Environmental Impacts in Relation to Wind Energy

Abstract

The environmental impacts irrespective of the energy source can range from extremely deleterious to acceptable minimum levels. In the case of fossil power generation, impacts could be extremely harmful in terms of long-term human health hazards. In the case of renewable energies such as solar and wind, the effect on health can be of acceptable levels, whereas in the case of biomass and bioenergy, it can be a minimax depending upon the surrounding environmental areas. For example, if farm products, located in sparsely populated areas with low-density development, are used for power generation, depending upon the level of carbon emissions, these could be acceptable for interim power generation. Thus, in addition to large scale, medium scale, or small scale of operation, consideration of the location where the generation takes place is important. The following seven World Bank regions are addressed such as the Pacific region; Europe and Central Asia; Latin America and the Caribbean; the Middle East and North Africa; sub-Sahara; South Asia; Canada, Mexico, and the rest of North America; and finally the United States.

5.1 Global Warming (GW), Climate Change (CC), and Environmental Impacts

The environmental impacts irrespective of the energy source can range from extremely deleterious to acceptable minimum levels. In the case of fossil power generation, impacts could be extremely harmful in terms of long-term human health hazards. In the case of renewable energies such as solar and wind, the effect on health can be of acceptable levels, whereas in the case of biomass and bioenergy, it can be a minimax depending upon the surrounding environmental areas. For example, if farm products, located in sparsely populated areas with low-density development, are used for power generation, depending upon the level of carbon emissions, these could be acceptable for interim power generation. Thus, in addition to large scale, medium scale, or small scale of operation, consideration of the location where the generation takes place is important. The following seven World Bank regions are addressed such as the Pacific region; Europe and Central Asia; Latin America and the Caribbean; the Middle East and North Africa; sub-Sahara; South Asia; Canada, Mexico, and the rest of North America; and finally the United States .

When discussing effects on the environment, the notion that wind can be considered in isolation from other energy sources is fallacious. As discussed in the preceding chapters, especially Chap. 1 where the technical aspects of wind power generation had been addressed, it was shown that due to the intermittency, wind can be used as a supplemental power generation to the utility power, and on isolated locations it can be used along with diesel and other locally available renewable energy sources such as solar, hydro, tidal, biomass, biofuels, and municipal waste.

In every situation it is pertinent to assess the amount of the global warming and consequent climate changes that occur and evaluate the costs in terms of economic liabilities to understand the benefits accrued by utilizing any energy source. Thus unless we address the problem comprehensively for energy and power generation, we will not be able to isolate why and wherefore wind energy has a pivotal environmental role in energy and power generation not only in isolated situations where wind is available and utility power is unavailable but also in the large-scale use of on-land and offshore wind farms. The following discussions address the global warming, climate change, and environmental effects around the globe. By indicating the extent of environmental impacts of other fossil energy generation sources as pointed out, then the relative merits of using wind power in not contributing to global warming can be realized.

Section 5.1 is a pointer to the discussions contained in the rest of this chapter pertaining to the issues of the seven World Bank regions followed by an overview of public perceptions and the conclusions.

Environment has been addressed with respect to the existing conditions to what can be expected by the turn of the century, if business is let to continue as usual. Scientific communities in collaboration with the professional societies, industry, United Nations, and World Bank have agreed upon four levels of greenhouse gas concentrations from the very conservative to the extremely relaxed attitude towards environment, which are called Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs). The four levels of RCPs are RCP 2.6, 4.5, 6.0, and 8.5 W/m² which correspond to the greenhouse gas emissions and concentrations with radiative forces of W/m² (watt per square meter) that increase considerably over time, leading to RCP8.5 at the end of the century. The lowest emission pathway is RCP 2.6 which assumes immediate and rapid reductions in emissions resulting in 2.5 °F of warming in this century. The highest pathway is RCP 8.5, which is a continuation of the current path of “business-as-usual” with global emission increase projected to 8 °F warming by 2100, with a high-end possibility of more than 11 °F.¹

The underlying main characteristics of the high greenhouse gas emissions represented in RCP8.5² scenario are the assumptions about the demographic, social, and economic trends of high population and slow income growth, as well as technological changes and energy intensity improvements, leading to high energy demand in the absence of climate change policies.³ RCP8.5 is used as a baseline for developing scenarios to include the air quality legislation for the regional air pollutant emissions, land-use categories, and grasslands with implications for emissions.⁴ RCP8.5 corresponds to the pathway with the highest greenhouse gas emissions which consider (1) the development of spatially explicit air pollution projections and (2) enhancements in the land-use and land-cover changes. In addition, scenario variants that use RCP8.5 as a baseline assume different degrees of greenhouse gas mitigation policies to reduce radiative forcing. It is technically possible to limit forcing from RCP8.5 to lower levels comparable to the other RCPs (2.6–6 W/m2) and other scenarios corresponding to local air pollution.⁵

RCP8.5 was developed using the integrated assessment modeling framework of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, that encompasses detailed representations of the principal GHG-emitting sectors such as energy, industry, agriculture, and forestry shown in the integrated overall assessment framework (Fig. 5.1). Integration is achieved through a series of hard and soft linkages between the individual components, to ensure internal scenario consistency and plausibility.⁶ The three principal models of the IIASA framework shown in Fig. 5.1 are Model for Energy Supply Strategy Alternatives (MESSAGE),⁷ Dynamic Integrated Model of Forestry and Alternative Land Use (DIMA),⁸ and Agro-Ecological Zoning – World Food System (AEZ – WFS).⁹ A schematic illustration of the main linkages between the three principal models is shown in Fig. 5.1. The three models are useful at the regional, national, and grid (0.5 × 0.5) level. In a subsequent second step, national results are further disaggregated to the grid-cell level (0.5 × 0.5), which provides spatially explicit patterns of population and economic activities¹⁰ important for the spatially explicit modeling of emissions and land-cover changes in the forestry and agriculture sectors, providing a basis for indicators such as relative land prices and population exposures to pollutant emissions.¹¹

Fig. 5.1

IIASA modeling framework. (Source: Riahi K., Gruebler A., and Nakicenovic N. (2007). Scenarios of long-term socioeconomic and environmental development under climate stabilization. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 74(7):887–935, cited in http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0149-y)

The MESSAGE model stands at the heart of the integrated assessment framework. It is a systems engineering optimization model used for medium-to-long-term energy system planning, energy policy analysis, and scenario development. The model maps the entire energy system with all its interdependencies from resource extraction, import and export conversion, transport, and distribution to end-use services. The model’s current version provides global and subregional information on the utilization of domestic resources, energy imports and exports and trade-related monetary flows, investment requirements, the types of production or conversion technologies selected (technology substitution), pollutant emissions, interfuel substitution processes, as well as temporal trajectories for primary, secondary, final, and useful energy. In addition to the energy system, the model includes a representation of the forest and agricultural sector-related GHG emissions and mitigation potentials. It is a long-term global model operating at the level of 11 world regions and a time horizon of 1990–2100. For each scenario the model calculates the least-cost solution for the energy system given a set of assumptions about energy demand, resources, technology performance, and environmental constraint. The Agro-Ecological Zoning – World Food System (AEZ – WFS) model framework projects alternative development paths of the agriculture sector using three components: (i) a spatially detailed agronomic module assessing crop suitability and land productivity (AEZ), (ii) an applied general equilibrium model of the World Food System (WFS), and (iii) a spatial model allocating the aggregate WFS production levels and agricultural land use to spatial biophysical resources. AEZ simulates land-resource availability, crop suitability, farm-level management options, and crop production potentials as a function of climate, technology, and economic productivity factors.¹² Land is broadly classified as built-up land; cultivated land; forests; grass-/woodland areas, including managed and natural grassland areas; and sparsely vegetated land. WFS is an agro-economic model¹³ that estimates regional agricultural consumption, production, trade, and land use. Applying the AEZ – WFS framework, the use and conversion of land is determined for food and feed production to meet the global demand in accordance with agronomic requirements and availability of land resources and consistent with national incomes and lifestyles of consumers. Land for residential use and transport infrastructure is assigned according to spatial population distribution and density. The remaining land, i.e., part of grass-/woodland, forest areas, and sparsely vegetated areas, is further evaluated in the DIMA model for possible use in dedicated bioenergy systems and for forestry purposes.¹⁴ Agricultural residue supplies based on the agricultural land use are also available for energy use and picked up where cost-effective. The delineation of pasture and unmanaged grasslands is based on the projections of livestock numbers computed in the WFS model; see Fig. 5.2.¹⁵

Fig. 5.2

Grazing intensity of grass, wood, and shrub lands for the year 2000. (Source: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0149-y#Fn2)

The DIMA (Dynamic Integrated Model of Forestry and Alternative Land Use) model is used to quantify the economic potential of global forests, explicitly modeling the interactions and feedbacks between ecosystems and land-use-related activities. Regional demand trajectories for timber and prices for carbon and bioenergy are major drivers for the relevant estimates. Food security is maintained by introducing an exogenous scenario-specific minimum amount of agricultural and urban land per grid cell as projected by AEZ – WFS. The DIMA model is a spatial model operating on a 0.5 × 0.5 grid. It determines, for each grid and time interval, which of the forestry processes (afforestation, reforestation, deforestation, or conservation and management options) would be applied in order to meet a specific regional timber demand and how much woody bioenergy and forest sink potential would be available for a given combination of carbon and bioenergy prices. Main determinants of the land-use choices in each grid are costs of forest production and harvesting, land prices and productivity, age structure of standing forest, and age-specific plant growth. Forest dynamics are thus a result of interactions between demand pull (price of bioenergy and carbon as well as timber demand) and inertia on the supply side (imputed through growth limitation of the forest).¹⁶

For the estimation of air pollutant emissions, we rely on detailed technology activity data and emission coefficients from the Greenhouse Gas and Air Pollution Interactions and Synergies (GAINS) model¹⁷and the recent assessment of environmental legislation until 2030.¹⁸ The activity data include projections for pollutant gases such as sulfur dioxide (SO₂), nitrogen oxide (NO_x), carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and black and organic carbon aerosols (BC and OC). The main sectors covered include power plants, fossil fuel extraction, gas flaring, waste and biomass burning (deforestation, savannah burning, and vegetation fires), industry (combustion and process), domestic (residential and commercial sectors), and road transport.¹⁹ In the past this has been particularly the case in cities of today’s industrialized countries, where dedicated urban air pollution legislation has successfully reduced exposure and thus health impacts for millions of people.²⁰ This trend is likely to continue in the future, particularly in the developing world, where urban air quality is one of the prime concerns. By doing so, dynamic spatial maps are generated at the resolution of 0.5 × 0.5 for all world regions and major pollutant emissions (SO₂, NO_x, CO, BC, OC, VOCs). Following a review of air quality monitoring information, most US cities adopt a maximum rate of reduction of up to 80% emission reduction per decade for each grid cell. EPA (2008) reports on air pollution trends of US cities between 1990 and 2008. For CO, O₃, and SO₂, the most rapid air quality improvements among the US cities were between 60% and 80% per decade.²¹

