I am neither heretical nor a maverick on this issue. Contradicting views are seemingly as well as equally convincing¹. These contrarians enumerated their own findings to debunk the hypes. For one, ostensibly, climate change results in 20% to 30% of plant and animal species extinction is unfounded ²(The finding:: during the past 2.5 million years, a period that scientists now know experienced climatic changes as rapid and as warm as modern climatological models suggest will happen to us, almost none of the millions of species on earth went extinct. The exception was about 20 species of large mammals and many dominant trees and shrubs of Northwestern Europe.) IPPC’s (Intergovernmental panel of climate change) latest report’s ³ highlight: if temperature increases by 1 to 3 degree Celsius, up to 30% of species at increasing risk of extinction and above that significant extinction around the globe. IPPC’s assertion is towards the possibility of future extinction.
The article also quoted an Oxford University professor’s findings 4 that temperature changes do not correlate well with changes in the distribution or frequencies of tropical diseases, warming has not broadened their distribution and is highly unlikely to do so in the future. IPPC’s latest report highlight: increase in temperature will impact our health by changed distribution of some disease vectors, increase burden from malnutrition, diarrhea, cardio respiratory and infectious disease. The author (also a professor of University of California) stressed the incongruities in no small part were due to living things respond to many factors in addition to temperature and rainfall, In most cases, climate-modeling-based forecasts look primarily at temperature alone, or temperature and precipitations only.
The article also quoted another article from “American Scientist” 5 that Mt. Kilimanjaro could not be melted from global warming. Mt. Kilimanjaro was cited by US ex-vice president Al Gore as one of the global warming case in his book “An inconvenient truth”. That another article contended glacier melting could not be global warming directly. The air temperature at the altitude of the glacier is below freezing, it is well nigh impossible to melt the glacier. This means that only direct radiant heat from sunlight could be warming and melting the glacier and its melting pattern was consistent with radiant heat but not air temperature. IPPC’s latest report only elucidates the facts of glaciers receding, but cagey about the cause.
The overarching question is: Are deleterious effects of global warming overblown? It is difficult to wrangle at this time due to its hideously complex nature not easy to make snap judgment, we also need to account for the disputes do not span the full gamut that will be shown in the following paragraphs. The naysayer said owing to the world is pumping trillion of dollars and enormous amount of efforts to counter a decades’ endemic problem which may eventually prove us wrong by deviating our focus on issues required much more urgently attended, such as poverty. Counter to this contention is the argument that we fail because we are overwhelmed by visible clues, but blindsided by the invisible fermenting issue like global warming. There is an unremitting need to pursue an immaculate and unadulterated truth and a balanced view of perspicacity and clairvoyance out of welter of ambivalence. IPCC’s latest Forth Assessment Report, was cogent due to it based on an array of observations and experiments, and assessed the likely occurrence of each event. It cut down those controversial allegations of greenhouse effects, concentrating on pristine conditions of those would have major impacts on human lives and eco-systems and suggested mitigations.
Sea level rise (IPPC’s assessment does not assign the likelihood, because understanding of some important effects driving sea level rise is too limited. ). The melting of glaciers, Greenland ice sheet, snow running off from land and heavy rainfall cause sea level to rise. IPPC’s report projected sea-level rise will affect low-lying areas with large population of Africans and heavily populated mega delta regions Ganges Delta of eastern India and Bangladesh is particularly vulnerable and in South, East and South-East Asia are exposed to increasing risk of flooding from the seas or rivers.. 6 The most severe impact of sea level rising is inconvenient due to resettlement, but groping about resettlement is not an easy task to execute in a caprice, many are hustling and bustling cities with large population, it is surreal to move legion of people in haste and many live by the sea for a living.
Frequency of hot extreme, heat wave, and heavy precipitation (IPPC’s assessment of regional scale change concluded very likely around 90 to 95%). Heat extreme during torrid summer season, people living in Europe and US across the interior areas hate extreme heat wave the most. A vagary of warm and dry air interminable day and night and it can stretch to a week long. I could empathize on the TV, people plunged themselves into fountain or flocked to the beach for cooling. The crux to survival is pliant. Old folks cannot adapt to the extreme weather have to report earlier to the heaven. Heavy precipitation means rain or snow tends to increase in intensity over period ranging from a few hours to several days. I think human beings are least tolerate to fiendish dull and sultry heat wave than precipitation. Will you then butt in the crusade to protect your interest headlong (reducing frequency of hot extreme and heat wave) enlist yourself to combat global warming?
