the highest estimated monetary loss—over
What are some ways of adapting to climate change?
According to the latest global climate models, the world needs to make a 50-85% cut in emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050 to stabilize concentrations of these gases in the atmosphere and prevent the planet from heating up more than 2C° (3.6F°). This will be necessary in order to prevent rapid climate changes and the resulting projected harmful effects. However, because of the difficulty of making such large reductions, many analysts believe that, while we work to slash emissions, we should also begin to prepare for the projected harmful effects of essentially irreversible climate change. Some analysts and religious leaders call for the world's richer nations to increase technological and monetary aid to poorer regions at risk from climate change in order to help them deal with the changes. Emphasis could be on developing genetically engineered crops that could thrive in a warmer world and constructing flood defenses in low-lying coastal areas of countries such as India, Indonesia, and Bangladesh, which may experience more severe flooding due to global warming. Relief organizations, including the International Red Cross and Oxfam are turning their attention to projects such as expanding mangrove forests as buffers against storm surges, building shelters on high ground, and planting trees on slopes to help prevent landslides. Sea wall design and construction will be a major growth industry. And low-lying countries such as Bangladesh are trying to figure out what to do with millions of environmental refuges who would be displaced by rising sea levels. Some cities plan to establish cooling centers to shelter residents during increasingly intense heat waves. Some U.S. cities, including New York City and Seattle, Washington, have developed adaptation plans, as have some states, including California, Alaska, Maryland, Washington, and Oregon. Alaska has plans to relocate coastal villages at risk from rising sea levels and storm surges. California is beefing up its forest firefighting capabilities and is proposing desalination plants to help relieve projected water shortages, which will worsen as mountain glaciers melt. And some coastal communities require that new houses and other new buildings be built high enough off of the ground to survive projected higher storm surges; others are prohibiting new construction in especially vulnerable areas. Some people fear that emphasizing these adaptation approaches will distract us from the more urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, to some analysts, projected climate change is already such a serious threat that we have no alternative but to implement both prevention and adaptation strategies, and we have no time to lose.
Know how the following positive feedback mechanisms accelerate climate change: hurricanes (refer to the example of Katrina & Rita in 2005)
An example of such increasing hurricane intensity was Hurricane Katrina, which occurred in 2005, a year when Atlantic water temperatures were especially warm. With an 8.5-meter-(28-foot-) high storm surge, Katrina caused massive damage and flooding in New Orleans, Louisiana (USA) and the surrounding area and killed more than 1,500 people. The 2005 hurricane season was the most active on record. Satellite imaging revealed that wind and longterm exposure to water from hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005 killed or severely damaged more trees in Mississippi and Louisiana than any recorded forestry disaster in U.S. history. This contributed to global warming, according to a 2007 study by Jeffrey Q. Chambers and his colleagues. They found that the estimated loss of over 320 million big trees sharply reduced the amount of CO2 removed from the atmosphere. In addition, the researchers estimated that as the dead and damaged trees decayed, they emitted CO2 equal to the total amount that all forest trees in the United States absorb in a year.
Know the following units and be able to solve problems using them (and without a calculator!): BTUs
British thermal unit. 252 cal = 1,055 J. Unit of energy. Used by water heaters, furnaces, air conditioners. To solve for energy, multiply power by time. If energy is the volume of the water in a stream, power is the speed of water.
