PHI 103
April 22, 2013
Regardless of one’s stance on the global warming debate, all sides can agree on one simple fact: emissions and waste created in an industrial society pollute the air, water, and earth. Working to reduce atmospheric levels of pollution, including greenhouse gases, promotes green energy and industry while helping society adapt to a planet- friendly standard of living. Addressing environmental pollution through immediate anthropogenic climate change initiatives will not only help to stabilize current and future atmospheric carbon concentrations, it will promote a long-term strategy for environmental sustainability.
Both natural and human factors …show more content…
contribute to the changes in the Earth’s energy balance. Variations in the sun’s energy reaching Earth, changes in the reflectivity of the Earth’s atmosphere, and alterations to the greenhouse effect can alter the temperature of the Earth (Metz, Davidson, Bosch, Dave, & Meyer, 2007). Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased by almost 40% since pre-industrial times, from approximately 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv) in the 18th century to 390 ppmv in the year 2010 (Metz, Davidson, Bosch, Dave, & Meyer, 2007). The current carbon dioxide level is higher than it has been in at least 800,000 years (EPA, 2013). Without immediate intervention, the carbon dioxide concentrations accrued at today’s rate could triple pre-industrial amounts and increase temperatures 3 to 10 degrees Celsius (Dietz, 2007).
In general, climate changes prior to the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s can be explained by natural causes, such as changes in solar energy, volcanic eruptions, and natural changes in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations (Metz, Davidson, Bosch, Dave, & Meyer, 2007). Recent climate changes, however, cannot be attributed to natural causes alone. Research indicates that natural causes are very unlikely while explaining most of the observed warming, especially climate warmth increases since the mid-20th century (Metz, Davidson, Bosch, Dave, & Meyer, 2007).
Instead, human actions are more likely to blame for the majority of climate warming in the late twentieth century. The largest amount of growth in global GHG emission levels between the years of 1970 and 2004 has come from the energy supply sector, showing an increase of 145% (Metz, Davidson, Bosch, Dave, & Meyer, 2007). To counteract this growth, various environmental policies have been implemented worldwide. These regulations include those on climate change, energy security, and sustainable development and have shown to have been effective in reducing GHG emissions in many different industry sectors and countries (Metz, Davidson, Bosch, Dave, & Meyer, 2007). The scale of such measures, however, has not yet been large enough to counteract the increasing growth in global emission levels (Metz, Davidson, Bosch, Dave, & Meyer, 2007). In order to stabilize the concentration of GHG’s in the atmosphere, carbon emissions would need to reach a peak and begin to decline to show improvement (Metz, Davidson, Bosch, Dave, & Meyer, 2007). Legislation that would encourage a lower stabilization peak level could help this peak and decline event occur earlier than projected. The global warming bill, AB 32, the nation 's most ambitious effort to combat global climate change, has a goal of reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other GHG’s by 25% before the year 2020 (Lifscher, 2006). AB 32 regulations along with global carbon mitigation efforts over the next two to three decades will have a large impact on opportunities to achieve lower peak stabilization levels prior to the year 2050. Climate change legislation and international cooperation can enable stabilization levels to peak and decline in the shorter-term.
Lower stabilization levels can be achieved through technologies and industry that is currently available and those that are expected to be commercialized in the next few decades (Metz, Davidson, Bosch, Dave, & Meyer, 2007). To produce lower stabilization levels, new industry developments put more emphasis on the use of low-carbon energy sources, such as renewable energy and nuclear power, as well as the use of carbon dioxide capture and storage (Metz, Davidson, Bosch, Dave, & Meyer, 2007).
The influential Stern Review calculates that atmospheric carbon concentrations can be stabilized at what the authors consider a manageable level of 500-550 ppm with a maximum cost of 1% of global GDP (gross domestic product) by the year 2050 (Fletcher, 2012). This is in comparison to the loss of 5% GDP annually as the cost of inaction (Dietz, 2007). Even this loss, however, would be ostensibly offset by the creation of new markets in the long term. The 2007 Stern Review states:
“The world does not need to choose between averting climate change and promoting growth and development. . .Tackling climate change is the pro-growth strategy for the longer term, and it can be done in a way that does not cap the aspirations for growth of rich or poor countries” (Fletcher, 2012).
Additionally, developing countries will have the opportunity for economic growth through shared global efforts.
“Leaving aside the immeasurable value offered by our rainforest’s diversity and water conservation functions, we are facing an almost unfathomably large business opportunity, one which we can share with the Rainforest nations of the world. . .With an estimated 610 billion tons of CO2 sequestered by our tropical rainforests, a vast $18 trillion business opportunity is before us” (Fletcher, 2012).
Immediate action in regards to the anthropogenic causes of climate change can create significant business opportunities, as new markets are created in low-carbon energy technologies and other low-carbon goods and services (Fletcher, 2012). These markets could grow to be worth hundreds of billions of dollars each year, and employment in these new sectors will expand accordingly (Fletcher, 2012). Mainstream advocates of climate change mitigation policy claim that successfully addressing climate change is in fact compatible with sustained economic growth (Fletcher, 2012).