Tropical storm (IPPC’s report: Likely, is between 66 to 90 % confidence level. IPPC confirms it is likely increase in tropical cyclone intensity.) “Several studies made a compelling argument that tropical cyclone worldwide are indeed stronger. Meanwhile, a number of hurricane experts insisted global warming play a minor role at best in the recent rash of activity, and it will be far outweighed by other factors in the future.” 7 IPPC also qualified in their Fourth Assessment Report “An increase in intense tropical cyclone activity in North Atlantic with limited evidence of increase elsewhere. There is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclone activity.”
The cacophony of voices and ambivalence of evidence is reminiscent of the scourge of Hurricane Katrina; a category five’s hurricane was blight on New Orleans leaving mayhem behind. That area lives one of the poorest people in the US and you can imagine how much sufferings the people there are inflicted in the incident. I hope the tribulation recuperates fast and the people are living well. Some debates 8attributed the catastrophe to climate change and was proved the direct connection of the two could be feeble, but gradual warming over the last several decade couple with other conditions may intensify storm like Katrina; as hurricanes on par with Katrina have developed in the Atlantic since records began.8 IPPC qualified their findings to after 1970, as using satellite to monitor cyclone activities commenced after 1970, the record from there began; it is, therefore, difficult to ascertain long term trends. And what are relevant are the warm ocean waters that have direct causal relationship to global warming. Warm ocean waters were said the culprit to engender spate of tropical cyclone.
Though the chink of whether climate change is a causal factor, jarred with the IPPC’s. Both camps fathom the fact of tropical storms intensification is palatable and impregnable. It certainly have major consequences to the US and countries in Central America. Especially the Gulf of Mexico where oil exploration and production facilities are under threat, which cause oil price to spike that jack up inflation over the world for a period of time when supplies of crude oil are in shortage.Of course, the present high oil price is largely due to increase in global demand and speculations. Taking actions may not get you out of the badgering or extenuate tropical storm activities in the short run, the devastating effects and pandemonium they cause are worth the efforts.
IPPC’s report on storm and flood particularly on coastal areas: million more people could experience coastal flooding each year. And if temperature rises above 3 °C, according to IPPC’s prediction: about 30% of global coastal wetland lost.
Water supplies, Agriculture
The root cause of flood and drought was said due to evaporation. “As global warming heats the world’s oceans, the water molecules near the sea surface become more energetic and tend to evaporate into the atmosphere more readily. Thus the air gains water vapour This is a nonlinear relationship, meaning the effects get stronger for each additional degree of warming and the scientist is more certain about a warmer atmosphere would carry more water vapour around the globe Rain and snow tend to develop where air is converging and rising. Research estimates that precipitation intensity should rise by about 7% for every 1 °C of warming. Thus a small increase in global precipitation could mask regional and local trends that are more dramatic downwards as well as upwards. As with temperature, it is the extremes that matter most in rainfall and the lack of it, research confirmed that precipitation extreme seem to be increasing in general across the planet mid-platitude”
“There is no conclusive evidence that floods are becoming more frequent or intense due to climate change because there are many factors involved other than changes in temperature, such as land use, soil condition, flood control device and deforestation.” “Seasonal timing is critical when it comes to flood and drought”
The scientist discovered that southwest Australia is in danger of severe drought; the southwest tends towards dryness during El Nińo years, deforestation during earlier years and countryside landscape evaporate less moisture into the air perhaps exacerbate the drought. Scientists (also being confirmed in the IPPC’s report) have verified that poleward shift in the storm track that girdles the Southern Ocean, encircling Antarctica. The low pressure centres that race eastward along this track are the source of nearly all the Perth rainfall. The storm track’s winter position is likely to shift even southward, and this could mean real trouble for Perth and vicinity. A 2 °C warming could produce a 20% reduction in rainfall across much of the southern Australia. Were this to occur, degradation of eco-system, considerable loss of agricultural capacity, and severe water restriction will cost Australia billion of dollars.
