R07-10+Group

=If global warming is real, = =is it too expensive to do anything about? = Table of Contents  Introduction In recent years there has been seemingly endless debates about global warming, climate change, and what can be done. The world has experienced a "green revolution" of sorts because many people are convinced of the existence of climate change and as such want to do something about it. The reactions include using fabric bags instead of plastic when shopping, buying cars with higher gas mileage, purchasing carbon offsets, and arranging for "green" electricity to come to their homes instead of the conventional kind. Will these changes make the desired change economically or will these changes prove to be an unfair burden on the already stressed world?
 * Introduction ||
 * A Question of Balance ||
 * * Global Warming ||
 * *  DICE Model ||
 * * Prediction ||
 * Cap and Trade ||
 * *  What is Cap and Trade? ||
 * * Supporters ||
 * * Opponents ||
 * * Effectiveness ||
 * The Palpable Costs ||
 * * The Outright Costs ||
 * * The Hidden Costs ||
 * Climate Change ||
 * Conclusion ||
 * * Individual Decisions ||
 * Works Cited ||
 * * Image Sources ||

A Question of Balance Global Warming There is no doubt that global warming is a serious issue and a certainty in most, if not all, minds of scientists. Essentially, global warming occurs when fossil fuels are burned (among other sources of greenhouse gases), releasing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. This carbon dioxide builds up in the atmosphere, and acts as a giant insulator resulting in the warming of the oceans and continents. Due to feedback effects, this warming is amplified in the atmosphere, ocean, and on land. In the Fourth Assessment Report of the International Panel on Climate Change, an estimate of global temperature increase in this century range from 1.8 to 4.0 degrees Celsius. For the most part this is all now common knowledge, and we as a planet now face the task of attacking this problem head on, and finding plausible solutions to this global dilemma.

DICE Model In his book, William Nordhaus, a professor of economics at Yale University, explains the intricate workings and findings of the DICE model, which integrates both climatic changes and economic costs. DICE is an acronym for Dynamic Integrated model of Climate and the Economy, and links factors affecting economic growth, the carbon cycle, carbon dioxide emissions, climate changes, climatic damages and most importantly climate change policies. Nordhaus makes the point that balance is needed between "economic costs today and ecological benefits tomorrow", and he believes that the DICE model has successfully bridged the gap between the economy and the environment. This model has the power, given certain policies and reactions to global warming, to predict changes in the environment and economy one hundred, two hundred, even five hundred years in the future. Essentially, the DICE model is a combination or hybrid of a number of preexisting models from the fields of economics, global climate change, oceanography, physics, and others, allowing it to give numerous outputs based on different inputs. The variables generated by the model are world output, capital stock, carbon dioxide emissions, the global change in temperature, and climatic damages.

<span style="color: rgb(128, 0, 128); font-size: 130%;">Prediction Nordhaus discusses two different scenarios that the DICE model has been used to predict thus far. The first scenario is referred to as the "baseline case", which is defined as the likely path of the climate and the economy if no changes are made and greenhouse gases continue to be released into the atmosphere without a worry. The results for this scenario are stunning. <span style="font-size: 110%; color: rgb(0, 0, 128);">Table 1: First Scenario These huge increases in greenhouse gases results in a mean global surface temperature rise of 2.4 degrees Celsius between 2005 and 2100, and an estimated 4.6 degree Celsius increase by the year 2200. The climate changes associated with the changes in temperature will cost three percent of the world's total output in 2100, and an astounding eight percent of the world's output by 2200.
 * Year || 2005 || 2100 (estimate) ||
 * Carbon Emissions || 7.4 billion tons || 16 billion tons ||
 * CO 2 Concentration || 380 ppm || 685 ppm ||

The second scenario is the "optimal" economic response, in which policies are passed that require all countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Essentially in this method the marginal cost (economy is hurt in short run) is equal to the marginal benefit (lower future damages from climate change). Additionally, the optimal economic response was split into separate stages. <span style="font-size: 110%; color: rgb(0, 0, 128);">Table 2: Second Scenario There is only a 1.9 degree Celsius temperature increase from the 2005 value by 2100, and a 2.7 degree Celsius increase by 2200. Economically, this plan generates an additional $3 trillion (US 2005), compared with nothing form the baseline case. The DICE model has made a major discovery, making the planet greener can also make your wallet greener! However, the model also reveals that $17 trillion (US 2005) would be lost due to damage caused by climate changes, dwarfing the $3 trillion profit. (1)
 * || Stage 1 || Stage 2 (c.2050) || Stage 3 (c.2100) ||
 * Reduction in Greenhouse Gas Emissions || 15% || 25% || 45% ||

Cap and Trade Congress is currently looking to pass a cap-and-trade law. However, the economic effects of this law are uncertain. While some claim that cutting back on C02 emissions will cut jobs and worsen the recession, others claim that the law will lead to new economic growth.