The scenario’s storyline describes a heterogeneous world with continuously increasing global population, resulting in a global population of 12 billion by 2100. Per capita income growth is slow, and both internationally and regionally, there is only little convergence between high- and low-income countries. Global gross domestic product (GDP) reaches around 250 trillion US2005$ in 2100. The slow economic development also implies little progress in terms of efficiency. Combined with the high population growth, this leads to high energy demands. International trade in energy and technology is limited, and overall rates of technological progress are modest. The inherent emphasis on greater self-sufficiency of individual countries and regions assumed in the scenario implies a reliance on domestically available resources. Resource availability is not necessarily a constraint, but easily accessible conventional oil and gas become relatively scarce in comparison to more difficult to harvest unconventional fuels like tar sands or oil shale. With the slow rate of technological improvements in low-carbon technologies, such as renewable energies including solar and wind, the future energy system moves towards coal-intensive technology choices with high GHG emissions. Environmental concerns in the A2 world that included land-use categories such as cultivated land, built-up land, and forests and grassland area²² are locally strong, especially in high- and medium-income regions. Food security is also a major concern, especially in low-income regions, and agricultural productivity increases to feed a steadily increasing population.²³

A growing population and economy combined with assumptions about slow improvements of energy efficiency lead in RCP8.5 to a large-scale increase of primary energy demand by almost a factor of three over the course of the century (Fig. 5.3). This demand is primarily met by fossil fuels in RCP 8.5. There are two main reasons for this trend. First, the scenario assumes consistent with a relatively slow pace for innovation in advanced non-fossil technology, leading for these technologies to modest cost and performance improvements (e.g., learning rates for renewables are below 10% per doubling of capacity). Second, availability of large amounts of unconventional fossil resources extends the use of fossil fuels beyond presently extractable reserves.²⁴ Coal use in particular increases almost tenfold by 2100, and there is a continued reliance on oil in the transportation sector.²⁵

Fig. 5.3

Development of global primary energy supply in RCP8.5 (left-hand panel) and global primary energy supply in 2100 at levels of 6, 4.5, and 2.6 W/m² (right-hand bars). (Source: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0149-y)

In the electricity sector, this results in a shift towards clean coal technologies from current subcritical coal capacities. In addition, with conventional oil becoming increasingly scarce, a shift towards more expensive unconventional oil sources takes place by 2050, and the subsequent increases in fossil fuel prices also lead to an increased penetration of “synthetic” fuels like coal-based liquids. The increase in fossil fuel prices (about a doubling of both natural gas and oil prices by mid-century) triggers also some growth for nuclear electricity and hydropower, especially in the longer term. Overall, however, fossil fuels continue to dominate the primary energy portfolio over the entire time horizon of the RCP8.5 scenario. In terms of final energy, significant transformations occur in the manner in which energy is used in RCP8.5, mostly in the residential and partly in the industrial sector. In the long term (beyond 2050), electricity is provided to a large extent from non-fossil sources such as nuclear and biomass, as shown in Fig. 5.4. In this figure development of global final energy in RCP8.5 is shown in the left-hand panel, and the final global energy in 2100 at RCP 6, 4.5, and 2.6 W/m² is shown in the right-hand side bars.²⁶

Fig. 5.4

Energy growth trends in RCP8.5 regime in this century. (Source: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0149-y)

The high energy demand and fossil intensity associated with RCP8.5 imply that achieving climate stabilization will require a massive reduction of emissions and drastic energy system transformations. Responses to energy demand for reducing energy-related CO₂ emissions on the supply side of the energy system include switching from fossil fuels to renewable or nuclear power, fuel switching to low-carbon fossil fuels (e.g., from coal to natural gas), and carbon capture and storage (both fossil and biomass based). The primary energy mix of the climate mitigation scenarios (reaching RCP 6, 4.5, and 2.6 W/m² radiative forcing by the end of the century) is illustrated in the right bars of Fig. 5.4. In the short and medium term, transition options like fossil-based CCS (in particular natural gas with CCS) become particularly important, while in the longer term, dominant technological options include energy conservation and efficiency improvements, nuclear, and biomass with carbon capture (BECCS). This trend is robust across all analyzed stabilization targets but is obviously most pronounced in the low 2.6 W/m² forcing scenario. While electricity from other renewables, like solar PV, increases their contribution in the longer term, the majority of the carbon-free electricity comes from centralized nuclear and biomass power plants. This technology choice reflects the underlying storyline of the RCP8.5 and related technology assumptions, which favor traditional centralized supply options (including fossil CCS, nuclear, and biomass). The results highlight that in principle lower stabilization goals might be possible to reach from high baselines as the RCP8.5 and that mitigation solutions would not necessarily require a shift from large-scale centralized energy production to dispersed intermittent sources (for a discussion of alternative mitigation paradigms with higher shares of intermittent renewables, see Riahi et al.).^{27, 28}

In terms of final energy, the pace of electrification is accelerated further in the climate mitigation scenarios , where non-fossil electricity (from renewable energy sources such as solar and wind) becomes a major driver of the decarbonization, leading to electricity shares in final energy of up to about 60% by 2100 (compared to about 30% in RCP8.5). Oil use peaks around the middle of the century and declines in the longer term. In RCP8.5 the resulting gap for the supply of liquid fuels is filled by other liquefaction processes like coal and biomass-based liquids. In the climate mitigation scenarios, hydrogen becomes an additional important long-term final energy carrier in the transport sector. Important wide-ranging consequences of the transformation away from oil products to electricity and hydrogen are at the one hand improvements of regional energy security in terms of decreased oil dependency (oil imports). At the other hand, the transformation also enables major environmental improvements through decreasing pollutant emissions, particularly in urban areas. Figure 5.5 compares the required pace of energy-intensity and carbon-intensity improvements in the RCP8.5 and the mitigation scenarios that have been derived with historical trends and selected scenarios from the literature (SRES B1 and B2). Reducing GHG emissions requires both demand-side changes (improvements in energy intensity) and supply-side structural changes (improvements in carbon intensity of the economy). The required pace of the transition is particularly challenging in the case of the low (RPS 2.6) target of 2.6 W/m2. In terms of carbon intensity, the 2.6 W/m2 scenario shows a sixfold increase in the rate of decarbonization compared to the RCP 8.5 baseline. This corresponds also to a major trend break and a fivefold acceleration of the decarbonization pace compared to the long-run historical improvement rate for the world (1940–2000). With respect to energy intensity, the 2.6 W/m2 is less ambitious. It depicts improvement rates roughly in line with historical trends between 1940 and 2000 of about 1% per year. This rate is also comparable to assumptions for intermediate baseline scenarios in the literature such as the B2 SRES (Fig. 5.5). Results also indicate the importance of path dependency and conditionality of the transformation strategy depending on the choice of the baseline and its underlying assumptions (see Fig. 5.5).²⁹

Fig. 5.5

Long-term energy-intensity and carbon-intensity improvement rates between 2000 and 2100 for RCP8.5. (Source: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0149-y)

Land-use and land-cover change has an important role in the climate change and consequent global warming scenario. Nearly 1.6 billion ha (hectares of acreage) of land are currently used for crop production, with nearly 1 billion ha under cultivation in the developing countries. During the last 30 years, the world’s crop area expanded by 5 million ha annually, with Latin America alone accounting for 35% of this increase. The potential for arable land expansion exists predominately in South America and Africa where just seven countries account for 70% of this potential. There is relatively little scope for arable land expansion in Asia, which is home to some 60% of the world’s population. These constraints are also reflected by the land-use change dynamics of the RCP 8.5 scenario. Projected global use of cultivated land in the RCP8.5 scenario increases by about 185 million ha during 2000–2050 and another 120 million hectares during 2050–2100. While aggregate arable land use in developed countries slightly decreases, all of the net increases occur in developing countries. Africa and South America together account for 85% of the increase. This strong expansion in agricultural resource use is driven by the socioeconomic context assumed in the underlying emission scenario with a population increase to over 10 billion people in 2050 rising to 12 billion people by 2100. Even then yield improvements and intensification are assumed to account for most of the needed production increases: while global agricultural output in the scenario increases by 85% until 2050 and 135% until 2080, cultivated land expands, respectively, by 12% and 16% above year 2000 levels (Fig. 5.6).

Fig. 5.6

Global land use by category in RCP8.5. (Source: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0149-y)

An important characteristic of RCP8.5 is the transformative changes of biomass use for energy purposes from presently traditional (noncommercial) use in the developing world to commercial use in dedicated bioenergy conversion facilities (for power and heat) in the future. Globally the contribution of bioenergy is increasing in RCP8.5 from about 40 EJ (energy joules) in 2000 to more than 150 EJ by 2100. The vast majority of this biomass is harvested in forests, resulting in increased land requirements for secondary managed forests. While the total area of forests is declining in RCP8.5 (Fig. 5.6), the share of managed forests and harvested areas for biomass is increasing considerably. The latter grows from about 17 million ha to more than 26 million ha by 2100. Uncertainties in the interpretation of the underlying land developments are nevertheless very large. Hurtt et al.³⁰ estimate about a factor of six higher land requirements for the same amount of wood harvest for the year 2000.