It was said that Ocean warming also contributed to changing weather. “Should a large patch of ocean warm or cool substantially, it can take months or years for it to return to typical temperatures. During that time, the anomalous water can reshuffle the climatic cards, bringing persistent wetness or dryness to various part of the globe such as El Nińo and La Nińa. They are undisputed champion in drought making” “There is some evidence that the warm phase of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation is linked to a greater chance of drought in the US Southwest. Similar cyclic warming and cooling across the pacific and Indian Oceans may play a role in sustain drought in US Southwest and South Asia. Climate change can exacerbate this phenomenon by promoting more evaporation from dry areas creating more severe drought.
IPPC report on the impacts of water supplies: 1. increase water availability in moist tropics and high latitudes 2. Decreasing water availability and increasing drought in mid-latitudes and semi-low latitudes. It happens that hundred of millions of people living in these regions exposed to increased water stress. According to IPPC’s prediction, by 2020, in between 75 to 200 million of African people are projected to increase water stress due to climate change.
Nowhere in any books about global warming correlate to food price’s spike and draught erupted. Probably the correlation is quite remote. the true reasons according the latest issue of “The Economist” 9 are growing demand especially from China and India due to affluent factor; opulent farmers are switching to feed animals using more grain and rampant demand in US for ethanol (using maize crop to turn into ethanol) than it sells abroad. In Australia, it is the drought reducing crop production.
“The evidence of wetness and drought are more of natural cycles, but climate change exacerbates the patterns.” Scientist claimed. In fact, scientist discovered that warming helps agriculture. The extra CO2 in the air will help crops and vegetation to grow even rigorously, the tendency of warmer winter and at night lengthen growing seasons on average. Crops mature more quickly. Enhanced CO2 also increases some plant to deal with drought, racked up yields by an average of 27%. Albeit the crop basks in warming weather’s favour, however, dry periods are expected to grow more intense or longer lasting, interspersed with periods of intensified rainfall. These heightened contrasts are stressful for many crops. According to a study, North America and Russia would experience increase in cereal productivity by 3 to 10 %, whereas Africa and Asia could experience decline of at least 5%.
IPPC’s latest report enumerated two impacts on food: 1. complex localized negative impacts on small holders, subsistence farmers and fishers 2. Tendencies for cereal productivity to decrease in low latitudes and increase in high latitudes. Particularly in Africa, IPPC projected a 50% reduction in yield of rain-fed agriculture. Agricultural production including access to food in many African countries will be severely compromised and will affect food security and exacerbate malnutrition.
At this juncture, we are able to assess the significance of climate change. The extent of emission has a cycle following the boom and bust of the economic activities. In the wake of many mammoth size new emerging countries achieving blistering growth such as China, India, Russia, Brazil, the wealth effects accompany the up and steep linear fossil consumptions which generate more greenhouse gases than ever, because overall global economic activities are expanding. There are still tremendous uncertainties surrounding our understanding about global warming heightening incertitude. Scientists qualified their findings on small grain of truth because they are uncertain of many other possible contributing factors. IPPC is silent about the tipping point in the report but projected implications of several scenarios for global temperature rises up to 5 °C. Coalesced judgment considers 2 °C as watershed, an unofficial tipping point, beyond that is teetering, and Greenland ice sheet will be melting uncontrollably. However, till the crunch time arrive, we can envision that not being ready to react to the inveterate risk flexibly, that portent of handicap makes us very vulnerable. You cannot avert crisis by making slapdash decision that required long range planning.
Of course things will not happen convulsively, but spare a thought of a likelier scenario: The picture is now clearer for all evidence comes to light than before, it evinces we cannot dodge the problem and the odds are against us, we have to make precipitate changes. However, we have to change our behaviour and vicissitudes of life in a worldwide scale in a short time is an uphill task, and our infrastructures do not support greenhouse gas reduction and these fixed asset investments take years to construct. And worst, greenhouse gas take many years to reverse. The straw is worth clutching, the decision is seminal to step up our actions now and avoid hapless regrets in future.
Solving the right problem also prompt me to ask scientists at a pinch why it is impossible to directly tackle greenhouse gases at the atmosphere level, we can dilute its concentration, recycle it, making it porous for infrared radiation to radiate back to space, changing the substance of its composition etc. It seems none has experimented on these various methods. May be the idea is utter folly not worth the effort; after all why engage a non-scientist.
