Effectiveness of International Climate Change Actions

1
Effectiveness of International Climate Change
Actions
2
The Earth Without Ice?
3
Increasing Carbon-Dioxide
4
The Main Gasses of Concern to the Kyoto Protocol

• Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
• Methane (CH4)
• Nitrous Oxide (N20)
• Hydroflourocarbons (HFCs) (CFC replacement.)
• Perflourcarbons (PFCs) (CFC replacement)
• Sulfur Hexaflouride (SF6)

5
Kyoto Protocol at a standstill

• 55 of pollution required. U.S is 36.1, Russia
  is 17.4.
• U.S has rejected the treaty. Russia continues to
  hesitate to ratify.
• Treaty would go into effect if either country
  ratified.
• Treaty cannot go into effect if both countries
  hold out.

6
Russia

• Russia seemed likely to ratify. Economic problems
  caused decreases in CO2 emissions.
• Russia would be able to sell extra allowable
  pollution credits.
• However, U.S. rejection means Russias primary
  market for sale of credit is no longer in the
  system.

7
United States

• George W. Bush rejected CO2 reductions required
  by protocol in March 2001.
• Referred to incomplete science.
• Referred to economic problems, especially
  relating to energy crisis.

8
Other U.S. Reactions to Global Warming

• McCain/Lieberman Senate Bill. (Defeated
  10/29/03.)
• Maine law requires state CO2 emissions to reach
  1990 levels by 2010.
• 10 Northeastern State governors agreed to work
  together to reduce power plan emissions.
• CA, OR, WA agreed to reduce automobile CO2
  emissions
• 12 states sued the EPA to force it to regulate
  CO2.

9
Science and Economic Issues

• Montreal Treaty vs. Kyoto Protocol
• Montreal Treaty dealt with divergent science,
  Kyoto deals with competing science.
• Economic issues are more severe in global warming
  debate than ozone.

10
Emission of CO2 is not fair.

• Developing countries upset that industrial
  countries emit so much more.
• U.S. Doesnt like Kyotos lack of requirements
  for developing countries.

11
Science Issues

• Water Vapor is the most important greenhouse
  gas, and is not really effected by man.
• Positive feedback loops.
• Urban island debate.
• McIntyre McKitricks recent report criticizing
  the 1998 Mann, Bradley Hughes hockey stick
  report.

12
Hockey Stick

• Important in the movement against global warming.

13
Hockey Stick Revisited
14
Comparing Costs and Benefits

• Difficult for some nations to see the value of
  cooperation.
• Some nations could benefit from warming.
• Risks of ozone depletion were more universal and
  graphic.

15
Annual Precipitation Trends
16
Costs to Consumers

• Montreal Protocol success partly due to complete
  consumer transparency.
• Consumers would face much more direct costs and
  penalties from global warming law.

17
Example of Costs

• Lieberman McCain Bill Estimated Cost to
  Consumers 10-20 per year per family. Original
  plan would have cost 30 per year initially,
  could have risen up to 400 per year. This bill
  is much less restrictive on CO2 than the Kyoto
  Protocol.
• These costs make for a difficult political sale.

18
Consumer CO2 Emissions
19
Consumer Emissions 2
20
Consumer Emissions 3
21
Replacement Energy Sources

• Current worldwide electricity generation is about
  12 trillion watts per second.
• 85 is fossil fuel.
• 6.5 nuclear and hydro.
• Less than 2 solar and wind.

22
CO2 is Essentially Clean

• CO2 does not cause disease, is not harmful to
  breathe, and is easily broken down.
• Compare Nuclear, which releases no greenhouse
  gasses.
• Compare Aerosols, which may cause global cooling,
  but are worse for human health.
• Compare HFCs and PFCs to CFCs.

23
Other Replacements

• Ethanol/biomass fuel these do release CO2, but
  growing new crops to create new biomass basically
  neutralizes the net release.
• Clean coal burns coal more efficiently, filters
  out some chemicals for fuel cells or industrial
  use.

24
Clean Coal
25
Recomendations

• Technology based, rather than emission based
  controls as seen in U.S. environmental law,
  technology based controls can be more successful
  by building in incentives.
• Intrinsic value controls eg. Biomass fuels cut
  down oil dependence, conserve forest for species
  values, etc.