Image: Seth Resnick Getty Images
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Bad news on climate diplomacy continues to pile up. A spate of studies has shown over the past year that even if countries honored the pledges they made in the Copenhagen Accord in December 2009, warming would still blow past the agreed limit of two degrees. Most other elements of the accord, which was designed to keep momentum until a formal climate treaty could be reached, are under shadow as well. Plans by rich nations to add $100 billion of new money in the next decade to help developing countries cut emissions are evaporating. And diplomatic talks on a formal treaty are moving backward.
Why is diplomacy stalled? The conventional wisdom holds that developing countries are the main villains. Few will agree to sign binding and verifiable commitments to control emissions. The reality, however, is different. China, India, Brazil and other developing countries are actually the leaders in the effort to curb emissions. But most of what they are doing is not visible, because it is rooted in local concerns, such as urban air pollution, rather than fear of global warming.
China, the world’s biggest emitter, is making the world’s biggest effort to check growth in its pollution. Last year marks the end of a five-year massive program to boost the country’s energy efficiency, and plans are in place for another major push over the next five years. China is building more nuclear plants (zero-emissions) and ultrasupercritical coal plants, which are much more efficient than conventional plants and thus less polluting, than the rest of the world combined. China is much more in the news for its big push on renewable power, but its investment in advanced coal and nuclear power will have a much bigger impact on warming emissions. Across the Chinese economy, efficiency has become a watchword. It even factors into how the Chinese Communist Party promotes its officials.
India is in the midst of a similar push. Most new coal-fired power plants are more efficient than the older technologies that used to be standard equipment. A program to build commercial nuclear power is gathering steam, thanks in part to a deal brokered by the U.S. to give India access to Western technology and fuel. India, China and many other countries are poised to rely more heavily on natural gas, which has less than half the warming emissions of coal. And India is embarking on one of the world’s most ambitious solar energy programs.
Developing nations are also making progress on curbing deforestation, which accounts for perhaps one seventh of all greenhouse gas emissions. Brazil, owner of the planet’s largest tropical forests, has radically improved enforcement of its forest laws—contributing to the lowest rate of deforestation in that country in two decades. Indonesia is crafting policies—in part with external help from Norway and other wealthy countries—to cut its total emissions, mainly by slowing deforestation.
The sum of these efforts in developing countries will reduce growth in warming emissions by billions of metric tons of warming gases per year over the coming decade. That dwarfs the total cuts by Westerns nations to comply with the Kyoto Protocol, which amounted to, at most, a few hundred million tons. Developing countries have most of the leverage for further cuts. They now account for half the emissions of warming gases—and rising.
Developing countries have resisted enshrining their programs into binding international law because most of these initiatives are rooted in national goals, such as controlling local pollution and increasing the value of forests, which makes them skittish about foreign commitment and monitoring. Breaking the gridlock on global warming, which will make it easier for these countries to do even more in the future, will require less intrusive approaches, such as flexible commitments and peer review.
The initiatives under way in developing countries will not be enough, of course. Strict treaties with deep cuts in emissions, monitoring and penalties will be required for all nations. But that is a long way off, and the current track is making it harder to build the credibility and trust that will be needed. The rich countries focus on bold goals—such as stopping warming at two degrees or giving away $100 billion in financial support—with no relation to what they can really implement. That makes developing countries unsure which commitments are genuine. Smaller initiatives aligned with what countries can really honor would be a smarter way forward.