2. The Political deadlock
The Bali summit did not achieve any significant breakthrough on the quantum of emission cut. It seems to me that the tussle fermenting into verbal skirmish in between the world vs. the US. The grudging and disenchanted green supporters are seething at the odyssey of championing the course was thwarted and stymied by the US, the largest emitter, refused to sign on the Kyoto protocol to accept binding target. Without US and Australia's (Australia has ratified Kyoto protocol in Bali meeting) participation, Kyoto protocol can be regarded as ineffective, making the overall target tantalizing and becomes a turkey.
The US contended developing countries like China, India are not bound by the treaty for reduction making the treaty meaningless that I can empathize. Imagine you are doing the donkey work to help clean up the environment and others are unfettered to pollute. The one doing the cleaning job certainly is not motivated to move ahead. In the same vein, with all the biggest emitters’ participation regardless developed or developing countries will make our efforts effective. Therefore I can empathize the US position albeit dearth of euphemism and political adroitness. It is not constructive either because the efforts to combat global warming for the biggest emitter become stalemate and languishing.
According to The Washington post’s report, the environmental prosecution by US attorney office dropped sharply since 90s. And a German Environmental group’s survey 10, the US is positioned as the second last just above Saudi Arabia in terms of climate change protection efforts. This position certainly not exemplifies leadership quality. However, things are changing fast in The America, according to the Economist 11, Congress is to pass the bill of America’s Climate Security Act (ACSA) to limit and slash America’s emissions of greenhouse gases. ACSA follows the Kyoto protocol route involves a cap and trade system. The reverberations according to news’ report: among states, California, New Jersey and New York are enacting their own mandatory caps on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. A federal court has upheld a California law that requires curbs in greenhouse gas emissions by car and trucks that are tougher than US standards, rejecting an argument by vehicle makers that federal law should apply. U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision in a landmark environmental case that carbon dioxide is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act and that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles and other vehicles. A panel of US state governors has called for more alternative fuels and clean vehicle. US government issued new rules to remove more than 90 percent of the sulfur in diesel fuel by 2010.
According to the German Environmental group’s survey, EU countries have unswerving drive championing the course ahead, the kudos goes to the front runner Sweden (Sweden claimed it has cut emission by 30% and will be on track of 50 % cut by 2010), followed by Germany. Surprisingly, India, the sixth largest emitter, is not bound by Kyoto protocol, is leading in Asia, according to the survey. And the second largest emitter, China, also not bound by Kyoto, is also moving fast, from third last climbing many notches up to rank at 40. (The last is 56 positions).
In the Bali negotiation, we should recognize the fact that there are intersection in the negotiation that both the US and the rest of the world agreed upon was, in principle, we should cut emission. The chink was only the quantum of emission; it became incendiary because both refused to see each other perspectives. The UN saw if there was no initial big cut, the rescue action would be futile and damages will be irreversible. Committing to a target of 20 to 40% of 1990 level for the next 12 years and be slashed to half by 2050 of 2000 level was considered palatable, whereas in US stance the big margin was quite ambitious (The UK ‘s climate change bill fixed target at 60% by 2050.).
Some attributed the status quo to Bush Administration’s bigotry. The situation would change if next year Democrat Party wins the presidential election (it was said Democrats are more environmentally-minded 11. I think this thought is lemming, because the kernel of negotiation is representing a collective interest. Committing to a target of 20 to 40% of 1990 level for the next 12 years and be slashed to half by 2050 of 2000 level, the biggest the emitter you are, the more hesitant and circumspect you will be as to how to draw out an implementation plan to achieve that target because of uncertainty. The major sources of emissions are industry (power, cement, steel, textile, and fertilizer industries), building and transportation. The US original plan was around 25% by 2020.Mrs. Clinton said if she would be elected the following year, the target would be 30% by 2020. The UN was giving a range of 20 to 40%, and both fall within the UN acceptable range. Of course this range is difficult to pander and resonate well with the EU’s voracious appetite.
