Global Warming Notes (from Articles)
Palm Oil:
* Once planted, the tropical palm oil tree can produce fruit for more than 30 years,
providing much-needed employment for poor rural communities. AND the oil is highly
lucrative, due largely to the fact that the plan yields more oil per hectare than any major
oilseed crop.
* Indonesia is the leading supplier for palm oil
* Palm oil used for cooking, cosmetics, and biofuel
* But palm oil comes with significant costs - oil palm plantations often replace tropical
forests, killing endangered species, uprooting local communities, and contributing to the
release of climate-warming gases.
**Due mostly to palm production, Indonesia emits more greenhouse gases than any
country besides China and the United States
* it is estimated that international buyers, especially in China, India, and the Middle East,
will continue to buy more palm oil, regardless of the commodity's environmental or
social effects.
* Indonesia's palm oil exports have increased at a very fast rate. This expansion came at
an annual expense of some 340,000 hectares of Indonesian countryside, mostly tropical
lowland forests. Such expansion could wipe out the remaining natural habitat of several
endangered species.
** The promotion of oil palm-based biofuel policy is biased against the need for forests
and biodiversity conservation.
***Palm-oil biodiesel was once supported as a solution to climate change - a low-carbon
alternative to burning fossil fuel-based gasoline in vehicles. In recent years, however,
research has revealed that oil palm development, which often involves the clearing of
intact forestland, can contribute far more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than it
helps to avoid. The reason is found within the region's expansive peatlands, large
deposits of carbon-rich forest debris that is too wet to decompose. When each hectare
of peatland is drained for oil palm production, an estimate 3,750-5,400 tons of carbon
dioxide is released over 25 years (by comparison, the carbon dioxide released from
clearing a hectare of tropical forest, without peat bogs, ranges between 500-900 tons)
* The worse thing you can do, in respect to greenhouse gases, is to have deforestation
on peatland forests. It's way worse than normal forests, which is bad enough.
* Global business leaders have joined environmentalists to demand more-sustainable oil
palm production. Within Indonesia, industry leaders have publicly stated plans to
develop oil palm on "idle lands" instead of dense rainforest.
Changing Fossil Fuel Infrastructure:
* The world is likely to build so many fossil-fuelled power stations, energy-guzzling
factories and inefficient building in the next five years that it will become impossible to
hold global warming to safe levels, and the last chance of combating dangerous climate
change will be lost forever.
* Anything built from now on that produces carbon will do so for decades, and this
"lock-in" effect will be the single factor most likely to produce irreversible climate
change.
* If we do not have an international agreement, whose effect is put in place by 2017,
then the door to holding temperatures to 2oC of warming will be closed forever.
* 1997 Kyoto protocol is the only binding international agreement on emissions . . . its
current provisions expired in 2012.
* IEA (International Energy Agency) analysis shows what happens if you do not change
investment patterns (in power stations, factories, buildings . . . ), which can only happen
as a result of an international agreement.
* This is NOT just a problem for the developing world as some people like to believe. In
the UK, Europe and the US, there are multiple plans for new fossil-fuelled power stations
that would contribute significantly to global emissions over the coming decades.
* Despite the worst recession in 80 years, emissions had risen by a record amount in
2010.
*** The IEA's data is regarded as the gold standard in emissions and energy . . . the
central problem is that most industrial infrastructure currently in existence - the fossilfuelled power stations, the emissions-spewing factories, the inefficient transport and
buildings - is already contributing to the high level of emissions, and will do so for
decades. Carbon dioxide, once released, stays in the atmosphere and continues to have
a warming effect for about a century, and industrial infrastructure is built to have a
useful life of several decades.
*** Yet, despite intensifying warnings from scientists over the past two decades, the
new infrastructure even now being built is constructed along the same lines as the old,
which means that there is a "lock-in" effect - high-carbon infrastructure built today or in
the next five years will contribute as much to the stock of emissions in the atmosphere
as previous generations.
