Non-traditional aspects of global warming
Contenido
Retos ambientales tradicionales implican generalmente el comportamiento de un pequeño grupo de industrias que crean productos o servicios para un conjunto limitado de consumidores de manera que hace de alguna forma un claro daño al medio ambiente. A modo de ejemplo, una mina de oro podría lanzar un subproducto químico peligroso en un curso de agua que mata a los peces en el canal: un claro daño ambiental.[15] Por el contrario, el dióxido de carbono es un gas incoloro e inodoro de origen natural que es esencial para la biosfera. El dióxido de carbono es producido por todos los animales y utilizada por las plantas y las algas para construir sus estructuras corporales. Las estructuras de las plantas enterradas por decenas de millones de años secuestraron carbono para formar el carbón, el petróleo y el gas que las sociedades industriales modernas encuentran esencial para la vitalidad económica. Más del 80 % de la energía del mundo se deriva del dióxido de carbono que emiten los combustibles fósiles y más del 91 % de la energía del mundo se deriva de fuentes energéticas libres de carbono. Los científicos atribuyen el incremento de dióxido de carbono en la atmósfera a las emisiones industriales y han vinculado el dióxido de carbono al calentamiento global. Sin embargo, el consenso científico es difícil de ver y comprender fácilmente para el individuo promedio. Esta naturaleza esencial de las economías del mundo, combinada con la complejidad de la ciencia y los intereses de las innumerables partes interesadas hacen del cambio climático un desafío medioambiental no tradicional.
En resumen, los principales aspectos no tradicionales del desafío medioambiental son:.
Las áreas de enfoque para la política del calentamiento global son de adaptación, mitigación, finanzas, tecnología y pérdidas que están bien cuantificadas y estudiadas pero la urgencia del desafío del calentamiento global combinada con la implicación de que casi todas las facetas de los intereses económicos de un Estado-nación, coloca cargas para las instituciones globales, en gran parte voluntarias establecidas que se han desarrollado en el último siglo; instituciones que no han sido capaces de reformar efectivamente a sí mismos y moverse lo suficientemente rápido como para hacer frente a este desafío único. Los países de rápido desarrollo, que ven las fuentes de energía tradicionales como un medio para impulsar su desarrollo, grupos de presión ambiental agresivos bien financiados y un paradigma de energía de combustibles fósiles establecido que cuenta con una infraestructura de presión política madura y sofisticada que al combinarse hacen extremadamente polarizada la política del calentamiento global. La desconfianza entre los países desarrollados y en desarrollo en la mayoría de las conferencias internacionales que tratan de abordar el tema de añadir a los desafíos. Además de añadir complejidad es el advenimiento de la Internet y el desarrollo de tecnologías de comunicación como blogs y otros mecanismos de difusión de la información que permiten el crecimiento exponencial de la producción y la difusión de puntos de vista en competencia que hacen que sea casi imposible el desarrollo y la difusión de una visión objetiva hacia la enormidad de la materia temática y su política.
Carbon dioxide and national and global economy
The vast majority of developed countries rely on energy sources that emit carbon dioxide for large components of their economic activity.[18] Fossil fuel energy generally dominates the following areas of the OECD economy:
Furthermore, the carbon dioxide emitted by fossil fuels often dominates the useful aspect of an economy, providing electricity for:.
In addition, deforestation, cement and brick production, livestock farming, refrigeration and other industrial activities contribute by emitting greenhouse gases that together are believed to account for a third of global warming.
Because the carbon dioxide emitted by fossil fuels is intrinsically connected to the economy of a developed nation-state, fuel taxation or policies that decrease the availability of profitable fossil fuels is an important policy issue for fear that such taxes could precipitate a decline in economic vitality. The replacement of profitable fossil fuels with more expensive renewable energy sources is seen by many as a hidden tax that achieves the same result of depressing economic vitality and leading to impoverishment. Beyond the economic vitality of a single nation, some are concerned that taxation could slow economic activity in ways that could affect the geopolitical order, providing incentives for one set of countries to overrule another.
In developing countries the challenges are slightly different. Developing countries see the carbon dioxide emitted by fossil fuels as a proven, cost-effective source of energy to fuel their growing economies. Sometimes renewable energy technologies are not readily available to developing countries due to cost or due to export restrictions by developed countries that own those technologies.