If by then the target will not achieve, will the government have to strangulate economic activities just for compliance? Very frankly, there is very little the UN can do to enforce impunity if foisted target will not achieve. Can the UN impose sanction against countries not meeting targets? Or failed countries will be sued at International Court. Not likely, even the UN has the right under treaty. Eventually, it is a voluntary act. Country likes Germany is motivated by their espoused value system to champion the environmental cause. Many are just passive followers, not as proactive as some leading EU countries. Therefore the US leadership is important. If the US gives the UN staunch support in implementation, drawing their preponderant clouts of political, financial and technological superiority, the UN can save much of her efforts. However, as I mentioned before, the US is tepid in their environmental efforts, leaving her in an awkward position, other countries are paranoid about the US sincere intention in committing to the cause. An article I read recently lambasted US tried to shirk the issue by citing China and India not bound as a subterfuge to shield her loathing commitment, leery of US’s intent abounds.
3. The Task force approach
From Kyoto to Bali, we have come this far, the emission continues to worsen, because during this time the world economy went through a cycle, coupled with the unremitting growth of emerging economies and the largest emitters are not reducing their emission, making the achievements negligible. If at each stop we cannot get all emitters to commit to action, from Bali it is going to nowhere, neither the lull to Copenhagen, as every stop we are just haggling and the ball is not rolling. If the UN can change its approach from top-down to a collaborative task force approach to gain some traction. I think we can envision faster and better results.
The current control system is cap and trade. It is formalized in Kyoto Protocol. Caps means the emission allowance set for developed and developing countries. In turn, countries set quotas on the emissions of installation run by local business. Countries manage this through their national “registries”, which are required to be validated and monitored for compliance by UNFCC. Trade is operators that have surfeit of emission allowances as carbon credits, while businesses that are about to exceed their quotas can buy the extra allowances as credits, privately or on the open market. Carbon credit is originated from economics' idea by imposing tax, a price to pay for excess emission, or get credit from environmental saving actions. It encourages companies to invest in clean technology to receive surplus allowances and use it to subsidize their fixed asset investment by receiving funds from deficit emitting companies purchasing carbon credit. Emitting company can also invest in UN approved green projects in developing countries to receive credit offsetting their excess emissions.
Some chided the EU’s Emission Trading Scheme and the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism is difficult to eke out by just looking at the price of carbon credit per ton is now at all time low of less than € 10, plummeted from € 30, the root cause is the cap for emission is setting too high, few firms are required to buy credits and the price dropped with the slack demand. The problem lies in target setting to stimulate demand. Some felt that rich countries buying carbon credits from poorer countries are the concomitant of transferring monies from rich countries to poor countries. And they see this as a windfall to the poorer countries; however, some supported the idea based on the ideology of equal emission, since rich countries polluted the environment, they have to pay a price to make good.
The task force approach is a fusion of action and result orientation; it is not to supersede the current caps and trade system, but to breakthrough the current stalemate. It quells the fear of political risk, a fait accompli, the governments engulfed. 12 The task force is an advisory body and also monitoring group, it can tailor environmental solutions to local circumstances, also making sure the progress is on the right track. The task force consists of negotiators, environment experts and auditors. They first use 80/20 rule to choose the hottest emission spots (emitting the most CO2). The hot spot is a control unit can be as small as a city or town or as big as states or provinces. It depends on emissions intensity and concentration and administration convenience. These hot spots are assessed and evaluated annually. It also means we always target our efforts on the largest emitters to maximize the results.
The task force group will work with local government
- Negotiate with the sheriff, whether hot spot is a state, city or other type emission control units. Negotiation becomes easier based on known knowledge of local emission; local government doles out concrete plan, follow-through execution. Both sides are easy to reach actionable target and milestones.
- Push for infrastructure and legislation changes; Infrastructure changes ameliorate emission by achieving the highest and faster outcome. Infrastructure change means switching from fossil use to other infrastructures supporting natural gas, nuclear plant, solar, wind power, Hydroelectric, tidal and wave power and also include adopting clean technology to transform and contain fossil consumptions. By so doing, we are controlling emissions of Industry and Buildings which are causing 70% of total emissions. Chasten offenders to change behaviour is quicker than persuading them not to do so, though no one is pleased to heavy political fiat. Galvanize local government to legislate draconian ironclad rules move things faster.