The critical extent of GHG emissions in the mitigation scenarios is grasped if one understands the role of CO₂. The comparatively limited potential for non-CO₂ mitigation options in RCP8.5 implies that the bulk of the emission reductions in the longer term will need to come from CO₂ in the energy sector. Cumulative CO₂ emissions in RCP8.5 amount to about 7300 GtCO₂ over the course of the entire century. In order to limit forcing to 6 W/m2, about 40% of these emissions would need to be avoided. The more stringent targets require further emission mitigation in the order of 60% and 87% of the RCP8.5 emissions to stay below the (RCP 4.5) 4.5 W/m2 and (RCP 2.6) 2.6 W/m2 targets. The cumulative mitigation requirements have large implications for the emission pathways, which in all mitigation scenarios are characterized by a peak and decline of CO₂ emissions. Staying below 2.6 W/m2 requires much more rapid emission reductions, leading to limited flexibility for the peak emissions. Both the official (RCP 4.5) 4.5 W/m2 and (RCP 2.6) 2.6 W/m2 scenarios indicate the need to restrict emission peak before 2020. This finding is consistent with other assessments in the literature, e.g., van Vuuren and Riahi.³¹

Emission of air pollutants in RCP8.5 depicts baseline developments in the absence of climate mitigation policies in which air quality legislation plays an important role for the scenarios’ projection of pollutant emissions. This reflects the fact that in contrast to climate policies, air quality measures have already been introduced in many parts of the world. Specifically, RCP8.5 assumes the successful implementation of present and planned environmental legislation over the next two decades to 2030. Beyond 2030 we further assume that increasing affluence may lead to tightening of pollutant legislation in the long term. RCP8.5 explicitly considers varying levels of legislation, economic growth, and technological progress across regions, resulting in regionally different developments for emission intensities. Air quality standards are presently the highest in the OECD³²region. Emission intensities in the OECD are thus already comparatively low, and planned legislation is expected to reduce emission intensities even further by 2030. Current legislations imply most significant declines across all regions by 2030. This trend reflects tightening of policies particularly in the power sector, e.g., through application of flue-gas desulfurization. Today’s low-income regions are generally characterized by modest air quality controls. These regions show also the least pronounced declines in emission coefficients to 2030, reflecting the lack of concrete plans for future legislation over the short term. Assumptions about environmental legislations in combination with ongoing structural and technological change imply significant decline in pollutant emissions as seen in the example of SO₂ emissions shown in Fig. 5.7. Growing regional environmental concerns combined with the lack of a global climate change regime also imply a clear decoupling of CO₂ emissions from pollutants. The power sector remains a major contributor to CO₂ emissions by the end of the century, although SO₂ emissions from this sector are almost negligible due to increasing use of advanced coal technologies. In the residential sector, CO₂ emissions continue to rise globally, while in most developing regions, there is either a slowing down of growth of pollutants from this sector or even a decline where air quality legislations are stringent enough to offset growing demand.³³

Fig. 5.7

Distribution of SO₂ emissions in RCP8.5 for the years 2000, 2020, 2050, and 2100. (Source: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0149-y)

No issue serves to illustrate the tension between climate commitments and energy policy better than subsidies for fossil fuels. Effective action against climate change demands that governments push carbon out of markets through taxation, quotas, and regulatory measures. Instead, they are subsidizing the discovery and use of carbon-intensive fuels. The IMF estimates the overall level of fossil fuel subsidies at US$2 trillion annually, or 1.2% of global GDP. According to the IEA, energy-related fossil fuel subsidies are five times higher than the subsidies for renewable energy. The most perverse and damaging subsidies are associated with exploration for fossil fuels. If global warming is to be kept below 2 °C, one-third of known oil reserves, half of gas reserves, and some 80% of coal reserves must be left in the ground. This is the world’s existing reserve of “unburnable carbon.” Yet many governments and companies are investing heavily in the discovery and exploitation of new carbon reserves, including the Arctic and deep-sea areas.³⁴

Air pollutants in the mitigation scenarios show co-benefits from climate mitigation for pollutant emissions. The greenhouse gas emission reductions in the mitigation scenarios lead to major improvements of the carbon intensity and the energy intensity compared to the RCP8.5 baseline. This switch to carbon-free and non-fossil technologies is generally associated with lower pollutant emissions. In addition, the application of CCS requires cleaner combustion processes and thus reduces pollutant emissions in the climate mitigation scenarios further. Perhaps most importantly, the higher rates of energy-intensity improvements in the climate mitigation scenarios lead to pronounced energy savings, and each unit of energy that is not consumed is obviously climate-friendly as well as pollution-free. The co-benefit of climate mitigation for pollutants is particularly pronounced over the short to medium term (see Fig. 5.8). The 2.6 W/m2 scenario reduces global SO₂ emissions by about 55% in 2030 compared to the year 2000. This steep decline corresponds to roughly a doubling of pollutant emission reductions compared to the RCP8.5 baseline (25% reductions in 2030 compared to 2000). In other words, stringent climate mitigation may reduce pollutant emissions by about the same order of magnitude as the entire legislated air pollution policy that is presently in the pipe.³⁵

Fig. 5.8

Global SO₂ emissions by sector in the RCP8.5 baseline and the mitigation scenarios for 6, 4.5, and 2.6 W/m2. (Source: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0149-y)

RCP8.5 depicts, compared to the scenario literature, a high-emission business as usual scenario. Its socioeconomic development pathway is characterized by slow rates of economic development with limited convergence across regions, a rapidly rising population to comparatively high levels, and relatively slow pace of technological change. The latter assumption is reflected also by the scenario’s modest improvement rates of energy intensity, which drives energy demand towards the high end of the scenario literature. The primary energy mix of RCP8.5 is dominated by fossil fuels, leading to the extraction of large amounts of unconventional hydrocarbon resources well beyond presently extractable reserves. GHG emissions grow thus by about a factor of three over the course of the century, mainly as a result of both high demand and high fossil intensity of the energy sector as well as increasing population and associated high demand for food. The resulting radiative forcing is the highest among the RCPs presented in this SI, with the emission profile of RCP8.5 being representative of high GHG emission scenarios in the literature.³⁶

For the development of RCP8.5 new methodologies for the spatial representation of land-cover changes as well as the improved representation of pollutant emission legislation, including spatial downscaling algorithms for exploring local implications of regional/global air pollution trends were employed. Our results indicate that successful implementation of presently legislated pollutant control measures would reduce global pollutant emissions significantly over the short term (e.g., global reductions of about 25% of SO₂ emissions between 2000 and 2030). This trend occurs despite the high GHG intensity of RCP8.5, illustrating the possibility to decouple air pollutant emissions from greenhouse gases through end-of-the-pipe technologies. In the long term, additional technological shifts to advanced fossil technologies reduce pollutant emissions further to very low levels in RCP8.5. RCP8.5 describes a hot dirty future for the world, in which coal use increases to become the major source of power for the world.

Because it is difficult to project far-off future emissions and other human factors that influence climate, scientists use a range of scenarios using various assumptions about future economic, social, technological, and environmental conditions. Figure 5.9 shows projected greenhouse gas concentrations for four different emission pathways. The top pathway assumes that greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise throughout the current century. The bottom pathway assumes that emissions reach a peak between 2010 and 2020, declining thereafter.³⁷

Fig. 5.9

Projected atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. (Source: Graph created from data in the Representative Concentration Pathways Database (Version 2.0.5), cited in http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web-apps/tnt/RcpDb and https://www.epa.gov/climate-change-science/future-climate-change)

The UN Climate Change Conference (COP21) in Paris was preceded by a surge of studies and articles warning of a dismal future if a strong policy action is not taken by the world nations. One scenario in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) provides the basis for these: RCP8.5. Even a casual examination of this shows it to be a useful worst-case scenario, but not “business as usual.” An introduction to scenarios about the future is provided in AR5 four Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) which describe the scenarios for future emissions, concentrations, and land use, ending with radiative forcing levels of 2.6, 4.5, 6.0, and 8.5 W/m2 by 2100. Strong mitigation policies result in a low forcing level (RCP2.6). Two medium stabilization scenarios lead to intermediate outcomes: (RCP4.5, RCP6.0).³⁸ RCP8.5 assumes the fastest population growth (a doubling of earth’s population to 12 billion), lowest rate of technology development, slow GDP growth, a massive increase in world poverty, plus high energy use and emissions.³⁹ Figure 5.10 shows 100-year climate change scenario.

Fig. 5.10

One hundred-year climate change scenario. (Source: “The representative concentration pathways: an overview” by Detlef P. van Vuuren et al., Climatic Change, Nov. 2011, cited in http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0148-z)

RCP8.5 assumes population growth at the high end of the current UN forecasts: 80% odds of between 9.6 and 12.3 billion people by 2100.⁴⁰ Most of this growth occurs in Africa, assuming that the collapse in fertility in the rest of the world will not occur there. Iran’s fertility was 6.0% in 1980; it is ~1.6 now, below the replacement rate of 2.1. The future temperature changes consequent to global warming over the last several decades have been documented and are expected to be within the range of 0.5–8.6 °F by 2100, with a likely increase of at least 2.7 °F for all scenarios except the one representing the most aggressive mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Except under the most aggressive mitigation scenario studied, global average temperature is expected to warm at least twice as much in the next 100 years as it has during the last 100 years. Ground-level air temperatures are expected to continue to warm more rapidly over land than oceans. Some parts of the world are projected to see larger temperature increases than the global average.⁴¹ RCP8.5 assumes that the centuries-long progress of technology will slow. Most importantly, it assumes that three centuries of evolution to ever more efficient energy sources reverse and we burn off almost all of earth’s fossil fuel reserves (see Fig. 5.11).⁴²

Fig. 5.11

Trends of population growth and GDP in this century. (Source: Detlef P. van Vuuren et al., Climatic Change, Nov. 2011, cited in https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/13/a-closer-look-at-scenario-rcp8-5/)

Observed and projected changes in global average temperature under four emission pathways are shown in Fig. 5.12. The vertical bars at the right show likely ranges in temperature by the end of the century, while the lines show projections averaged across a range of climate models. Changes are relative to the 1986–2005 average.⁴³

Fig. 5.12

Modal mean global temperatures under four emission scenarios. (Source: https://www.epa.gov/climate-change-science/future-climate-change)

Mean global variations in temperatures are shown in Fig. 5.13. Changes in temperatures are relative to 1986–2005 averages. The pathways come from the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. RCP2.6 is a very low-emission pathway, RCP4.5 is a medium-emission pathway, RCP6.0 is a medium–high-emission pathway, and RCP8.5 is the high-emission pathway (emissions are assumed to continue increasing throughout the century).⁴⁴

Fig. 5.13

Projected changes in global average temperatures under four emission pathways (rows) for three different time periods (columns). (Source: https://www.epa.gov/climate-change-science/future-climate-change)