***The "lock-in" effect is the single most important factor increasing the danger of
runaway climate change
* Warming of as little as 1.5oC could cause dangerous rises in sea levels and a higher risk
of extreme weather
* Another factor likely to increase emissions is the decision by some governments to
abandon nuclear energy, following the Fukushima disaster. Much more investment in
renewable energy will be required to make up the gap, but how that would come about
is unclear at present.
* Another issue - an unacceptably high number of people - about 1.3 billion - still lack
access to electricity. If people are to be lifted out of poverty, this must be solved - but
providing people with renewable forms of energy generation is still expensive.
* The decisions being made by politicians today risk passing a monumental carbon debt
to the next generation, on for which they will pay a very heavy price. What's seriously
lacking is a global plan and the political leverage to enact it.
Political Involvement:
* Severe adverse effects from climate change can be avoided at reasonable cost but only
if politicians stop talking and start acting.
* Calls on leaders of the Group of Eight leading economies, particularly the US - the
world's largest per capita polluter - to commit themselves to firm timetables of
emissions reductions.
* Projections for the amount of carbon that would be released between now and 2050
have been raised because of expected stronger economic growth in China and India over
the next four decades.
****Governments in all major economies must demonstrate their political will to
establish a well functioning global carbon market that puts a price on carbon emissions.
That will send the right economic signals to investors and consumers to deliver the new
technologies and changes in behaviour required to combat global warming.
** In addition to a carbon market, countries will need a combination of carbon taxes,
regulation and government support to ensure that all parts of their economies are
pushed towards a low carbon future.
*Significant carbon reductions are technologically feasible IF the world makes a big
move into renewable energy, hugely increases its energy efficiency and embarks on
large-scale carbon capture and storage to trap the emissions released by burning coal.
Costs of de-carbonising economies could even end up being lower than expected if
technological advances speed up. (Previous efforts to reduce ozone depleting chemicals
and acid rain ended up costing less than predicted.)
* Nuclear energy could potentially play a role but is not necessarily crucial. Similarly,
there could be a role for biofuels but this has to be balanced against the need for
affordable food.
* High oil prices could accelerate a move away from oil and gas but the change has to be
towards clean alternatives such as renewables rather than dirty options like coal
Fuel Tax, Transport, Climate Change:
* Government money could have funded a low-carbon transport revolution - cheaper,
better public transport, safer walking and cycling, and smarter cars that use less fuel.
* To cut carbon, clean up our air and protect motorists from the sting of soaring oil
prices, the Government must invest now in developing a transport system the UK can be
proud of.
* The Coalition must help to wean our transport system off its addiction to oil if David
Cameron is going to deliver on his pledge to lead the "greenest government ever"
* Petrol and diesel prices have risen significantly in recent months prompting calls for
the government to take urgent action to make fuel cheaper. BUT when the wider costs
of owing and driving a car are taken into account, the overall cost of motoring has been
falling in real terms for many years.
***Earlier this year, a Parliamentary Answer revealed that between 1997 and 2010 the
real cost of motoring, including buying a vehicle, fell by 7% in real terms. Over the same
period, bus and coach fares increased by 24% and rail fares increase by 17%
*** It does illustrate the fact that price signals have relentlessly encouraged motoring at the expense of cleaner transport alternatives. Little wonder we now have such a cardependent society.
* In 2011, the government introduced a "fair fuel stabiliser" - which will use income
from an increased Supplementary charge on oil and gas production to subsidise the cost
of fuel at the pump when crude oil prices are high.
**While environmentalists support the decision to raise £10 billion from oil and gas
producers, they say this money should be used to pay for transport measure that will
reduce our vulnerability to volatile oil prices. The Government's plan to use this income
to subsidise fuel at the pump will simply delay the inevitable and will mean increased
pain in the future. We need a package of policies to cut car use, reduce our dependency
on oil and reduce carbon emissions.
* Fuel duty rises are effective at changing travel behaviour - high fuel prices have
resulted in changes to how people travel and how often they travel. Multi-purpose
journeys and car sharing are more common as are walking and cycling for short trips.