- Diversify energy sources according to suitability and efficiency. Advisory group can tailor to local circumstances to make use of available clean energy resources. This is to draw on the Advisory Group’s experience from working with other hottest spots and other countries’ best practices.
- Marshal local officials to visit countries already adopted similar technology and best practices. It facilitates a penchant for learning before change begin and gives experience through real life observations to motivate local government making change.
- Rev up in arranging for finance with worldbank or other financial institutions. This is to assist developing countries has the wherewithal to pay for technology use and ensure the success of the project.
- The task force is also giving feedback regularly on the emission results audited. This is to acknowledge progress and follow-up action taken.
- The task force also works with developing countries on environmental master plan, so that in the course of their economic development they are using clean and diversified energy resources, they can learn the rope faster if task force imparts experience how to cope with environmental protection. This is to prevent unruly sprouting of new sources of emission hot spots in disarray resulting in UN’s fire-fighting later on.
Diversified energy usage is a balancing approach which fit well (suitability) to the environment, as we have many choices for our selection, so that it will not disrupt the price of the clean energy market as a whole when every countries rush to install new infrastructure, such as nuclear plant. The US is enamored of nuclear technology, according to The Economist 13, the latest design incorporate “passive safety” system that can prevent a melt down during an emergency without operator intervention. The economist also cautioned the new design use regarding toxic waste can be inimical. “After three years of use, the fuel is depleted of most fissile uranium but has accumulated long-lived radioactive materials that cannot be burned in conventional reactors. At the moment most such waste is stored near the plant until it can be moved to a permanent facility. But no country is yet operating a final disposal site for highly radioactive nuclear waste.” The Economist said.
UN can provide incentive by rewarding those achieved the target by lowering their funding costs or subsidize at preferential rate for UN approved projects. Countries are free to opt for assistance from the task force, but the task force’s role to negotiate and monitor emission never change. In other words, countries do not receive assistance still need to lay out action plan and milestones of how to delist, say, from the top 20; the action plan facilitates measurement and monitoring process.
4. Miscellaneous issues:
Technology transfer:
One of the biggest issues of climate change is about technology transfer. Sequestration of CO2 is a big technical problem facing many developing countries using coal-fire power plant. According to the Wall Street Journal report, China is particularly interested in this technology because 70% of China’s electricity needs are from coal-fired power plants, so they want to learn carbon capture. Coal and oil also make up of Indonesia 70% state owned power utility. In the Bali meeting, UN postponed until the following year to fund an untested technology which captures and buries carbon dioxide emitted from power plants that burn fossils fuel.
The developed countries cope well with technological problem. The US position made clear upfront they wanted to protect their intellectual property. They believed protecting intellectual property rights provided economic incentive to stimulate innovation. “It is the reason US negotiator back the idea of an “International clean energy fund” as part of the post-Kyoto accord to help emerging countries like China and India pay for cleaner and more efficient buildings, power plants and other facilities. But they vowed to reject any fund structure that might slash incentive for US companies to develop new technologies.” The Wall Street Journal reported. The developing countries view it as rooking, without their demand for new technology; the innovation is just an idea. It is more than just market force determining price. However, a moment of thought vicariously, in US, it is almost impossible for government to intervene the private sector about pricing under normal course of business. The task force advisory group can evaluate the practical usage of the technology to decide whether to buy it wholesales (all countries benefited) or licensing (some countries will benefit only) it in a long haul, evaluate sourcing and recommend to the host country.
In US, the belief to protect intellectual properties always conflict with moral challenges, and eventually they yield to the moral request. The typical example is generic drugs. The congress even passed law to prohibit brand-name drug firm extend the lucrative patented products (about 80 to 90 % margin) and speed up generic drug approval process, that is a magnanimous gesture for the lower rung Americans, also to the developing countries but bad new for home-grown pharmaceutical companies consider the sector is now in a doldrums. According to the Wall Street Journal report: “Fewer new products in the pipeline and about three dozen existing products patent protection will expire in the next five year become generic and new products also required FDA’s approval, the drug companies blame FDA approved very fewer drugs today.” This shows how highly regulated the industry is. If we read in context their decisions, we should appreciate their generosity they work within the law for the common good (You may have different view when come to climate change). They are even generous when you are their allies. The US negotiator in the Bali meeting after hard bargaining eventually yielded to the request of the developing countries clamoring for technology transfer.