Although patterns of precipitation and storm events, including both rain and snowfall change, are less certain than the changes associated with temperature, projections show that future precipitation and storm changes will vary by season and region. Some regions may have less precipitation, some may have more precipitation, and some may have little or no change. The amount of rain falling in heavy precipitation events is likely to increase in most regions, while storm tracks are projected to shift poleward.⁴⁵ Climate models project the precipitation and storm changes shown in Fig. 5.14, in which blue and green areas are projected to experience increases in precipitation by the end of the century, while yellow and brown areas are projected to experience decreases.⁴⁶ Global average annual precipitation through the end of the century is expected to increase, although changes in the amount and intensity of precipitation will increase on average. This will be particularly pronounced in tropical and high-latitude regions, which are also expected to experience overall increases in precipitation. The strength of the winds associated with tropical storms and the amount of precipitation falling in tropical storms is also likely to increase. Annual average precipitation is projected to increase in some areas and decrease in others. The figure to the right shows projected regional differences in precipitation under two emission scenarios.⁴⁷ The maps show projected future changes in precipitation for the end of this century, compared with 1970–1999, under a higher-emission scenario. For example, in winter and spring, climate models agree that northern areas in the United States are likely to get wetter and southern areas drier. There is less confidence in exactly where the transition between wetter and drier areas will occur. Confidence in the projected changes is highest in the areas marked with diagonal lines. The changes in white areas are not projected to be larger than what would be expected from natural variability.⁴⁸

Fig. 5.14

Projected changes in global annual mean precipitation for a low-emission scenario (left) and high-emission scenario (right). (Source: https://www.epa.gov/climate-change-science/future-climate-change)

For every 2 °F of warming, models project about a 15% decrease in the extent of annually averaged Arctic sea ice and a 25% decrease in the area covered by Arctic sea ice at the end of summer (September). Note that this decrease does not contribute to sea-level rise. The coastal sections of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are expected to continue to melt or slide into the ocean. If the rate of this ice melting increases in the twenty-first century, the ice sheets could add significantly to global sea-level rise. Glaciers are expected to continue to decrease in size. The rate of melting is expected to continue to increase, which will contribute to sea-level rise.⁴⁹

Arctic sea ice is already declining. The area of snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased since 1970. Permafrost temperatures in Alaska and much of the Arctic⁵⁰ have increased over the last century.⁵¹ Over the next century, it is expected that sea ice will continue to decline, glaciers will continue to shrink, snow cover will continue to decrease, and permafrost will continue to thaw. Potential changes to ice, snow, and permafrost are shown in Fig. 5.15. These maps show projected losses of sea ice in the Arctic and Antarctica. The maps in (a) show the average ice concentration (the relative area covered by sea ice) from 1986 to 2005. The maps in (b) and (c) show climate model simulations of sea ice thickness in February and September near the end of the twenty-first century under low- (b) and high (c)-emission scenarios. In the Arctic, February is projected to have less ice (more blue); September is projected to be nearly ice-free (almost all blue). The projected changes in Antarctic sea ice are more subtle.⁵²

Fig. 5.15

Maps showing ice concentrations from 1986 to 2100 for different emission scenarios. (Source: https://www.epa.gov/climate-change-science/future-climate-change)

Warming temperatures contribute to sea-level rise by expanding ocean water, melting mountain glaciers and ice caps, and causing portions of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to melt or flow into the ocean.⁵³ Since 1870, global sea level has risen by about 7.5 inches. Estimates of future sea-level rise vary for different regions, but global sea level for the next century is expected to rise at a greater rate than during the past 50 years.⁵⁴ Studies project global sea level to rise by another 1–4 feet by 2100, with an uncertainty range of 0.66–6.6 feet.⁵⁵ The contribution of thermal expansion, ice caps, and small glaciers to sea-level rise is relatively well studied, but the impacts of climate change on ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are less understood and represent an active area of research. Changes in ice sheets are currently expected to account for 1.2–8 inches of sea-level rise by the end of this century.⁵⁶ Ocean acidification adversely affects many marine species, including plankton, mollusks, shellfish, and corals. As ocean acidification increases, the availability of calcium carbonate will decline. Calcium carbonate is a key building block for the shells and skeletons of many marine organisms. If atmospheric CO₂ concentrations double, coral calcification rates are projected to decline by more than 30%. If CO₂ concentrations continue to rise at their current rate, the combination of climate warming and ocean acidification could slow coral growth by nearly 50% by 2050.⁵⁷

Figure 5.16 shows a picture of meltwater flowing from the Greenland ice sheet.

Fig. 5.16

Meltwater flowing from the Greenland ice sheet. (Source: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ cited in in https://www.epa.gov/climate-change-science/future-climate-change)

Oceans become more acidic as carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions in the atmosphere dissolve in the ocean. This change is measured on the pH scale, with lower values being more acidic. The pH level of the oceans has decreased by approximately 0.1 pH units since preindustrial times, which is equivalent to an approximately 30% increase in acidity. As shown in Fig. 5.17, the graph and map show the pH levels of the oceans which are projected to decrease even more by the end of the century as CO₂ concentrations are expected to increase for the foreseeable future.⁵⁸

Fig. 5.17

Global Ocean Acidification indicated by pH levels from 1900 to 2100. (Source: https://www.epa.gov/climate-change-science/future-climate-change)

The above discussions portray that if the world is left to follow a course of “business as usual” attitude, the environment of the world is diving fast towards RCP 8.5. This is more so in case of underdeveloped nations without proper legislative guidance. Even the developed nations, with the level of industrial development, not adequately addressing the environmental issues are doomed for RCP 8.5 scenario. The developing nations in their urge for faster economic development are in the process of environmental upheaval. It would be in the global interest if renewable energies, such as solar and wind, are accepted wherever available in lieu of the carbon-intensive fossil energy to target emission pathways RCP 2.6 or RCP 4.5 or even RCP 6.0 scenarios. These issues will be discussed in detail in the following sections of this chapter as they pertain to the nations of seven World Bank regions.

5.2 Wind Energy Vis-a-Vis Global Warming (GW), Climate Change (CC), and Environment

Wind for power and energy generation has minimal environmental impacts even in comparison with renewable energy sources such as solar energy which requires large tracts of land that can alternately be used for productive development. If the land costs are high, this could entail enormous expenditure in land acquisition costs. In case of nonrenewable energy, the pollution abatement programs, in developed as well as underdeveloped and developing nations, could be of several and of varied nature. Considerations and discussions entailing steps for short-term, mid-interim measures as well as long-term impacts around the globe are taken up in the following sections of this chapter.

The definition of what is short term which refers to the foreseeable decades of this century considered as mid-intermediate decades and that of the long term which is towards the end of the century are elaborately discussed using the definitions provided by the international agencies and scholastic societies. In each of the pertinent discussions, the pollutants are due to the industrial outfits both in the developed and developing nations, which unfortunately do not discriminate the causal locations and impacted regions. Global winds carry these elements without discriminating where it is from and whether it carries the environmental impacts!

In this section the discussions relating to the global warming and climatic changes causing environmental impacts occurring in each of the seven global regions are briefly addressed. In each case impacts are similar although the extents vary. Beyond the definitions provided for the environmental impacts, the determinants such as socioeconomic and political rationale extending to all facets of society are enumerated.

The United States had been holding the frontiers in all aspects of development including energy and power generation. The past decade has seen the rest of the world, including emerging markets, taking the benefit accruing from the efforts of the United States and its partners of the developed world. With emerging economies catching up in their development, endeavors are much like the laws of hydrostatics, and economics are striving to achieve equilibrium with developed nations. This implies that the demands of energy in this decade and the following decades will be dictated by developing countries around the globe. The United States as the premier consuming nation has to adjust to pay its share price.

Thus, irrespective of which country has contributed to the availability of energy resources, the price they currently pay will be dictated by the laws of demand and supply. The United States may not have all of the energy resources to supply at affordable prices. Political climate may be impeding the optimum usage of the correct energy generation, and environment considerations may be outweighing the use of available resources. Pricing may be impeding adoption of the viable energy sources. Even so, the United States has the responsibility to its domestic consumers, business enterprises, and industrial firmament to provide energy insulating them from the rigors of supply and demand. Can this be achieved? It is the opinion of this author that it can be done within the foreseeable future. More so it can be achieved to assure the next generation that the pangs of energy supply will not hamper progress and dampen their aspirations. Once this can be accomplished, the rest of the world has to find solutions that suit them best. It is the opinion of this author that in the final run for the choice of energy generation for a nation, region, or locals, it will not be decided by politics but by ground rules; the international community will lay down to design the economics of this “earth.” Watch the word “earth” which is distinct from “global” which has a connotation to “nations with political boundaries.”

Without any exception the developed economies including the United States are predominantly dependent upon fossil fuels including coal in spite of their contribution to CO₂ emissions. The use of wind as an energy resource has been recognized in several developed economies especially Germany, the United Kingdom, Spain, the Netherlands, Ireland, and the United States as well as developing economies such as China and India. While this is gratifying, the extent of damage to the environment still continues with the unabated and continued use of coal. As elsewhere noted in this publication, the use of wind energy can be a viable alternative for power generation in residential, commercial, as well as utility-scale power consumption. The use of offshore wind farms makes it less controversial for environmentalists and economically attractive due to piping possible in the seabed as well as the technological advancements in storage facilities. All of this is augmented by the possibility to use extremely high towers to support larger and longer turbine blades to capture the wind which was hitherto considered as intermittent. However marginal the usage may be, wind energy is user-friendly in a globally warming environment dependent upon fossil fuels. Uninterrupted government support by way of subsidies, which even now continues for fossil fuels, is unavailable for renewable energy. This often causes several periods of idle time for the manufacturers of wind turbines who remain skeptical and uncertain about government support. This is especially true in the change of regimes, as is the case in the United States at the federal and state levels. These fluctuations are also reflected in the research and development funds which become scarce for wind power technology including the manufacture of the turbines and its ancillaries. A sharp contrast in this respect is the support available from the government in developing economies such as China and India. Perhaps Germany is the only nation which is conscious of CO₂ emission in power generation and supports renewable energy including wind power generation. The US energy stocks and prices may not be indices for economic rationale governing US energy and power consumption. However, they are fair indicators of the US Government policy measures, public awareness of climatic-induced global warming, and consequent health hazards.

Federal funding has been available for several decades, especially in the recent past when air pollution and carbon dioxide emissions got public exposure, mainly due to the effort of the United Nations and its intergovernmental panels deliberating global warming concerns. This in turn got support for private enterprise to improve energy efficiency measures such as in the production of steam in boilers and fired heaters, precise monitoring of stack temperatures, fuel and air intake, use of snubbers, and closed-loop process to improve energy efficiency by the use of computerized controls. Sadly a comparable support was hardly available for renewable energy, especially so for wind energy which is still having teething problems. Lobbyists for fossil fuels constantly keep the Washington “insiders” aware of the risks of not funding fossil fuels. Contrary to this, obvious lack of lobbyists for renewable energy and wind power generation makes the public unaware of the environmental health hazards accrued directly from nonrenewable energy sources.