This article was originally published with the title Diplomacy's Meltdown.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
23 Comments
Add CommentDavid G. Victor is another Scientific American idiot, like most of its editors. He assumes that global warming is man-made. He is a typical paid mouthpiece for the Scientific American quest to prove global warming, no matter how idiotic that quest is. IT'S THE SUN, STUPID! Now, there are PHd's that are coming out and declaring that it is the sun that is causing all of this global warming and global cooling. The sun is the cause of the Roman Warming and the Midievel Cooling. The Roman Warming was even warmer than it is now. Carbon Dioxide is no larger than 5% of our atmospheric gas. The largest greenhouse gas is water vapor. The sun drives water vapor to affect our climate in ways that no man-made gas can ever challenge. NOBODY wants to talk about water vapor because carbon dioxide would go out the window and Al Gore couldn't make any more money promoting phony baloney. Remember the now-disproven "Hockey Stick" lie that was foisted upon the world....! Scientific American and its editors and its unsuspecting forum lackeys would do much better to stay out of politics and focus upon SCIENCE and not global warming baloney. Scientific American's readership is down and the magazine may not survive because the present editors are forcing the magazine into oblivion due to their idiocy on global warming. That would be a shame for a 160-year old magazine. WAKE UP, EDITORS! WAKE UP FORUM LACKEYS!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRichard Hauley DMD
slcdentist@aol.com
It's fine to learn that some of the developing nations are taking global warming seriously and are taking steps to reduce CO2 emissions. But David Victor has it wrong about nuclear powerplants. Zero emissions? Not quite. At the front end of the fuel cycle, nuclear fuel is mined, refined, and separated using large amounts of fossil fuels. And at the back end of the fuel cycle, the emissions are in the form of extremely long-lived biological poisons which will far outlast any human society yet created -- including our own. Proliferation of nuclear weapons must also be counted as an 'emission' of this technology. Any fission reactor produces plutonium, which can be separated from spent fuel to make a nuclear weapon. Let's leave nuclear power out of the equation for solving global warming, and look seriously at the many diverse solar technologies which can lead us into a Golden Solar Age.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thispr3vious comment aboutnuclear power submitted by
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWilliam W. Smith III
Jamestown, RI 02835 USA
This article is fairly old information wrapped around an extremely disturbing and totally misleading statement about nuclear power, "zero emissions."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe daily radioactive operating emissions from nuclear power were made public in Santa Barbara, California in 1984 when I interviewed the chief of nuclear operations for PG&E under oath. It was Admiral Rickover, father of the US nuclear navy who told me how to conduct the interview so that the big lie that information about daily operating emissions could not be covered up as a national security secret. When the chief of nuclear operations would not answer my question about daily radio active emissions, claiming it was a matter of national security, I was ready.
"Okay, chief, I don't wish to jeopardize my country's national security, just show me the paper that says normal daily operating emissions from civilian nuclear power plants is a national security secret."
To make a long story short; PG&E called for a recess and was given 15 minutes, when the time was up I asked again what normal radioactive operating emissions are and was given a huge figure. No nuclear power plants have been built since that time.
The use of the term zero emissions by the author reminds me of the current ethics problems economists are facing when they represent themselves as working for a university and neglect to inform about which private corporations and institutions they also work for.
Dear David Victor,
Do you work for organizations promoting nuclear power ?
Cordially,
Garrett Connelly
ferrocement.com researcher
Hello Richard Hauley, DMD,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI appreciated some of the points you made about global warming and water vapor in your recent letter. With respect for your opinion, I suggest you will enlighten more people about the water vapor aspect of this issue with a slight adjustment of rhetoric; your tone is a tad strident for your obviously learned professional self. The point you made is interesting and worthy of thought but you sound a little like an angry teaper instead of a thinking professional.
Regarding Al Gore : His problem is ethical; he wants to become very rich as a big wheel founder of a carbon trading market. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be rich, working for it, and succeeding. Al Gore simply has a conflict of interest here which is rarely spoken of (not to mention that the carbon trading scheme is a stupid idea which has already failed badly in Europe). A straight carbon tax matched by reduced income taxes will solve the problem, remain revenue neutral, and not provide space for backroom deals in Washington, DC.
Regarding CO2 in the atmosphere : The earth atmosphere is thinner than an apple skin, relative to an apple. Not considering environmental disruption, carbon dioxide dumping in the atmosphere measures the growing intensity of atmospheric disposal for hundreds of chemical compounds which are byproducts of items that would not be competitive in a free market if the producers were required to clean up after themselves.
Cordially,
Garrett Connelly
The article states:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"China, the world’s biggest emitter, is making the world’s biggest effort to check growth in its pollution."
That may or may not be true, depending on how you look at it, but it's to early to give China the award for most improved. According to the U.S. Energy Administration, China's 'Total Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Consumption of Energy (Million Metric Tons)' increased from 2,849 in 2000 to 7,710 in 2009 (the latest year avail.).
In the meantime, the U.S. co2 emissions have stablized from about 5,80, peaking at 6,018 in 2007 before dropping to 5,424 in 2009.
Meanwhile, the world's total co2 emissions have increased from 23,803 to 30,451 during that period - the rest of the world's co2 emissions would have been nearly stable if it had not been for China's almost tripling of its emissions!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChina's increased emission can be largely attributed to the massive increase in manufacturing capacity. However, US and western worlds have no excuse for the "stable" emission considering how much manufacturing capacity have been lost. The per capita emission figure of the western nations still towers over that of China and any other developing world. This is one of the single most critical reason why there aren't any diplomatic treaty on emission, because western nations keeps bashing developing nations, but won't commit to the sacrifice themselves.
@Amalcr,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"He assumes that global warming is man-made."
An assumption based on large body of evidence.
"IT'S THE SUN, STUPID!"
No it is not. The Sun's total output has been monitored for decades and its irradiance output has not increased. We can also make predictions of what the characteristics of a solar induced warming would like.
1. We should see the tropics warming faster than the rest of the globe. We do not the tropics warming faster but the higher latitudes are warming faster instead.