Environmental regulations that provide a real or implicit price of carbon could create incentives for manufacturers and consumers to significantly invest in low-GHG products, technologies, and processes (Fletcher, 2012). The tools to create policy currently exist and can generate the incentives needed to change current investment patterns and direct the global economy onto a low carbon path (Metz, Davidson, Bosch, Dave, & Meyer, 2007). The subsequent grants and incentives will encourage the private sector to create, develop, test, and market green technology solutions to meet the requirements of these regulations while turning a profit and spurring the economy.
There are still many who hold the opinion that that the environment is being used as an excuse to close financial markets. Advocating that global warming is a myth, sponsors of this ideal openly criticize the validity of global climate change as anthropogenic and reject legislation to decrease carbon emissions. In 1997, The U.S. Senate held the opinion that the proposed Kyoto treaty would harm the slowing American economy as it placed unrealistic demands upon industry and jeopardized employment (Reynolds, 2001). Maintaining current financial markets and investment opportunities while working with allied countries was seen to be the right approach to decreasing carbon emissions (Reynolds, 2001). This same outlook was reflected a decade later in 2008 when Robinson, a researcher with the American Enterprise Institute, asserted:
“Mitigation would have an enormously negative effect on developed economies and would cause a serious setback for emerging nations. . . is it worth wreaking havoc on the global economy to prevent a level of warming to which we could adapt in the course of a century?” (Fletcher, 2012).
The publication of the 2007 Stern Review prompted the skeptical response towards global warming in a statement, “By taking as given hypotheses that remain uncertain, assertions that are debatable or mistaken, and processes of inquiry that are at fault, the review has put itself on a path that can lead to no useful outcome” (Randerson, 2006). As current scientific data shows a global cooling trend, the basis in which anthropogenic climate change legislation if founded upon is considered to be inaccurate and warrants further review before major industrial change will be considered (Muller, 2011). At this time, many legislators feel that the American economy cannot afford to make these drastic changes to industry as the environment is not in danger of global warming.
Whether or not the industrious actions of humans are a cause of global warming, anthropogenic climate change initiatives are designed to decrease the amount of pollution created by mankind. As our need for advanced technology increases, industry meets those needs while increasing carbon emissions, electronic waste, and other pollutants that harm the Earth. The continued denial of climate change, natural or anthropogenic, as an effort to maintain a stable financial market demonstrates a lack of responsibility for the damage already done to the planet. The ideals behind upholding the current financial standard seem to promote the continued abuse of natural resources without regard to current or future levels of global contamination. By recognizing that anthropogenic legislation measures will help to reduce the impact that industry has upon our environment and are not intended to shut industry down, a balance can be found between finance and mitigation.
Long term financial stability is as important as long term environmental sustainability. Working together to achieve these goals, industry is capable of meeting the needs of society by changing course and following a greener path. Green product design, manufacture, use, and disposal will create new market opportunities for investment as well as employment. The manufacturing of products in factories that meet low carbon emission principles will set the standard for green industry in a world striving for economic stability and environmental sustainability.
Decreasing the carbon foot print of our industrial society is necessary for the survival of the human population of planet Earth. Individuals, communities, countries, and continents can make a difference to the future of our environment by taking responsibility and by taking action. Immediately addressing anthropogenic climate change on a global scale will introduce regulations to not only stabilize our current atmospheric carbon concentrations, it will organically become the foundation for attaining long-term environmental stability.
References
EPA (2013). Causes of Climate Change | Climate Change | US EPA. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html
Dietz, S.
(2007). The Impacts of Climate Change: Perspectives from the Stern Review. Brown Journal Of World Affairs, 13(2), 173-185. Retrieved from: http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/ehost/detail?vid=4&sid=02b8828d- 4fa7-4f84-9b89- 7f1a52f0971c%40sessionmgr114&hid=123&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPWlwLGNwaWQm Y3VzdGlkPXM4ODU2ODk3JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=25 431110
Fletcher, R. (2012). Capitalizing on chaos: Climate change and disaster capitalism. Ephemera, 12(1/2), 97-112. Retrieved from: http://search.proquest.com.proxy- library.ashford.edu/pqcentral/docview/1270658609/13D234E7B3E2147FEDA/3?account id=32521
Lifsher, M. (2006, Oct 24). Climate shifts on global-warming law; A Senate leader accuses Gov. Schwarzenegger of undermining the landmark legislation. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from: http://search.proquest.com/docview/422082051?accountid=32521
Metz, B., Davidson, O. M., Bosch, P. R., Dave, R., & Meyer, L. A. (2007). Summary for Policymakers. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved from IPCC website: http://www.ipcc-wg3.de/assessment-reports/fourth-
assessment-report/.files-ar4/SPM.pdf
Muller, R. A. (2011, October 21). The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html
Randerson, James. (2006, Oct 30). Stern review: Skeptics scorn climate report prediction of global chaos: Study warns of economic crash over CO2emissions: Doubters rubbish findings even before publication. The Guardian. Retrieved from: http://search.proquest.com/docview/246549675?accountid=32521
Reynolds, P. (2001, March 30). Kyoto: Why did the US pull out?.BBC News [Washington]. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1248757.stm