Elsewhere in this publication, it has been shown that the winds are stronger and more constant in the offshore and high-altitude sites so that these are sites for optimal location of wind farms not only for technical efficiency but also due to environmental considerations. Globally this has been utilized especially in the case of Northern Seas of Ireland and the United Kingdom. China has extensive wind farms in the Gobi Desert to supplement the energy demands of the constantly growing urban and regional development, which do not hinder the concerns of the environmentalists. The growth of wind power industry has been phenomenal as is shown by Table 5.1.

Table 5.1 Top ten wind power countries in the world

US President Barack Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 includes more than $70 billion in direct spending and tax credits for clean energy and associated transportation programs. Clean Edge suggests that the commercialization of clean energy will help countries around the world pull out of the current economic malaise.⁵⁹ The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) is an intergovernmental organization for promoting the adoption of renewable energy worldwide. It aims to provide concrete policy advice and facilitate capacity building and technology transfer. IRENA was formed on January 26, 2009, by 75 countries signing the charter of IRENA. As of March 2010, IRENA has 143 member states considered as founding members.⁶⁰ While all of these are happy auguries for clean energy, wind power has the potential for telling tales to achieve it with minimal maintenance costs.

The incentive to use 100% renewable energy is due to global warming and economic concerns, the driving force being national dependence on externalities such as oil and gas, instead of relying on locally available resources which can be tapped to its fullest extent. In 1998, Iceland embarked hundred percent on renewable energy⁶¹; industrialized countries such as Germany and Japan have renewable energy in the forefront of their portfolio for power and energy generation. In this respect, wind energy, in spite of intermittency, has practically nil maintenance costs and is therefore a viable alternative considering the current state of storage facility and capability to capture wind at higher altitudes in offshore wind farms.

Is environment more important than the US jobs and more important than the US exports? Obama administration barred the sale of $600 million coal mining machinery and equipment to an Indian company, a subsidiary of Reliance Power Ltd., because the coal mining for a $4.5 billion power project at Sasan, Madhya Pradesh, India, is not safe. This decision would throw away 984 jobs in a company at South Milwaukee, Wisconsin, a maker of mining equipment.⁶² The question once again is, “Is the US taking up policing of environment around the globe?”

There is a lot of political wrangling over environmental pollution such as greenhouse gases , emission trading, and energy security, but all of these often omit the real story – deleterious health effects of breathing polluted air that can cause obesity, heart and lung cancer, and fertility. The asthmatic effects and respiratory problems on the elderly, poor, sick, and children are recorded facts.⁶³ The notion that environmentalism can become a religious belief has been cautioned in the cited reference wherein it is stated that unless supported by scientific evidence “greenism” can be a “religion” that can enlist environmental skeptics to take up the First Amendment on their side.⁶⁴ It is true die-hard environmentalists can go too far especially when they tend to close the power houses without providing any alternatives, and one such alternative tends to be wind energy.

President Obama’s energy bill to cap greenhouse gas emissions as part of a broader energy bill did not find support in the US Senate, but the possibility exists of enforcing parts of the emission bill via the administrative Clean Air Act and EPA. Even a limited cap-and-trade proposal did not find any support of the US senators. Opponents claim that if utilities are forced to abide by the emission control act, any additional costs that they incur would be passed on to the consumers. Also, China, the number one consumer of energy according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), refused to cap its emissions only promising to become more efficient.⁶⁵ All of these EPA regulations may be worthwhile for the long-term health of the nation, but the United States is not at the short end of the stick in comparison to other real gas emitters such as the emerging economies of the world, especially when the post-Obama administration promises to reverse all of Obama’s efforts to combat environmental pollution. It is now in the hands of energy consumers to opt for wind energy with its zero emissions to take up the cudgels in their own hands to combat CO₂ emissions.

Unfortunately carbon emissions and economic growth are not in the same side of the spectrum; if one gains, the other tends to lose. The US Congress has set a goal to cut carbon emissions about 80% below 2005 levels by 2050. This target means reducing fossil fuel greenhouse gas emissions to a level the United States was in 1910. On a per capita basis, the United States has to go back to the level of about 1875.⁶⁶ The world economy rose from 1990 to 2007 by 75%, while emissions rose 38%; for the United States, one way is to improve the efficiency of production and energy generation. Thus, there is a crying need in their own interests for the governments of advanced economies such as the United States, Europe, and even Asia to invest in R&D to reduce per capita greenhouse emissions. There is also a responsibility to be shared by corporate world; business has to sink in money into high-carbon infrastructure, not merely sustain their outfits but also be globally competitive. Per capita greenhouse emissions from the industry due to high-carbon goods and services are untenable in the carbon-free world of tomorrow. President Obama’s policy to buy carbon permits under a US cap-and-trade system could be one approach. Loan guarantees to private enterprise could also be a viable approach much like the “carrot and stick” approach; the US companies need to be compensated. Under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, emerging economies such as China and India were not obliged to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions even though China outpaces the United States as the world’s largest economy.⁶⁷ Indeed, it is ultimately the US taxpayer that has to pay for all this, which can be avoided by adopting alternate energy options such as wind energy.

Unique as it may seem, the US professional societies have developed a scorecard for engineers and others to rate technologies proposed for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The A to E letter-grade scorecard has so far electric power generation leading the list of attributes such as coal with carbon capture and sequestration followed by biomass fuels, whereas for wind and solar power the attribute is reduction of greenhouse gases.⁶⁸ It is interesting to note that public consciousness is getting involved in this process.

Targeting low-carbon emissions can be measured by “carbon footprint,” the yearly carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere. For a family of three, this carbon imprint on the environment could be between 7 and 23 tons. These earth-friendly initiatives will help the atmosphere and ease the guilty conscience of consumers who turn to carbon-offset retailers. The fossil fuel consumption that has been neutralized can be calculated with this “carbon-offset ” strategy. There are several ways these credits can be used such as investing in reforestation, renewable energy, and methane gas capture and destruction methods. The “carbon-offset” market, though new and is in the adolescent stage, has doubled in 2008. The price of carbon offset can vary from $2.75 to $14.00 per ton.⁶⁹ While all of these are tactical measures, sure way to achieve minimal reductions can be by the use of renewable energies such as wind and solar energies.

What is important in this carbon emission is not only its impact but how we can compensate. This has been in the current discussions with industry and utilities ever since the US energy department mooted the subject of the amount the polluters have to foot the bill. Trees are considered the nature’s antidote for smokestacks and tailpipes for the carbon dioxide they cough out. The US Government would let companies buy carbon credit from the trees.⁷⁰ The recession era frugality has been in a way a boon for green power, since the carbon footprint is directly linked to consumption, but can hardly be taken as a solution at the expense of economic growth. It may be true that cutting back on expenditures has made consumers accidental environmentalists. In an enchanting article cited in the reference, it describes how global warming is playing weird with nature and its fauna, in this case South American birds such as “monk parakeets” (parrot) surviving outside in snowy Harlem in winter!⁷¹ Critics of “green energy” claim that President Obama has mixed up the good intentions of clean air, carbon-free world, global warming, and several other terminologies with “Cash the Stimulus Package.”⁷² Rightly so, but don’t we need a catalyst to address this clean energy and global warming that has been going out of proportions since the 1970s not only in the United States but around the world? In fact it is interesting to note that since then several developed economies have followed similar stimulus package deals. It is pertinent to ask how many countries can sustain such massive stimulus packages.

There are serious qualms about green energy in the industry, especially so about wind energy due to its intermittency, but what is overlooked is the “nearly zero” environmental contribution, especially when we consider the smokestacks. Any energy savings in manufacturing has a direct link to power consumption which relates in turn to kilowatt-hours consumed by the particular manufacturing unit, in addition to reduction in health hazards. It is a fact that US public opinion is not averse to green energy or energy renewables, including wind energy, but the lack of communication at individual and local level is the root cause. It is not actually apathy but lack of being convinced. In the 1970s there was meaningful success in green energy, and in the Carter era, the United States experienced oil glut, and Reagan years shelved the renewable effort, understandably, since need was not felt. The connotation that “green” meant “liberal thinking” has given green energy a serious setback. The “Green Energy Technology” and wind energy may turn out to be the salvation for the twenty-first century, at all levels of consumption, and may well be what IT has been since the 1990s.⁷³

“Green power” is a connotation that by its lexicographic content can be divisive; on the other hand, it can imply weaning away from “as is” via a “transition” to a package of “renewables.” 2009 has been a year of visions with Obama’s inaugural address providing one such vision about the future of energy usage and generation in the United States . Clean energy has been in vogue since the Nixon era, but efforts had been lacking and “transition to clean energy” has been subtle so that changes were imperceptible except in the present times, and that too because of the federal funding promises. The uncertainties are overwhelming since recession puts a burden on the energy expenditure, and to imagine energy expenditure will solve unemployment problem is farfetched although its role in economy will be definitive.⁷⁴ The green energy advocates were considering the Canadian Crude as a “dirty dilemma.” True that it is a noxious process, squeezing petroleum from the heavy, oil-caked tar sand beneath Canada’s northern forests, even so if the losers can be compensated, including the environment, the qualms about extraction can be overcome.⁷⁵

Government support and green growth had been at odds and ends, depending on which stopwatch we look at! Legislation encouraging taxpayers to adopt energy-efficient practices was the name of the game, at the time, taking advantage of federal tax credits (dollar-to-dollar tax reduction) and deductions (reduction in taxable income) which were incentives that industry and even individuals could not bypass.⁷⁶ These had direct implication on the energy and power generation via energy consumption. The two biggest emitters who account for 40% of the global greenhouse gases , the United States and China, are also in race to lead the growing clean energy industry crusade. When President Obama took office, two of his top priorities were stronger action to stem global warming and more collaborative approach in international problems.⁷⁷ Realistically how much will be achieved and within what time frame were crucial elements. If Gallup pollsters are any indication of public opinion, it can show a wide disparity. Pollsters asked which should take priority: protecting the environment even at the risk of economic growth or promoting economic growth even if the environment suffered. From 1985 to 2002, the environment won! However, with gap narrowing in 2009, the economy won, 51% for economy and 42% for environment.⁷⁸ At that time with recession, what else can be expected?