Deforestation
Indonesia upped to be in third position of largest emitters due to deforestation. I am flummoxed by the preposterous demand that Indonesia jockeying other countries to make restitution in order to preserve the forests. Green movements become a money gouging activity. Many Indonesian large farm operators clear land for profiteering motives, such as oil palm plantation, or the loggers, paper and pulp companies chopping the log. Deforestation is a heinous act, it increases the odds of flooding and landslide that endanger lives, because water flow more quickly without obstruction by tree and undergrowth. Stop burning is good for their own country and the neighbouring countries in term of their pernicious effects on health, aviation, tourism and other economic activities and also reputation of environment protection (CO2 emitted from fires and bacteria in the newly exposed soil may release more than twice the amount of another greenhouse gas-- nitrous oxide). If stopping this heinous act is for their country own good, it is inextricable why other countries should make restitution for such act. Ordinary small farmers inure to slash and burn should learn new farming skills, the Indonesian government should subsidise them to make transition happen.
Another issue is forest fire control and management in Australia, Europe and the US during warm season, forest fires episode rekindle us every year that array of forest fires burning days and nights unstopping. Imagine how much CO2 being produced in the fires. To strengthen prevention of forest fires during dry season should bring into the agenda.
5. Epilogue
The earth is a self-balancing globe, if we live and follow the natural path. If we are taxing the earth profusely, one day it will dawn to us that we pay hefty price to extricate us from come-uppance. When coping with rebalancing, it is more haste less speed.
Notes:
1.These mavericks adopt a different view. They believe global warming is happening, but the risks are overblown. These include Bjorn Lomborg’s book “cool it” , also, Daniel B.Botkin, president of the Centre for the study of the Environment and professor emeritus in the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology at the University of California, who claims not a naysayer, but some of the environmental facts are distorted. He wrote an article “global Warming Delusion” on Wall Street Journal which I quoted as contrary to some main stream environmentalists had claimed. Other interesting contrary view include a British high court judge retorted some inaccuracies in Al Gore’s book “An inconvenience truth” .I am not a scientist. Most of the scientific facts I quoted in the article are from the book “The rough guide to Climate Change” by Robert Henson. He interviewed many boffins of this topic and had the chapters reviewed by them. So, I think it is objective, balanced and safe to quote them in my article. Any mistake is my own.
2. Daniel B.Botkin’s article “Global Warming Delusion” on Wall Street Journal
3. IPPC’s (Intergovernmental panel of climate change) latest report. The report is objective; reader can view Forth Assessment Report by pressing CTRL+ CLICK Download . The report also cautions that is subject to final copy-edit pior to final publication
4 Prof Sarah Randolph of Oxford University show that temperature changes do not correlate well with changes in the distribution or frequency of these diseases.
5 Daniel B.Botkin’s did not give writer’s name written this article in Journal American Scientist.
6. Other report enumerates the top ten cities affected by sea-level rise are Mumbai, Dhaka, Guangzhou, Ho Chi Minh City, Haiphong, Shanghai, Yangon and Miami.
7 “The rough guide to Climate Change” page 121
8 “The rough guide to Climate Change” page 125
9 The Economist December 8 2007
10 The ranking is based on survey by a German Environmental group, based on pollution level, development, and overall environmental policy as evaluation criteria.
11 The Economist November 17th 2007
12 According to an Australian report: “But the (Australian) Government maintained it would wait until it receives a report by economist Ross Garnaut next year before setting binding targets. “"(The government) demanded binding targets immediately, now the Rudd Government has adopted our position of no binding targets until you can work out the costs and consequences to your children and grandchildren."
China was lauded for their commitment by foreign media: “The Chinese contingent impressed many other delegations with its willingness to seek action against climate change and was regarded as “on board”. According to newspaper report: As far as Chinese government’s intent is concerned, they realize how the fast pace economic development is destroying their environment rapidly. They prefer a slow, steady but harmonious approach to preserve their environment. But the target to reduce emission faces strong resistance at provincial level. As the local governors’ performance are hampered due to ineptitude in handling emission technical problems. Adopting the target means suppress the economic activities which is politically risky.
13 The Economist September 8 2007