Know how climate change would affect the following: Agricultural productivity
Farming, probably more than any other human activity, depends on a stable climate. Thus, farmers will face dramatic changes due to shifting climates and a faster hydrologic cycle, if global warming continues as projected. Agricultural productivity may increase in some areas and decrease in others. According to the 2007 IPCC report, crop productivity is projected to increase slightly at middle to high latitudes if global temperatures rise by 1-3 C° (1.8-5.4 F°), but productivity would likely decrease at higher temperatures. Models project that moderately warmer temperatures and increased precipitation at northern latitudes may lead to a northward shift of some agricultural production to parts of midwestern Canada, Russia, and Ukraine. But overall food production could decrease because of unsuitable soils in these northern regions. There could be a 10-15% drop in rainfall in the United States and several other parts of the world. But as long as the temperature does not rise by more than 3 C° (5.4 F°), scientists hope that new genetically modified varieties of key food crops could tolerate this drier climate. Climate change models predict a decline in agricultural productivity in tropical and subtropical regions, especially in Southeast Asia and Central America, where many of the world's poorest people live. In addition, flooding of river deltas due to rising sea levels could reduce crop and fish production in these productive agricultural lands and nearby coastal aquaculture ponds. Food production could also decrease in farm regions dependent on rivers fed by snowmelt and glacier melt; arid and semiarid areas where prolonged drought will increase; and humid areas in southeastern Asia that are vulnerable to changes in monsoon patterns, which could bring more devastating storms and heavier flooding. According to the IPCC, for a time, food will be plentiful because of the longer growing season in northern regions. But by 2050, the IPCC warns that some 200- 600 million of the world's poorest and most vulnerable people could face starvation and malnutrition from the effects of climate change.
Give two ways that governments can do to help slow climate change.
Governments can use four major methods to promote the solutions. One is to strictly regulate carbon dioxide and methane as pollutants. Second, governments could phase in carbon taxes on each unit of CO2 or CH4 emitted by fossil fuel use, or they could levy energy taxes on each unit of fossil fuel that is burned. Decreasing taxes on income, wages, and profits to offset such taxes could help make such a strategy more politically acceptable. In other words, tax pollution, not payrolls and profits. Some European countries are phasing in such a tax shift. A related approach is to place a cap on total humangenerated CO2 and CH4 emissions in a country or region, issue permits to emit these pollutants, and then let polluters trade their permits in the marketplace. This cap-and-trade approach has a political advantage over taxes, but it would be difficult to manage because there are so many emitters of greenhouse gases, including industries, power plants, motor vehicles, buildings, and homes. And according to a 2008 study by Goldman Sachs, one of the world's largest investment banks, a cap-and-trade strategy is an important way to cut CO2 emissions, but by itself would not be enough to achieve the desired drop in such emissions. Environmental economists argue that, regardless of whether governments use taxes or a cap-and-trade system, the most important goal is to get all emitters to pay the full environmental and social costs of their carbon emissions. The resulting higher costs for fossil fuels would spur innovation in finding ways to reduce carbon emissions, improve energy efficiency, and phase in noncarbon renewable energy alternatives. A third strategy is to level the economic playing field by greatly increasing government subsidies to businesses and individuals to encourage their use of energy-efficiency technologies, carbon-free renewable energy sources, and more sustainable agriculture. This would also include phasing out or sharply reducing subsidies and tax breaks that encourage use of fossil fuels and nuclear power, unsustainable agriculture, and clearing of forests. In other words, we could shift from environmentally-degrading to environmentally-sustaining subsidies and tax breaks. A fourth strategy would focus on technology transfer. Governments of developed countries could help to fund the transfer of the latest green technologies to developing countries so that they could bypass older, energywasting and polluting technologies. Helping poorer countries to deal with the harmful effects of climate change would make sense, because these are the countries that will suffer the most from these effects, which have been caused mostly by developed countries. Increasing the current tax on each international currency transaction by a quarter of a penny could finance this technology transfer, which would then generate wealth for developing countries and help to stimulate a more environmentally sustainable global economy.
