View
106
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
http://www.peopo.org/news/108765 Crises and Opportunities in Environmental Study環境的危機與轉機國際研討會
Citation preview
Who is Responsible for Climate Change?Who is Responsible for Climate Change?Naomi Oreskes, University of California, San DiegoNaomi Oreskes, University of California, San Diego
University system of Taiwan International Workshop “Crises and Opportunities in Environmental Study” February 2013
Focuses on who is responsible for preventing action on climate change in the USA
But who is responsible for climate change?
Can we use the concept of responsibility to help move forward action?
1992: United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change
Commits signatories to prevent “dangerous anthropogenic
interference”… in climate system
http://unfccc.int/key_documents/the_convention/items/2853.php
http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1353.php
Currently 195 signatories.
Including USA, Russian Federation, EU, Saudi Arabia (but not Taiwan)
UNFCCC invokes a science-driven framework
Article 2 commits signatories to
http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1353.php
“…stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a
level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the
climate system.…
http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1353.php
“…dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.…
Defined as interference that threatens:
BiodiversityFood production
Sustainable economic development
http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1353.php
.
ARTICLE 2:OBJECTIVE
The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.
A science drive-framework
Presumption was that scientists would determine that level and the world would
act accordingly.
For most of past 50 years, climate change has been framed and interpreted primarily
as a scientific problem:
Is climate change happening?
Is it caused by human activities?
What will the effects be in the future?
What, if any thing, can be done (technically) to stop or slow DAI?
http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1353.php
Scientists have largely answered the scientific questions.
Is climate change happening?
Yes: about 1 C warming over past century
Is it caused by human activities?
Isotope data show the CO2 comes from organic sources—i.e., wood, fossil fuels—
and not volcanoes…
What will the effects be in the future?
Future is less certain than the past, but broad agreement that unmitigated
warming will lead to significant disruptions:
Sea level rise and associated storm surge, coastal erosion
Extreme weather events (tropical storm intensification)
Droughts, wild fires, heat waves crop failures
Loss of biodiversity (esp. in Arctic regions, high elevations)
Loss of Arctic sea ice cultural losses, ocean circulation
What, if any thing, can be done to stop or slow DAI?
Greatly reduce, ultimately eliminate, the greenhouse gas emissions that are the
primary drivers of DAI
Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC:
Specific targets for GHG reductions among Annex I nations.
Targets ranged from -20% (Germany) to +25 (Greece) compared to 1990 baseline
Reducing GHG emissions is not primarily a scientific problem.
It is a political problem agreement(treaties, conventions, protocols, trade
It is a technological problem Conversion of energy system
It is a social problem:Political and cultural support for (1) and
(2)
So responsibility shifts, from scientists, who have identified, articulated, and explained
the problem to…?
Whom?
Who is Responsible for Climate Change?
1) Governments?
2) Those who have delayed action?
3) Producers of fossil fuels?
4) Business community (to develop alternatives)?
5) All of us? (but some more than others?)
1) Governments?
UNFCCC focuses on nation-states“State-actors.”
Not surprisingly, because nation-state governments negotiated it.
“Common but differentiated responsibility”
All countries share responsibility, but the degree of responsibility varies according to
how much those countries have contributed to the problem.
“Common but differentiated responsibility”
Annex I Nations
Industrialized and “EIT”—economies in transition—wealthy countries that largely became wealthy
by tapping energy in fossil fuels.
Large historic (cumulative) emissions
Therefore the countries most responsible for the GHG in atmosphere that are driving DAI
In 1992: Big three: U.K., USA, and Germany (and then the rest of Europe):
Wealthy, highly industrialized, industrialized first. Rest of world played almost no role till past 30 years
Annex I Nations:
Cumulative Per Capita Emissions: Same Result, + Canada, Russia, and Japan
USA refused to sign onto Kyoto ProtocolCanada withdrew in 2011
USA emissions overall since 1990up 10%
Canada: up 30%(v. promise of -6%)
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions usinventoryreport.html
In Contrast, UK: 18% cut
Germany: 26%
EU on track to cut 20% by 2020
USA and Canada are most responsible for continued increase in GHG emissions among
Annex I countries.
It is clearly possible for wealthy countries to cut their emissions, without serious economic harm.
Economic and energy policies affect total GHG emissions.
What about (mainland) China?
USA: President George W. Bush said he was unwilling to support any international agreement
that did not include India and China
How much has China contributed to climate change?
