|
|
|
|
  |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
Monitoring The UN > The UN and Sustainable Development Protecting the Atmosphere The Challenge limate is the result of a series of complex interactions between the atmosphere, the ocean and land. The earth’s atmosphere is largely transparent to short-wave energy from the sun. Some of this energy is reflected back into space, but some is absorbed by the earth’s surface and clouds and reradiated as heat. Several gases absorb this heat and, in turn, warm the atmosphere. This warming or "greenhouse effect" is essential for life on earth. Without it, the earth’s surface would be about 35 degrees cooler and life as we know it would be impossible.1 But in recent years, there is considerable evidence that the earth has begun to warm more quickly than ever before. Several of the "greenhouse gases" that contribute most to the heat-trapping ability of the atmosphere have been increasing rapidly as a result of human activities. A swift increase in average temperatures could result in major disruptions of weather patterns and living conditions around the world. The major greenhouse gases are water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane and several others, including chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) -- the gases released during the production of foam and the use of refrigerants. CFCs are doubly dangerous since they are also consuming the protective stratospheric ozone layer, which prevents harmful ultraviolet rays from reaching the earth’s surface. The consequences of the thinning of the ozone layer are life-threatening on a global scale. They include greater incidence of skin cancer, suppression of the body’s immune systems, reduced crop yields, and increased threats to marine life because of the sensitivity of phytoplankton to ultraviolet rays. About half of the human-induced increase in greenhouse gases comes from carbon dioxide (CO2), largely from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) and the large-scale clearing of forests. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere remained around 275 parts per million (ppm) for thousands of years until about the mid-century. Since then, it has increased to 350 ppm and is presently increasing at 2.5 ppm per year.2 According to present estimates, a continuing swift rise in CO2 concentrations should lead to increases in average temperatures of 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade -- greater increases than the world had known in the past 10,000 years of human history. The consequences would be immense. They would include a substantial rise in sea level which would be catastrophic for low-lying areas, especially if coupled with greater probability of storm surges. Caribbean islands depend heavily on their beaches for employment and foreign exchange. Yet their beaches average only one meter for every centimeter rise in sea levels. Other countries could lose coastal areas containing much of their population and economic wealth. Some islands would be threatened by extinction.3 Global warming would also increase the likelihood of droughts and, therefore, of desertification in agricultural areas the world over. On the other hand, it could encourage agriculture to migrate closer to the poles as summer growing seasons lengthened. Another threat to the earth’s atmosphere is air pollution which knows no national boundaries or regional constraints. Air pollutants are killing trees and lakes and damaging buildings and cultural treasures, sometimes thousands of miles from their source. Acid rain has been a point of controversy between Canada and the United States for several years. It is also a serious problem in Europe, causing particular devastation to forests. Fifty million hectares or 35% of Europe’s forests are estimated to be damaged, dead or dying.4 Global warming, ozone depletion and air pollution all arise from the same causes: the growth of human population and wealth. They are rooted in industrialization, technological change, energy dependence, striving for economic growth, and a multitude of other ways in which humans try to improve their quality of life. Progress on Ozone "The ozone hole is the smoking gun," which provides "real proof that humans threaten life on earth," remarks Michael Oppenheimer, a senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund in the United States.5 Because of the potentially disastrous consequences of ozone depletion, there has been a relatively swift policy response to man-made chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other substances (e.g., fire-extinguishing chemicals called halons) that are major contributors to depletion of the ozone layer. Yet even the progress on ozone depletion has taken well over a decade to achieve. In part because of the limitations of the scientific data, it was 1985 before the first convention to deal with ozone depletion was achieved. Since then, increasing concerns about the rapidity of ozone depletion led in 1987 to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, which called for 50% reductions in CFC emissions by the year 2000. It came into effect on January 1, 1989, but the ink was barely dry before nations began meeting again in order to try to strengthen its provisions. The result was a still more drastic accord that 93 nations signed in London in June 1990. They committed to phasing out completely the production and use of CFCs by the year 2000, although developing countries are given a 10-year grace period, obliging them to halt production before the year 2010. In addition, the new agreement called for a ban on halons by 2000, while two other chlorine-based chemicals are to be sharply restricted.6 Most significant of all, a new international body was created to administer a fund that will be used to help poor countries make the transition to technologies free of CFCs. The new fund -- of up to U.S.$240 million for the first three years -- is being financed by industrialized countries; its establishment brought major developing countries like China and India -- which had not agreed to sign the Montreal Protocol -- into accepting the provisions of the revised protocol and recommending its ratification by their respective governments. The results of the London Conference will have a major influence on other negotiations on atmospheric protection -- and there are plenty of them. Many hope that the experience with ozone depletion may serve as a model for other negotiations on climate change. The key question is whether the richer countries are willing to assist developing countries with financing and technology transfer at less than commercial cost in order to ensure strong programmes of prevention. Ozone Depletion Issues Among the key outstanding issues which UNCED will be expected to address are the following: finding ways and means of monitoring compliance with existing international conventions and agreements finding ways of ensuring technology transfer to assist developing countries to meet global standards for ozone depletion, including intellectual property rights and ways of involving industry. Meeting the Challenge The challenges of global warming, ozone depletion and transboundary air pollution reflect, in essence, a conflict between two vast and complex systems: the planet’s ecological system and the human socio-economic system. The momentum