Is Obama the first green US president? With the US House of Representatives passing the American Clean Energy and Security Act, it sounds as if President Obama is steering the nation towards green energy. If the targets of the US Energy Act are to be achieved by 2020, a 17% cut of emissions from 2005 levels and by 2050 a cut of 83% have to be accomplished.⁷⁹ However with economy impacting, realigning the renewable energy targets needs to be realistic and consider a marginal tinkering approach, at least for times of economic upheavals.⁸⁰ Perhaps, estimates may be too rosy about all those green jobs. Often posed question is what does green energy entail? Cash incentives for the renewables add up to 30% of the cost of the project, and wind energy is not an exception. Due to delays in definition of programs and rules, there seemed to be an outage in the US renewable energy program.⁸¹ The picture of green energy investments in late 2009 was dismal⁸² but took a turn for the better in 2010. All that stimulus moneys once available did make clean energy a fertile sector, perhaps even with the recession.⁸³ The historical timeline from 1970 to 2010 for the “Energy Cleanup” has been neatly laid out in the reference “The clean air act although effective has not been cost effective”⁸⁴; EPA tends to have broader authority to crack down on interstate power plant pollution across state lines; unless renewable energies have guaranteed state support, it will be difficult to take off the datum level. Wind energy has global energy potential, with top energy executives of Siemens believing that new spending will come in areas such as energy efficiency. Siemens has to build 130 wind turbines off Massachusetts coast, in addition to coal-fueled power plants that capture its own carbon emissions.⁸⁵ Renewal energy and more so wind energy require “Road-Side Energy Investors.” Creating interest in the environment and raising capital have been the interest of environmentalists. Award of a Nobel Peace Prize for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for a report that concluded global warming was “unequivocal” and was caused by human activity⁸⁶ is helpful for focusing on clean energy and sparks investors’ interest. Socially responsible investment (SRI), which is a lynchpin of sustainable investment model, is strongly supported by EU institutional investors such as EU pension funds. However, this is less popular in the US retail investors. EU investors account for 50% of the total global SRIs, whereas the US SRIs account for less than 40%. Issues such as carbon emissions have only recently been elevated the importance by SRI funds.⁸⁷

Energy power and grid transmission initiatives of US federal government can perhaps be a boon for the utilization of wind energy. Hitherto unapproachable and isolated location in the United States can be connected to the grid line. This implies even smaller hamlets which have accessibility to wind power that can generate power can be supplemented by the utility grid power, and on the other hand if excessive wind power is generated, it can be sold back to the utility grid by the use of smart meters. This not only facilitates power generation by the environment-friendly wind power but also reduces dependence on CO₂ inducing fossil power. Excerpts of Obama administration’s energy secretary Dr. Steven Chu’s interview and a question relating to building transmission lines to promote renewable energy provided a response that called for local, regional, and state government participation, and approval to achieve that goal is achieved.⁸⁸ Obama administration pledged $3.4 billion towards “smart grid” technology that will have the next generation of infrastructure, stabilize the grid in the event of a failure, incorporate green technology, and improve efficiency. Almost 80% of the electric utilities in the United States are privately owned leaving gaping vulnerability in the entire interconnected system.⁸⁹ Creating the smart grid with new smart electrical meters for residential and business units on a national scale will be the biggest challenge in the electrical system since the rural electrification scheme of the 1930s. The new smart meters would be able to share real-time usage data sharing with customers as well as the utilities that would lead to new ways to reduce peak demand and adjust power supply to power demand and consumption, in addition to supplementing alternative power generation modes such as wind power. Considered comprehensively these can reduce environmental pollution ..⁹⁰

Politics always has a role in any democratic setup, and the United States is no exception,⁹¹ even if climate change poses security and geo-political challenges such as the critical US military installations vulnerable to rising seas and storm surges;⁹² the same is true for several nuclear stations located near sea shores. The United States refused to sign Kyoto Protocol and it had good reasons then. President Obama told lawmakers “It’s time for America to take the lead.” A coalition paper of major US companies such as Duke Energy and General Electric submitted a blueprint to Congress for legislative action to cap emissions. It is a similar approach that the United States took to cut sulfur emissions two decades back, and that is why we do not complain acid rain now.⁹³ Climate change in 2009 did not have the bipartisan support for a cap-and-trade system so that federal government has yearly limits on total greenhouse gas emissions.⁹⁴ Indeed this is not a cockamamie when we appreciate that rising temperatures can impact us in every walk of life. Kyoto Protocol may be meaningful and the United Nations may be endorsing it⁹⁵; just as each country has to weigh the pros and cons, the United States has established its priorities, and the administration rationale of cap-and-trade takes into account the realities of the scenario and promotes what is applicable to the US situation.

The repercussions of climate change are apparent from world climate studies which are comparatively recent and are just two decades since serious discussions started. A landmark report was published in 2007 by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) about climate change but lacked credibility since it was based on outdated data. Since then US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) published its findings on climate change in 2010, and the findings pointed out temperatures in the stratosphere were dropping. This study ignited a new debate by the “Climategate” skeptics. Concentration of greenhouse gases caused the upper atmosphere to cool even as the lower atmosphere warmed.⁹⁶ It turned out that the critics of global warming are the ones who lacked credibility.⁹⁷ Kyoto Protocol has not been accepted by several countries including the United States that contended it was biased and created a non-level arena where the underdeveloped world is able to cause greenhouse gases at much higher levels using cheaper energy and inefficient methods of technology that threaten unfair competitiveness to the US jobs.⁹⁸ With global economy in and out of recession, the debate is whether we can afford climate change and invest in greener economy. California has shown it can be done and should be targeted. To generate each dollar, California emits 20% fewer greenhouse gases than some of the world’s greenest countries.⁹⁹ However, the crusade against global warming makes it a convenient hindrance in arguing against industrial economic growth.¹⁰⁰

Global perspective of climate change is apparent from the advice that National Academy of Sciences provided to the US Government in the 869-page report calling for specific policy measures to prevent undesirable effects of climate change.¹⁰¹ The real fight for and against climate change is from the local level,¹⁰² and in spite of IPCC and Al Gore getting Nobel Peace Prize and IPCC retracting their flawed report, it cannot definitely be said that there is no such thing as “consensus.”¹⁰³ On July 9, 2009, leaders of 17 of the world’s largest economies met in L’Aquila, Italy, at the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate (MEF) to address the global warming issues. Scientists from the MEF countries called upon these leaders to recognize that the present global warming of 0.8 °C above preindustrial levels is already having a significant impact and is likely to exceed at the current level of world’s industrial activity 2 °C by the end of this century. They cited both the unacceptable risks that climate change creates and unprecedented opportunities a clean energy, low-carbon transition can create for world economies.¹⁰⁴ In a debate such as climate change, there are always “pros” and “cons” to understand the economic rationale for a mutually acceptable solution to tackle the problem of “global warming and climate change.”¹⁰⁵

The argument against wind power is that the usual turmoil over wind energy besides the landscape and or waterscape being impaired is the noise created by the use of large wind turbines. It is the consumer who has to evaluate cost–benefit that can accrue from wind energy. Sleep deprivation, headaches, and vertigo complaints from people living near turbines are chronicled in legal disputes in Maine, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Europe, and New Zealand.¹⁰⁶ The “wind turbine syndrome” may be real with doctors, pediatricians, and acoustic experts vouchsafing for and against the wind turbines. It is indisputable that optimum location should recognize health impairment caused by audible and subaudible wind turbine sounds. The question of landscape and waterscape impairment is subjective; this is in addition to all other factors dependent upon jobs and economics. With the advancement of wind turbine blade and ancillary design in the use of levitation and other technological advances, the problems of wind turbines can be reduced and even eradicated. R&D funds both from industry leaders and government are the answer. Siting of wind turbines is determined by the locational advantages; the other important consideration is the size versus cost, although this is equally applicable to onshore turbines, as well.¹⁰⁷ Given that by 2030 the US commitment for renewable energy is to be 30% so that wind energy quota is expected to be 300,000 MW, an eightfold increase over current levels. This will entail installing thousands of wind turbines.¹⁰⁸ The question is will these be acceptable to the local communities? Bowing to the environmentalist ’s concern about keeping windmills being too close to known wildlife, water fowl, and bird migration sites, four sites were abandoned as unsuitable for windmills in PA.¹⁰⁹

Pro-wind power arguments can be understood if the general complaint against wind energy is rationalized, i.e., excessive land use, which is in fact not the case. Windmills are normally located on least productive lands with only a small percentage factually used for windmills, and the rest can be used for continuation of the existing land use and even farming. This inconvenience is less than a fraction of the amount of land currently used up for coal mining with a promise of generating 20% of the US energy generation needs.¹¹⁰ During the past decade, offshore wind energy got a big boost by the efforts of the European Wind Energy Association (EWEA).¹¹¹ Recently Obama administration’s push for renewable energy was useful, although much is desirable for connecting the wind energy generation to the electrical grid.

To keep the renewable energy dream alive, it goes beyond the $787 billion stimulus bill of which $60 billion was showered on renewable energy in the form of loan guarantees for companies building wind and solar power plants. If wind power has to be harnessed, the key is wind turbines; the United States is looking at wind turbines twice as large and powerful as yet built. In such turbines the crucial component is the motor that relies on superconducting wire in its windings. With the superconducting coils carrying current without resistance (much like levitation in transit system), a motor could deliver more power in a small package than conventional motors.¹¹² Since the current testing is for 10-MW wind turbines, R&D has a long way to go for larger-power-capacity wind turbines. Considering the enormous potential, it is in the US interests to expend more R&D funds to harness this energy resource. An average US citizen consumes 1 kW of electricity and 60 gallons of water per day.¹¹³

The truth about the energy policy during the past four decades, even from the days of President Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and George W. Bush, tends to be in spite of best efforts mere rhetoric rather than substance. Until the US dependency ceases on energy imports of oil or gas, it will not make substantive difference. Given the Obama administration’s scouting around with administrative loan guarantees for renewable fuels, time alone will be the judge. With Germany in Europe and China in Asia forging ahead with wind energy, it is appropriate that the United States rethink about the addiction to foreign oil and gas.¹¹⁴

From the foregoing pages, it is evident that no particular type of energy source in the United States can be excluded, and user has to decide upon the technical merits what is suitable or not. Of far importance in the current US energy and power generation scenario is the presence of global actors and forces that tend to overshadow and influence local usage of any particular energy usage type. The policy and economic rationale will not only influence but also to an extent dictate the US usage of any particular energy mode. These are discussed in the next chapter – Geopolitical Considerations Impacting the US Energy Policy. Finally technical considerations enumerated in this publication for the individual energy generation type will empower the selection and usage of any energy source, for reducing the global warming, climate changes, and environmental pollution . Irrespective of what energy any nation including the United States resort to, most important is the awareness of the greenhouse gas emission levels which if neglected the nation can be racing towards RCP 8.5 instead of RCP 2.6 or RCP 4.5 and even RCP 6.0.