Perceived lack of adequate advanced energy technologies
The carbon dioxide emitted by fossil fuels remains abundant and its prices are correspondingly low, accounting for more than 80% of the world's energy needs in 2010.[17] Advanced recovery technologies, such as horizontal drilling, offshore oil production, and sand oil recovery technologies continue to push back the threshold of peak oil and with it the high prices considered necessary to encourage the development of viable alternative energy technologies that can replace fossil fuels in a post-hydrocarbon economy. Renewable energy in 2010 represented 16.7% of the world's energy, however biomass energy represented 11.4%, meaning that the various renewable energies that produce carbon dioxide represented only 4.9% of the world's energy consumption, with the vast majority of renewable energy coming from hydroelectric production with a further 3.34% leaving 1.56% of renewable energy derived from the most recent advanced technologies, such as ethanol, biodiesel, wind energy, solar energy, ocean energy and geothermal.
Biomass is a carbon-neutral proposal put forward in the early 1990s that has been superseded by more recent science that recognizes mature, intact forests sequestering carbon more effectively than clear-cut areas. When carbon from a tree is released into the atmosphere in a single pulse, it contributes to climate change much more than the slow decomposition of forest wood over decades.[17] Current studies indicate that "even after 50 years, the forest has not recovered from its initial carbon storage" and "the optimal strategy is likely to be protection of standing forests."[19]
After adjustment, carbon-neutral renewables account for 4.9% of the world's energy needs in 2010 with solar accounting for 0.23% and wind for 0.51% of total global energy needs.[20] Recent optimistic projections from the EIA and IEA show that renewables will account for one-sixth of global energy production in the coming decades (including biomass energy), substantially below what is needed to significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Without help, developing countries generally do not have access to the advanced energy technologies such as wind and solar that they need for development, forcing them to turn to hydrocarbon energy sources such as fossil fuels and biomass. Without adequate and cost-effective post-hydrocarbon energy sources, countries in the developed or developing world are highly unlikely to accept policies that could materially affect their economic vitality or prospects for economic development. To date, developing countries have resisted adopting verifiable carbon dioxide targets for fear of the impacts on their economies, and the United States, Russia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Belarus and Ukraine have either not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, have withdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol, or have chosen not to accept a second commitment period, leaving aside the expansion of the Kyoto Protocol that covers only 15% of global carbon dioxide emissions. A strong contributor to these decisions is that existing technologies are not yet sufficient to replace the role of fossil hydrocarbon fuels.
Industrialization of developing countries
The developing world considers economic and industrial development as a natural right and evidence shows that the developing world is industrializing. The developing world is taking advantage of the use of carbon dioxide emitted by fossil fuels as one of the primary sources of energy to fuel its development. At the same time, the scientific consensus on climate change and existing global governing bodies such as the United Nations are urging all countries to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. Developing countries logically resist this pressure to reduce the use of fossil fuels without significant concessions such as:
Metric selection and perceived responsibility/responsiveness
There are significant disagreements over who uses metrics to track global warming, and there are also disagreements over which countries should be subject to emissions restrictions.
While the biosphere is indifferent to greenhouse gases that are produced by one country or by a multitude, the countries of the world do not express interest in such matters. As disagreements arise over whether emissions should be used or whether total emissions should be used as a metric for each country. Countries also disagree over whether a developing country should share the same commitment as a developed country that has been emitting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases for nearly a century.
Some developing countries expressly state that they need assistance so that they can develop, as they see it as a right, so that they do not contribute carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Many times, these needs materialize as deep differences in countries' world conferences on the subject, and debates quickly turn into pecuniary matters.
Most developing countries are unwilling to accept limits on their emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, while most developed countries put very modest limits on their willingness to help developing countries. Furthermore, most developed countries prefer not to participate in greenhouse gas reduction treaties if it would lead to a decrease in economic activity, wealth transfers from developing countries, or significant changes in the world's geopolitical balance of power.
Vulnerable developing countries and legacy emissions from developed countries
Some developing countries fall into the category of vulnerable to climate change. These countries include small, sometimes isolated, island nations, low-lying nations, nations that rely on drinking water from shrinking glaciers, etc. These vulnerable countries are disproportionately affected by climate change and some have organized under groups such as the Climate Vulnerable Forum. Because they mostly lack the resources to respond to the disasters that scientists have predicted will occur with greater severity and frequency as a consequence of global warming, these countries demand that rich countries absorb the cost of disasters that are aggravated by this phenomenon.[23].