2. The atmosphere should warm evenly. We do not see that; instead we see the stratosphere cooling and the troposphere warming. This pattern is exactly the opposite of what we should expect.
3. We should see the days are warming faster than days and the diurnal temperature differences increasing. Instead we see the nights warming faster than days. Again, this is the polar opposite of what we should expect of sun induced warming.
Now that is only three pieces of larger body of evidence.
When there is a problem and blame is to be levied some people inevitably say the problem is worse elsewhere as a reason to do nothing. This scapegoat in CO2 is nowadays universally China. With good reason. Or is it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince so much CO2 in China is used to manufacture everything we buy (from Walmart and everywhere else) and not primarily for domestic consumption; since so much of the oil used in China is used to make plastics and other materials that end up in foreign markets; since some of the CO2 emitted in China is emitted to make infrastructure such as roads which help export; and since some is emitted in gaining revenue-producing capital such as industrial machines that help this primarily export-market economy export, there is a question:
In the flat world of globalization, what is the point in criticizing China's vast carbon footprint when WE largely foot the bill?
On a personal note, I applaud China's efforts to increase efficiency. Westerners often assume that capitalism ushers in efficiency, but it usually just ushers in models that generate profit. Such as little grandmothers driving Hummers several miles to the corner store to buy raisin bread, burning more money trying to find a parking space than their loaf is worth. Walking is more efficient, but nobody wins.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have the suspicion that future generations will be scandalized by how much we have squandered resources... and with so many known externalities. Its time to tax oil companies as much as we tax solar companies. Good luck solar industry - such a miniscule and ineffectual lobby!
I suspect that 'developing nations' will not commit to reducing their GHG emissions, either.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you asserting that the U.S. is responsible for the increase in China's co2 emissions? Given the number of automobiles, household appliances and electronics being sold in China, I don't think this is the case.
I don't think the U.S. citizenship fostered its industrial production on the poor Chinese, therefore intentionally causing their own unemployment. I think that China has aggressively pursued that production in order to extend the benefits of modern urban infrastructure, and the power consumption that it requires, to its own citizens.
As you say, "The per capita emission figure of the western nations still towers over that of China and any other developing world." China (for example) will not be satisfied with the status quo until it increases its per capita energy usage, incurring an increase in global co2 emissions.
China's annual co2 emissions have, since 2000, _increased_ by nearly the amount of the U.S. total!
If the U.S. immediately ceased all co2 emissions, the current global total would still exceed the total emissions produced in 2000!
The U.S. is not responsible for producing China's co2 emissions!
Scientific American has become a propaganda "rag" that supports political policy positions and no longer truly supports the development of science. SA continually takes the position regarding climate change, that increasing CO2 is a pending disaster for humanity; regardless of this being scientifically unsupported and economically stupid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article is yet another example of half truth and propaganda from Scientific American. The article states that countries such as China are doing things to curb their CO2 emissions and uses that as justification for the United States giving away money and doing more to curb our CO2 emissions.
The fact is China is doing what is good for China. Their emissions of CO2 are increasing at the fastest rate of any nation in the world. They have not committed to any firm targets for their emissions levels nor for any verification of their emissions.
A recent NASA-GISS paper in Env. Sci. Tech., co-authored by James E. Hansen calls for the shutting down of all coal-fired power plants in the USA by 2030, in order to avoid the global warming caused by the emitted CO2.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Kharecha_etal.pdf
What effect would this specific actionable step actually have on global warming?
The paper tells us that 1,994 billion kWh/year were generated from coal in 2009 and that the average CO2 emission is 1,000 tons CO2 per GWh generated.
So by 2030 Hansen’s plan would reduce CO2 emissions by roughly 2 GtCO2 per year.
Roughly half of this “stays” in the atmosphere (with the rest disappearing into the ocean, the biosphere or outer space) so the annual reduction after 2030 will be around 1 GtCO2/year and over the period from today to year 2100 the cumulative reduction would be 80.5 GtCO2.
The mass of the atmosphere is 5,140,000 Gt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo the net reduction in atmospheric CO2 would be around 16 ppm(mass) or 10 ppmv.
If we assume (as IPCC does) that by year 2100 the atmospheric CO2 level (without Hansen’s plan) will be around 600 ppmv (“scenario B1”), this means that with Hansen’s plan it will be 590 ppmv.
Today we have 390 ppmv.
Using IPCC’s 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2C we have:
Case 1 – no Hansen plan
600 ppmv CO2
ln(600/390) = 0.431
ln(2) = 0.693
dT (warming from today to 2100) = 3.2 * 0.431 / 0.693 = 1.99
Case 2 – Hansen plan implemented
590 ppmv CO2
ln(590/390) = 0.414
ln(2) = 0.693
dT (warming from today to 2100) = 3.2 * 0.414 / 0.693 = 1.91C
So Hansen’s plan will result in a total reduction of global temperature by year 2100 of 0.08C.