5.3 Climatic Change in the Pacific Region

The preceding discussions in Sects. 5.1 and 5.2 relate to the yardsticks and accepted standards to ascertain the level of pollution at the end of this century, assuming it is occurring at the current level of pollution. In Sect. 5.1 RCP 8.5 assumed accelerated rate of pollution, and there are three additional pollution levels, namely, RCP 2.6, RCP 4.5, and RCP 6.0, which reflect slower level of pollution due to slower industrial and economic development in addition to several other demographic, social, economic, and other stipulations.

In this section and the following sections, countries in each of the World Bank regions are discussed to indicate the global warming caused by climate changes which in turn cause environmental pollution. Thereafter the solutions for global warming are enumerated. All of these discussions are based upon scholastic and professional references cited at the end of each paragraph unless the write-up is my own interpretation and understanding of the topic. To start with this section deals with East Pacific region including China, Australasia, and Japan.

5.3.1 Climate Change in China

The position of the Chinese government on climate change is contentious. China has emitted more climate change gases from energy production than America since 2006, and by 2014–2015 China will emit twice America’s total.¹¹⁵ China can suffer some of the effects of global warming, including sea-level rise, glacier retreat, and air pollution. The implications of climate change impose serious setbacks on global health and will hinder the economic development of China, with effects on a social and economic level. China’s first National Assessment of Global Climate Change, released by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), states that China already suffers from the environmental impacts of climate change: increase of surface and ocean temperature and rise of sea level.¹¹⁶ Qin Dahe, former head of China’s Meteorological Administration, has said that the temperatures in the Tibetan Plateau of China are rising four times faster than anywhere else.¹¹⁷ Rising sea level is an alarming trend because China has a very long and densely populated coastline, with some of the most economically developed cities such as Shanghai, Tianjin, and Guangzhou situated there. Chinese research has estimated that a 1-m rise in sea level would inundate 92,000 km² of China’s coast, thereby displacing 67 million.¹¹⁸ There has also been an increased occurrence of climate-related disasters such as drought and flood, and the amplitude is growing. They have grave consequences for productivity with serious repercussions for natural environment and infrastructure. This threatens the lives of billions and aggravates poverty.¹¹⁹

Climate change has caused uneven distribution of water resources in China. Outstanding rises in temperature exacerbate evapotranspiration intensifying the risk of water shortage for agricultural production in the North, whereas the southern region’s overabundance in rainfall causes flooding. As the Chinese government faces challenges managing its expanding population, an increased demand for water to support the nation’s economic activity and people will burden the government. In essence, a water shortage is indeed a large concern for the country.¹²⁰ In addition, climate change endangers human health by increasing outbreaks of disease and their transmission. After floods, infectious diseases such as diarrhea and cholera are all far more prevalent. These effects exacerbate the degradation of the ecologically fragile areas in which poor communities are concentrated pushing thousands back into poverty.¹²¹

1 °C of regional mean warming is estimated to reduce wheat yield 3–10% in China. Grain crops mature earlier at higher temperatures, reducing the critical growth period and leading to lower yields.¹²² Some regions in China will be exposed to a 50% higher malaria transmission probability rate.¹²³

Assessment of Climate and Environment Changes in China for the past 100 years has shown dramatic changes with the global warming as its main feature.¹²⁴ More than 100 Chinese scientists in areas of climate change, environment, ecology, oceanography, economics, and social sciences have assessed the climate and environment changes in China and their impact on natural ecosystem and socioeconomic sectors. On the basis of scientific assessment, response strategy to the adaptation and mitigation of climate change has been put forward.

5.3.2 Global Warming in China

China has ratified the Kyoto Protocol but as a non-Annex I country which is not required to limit greenhouse gas emissions under terms of the agreement. In particular since 2007, the Chinese government has changed its attitude towards climate change policy and has become one of the major drivers of low-carbon technology developments.¹²⁵ In 2002, on the basis of an analysis of fossil fuel consumption¹²⁶ and cement production data, China surpassed the United States as the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide, putting out 7000 million tons, in comparison with America’s 5800 million.¹²⁷ China was the top emitter of fossil fuels CO₂ in 2009 with 7710 million mtons (25.4%) ahead of the United States with 5420 mmt (17.8%); India, 5.3%; Russia, 5.2%; and Japan, 3.6%. China was also the top emitter of all greenhouse gas emissions including building and deforestation in 2005 with China, 7220 mt (16.4%); the United States, 6930 mt (15.7%); Brazil, 6.5%; Indonesia, 4.6%; Russia, 4.6%; India, 4.2%; Japan, 3.1%; Germany, 2.3%; Canada, 1.8%; and Mexico, 1.6%.¹²⁸ In the cumulative emissions between 1850 and 2007, the top emitters were (1) the United States, 28.8%; (2) China, 9.0%; (3) Russia, 8.0%; (4) Germany, 6.9%; (5) the United Kingdom , 5.8%; (6) Japan, 3.9%; (7) France, 2.8%; (8) India, 2.4%; (9) Canada, 2.2%; and (10) Ukraine, 2.2%.¹²⁹ According to BBC News, in September 2014, China surpassed the European Union’s per capita carbon emissions for the first time in history. China’s per capita carbon emission currently is 7.20 ton/capita.¹³⁰ China’s carbon emissions have increased rapidly since its economic boom in the early 2000. Since then, their per capita carbon emissions have increased by more than 2.5 times.¹³¹

At the present rate of development, cumulative Chinese emissions from energy production between 1990 and 2050 will equal those generated by the whole world from the beginning of the industrial revolution to 1970. About a quarter of China’s carbon emissions are produced in the manufacture of goods for export.¹³² China is the largest consumer of coal in the world. In 2009, China produced 18,449 TWh of the world’s total 39,340 TWh.¹³³ China is now adding sulfur dioxide-reducing technology to its power plants. It has been argued that the release of sulfur dioxide from burning coal has slowed global warming but has caused 4698.3 deaths in the past decade.¹³⁴ According to IPCC (2007), from 1900 to 2005, precipitation has declined in parts of Southern Asia. By the 2050s freshwater availability including large river basins is projected to decrease in Asian regions. Coastal areas, especially the delta areas in Asia, are projected to have increased flooding risk. Floods and droughts are expected to increase health concerns: diseases and mortality.¹³⁵ China has been the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide since 2006, when it surpassed the United States. It was not supposed to overtake the United States as the world’s leading producer of greenhouse gases until 2020, but a study by a Dutch government-funded group released in June 2007 determined that China was already the world’s No. 1 emitter of carbon dioxide. It surpassed the United States in 2006 when it produced 7.5% more of these gases than the United States compared to 2% less in 2005. In August 2008, Germany’s IWR concluded that China’s carbon dioxide emissions in 2008 were 6.8 million tons – the most of any nation and 178% higher than the 1990 level. The United States and China together account for 40% of the world’s greenhouse gases, most of which is derived from coal.¹³⁶

China produces about 23% of the world’s carbon dioxide, compared to 21% from the United States (see Fig. 5.18). China emitted 6.23 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2006, compared to 5.8 billion metric tons of the United States . The increase was attributed mostly to increased coal consumption and cement production. Per capita carbon emissions are 4.03 tons for each Chinese compared to 21.75 tons per American and 1.12 tons in India. China’s emissions from transportation and household waste and aviation are relatively low, while emissions from power generation are among the highest in the world. The Chinese industry is relatively inefficient in its energy usage. Inner Mongolia has highest per capita carbon dioxide emissions in China. This is the result of China being the number one in the region for coal production with a low countrywide population density. While China’s carbon emission average is just a fifth of that of the United States, in this area the 16 tons per person per year are almost twice the level in the United Kingdom.¹³⁷ Carbon dioxide emissions from China are likely to get worse in the future (see Fig. 5.19). In 2012 China as well as worldwide, CO₂ emissions jumped by record amounts. China now has 363 new coal plants on the drawing boards, while India has 455 new coal plants on the drawing boards. Before the US recession, China’s average carbon footprint was between one-quarter and one-sixth of the average US carbon footprint. In 2011, China’s average per capita income was less than $4000, one-eleventh of the US average. In practice this means that people don’t have many of the things Americans are used to such as private vehicles, heated and air-cooled homes, and the opportunity to travel internationally, and Chinese are looking forward to those things.¹³⁸ We escalated their aspirations and perhaps we have to face them sooner than later!

Fig. 5.18

Carbon monoxide density in continental China. (Source: http://factsanddetails.com/china/cat10/sub66/item393.html)

Fig. 5.19

Industrial pollution in China, major source of CO₂. (Source: http://factsanddetails.com/china/cat10/sub66/item393.html)

Greenhouse gas emissions in China are growing very rapidly. Emissions increased by 56% between 1992 and 2002, when it released 3.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide. Since 2002 emissions have almost doubled once again. In 2004, China produced 4.7 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions for 17.4% of the world output, compared to 5.9 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions for 21.9% of the world output for the United States , 1.7 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions for 6.2% of the world output for Russia, and 1.3 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions for 4.7% of the world output for Japan. By 2025 the emission levels in China are expected to double or triple, equaling the increase in the entire industrialized world. Already emission increases in China canceled the progress made in other countries by reducing emissions in accordance with the Kyoto Protocol. Greenhouse gas emissions are increasing, mainly due to increase in coal use to fuel China’s industrial and economic boom. New power plants are being built, more coal is being burned, and sales of cars, refrigerators, and air conditioners are soaring. All of these produce more carbon dioxide and other gases. According to a 2007 survey by the Center of Global Development, the China power sector alone releases 2.68 billion tons of carbon dioxide, compared to 2.79 billion released by the United States and 400 million tons in Japan. China has not signed the Kyoto Protocol and is exempt because it is considered a developing country. China emits higher levels of greenhouse gases than other developing countries. On a per capita basis, China produces 4763 kilograms of carbon dioxide per person, compared to 19,278 kilograms for the United States (Fig. 5.20).¹³⁹

Fig. 5.20

Carbon monoxide concentrations in China . (Source: http://factsanddetails.com/china/cat10/sub66/item393.html)