Among the developing countries predicted to be affected are:.
Global governance models based on consensus
Government policy in relation to climate change and many official reports on the subject usually revolve around addressing one of the following issue areas:
The primary mechanism for the world to address global warming is through a process established in a treaty by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The current state of global warming policy is that there is frustration over a perceived lack of progress in the overall process of establishing that the UNFCCC has progressed in over eighteen years, but has been unable to curb global greenhouse gas emissions. Todd Stern (the US climate change envoy) has expressed the challenges with the UNFCCC process as follows: "Climate change is not a conventional environmental problem... It involves virtually every aspect of a state's economy, making countries nervous about their growth and development. “Each part is an economic issue, as it is environmental.” He then went on to explain that, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is a multilateral body that deals with climate change and can be an inefficient system for enacting international policy. Because the framework system includes more than 190 countries and because negotiations are governed by consensus, small groups of countries can often block progress.[16].
The conference of eighteen parties to the United Nations Climate Change Conference held in Doha, Qatar, gave less weight to modest results. At the Doha negotiations on climate change in 2012, the parties to the Kyoto Protocol on climate change agreed to the protocol until 2020. of Kyoto in 2011, and the United States, which never ratified the Kyoto Protocol, have joined New Zealand, Japan, Russia, Belarus and Ukraine in declaring that they would not sign until a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol or make an extension of it, due to the lack of commitments from developing countries that today include the largest carbon dioxide emitters in the world. Japan and New Zealand also added that their country's CO2 emissions are lower compared to the emissions of China, the United States and the European Union.[30] These defections put significant pressures on the UNFCCC process, which to date has not been able to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, whose latest extension of the Kyoto Protocol only accounts for 15% of greenhouse gas emissions,[26][27] and whose process is seen by some as slow, cumbersome, expensive and an inefficient use of taxpayers' money: in the UK alone the climate change department has had more than 3,000 flights over the course of two years, at a cost to the taxpayer of more than £1,500,000.[29][31] The outcome of the Doha talks has received a mixed response,[26][27][28] with small island states critical of the global package.[27] Other outcomes of the conference include a timetable for a global agreement to be adopted in 2015, which includes all countries.[32]
Well-funded and well-organized special interest lobbying organizations
There are numerous special interest groups, organizations, corporations that hold public and private positions on the multifaceted issue of global warming. The following is a partial list of the types of special interest parties that have demonstrated an interest in global warming policy:
Various stakeholders sometimes align with each other to reinforce their message. Sometimes industries fund specialized non-profit organizations to raise awareness and lobby for their petition.[44][45] The combinations and tactics that various stakeholders use are nuanced and sometimes the variety of their approaches is limitless in promoting their positions to the general public.
Politicization of climate science
In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is mainly caused by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.[46][47][48] Regarding the global warming controversy, the scientific current does not question the existence of global warming or its causes and effects.
The politicization of science in the sense of manipulation of science for political purposes is a part of the political process. It is part of the controversies about intelligent design (compare the wedge strategy) or doubtful traders,[49][50] scientists who are largely suspected of obscure findings. For example, on issues such as tobacco smoke, ozone depletion, global warming or acid rain.[51][52] However, for example, in the case of ozone reduction, global regulation based on the Montreal Protocol has been successful, in a climate of great uncertainty and with strong resistance,[53] while in the case of climate change, the Kyoto Protocol failed.[54].
While the IPCC process seeks to find and organize the results of global change (climate) research to shape a global consensus on the matter,[55] it has been heavily politicized.[56] Anthropogenic climate change evolved from a mere question of science to a major global policy issue.[56].
The IPCC process is currently facing a unison paradox[56] where a broad scientific consensus was built does not prevent governments from continuing to differ, if it does not oppose the goals.[57] In the case of the challenge, in ozone depletion, there was no global regulation since it was installed before the creation of a scientific consensus.[53].
A linear model of policy formulation, based on greater knowledge than we have, will be the best policy response, therefore it is not applied.[56] Knowledge policy successfully manages knowledge and uncertainties because, as the basis of political decision making, it requires a better understanding of the relationship between science, public (lack of) understanding and policy in its place.[54][57][58] Michael Oppenheimer confirms limitations in the consensus approach. IPCC and concurrently calls for smaller assessments of special problems rather than large-scale attempts as in previous IPCC assessment reports.[59] Oppenheimer states that governments require a broader exploration of uncertainties in the future.[59]