But what will this non-measurable reduction of global temperature cost?
The total, all-in capital cost investment to replace 1,994 billion kWh/year capacity with the least expensive alternate (current nuclear fission technology) is between $4,000 and $8,000 per installed kW (say $6,000 on average). [Note: If we replace it with wind or solar, it will cost several times this amount per generated kWh, due in part to the low on-line factor.]
1,994 billion kWh/year at a 90% on-line factor represents an installed capacity of:
1994 / 8760 * .9 = 0.251 billion kWh
This equals an investment cost of 0.251 * 6,000 = $1.5 trillion
Globally some 6,700 billion kWh/year are generated from coal (around 3.4 times as much as in the USA).
So shutting down all the world’s coal-fired plants by 2030 would cost $5 trillion and result in 0.27C reduced warming by year 2100.
I think it is pretty obvious why Hansen and his co-authors do not run us through this cost/benefit analysis.
And that is the real dilemma. There are no viable actionable proposals to reduce global warming – because we are unable to do so.
I subscribed to Scientific American for over twenty years up until the mid 1980s when I first detected a shift from science to popular (pseudo) science. Much the same thing happened to the British medical journal, The Lancet. Neither formerly respected magazines stuck to science & both are finding a large body of formerly dedicated readers now regard them as mere entertainment. What a shame.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI subscribed to Scientific American for over twenty years up until the mid 1980s when I first detected a shift from science to popular (pseudo) science. Much the same thing happened to the British medical journal, The Lancet. Neither formerly respected magazines stuck to science & both are finding a large body of formerly dedicated readers now regard them as mere entertainment. What a shame.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWestern countries have not only delocalised industry but also pollution, whilst remaining the principal consumers because of the appallingly low salaries paid to third world workers. So it is clear that it is for western capital to clear up the mess.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWestern capital is now going to those third world countries with the appallingly low salaries that have left so many western countries workers unemployed. Perhaps the now incredibly wealthy communist party capitalists in China could venture some capital to clean up their own house.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you! As I read the article and the comments it occurred to me that there might be confusion about total emissions (the subject of Kyoto and other climate negotiations) and emissions intensity (emissions per unit of output). Both China's and India's economies are expanding so rapidly that gains in efficiency (intensity) are outstripped by the underlying growth rates, raising their totals (I think). In fact, one obstacle to both countries "signing on" to proposed agreements is their (legitimate) recognition of this point. By not recognizing this difference, the author does a disservice to the discussion that needs to take place.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGary McKenzie
jtdwyer : The Chinese party officials are small fry compared to western speculators that manipulate so much capital circulating in China. The American unemployed almost certainly know who are to blame for their plight.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't think so - do you know haw many new cities have been constructed in China during the past couple of decades? The big money is not being held or invested in America anymore.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs economic weight and political influence shifts to many of the countries of the East and the South, British diplomacy has to shift its weight accordingly
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am a bit miffed at your editorial.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI could list many instances of flagrant pollution in the developing world but I have listed only a couple.
You are not a business major or you would realize that money talks. If the laws allowed it we would be building nuclear plants here in the U.S. We ship jobs overseas because it costs more to do business in the U.S. Dow Chemical builds plants in India as they are not subject to the American laws on pollution and OSHA. When the Olympic games were played in China they shut down plants causing air pollution to make themselves look better to the world. But after the world left they cranked the plants back up again.
The "developing countries" the you speak of in your article are the villains when it comes to pollution.
If India does not even have wastewater treatment plants how can you expect India to value any part of the environment? India has shown in the past its willingness to accept money for projects that never get completed.
I read an article in National Geographic about how raw sewage flows into the rivers of India. From the article "Out of India's 3,119 towns and cities, just 209 have partial treatment facilities, and only 8 have full wastewater treatment facilities (WHO 1992).[3] 114 cities dump untreated sewage and partially cremated bodies directly into the Ganges River" . (see the article for the footnote citations) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_pollution_in_India
Chinese air pollution is the worst in the world. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070709-china-pollution.html
There is a brown cloud over Asia that has been caused by pollution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_brown_cloud
China burns more coal than Europe and the Americas combined. I have read articles saying that in order to comply with pollution agreements the Chinese will shut down a coal fired generator and use diesel back- up generators to provide power. Of course the diesels cause much more pollution. I have read that Chinese officials do not include scrubbers or clean coal plants as it would increase the cost of the coal plant to that of a nuclear power plant. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=China_and_coal
Your editorial is full of ...pollution.
Bill Toppson
Grant, MN