<span style="color: rgb(128, 0, 128); font-size: 130%;">What is Cap and Trade? "Under a cap-and-trade, the government would auction permits each year to emit carbon dioxide. Industry could then trade those permits among themselves, or pay to invest in cleaner technology. Each year the number of permits auctioned declines, resulting in cleaner air and more expensive permits, giving companies the financial incentive to invest in cleaner technology." media type="youtube" key="2YcU9r1CtNo" height="525" width="660" <span style="color: rgb(128, 0, 128); font-size: 130%;">Supporters Supporters propose that the law will create as many as 2 million jobs, as companies try to quickly adapt by becoming more energy efficient. Many also believe that we need to take measures now, despite the economic problems, if we want to have a chance at preventing climate change. As one supporter claims: "Climate change is real and the effects could be dire if we don't act quickly. The country can't afford to wait."

<span style="color: rgb(128, 0, 128); font-size: 130%;">Opponents The opponents claim the opposite: that the new law will lead to the loss of 2 million jobs, which will increase the economic crisis. Auto, steel, and electronics companies would be greatly impacted, and the taxes on emissions may cause more jobs to shift overseas. Companies that are faced with paying taxes for emissions will pass these costs on to the consumer, creating higher energy costs for everyone. As a result, implementing cap-and-trade at this time would be too costly to our economy.

<span style="color: rgb(128, 0, 128); font-size: 130%;">Effectiveness It is hard to be sure which side is correct as most of the effects are speculative and based on models. The effect of cap-and-trade depends mostly on funding for renewable energy, and how much funding goes into producing new technology. New jobs will be created if the bill causes an increase in green technology. However, jobs could be lost if companies try to avoid changing their technology, and instead decide to pay the taxes and increase electricity prices. So the ultimate economic effects of cap-and-trade will depend on the decisions that are made by companies and the research done on new technology. [|(2)] The government of the United Kingdom has taken the stance that climate change is a reality and passed a bill in late 2008 that established a framework for cutting emissions of carbon dioxide. The plan for doing so utilizes a cap-and-trade system with a cognizance of impending reductions in the availability of carbon units, which shows their confidence in that system. [|(3)]

The Costs <span style="font-size: 130%; color: rgb(128, 0, 128);">The Outright Costs According to a 2005 investigation of the approximate costs of different energy sources in 2013: The high cost of energy from solar sources is due to the fact that photovoltaic panels, the most commonly used harnessing method, are made of silicon and their mass production has not been perfected. Despite the projected cost of solar power, the advances in photovoltaic cells have allowed the cost to be reduced considerably over the last few years. There has also been the development of a system that focuses sunlight using mirrors in order to vaporize a liquid and thereby power a turbine. (4) Currently, researchers are searching for cheaper substitutes for silicon, or ways to make photovoltaic cells more efficient. With these new developments, the cost of solar energy may become competitive with the cost of fossil fuel energy.
 * Energy Source || Cost (¢ per kWh) ||
 * Coal || 5 to 7 ||
 * Natural Gas || 5 to 7 ||
 * Wind || 5 to 7 ||
 * Nuclear || 5 to 7 ||
 * Solar || 22 ||

The main cost of implementing new "green" technologies is the change in infrastructure. However, at this point, many parts of the energy system are ready to be replaced. "You know, as recently as 2002, India, with a billion people, had only 55 million telephones. But rather than insisting on getting the same kind of wired service that developed countries had, they simply leapfrogged straight to cell phones. Now, 350 million Indians have phones, and universal wired service is unnecessary. That’s what needs to happen now in the development of low-carbon energy. Developing countries need to leapfrog the fossil fuel stage as much as possible, while countries that have already built a fossil infrastructure will have to bend all efforts to phasing out that infrastructure." " It costs substantially more right now to build new coal facilities that are capable of capturing and storing CO2 than to build conventional high-carbon plants. But how good will the business judgment of companies or countries who make the high-carbon choice now look 5, 10 or 20 years from now, when it becomes clear that heavily polluting infrastructure is deadly and must be phased out long before the end of its useful life?" [|(5)]

<span style="color: rgb(128, 0, 128); font-size: 130%;">The Hidden Costs On March 24, 1989 the Exxon Valdez was ripped open in Prince William Sound, Alaska, spilling 38,800 metric tons of crude oil. That oil affected nearly one thousand five hundred miles of coastline and destroyed the area's fishing industry. Since then, there have been 439 reported oil spills in the world's oceans, the largest being the ABT Summer in the southern Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Africa, totaling in at 260,000 metric tons. While an estimated forty-six percent of oil entering the ocean comes directly from the Earth, eight percent results from tanker accidents. (6)

It cost Exxon $2.5 billion to clean up the spill; that is, about $1000 per worker per day of cleaning. After the incident, the oil company was forced to pay $1.1 billion in damages to residents of the area, though this quantity is often considered to be insufficient and an additional $5 billion dollar fine for recklessness. Afterward, a considerable number of people reacted by sending their chopped up Exxon cards to the CEO and others declared that they were less likely to purchase products from the company. [|(7)]