* BUT fuel duty must be accompanied by strong measure to ensure all people have
access to decent and affordable alternatives to driving, and planning policy that puts
walking, cycling and public transport at the centre of new developments
* Environmentalists are urging the government to increase taxation on pollution so that
taxes can be cut elsewhere - for example, taxes on jobs
* Transport represents about 25% of domestic UK emissions and more than 90% of this
is from road traffic
*** Electric cars have been championed as one of the solutions to reducing carbon
emissions from transport, but commentators agree that these are unlikely to be a
significant part of the UK's car fleet until well into the 2020s. This is because it will take
some time to put in place the necessary charging infrastructure to power them - and
develop the battery technology to make these vehicles viable for long journeys. Even
then, the carbon-cutting potential of electric cars will only be realised if the electricity
that powers them comes from green sources such as wind turbines and solar panels.
This means that if we want to cut transport emissions in the short term this will have to
be achieved by making conventional cars greener, reducing the need to travel and
persuading people to leave their cars at home and travel by greener means. Despite
industry foot-dragging, diesel and petrol cars have become more fuel-efficient over
recent years, but they could be better still.
*Encourage people to use smarter vehicles that use less fuel - EU car standards must be
strengthened to cut carbon from new cars; Vehicle Excise Duty must be changed to
make road tax more expensive for gas-guzzlers.
Climate Change Impact on Global Economy:
* Climate change is already contributing to the deaths of nearly 400,000 people a year
and costing the world more than $1.2 trillion, wiping 1.6% annually from global GDP
* The impacts are being felt most keenly in developing countries where damage to
agricultural production from extreme weather linked to climate change is contributing
to the deaths from malnutrition, poverty and their associated diseases.
* Air pollution caused by the use of fossil fuels is also separately contributing to the
deaths of at least 4.5 million people a year
* A 1oC rise in temperature (temperatures have already risen by 0.7oC globally since the
end of the 19th century) is associated with 10% productivity loss in farming. For us, it
means losing about 4 million tonnes of food grain, amounting to about $2.5 billion. That
is about 2% of our GDP. Adding up the damages to property and other losses, we are
faced with a total loss of about 3-4% of GDP. Without these losses, we could have easily
secured much higher growth.
* But major economies will also take a hit, as extremes of weather and the associated
damage - droughts, floods and more severe storms - could wipe 2% of the GDP of the US
by 2030, while similar effects could cost China $1.2 trillion by the same date
*Some research suggests that the melting of the Arctic sea ice could be linked to cold,
dull and rainy summers in parts of Europe (such as has been the predominant summer
weather in the UK for the last six years.) In the US, this year's drought has raised food
prices and in India the disruption to the monsoon has cause widespread damage to
farmers.
* Formerly one-off extreme weather episodes seem to be becoming the new normal.
How Global Warming Can Affect the Economy:
*** Most companies that will benefit financially are those that are in the higher lands
that will not become flooded, those that can easily adapt to the needs of the Earth and
of Earth's population, and people whose job it is to study the environment.
* Real estate prices will rise, due to the simple fact that there will be much less land to
buy and sell
* Those who manufacture equipment for water sports will benefit, as there will be much
more water to boat, ski, swim and play in
* Climatological research will be a hot field, as much new worldwide research will be
needed to figure out how the climate is changing and how it is effecting anyone.
* "Green" companies are already reaping financial benefits from global warming, as
people are trying to buy products that do not hurt the environment when they are
made.
* Any person or company that can come up with a way to reverse the effects of global
warming - no matter how slowly the idea works - will reap a huge reward. Their skills are
already in high demand.
* Anyone who owns coastal land will lose because the ocean would claim it - or at least
turn it into swampland
* Ski resorts and companies that make winter gear will become obsolete as the warming
will destroy winter (the only possible exception is if the currents end worldwide and an
Ice Age comes to the Earth, then it would be winter most of the time)
* Anglers who fish in the saltwater of the oceans and seas will no longer have a job. The
freshwater that will be dumped into the sea will change the delicate balance of the
ocean and kill off most marine life.
* Many governments may topple because of this. The turtle's pace at which most
governments are moving to stop global warming will make people rise against them. If
this happens, it could open the door to chaos.