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1800-2010 355.04 26.6% 96,895,773 43,373,862 36,001,807 16,587,634 657,416 275,065 4.90 1,335,852 USSR + RUSSIAN FEDERATION 1830-2010 144.44 10.8% 39,420,652 17,453,716 12,072,592 9,059,188 615,232 219,929 3.43 83,957
CHINA 1901-2010 116.50 8.7% 31,793,584 24,506,552 4,795,942 449,678 2,495,532 8,355 1.43 43,692 GERMANY + EAST + WEST 1792-2010 83.94 6.3% 22,907,756 16,462,869 4,652,392 1,462,399 316,726 13,370 2.61 271,935 UNITED KINGDOM 1751-2010 74.36 5.6% 20,295,047 15,260,754 3,403,913 1,447,366 130,394 52,623 2.32 366,089 JAPAN + JAPAN 1868-2010 53.55 4.0% 14,613,648 5,199,679 7,820,925 1,092,940 499,742 364 2.59 453,838 INDIA 1858-2010 37.60 2.8% 10,262,521 7,331,234 2,206,318 286,386
398,045 40,550 0.40 50,998 FRANCE1802-2010 34.72 2.6% 9,474,341 5,007,702 3,532,330 733,905
187,244 13,162 1.66 198,683 CANADA 1785-2010 27.08 2.0% 7,390,738 2,404,062 3,222,766 1,623,291 79,395 61,216 4.46 101,526 POLAND 1800-2010 24.32 1.8% 6,637,012 5,702,594 591,165 238,292 104,802 154 2.26 15,047
Cumulative Emissions by Nation:
Dramatic increase in Chinese emissions in last three decades: Now about 9-10%
(surpassing UK and Germany)
Per capita cumulative emissions, picture is different
The average Chinese citizen has contributed only about 1/10th the average U.S. citizen , still well behind UK, Germany, Russia, Canada and Japan
If we just look at present (2009):
World average: 4.5 metric tons per capita:
USA 17.3France: 5.6China: 5.7
Taiwan: 3.0 (2008)(up from 1.7 in 1989)
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC/countries?display=graph
China is catching up with Europe in per capita GHG production, and with USA in total annual emissions, but still lags far behind USA both in
cumulative and per capita emissions.
One more consideration:
How much of China’s GHG production is in manufacture of goods for export markets,
mostly in USA and Europe?
1) Governments?
2) Those who have delayed action?
3) Producers of fossil fuels?
4) Business community (to develop alternatives)?
5) All of us? (but some more than others?)
What about those who have contributed to the delay in action
in the United States?
Yale/ Gallup Poll, Summer of 2007: 40% think scientists are still arguing
facts of climate change.
Studies consistently show that if people think scientists are
uncertain about reality of
climate change, they
will be uncertain as
well.
“Uncertainty”—the idea that we don’t really know”—was the primary message promoted by the “Merchants of Doubt.”
30-40% of Americans still think that observed changes in climate can be
mostly or entirely explained by natural variability
http://environment.yale.edu/news/Research/5310/american-opinions-on-global-warming-summary/
These Americans
include John McCain’s
running mate
Palin Not Convinced on Global Warming Washington Post,
8/31/08“…Sarah Palin told voters she wasn’t sure
climate change wasn’t simply part of a natural warming cycle… Her spokesman clarified: “She’s not totally convinced one way or the other. Science will tell us… She thinks the jury’s still out.”
Merchants of Doubt focused on one particular think tank:
Today: large network of think-tanks and organizations who perpetuate doubt about climate science
Alexis De Tocqueville InstituteCato Institute
American Enterprise InstituteCompetitive Enterprise Institute
Heartland InstituteActon Institute Hudson Institute
Heritage FoundationAtlas Economic FoundationAmericans for Prosperity
Frontiers of FreedomCommittee for a Constructive Tomorrow
Institute for Public Affairs (Australia)Let Freedom Ring
Who funds these groups?
Regulated Industries
Petroleum Industry (Global Climate Coalition)
Tobacco Industry
Mining Industry (US and Australian Coal Companies)
Chemical Industry
Pharmaceutical Industry
Cell Phone Industry
Tobacco industry was prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice for its role in
spreading disinformation about the harms of tobacco.
Could fossil fuel industry be prosecuted for its role in spreading disinformation about the harms of anthropogenic climate change?
Tobacco industry was prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice for its role in
spreading disinformation about the harms of tobacco.
Could the fossil fuel industry be prosecuted for its role in spreading
disinformation about the harms of climate change?
1) Governments?
2) Those who have delayed action?
3) Producers of fossil fuels?
4) Business community (to develop alternatives)?
5) All of us? (but some more than others?)
3) Producers of fossil fuels?
Disinformation in USA partly funded and promoted by “Global Climate Coalition”
Global Climate Coalition
Members included major petroleum producers
Exxon –MobilBritish Petroleum
Shell OilChevron (formerly Standard Oil of California)
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
Global Climate Coalition
Also manufacturers of products that rely on fossils fuels:
Ford Motor CompanyGeneral Motors Company
Daimler/ ChryslerThe American Highway Users Alliance (founded by GM)
The Aluminum Association
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
Global Climate Coalition
What is their responsibility?
Should shareholders object to this (mis)-use of corporate funds?
Should investors divest?
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
1) Governments?
2) Those who have delayed action?
3) Producers of fossil fuels?
4) Business community (to develop alternatives)?
5) All of us? (but some more than others?)
6) Governments other than nation-states (i.e. US state governments, provinces, cities)
“This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through…a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.”
--Lyndon JohnsonSpecial Message to Congress, 1965