Know how climate change would affect the following: Air pollution
Higher atmospheric temperatures will also increase some forms of air pollution. The greatest effect will be to speed up the rate of the chemical reactions that produce ozone and other harmful chemicals in photochemical smog in urban areas
What is the IPCC? Make sure you know what they do (not just what the letters stand for)
In 1988, the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to document past climate changes and project future changes. The IPCC network includes more than 2,500 climate experts from more than 130 countries. Its 2007 report was based on more than 29,000 sets of data, much of it collected since 2002. In this report, the IPCC listed a number of findings indicating that it is very likely (a 90-99% probability) that the lower atmosphere is getting warmer and that human activities are responsible for most of the recent temperature increase and will be responsible for most of the larger increase projected for this century. In 2007, former U.S. Vice President Al Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize with the IPCC for alerting the world to the reality and dangers of global warming and its effects on the world's climate. In his acceptance speech he said, " . . . the Earth has a fever. And the fever is rising. . . . We are what is wrong, and we must make it right."
How do the US and China compare in CO2 emissions?
In 2007, the largest CO2 emitting countries were, in order, the United States, China, the European Union (with 27 countries), Indonesia, Russia, Japan, and India. The United States has been responsible for 25% of the world's cumulative CO2 emissions, compared to China's 5% contribution. A 2007 study by Tao Wang and Jim Watson estimated that about one-fourth of China's rapidly rising CO2 emissions are a result of its export trade to Europe and the United States. Without this demand for goods from industrialized nations, China's economy would not have developed so rapidly and its CO2 emissions would not have risen so sharply. In 2008, U.S. economists Maximillian Auffhammer and Richard Carson found that China's growth in emissions of CO2 and other air pollutants was much greater than previously estimated. They found that some of China's more affluent provinces were building cleaner and more efficient coal-burning power plants. However, other provinces with fewer financial resources have been building polluting and less efficient coalburning power plants by replicating inefficient 1950s Soviet technology. The problem is that once they are built, China and the rest of the world are stuck with these polluting plants throughout their 40- to 75-year lifetimes. It is also important to compare the per capita emissions of CO2 emitted by various countries. Although China's total CO2 emissions are high and growing rapidly, its per capita emissions are low. The United States emits about five times more CO2 per person than China.
Know the basic idea of the Kyoto Protocol and its pros & cons
In December 1997, more than 2,200 delegates from 161 nations met in Kyoto, Japan, to negotiate a treaty to slow climate change. The first phase of the resulting Kyoto Protocol went into effect in February 2005 with 174 of the world's 194 countries (but not the United States) ratifying the agreement by mid-2008. It requires 36 participating developed countries to cut their emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O to an average of at least 5.2% below their 1990 levels by 2012. Developing countries were excluded from having to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in this first phase, because such reductions would curb their economic growth. In 2005, countries began negotiating a second phase that is supposed to go into effect after 2012. The protocol also allows trading of greenhouse gas emissions among participating countries. For example, a country or business that reduces its CO2 emissions or plants trees receives a certain number of credits. It can use these credits to avoid having to reduce its emissions in other areas, or it can bank them for future use or sell them to other countries or businesses. In 2005, the European Union instituted such a capand-trade system for carbon emissions. However, in 2007, critics pointed out that the system was not working well because the caps were set too high and thus have been encouraging greenhouse gas emissions. Environmental economists warn that the success of any cap-and-trade emissions system depends on setting caps low enough to increase the value of the tradable allowances and periodically reducing the caps to encourage further innovation in reducing emissions. They also advise that such a system by itself will not achieve the desired reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Some analysts praise the Kyoto agreement as a small but important step in attempting to slow projected global warming. They hope that rapidly developing nations such as China, Brazil, India, and Indonesia will agree to reduce their greenhouse gases in the second phase of the protocol. Others see the agreement as a weak and slow response to an urgent global problem. In 2001, President George W. Bush withdrew the United States from participation in the Kyoto Protocol, arguing that it would harm the U.S. economy. He also objected to the agreement because it did not require emissions reductions by rapidly developing countries such as China, India, Brazil, and Indonesia, which were producing large and increasing emissions of greenhouse gases. Most analysts, and 59% of Americans responding to a 2007 poll, believe that the United States, which has the world's highest overall and per capita CO2 emissions, should use its influence to improve the treaty rather than to weaken and abandon it.
What is the difference between weather & climate?