The use of fossil fuels manifests in ways other than the humdrum greenhouse gas. Oil spills and acid rain are two of the most blatant effects of the use of oil and coal. They also have some of the most obvious impacts on the environment. Despite this, they are the hidden costs of fuels due to the concentration on greenhouse gases in relation to global warming and climate change. In examining sources of energy, it will be necessary to consider the ramifications of their use. Coal and oil have been used for many years without the consideration of effects that have come to haunt the world. Is it worth the possibility of a meltdown to harness the clean nuclear power? Is it worth the noise to use windmills? The space to use solar energy capturing devices? Climate Change A well documented manifestation of global warming is climate change, or a significant different between what the climate is like now as opposed to how it had been in the past. Recently, Australia has experienced crippling drought. The lack of water has reduced the productivity of food production and increased the intensity of wildfires. (8) The other extreme is present as well. In June 2007, Chongqing, China received nine inches of rain over the period of a day, resulting in rushing, dirty water in the streets, down staircases, and through buildings. It is conjectured that a severe drought caused the fall of Akkad, the world's first empire. The stress of drought is apparent today in Sudan, where genocide has proved to be "a tragic example of the social breakdown that can result from ecological collapse," according to the UN. (9) At the same time, climate change is ravishing the animal world. Amphibians in particular have been affected. Knowledge of the world's oceans and rainforests is limited, though it is thought that these places could hold a cure for cancer or other fatal diseases, let alone the benefits that shortsightedness has failed to recognize. In instigating climate change it is possible that the world's biodiversity will be lost along with a potential for a miracle drug.

Conclusion media type="youtube" key="NwP2KUqtcYY" height="525" width="660" " Imagine you are living in the year 2108, and you are keenly aware that the political dislocations all around you were preventable catastrophes. Decades of turmoil caused by vast migrations of people who could not find enough food or clean drinking water; the crop-destroying volatility in the weather; the drying up of capital as investors withdraw whatever they can from unruly markets; the scourges of insects and disease set loose by the poleward advancement of the tropics--all of these are the legacy of your forebears who should have known better. Wouldn't you look back and shake your head at the feeble attempts at mitigation by the present age, the endless dithering over the reality of climate change, the head-in-the-sand policies that assumed addressing the problem could be put off for another day and that the future would be clever enough and rich enough to take care of itself?" (10)

<span style="color: rgb(128, 0, 128); font-size: 130%;">Individual Decisions Preventing climate change largely depends on the opinions and actions of individuals. If more people decide to take action, then more will be done on a global scale. So what can we do to prevent climate change without spending money? While these actions may seem small, they are a step in the right direction. There is power in numbers, so if more people decide to make earth-friendly decisions, we can prevent climate change without having economic consequences.
 * Drive less, and take advantage of public transportation.
 * Buy reusable bags and water bottles
 * Make sure that your light bulbs and appliances are energy efficient
 * Shut off appliances when they are not in use in order to conserve energy
 * Buy from companies that use renewable energy, in order to show your support for their decision to be green

Works Cited (1) Nordhaus, W. (2008). Summary for the Concerned Citizen. A Question of Balance. (pp. 1-29). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. (2) Hargreaves, S. (2009, March 16) Global Warming vs. Employment. Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/13/news/economy/cap_and_trade_jobs/index.htm (3) Office of Public Sector Information. (2008). Climate Change Act 2008 (c. 27). London, England. Retrieved from http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080027_en_1 (4) Solutions for a Better World. National Geographic, April 2009, supplement. (Please note that this supplement appears to have been funded almost entirely by advertisements from Frito-Lay.) (5) Stern, T. (2009, March 3) Keynote Remarks at U.S. Climate Action Symposium. Retrieved from http://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/remarks/2009/119983.htm (6) Gwin, P. Crude Currents. National Geographic, April 2009. (7) Hogue, J. (2001, April 19) The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Avoiding Disaster: The Importance of Having a Crisis Plan. Retrieved from http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/spring01/Hogue/exxon.html (8) Draper, R. Australia's Dry Run. //National Geographic//, April 2009. (9) Kolbert, E. Outlook: Extreme. //National Geographic//, April 2009. (10) Editors. (2008, June). Climate Fatigue. Scientific American, 39.

<span style="color: rgb(128, 0, 128); font-size: 130%;">Image Sources Temperature Change. Retrieved from http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/research/climate/highlights/images/GFDL_CM2p1_GlobalSfcTemp_ANN_A1B_kd_1920x1163.png. Windmill. Retrieved from http://image52.webshots.com/152/1/49/50/502114950EbuGAi_fs.jpg. Nuclear Plant. Retrieved from http://ekstranghero.i.ph/photo/d/292-1/nuclear-power-tower1.jpg. Solar Panels. Retrieved from http://www.jewishjournal.com/images/bloggers_auto/solar-panels.jpg. Smoke Stack. Retrieved from http://ucberkeley.citris-uc.org/system/files/imce-u10/smoke-stack.jpg. Precipitation Change. Retrieved from http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/research/climate/highlights/images/glob_precipch_whbk_1920x1080.png.