of these systems already guarantees some change, although how much remains uncertain. But delays will almost certainly ensure that the effects are greater and last longer. Our knowledge of the main global weather processes is considerable. It has permitted the constructions of "general circulation models", using supercomputers, which give indications of the global climate to be expected if greenhouse gases double during the next half century. However, these models remain at an early stage of development and complexity of the weather system is such that some effects are more dependable than others. For example: "forecasts in changes in sea level are probably more reliable than those of the climate of land areas; estimates of air temperature are more reliable than estimates of precipitation; and forecasts of latitudinal (North-South) changes are more reliable than attempts to predict the changes from East to West across a continent."7 These variations do not diminish the significance of the circulation models, but they do highlight the difficulties of basing policy on predictions of climate that remain speculative. The only justification for doing so is the enormity of the problems we face. Fundamentally, climate change is being caused by the developed countries and the solution must come from them. One expert has argued, "the prudent course is to take some action early in the hope of cutting off the worst possible outcomes. The imprudent course is to do nothing, awaiting a more complete confirmation of the models."8 Another complication is the profound difference between developing and industrialized countries in both causes and consequences. Today, the developing world accounts for about one-third of all greenhouse gas emissions but, as population and economic development both increase, its contribution will swell. Yet reducing greenhouse gases is not a priority among many developing countries. Some countries see themselves as winners from warming, benefiting from longer, more productive growing conditions. Even if developing countries do accept the gravity of the challenge, they will need substantial monies, skilled labour and advanced technology in order to meet their targets.9 Their involvement is crucial. Any reductions in fossil fuel emissions by industrialized countries could soon be wiped out by increases in only a handful of developing countries. China alone, with one of the largest reserves of coal in the world, plans 200 new coal-fired stations in the future. "The problem is not that (developing countries) can prevent an agreement being reached, but that they can refuse to sign, ratify or implement an agreement unless and until their economic and other concerns have been addressed."10 What Will the Brazil Conference Do? The leaders of the Group of Seven leading industrial countries, at the Paris Summit of July 1989, declared in their final communiqué that "the conclusion of a framework or umbrella convention on climate change to set out general principles or guidelines is urgently required." Anticipating their concerns, two UN agencies (the World Meteorological Organization and the UN Environment Programme) set up in 1988 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) with a mandate to provide a firmer assessment of the scientific basis for climate change. The IPCC established three sub-groups, each of which prepared reports for the second World Climate Conference in Geneva in the fall of 1990. Among their findings was that emissions of greenhouse gases, if left uncontrolled, would result in global mean temperature increases of up to three degrees Celsius and sea level rises of up to three quarters of a metre by the end of the next century. Negotiations to discuss an international convention on climate change opened in Washington, D.C. in February 1991 under the auspices of the UN General Assembly. The theory is that a framework convention would contain appropriate commitments for action to combat climate change and its adverse effects and would consider the particular needs and development priorities of developing countries to assist them in grappling with the threats of climate change an participating in the solutions. This would be followed as soon as possible by protocols that could include more obligations (i.e., targets and timetables). Climate Change Issues
Transboundary Air Pollution Issues The major issues include:
The Challenge Remains Meeting the challenge of global warming will not be easy. The uncertainties of predictions make consensus difficult to reach. Indeed, reaching any kind of agreement will depend on the answers to two big questions: 1) When it comes to emission reductions, who should be how virtuous? and 2) How are developing countries who sign going to be compensated? In the first instance, energy-efficient countries like Japan will be reluctant to make the same percentage cuts as inefficient ones like Canada. Britain has announced a later date for stabilizing its emissions (2005) than its partners in the European Community (2000). Nor can Third World countries all be treated alike. Some, such as Brazil with its burning forests, send up a huge amount of greenhouse gases; others hardly any. Even agreeing on the figures of who emits how much will be difficult because of the complexity of the calculations. Yet the reality is that the major commitment must come from developed countries whose inordinate use of fossil fuels is the principal cause of the crisis. Their commitment to reducing their emissions is the single most important step. The second question is also hard to answer. Although the revised Montreal Protocol (the London agreement) provides for compensation to developing countries, the Americans, who previously had been the most adamantly opposed to this approach, firmly stated that in accepting it, they did not regard it as a precedent. Yet the fact remains that by striking a bargain in the ozone negotiations, a deal was reached which included both India and China whose involvement is vital and who up until then had been hold-outs. Moreover, in Eastern Europe payments by the victims of air pollution will soon be common. Already, Sweden helps Poland with technology to prevent acid rain, while other Western European governments are considering similar arrangements. "They reckon that a dollar spent in Eastern Europe buys far more improvement in air quality than spent at home."11 However, clearly if deals are to be struck, the bargaining is going to be very tough. In the face of these challenges, one knowledgeable observer has offered the following warning. "Unless overwhelmed by a strong and enduring public consensus or by political leadership not yet in evidence, the political processes within and among nations are not likely to bring forth substantial policy action until the uncertainties surrounding climate change are greatly reduced, and probably not until evidence of warming is palpable. This conclusion holds, even though the earth’s climate may sustain irreversible changes if some of the forecasts are correct." Against that rather grim prediction, the only remedy is one offered by the Canadian journalist and filmmaker Boyce Richardson in a recent book with the suggestive title, Time to Change. He suggested that the essential ingredient of hope for the global future was "an informed and active citizenry hounding its governments to do what has to be done." |