It is important to understand the difference between weather and climate. Weather refers to the current atmospheric conditions, while climate refers to the long-term average of those conditions. Weather does not indicate climate; for example, it can still rain in a desert even though the climate is very dry. An old saying goes: "Climate is what you expect. Weather is what you get."
Know how the following positive feedback mechanisms accelerate climate change: conditions created by prolonged drought
Recall that drought occurs when evaporation from increased temperatures greatly exceeds precipitation for a prolonged period. According to a 2005 study by Aiguo Dai and his colleagues, between 1979 and 2002, the area of the earth's land (excluding Antarctica) experiencing severe drought increased from about 15% to 30%—a total area about the size of Asia. Prolonged drought over several decades is caused by a combination of natural changes and cycles in the earth's climate system and human activities such as widespread deforestation and increased greenhouse gas emissions. According to the 2007 IPCC report, these human influences are very likely to increase throughout this century. As this browning of the land increases, in the affected areas, there will be less moisture in the soil; stream flows and available surface water will decline; net primary productivity will fall; growth of trees and other plants will slow, which will reduce CO2 removal from the atmosphere and intensify global warming; forest and grassland fires will increase, which will add CO2 to the atmosphere; water tables will fall with more evaporation and irrigation; some lakes and seas will shrink or disappear; more rivers will fail to reach the sea; 1-3 billion people will face a severe shortage of water; biodiversity will decrease; and the area of dry climate biomes, such as savannas, chaparral, and deserts, will increase. In other words, some of the effects of prolonged drought over several decades create conditions that, through positive feedback, accelerate global warming and climate change and lead to even more drought.
Know how the following positive feedback mechanisms accelerate climate change: melting of permafrost
The amount of carbon locked up as methane in permafrost soils is 50-60 times the amount emitted as carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels each year. If the permafrost in soil and lake bottoms in parts of the rapidly warming Arctic melts, significant amounts of methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) will be released into the atmosphere, and this will accelerate global warming and the resulting climate change. According to the 2004 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, 10-20% of the Arctic's current permafrost might thaw during this century, decreasing the total area of arctic tundra. The resulting increase in emissions of CH4 and CO2 would cause more warming, which would in turn melt more permafrost and cause still more warming and climate change in yet another positive feedback loop.
How will reducing population and poverty help slow climate change?
The effectiveness of these strategies would be enhanced by reducing population, which would decrease the number of fossil fuel consumers and CO2 emitters. It would also help to reduce poverty, which would decrease the need of the poor to clear more land for crops and fuelwood. The three input strategies and the population control strategy follow the four scientific principles of sustainability.
What is an ice core?
Tiny bubbles of ancient air found in ice cores from mountain glaciers. Past temperature and climate changes are estimated by analysis of these.
What are climate stabilization wedges? Know some examples of wedges
U.S. scientists Robert Socolow and Stephen Pacala at Princeton University have outlined a plan for holding 2057 CO2 levels to those in 2007 in order to help us avoid harmful effects. They have identified 15 different strategies, which they call climate stabilization wedges. Phasing in each wedge would reduce CO2 emissions by roughly the same amount during the coming 50-year period. They estimate that getting CO2 emissions to 2007 levels by 2057, and holding them there would require implementing any 8 of the 15 wedges during the next 5 decades or phasing in amounts of all 15 wedges sufficient to be the equivalent of implementing 8 wedges. Socolow and Pacala have turned their proposals into a role-playing wedges game that is being adapted and used in some schools. A 2007 study by the American Solar Energy Association showed how implementing just the energy efficiency and renewable energy wedge strategies alone could lead to a 60-80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
Know the following units and be able to solve problems using them (and without a calculator!): Kilowatt-hours/ megawatt-hours (know conversion)
Units of energy. To solve for energy, multiply power by time. If energy is the volume of the water in a stream, power is the speed of water. 1 kilowatt (kW) = 1000 W (house). 1 megawatt (MW) = 1000kW = 1 million W (city). Used in electricity.