Consequences of global warming in China will be widespread; a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that China will suffer worse consequence from global warming than other parts of world.¹⁴⁰ Northern part of the country might experience temperature increase of 5–6 °C, patterns of rainfall might radically shift, and glaciers in the Himalayas and Tibetan plateau might melt, depriving much the country of water for irrigation and other uses. Global warming could cost China $39 billion a year or 5% of GDP so that within a few decades, China’s grain production would reduce by a third in the second half of the twenty-first century. Global warming is expected to produce droughts and erratic precipitation and exacerbate land degradation in arid areas, making it particularly for subsistence farmers there. Temperature increases of 2–3 °C by the end of the twenty-first century are expected to affect rainfall, increase desertification, intensify typhoons, dry up already scarce water supplies, deplete forests, cause flooding along the coasts, expand the ranges of diseases like malaria, and exacerbate the bird flu problem, all of which are known effects of intense global warming.¹⁴¹

Climate change may induce a net crop yield reduction of 13% by 2050. The risk of water shortage for agriculture would impact rice yield decline by 4–14%, wheat yields could drop by 2–20%, and corn yields could decline up to 23%.¹⁴² Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tianjin, and the Pearl, Yellow, and Yangtze River deltas are particularly vulnerable to sea-level rises associated with global warming. If there is a 1-m rise in the sea level brought about global warming, it is estimated an area the size of Portugal will be inundated with water, including important manufacturing centers around Shanghai and Guangzhou, and 67 million people will have to leave their homes and land.¹⁴³

Glaciers in Tibet and the Himalayas that feed the Yangtze, Yellow, Mekong, and Brahmaputra Rivers are melting at a rate as high as 7% a year. Global warming is believed to be a major contributor, if not the cause of the problem. In the short term, this could cause severe floods. In the long term, it could cause severe water shortages. Global warming will increase rainfall amounts in northern China, but increased heat evaporation will negate many of the benefits. Other areas are expected to become drier and more prone to drought. Storms, floods, heat, and drought, which currently kill more than 2000 people in China, are expected to worsen as a result of more extreme weather caused by global warming. Extreme weather, storms, floods, and droughts on the Yangtze basin, where 400 million people live, could occur over the next few decades as a result of global warming. In the past decade, temperatures in the region have risen by 1 °C, causing increases in flooding, heat waves, and drought.¹⁴⁴ Other surveys indicated that heat waves have become more common, and the number of cold days has fallen as a result of global warming. In Inner Mongolia, global warming appears to have made the region drier. The areas of China that are expected to be affected the most by global warming in the future are northeast, which is expected to warm at a rate of 0.36 degrees a decade, and Inner Mongolia, which is expected to warm at a rate of 0.4 degrees a decade.¹⁴⁵

Consequences of global warming causing temperature increases and climatic changes in China have been well chronicled. Average temperature in China in 2007 was the highest it had been since 1951, according to the Chinese meteorological officials. It was also the 11th straight year that China recorded abnormally high temperatures. Already significant changes attributed to global warming have occurred. Sea levels in China in 2003 were 600 millimeters above worldwide levels between 1975 and 1986 as the Chinese reported. Sea levels off of Shanghai, Tianjin, and other cities are rising at alarming rates, contributing to the contamination of drinking water supplies. The problem is aggravated by excessive taking of groundwater which is causing ground levels to drop. According to the Chinese State Oceanic Administration, sea levels rose by 115 millimeters in Shanghai and 196 millimeters in Tianjin between 1978 and 2008 and are expected to rise to an average of 3.2 millimeters a year in the coming decade. Temperatures on the Tibetan plateau have risen 1 °C in the past 30 years, and glaciers and snow cover are shrinking ten times faster than during the previous 100 years. Global warming has also been blamed for unusually warm winters, droughts in Sichuan, and low levels of the Yangtze. Some have blamed global warming for the mild winters that have caused havoc and melting ice sculptures at the annual winter ice festival in Harbin. Temperatures reached 61 degrees F in early February 2007.¹⁴⁶

China’s International Impact on Global Warming is worth recognizing. If China cannot meet its own energy-efficiency targets, the chances of avoiding widespread environmental damage from rising temperatures are very close to zero. Projections by both the International Energy Agency and the Energy Information Administration in Washington had assumed that, even without an international energy agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, China would achieve rapid improvements in energy efficiency through 2020.¹⁴⁷ China is struggling to limit emissions even to the business as usual levels.¹⁴⁸ “We really have an arduous task even to reach China’s existing energy-efficiency goals,” said Gao Shixian, an energy official at the National Development and Reform Commission, in a speech at the Clean Energy Expo China in June 2010 in Beijing.¹⁴⁹ Global warming in China is having repercussions felt in the international energy policy arena. China’s carbon dioxide production not only affects China but also affects the entire world. China has promised to share in the burden of cutting carbon dioxide and participating in post-Kyoto talks. But at a United Nations meeting on global warming in May 2007, China and the United States were criticized for trying to water down a report on the potentially catastrophic effects of global warming and pushing to raise the lowest target level of carbon dioxide. The question is no longer whether China is equipped to play a role in combatting climate change but how will that role affect other countries. The International Energy Agency noted that Europe’s plan to extend 1990–2020 carbon dioxide cuts from 20% to 30% would equal to only 2 weeks of China’s emissions. If China’s emissions keep climbing as they have for the past 30 years, the country will emit more of those gases in the next 30 years than the United States has in its entire history. Getting China and India to reduce or slow their carbon dioxide emissions is vital if progress is going to be made fighting global warming, but asking these countries to slow their development or pay for expensive new technology is morally hard to defend when one considers that Western countries largely created the global warming problem, and asking China and India to sacrifice their development to fix it is not really fair. Many in China feel that water and air pollution are bigger problems and deserve greater emphasis than the global warming problem, and it is the responsibility of the United States, Europe, and Japan to solve the global warming problem since they were the ones that created it and continue to create it via China. Dieter Helm, an economist and professor of environmental policy at Oxford, told the Los Angeles Times, “We in the West are the cause of many of the emissions in China. China is producing goods for us. We could have had a steel mill here; instead, it’s now in China. Well, we’re still consuming the steel so it is our emissions .” At the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali in December 2007,¹⁵⁰ China insisted it would not agree to mandatory emission cuts, saying the United States and other industrialized countries should take the lead. A Chinese official at the conference said, “China is in the process of industrializing and there is a need for economic growth to meet the basic needs of people and fight poverty. I think there is much room for the United States to think whether it’s possible to change [its] lifestyle and consumption patterns in order to contribute to the protection of the global climate” (Fig. 5.21).¹⁵¹

Fig. 5.21

UN Climate Change Conference, Bali. (Source: http://unfccc.int/meetings/bali_dec_2007/meeting/6319.php)

The vague agreement reached at the Copenhagen summit on global warming in December 2009 was a disappointment to many. It failed to set specific standard and legal limits and fell far short of what was expected. If the United States and China and other emerging powers such as Brazil and South Africa set a target of limiting global warning to a maximum of 2 °C and offered funding to help poor nations adapt to climate change, it would have been helpful for global warming, but they failed to specify details, numbers, or anything that was legally binding. About 28 nations signed the agreement, called the Copenhagen Accord, but many hoped a better agreement will be worked out in the future. Sweden called the accord a disaster; British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the summit was “at best flawed and at worst chaotic.” Many blamed China for the shortcomings of the deal. Britain accused China of “hijacking” the talks and holding the world at ransom by blocking a more substantive deal. China said that it viewed a binding climate pact as an obstacle to its “right to develop” and accused Britain of trying to sow discord among developing nations on the global warming issue. During the talks China sent low-level officials to negotiate with US President Barack Obama until the last minute when Premier Wen Jiabao finally granted him an audience. This was widely viewed in China as a disrespectful and humiliating treatment of Obama. In October 2010, China hosted a major conference on global warming – organized by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Tianjin.¹⁵²

Standoff between the United States and China at Climate Talks in Durban was appalling! Reporting from the UN climate change talks in Durban, South Africa, John M. Broder wrote in the New York Times, “China, the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitter, has once again emerged as the biggest puzzle at international climate change talks, sending ambiguous signals about the role it intends to play in future negotiations.” This week, the nation’s top climate envoy said that China would be open to signing a formal treaty limiting emissions after 2020 – but laid down conditions for doing so that they are unlikely ever to be met.¹⁵³ China’s lead negotiator at the climate change talks, Xie Zhenhua, said that China was prepared to enter into a legally binding agreement after current voluntary programs expire at the end of the decade, seemingly a major step. China has always contended that because of its rapid economic growth and the persistent poverty of millions of its citizens, it cannot be bound by the same emission standards as advanced industrialized nations. Mr. Xie outlined five conditions under which China would consider joining such a treaty as a full partner, the major one being that China and other rapidly growing economies must be treated differently from the so-called rich countries. But that has been a deal-breaker for the United States for years and is the central reason that the Senate refused to even consider ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, a 1997 agreement whose goal is still not met, to limit global greenhouse gas emissions. “These conditions are not new,” Mr. Xie acknowledged at a briefing here where more than 190 nations gathered for the 17th annual conference of parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. “These have been negotiated for the past 20 years. “What is most important so far is to implement existing commitments and review efforts undertaken by the parties, and after that we can think about what should be done after 2020 and beyond.” Todd D. Stern, the American climate change envoy, said that the United States would be happy to discuss a formal treaty and then spelled out his conditions, which also were not new and appeared to rule out any sort of deal like that envisioned by Mr. Xie.¹⁵⁴ For a legally binding agreement to take hold, “it’s going to be absolutely critical that it applies to all the major players, and China obviously is one of them,” Mr. Stern said at a briefing. “All the major players have to agree with obligations, with commitments that have the same legal force,” he added. That means there’s no conditionality, on receiving technology or financing; there are no trap doors; there’s no Swiss cheese in that kind of an agreement.

The dispute between the United States and China, the two largest sources of the carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to global warming, has come to be an enduring feature of these negotiations and a source of deep frustration for the other players. Jo Leinen, the German Social Democrat who leads the delegation from the European Parliament, lashed out at both superpowers. “What is really frustrating to see is this conference is again hijacked by the Ping-Pong game between the U.S. and China,” he said. “It is unacceptable and no more tolerable that this game is blocking the overall process. Now that China has done some moves, let’s test their seriousness. I don’t see the same commitment, the same signals from the U.S. The one is not yet ready; the other is not willing. We really have a problem.”¹⁵⁵ The standoff has threatened to derail the process in each of the past several years, but at the end of the 2-week session, the parties usually pull back from the brink and announce an incremental, face-saving deal. Negotiators appear close to agreeing on how to structure a fund that is supposed to generate $100 billion a year in public and private financing for climate change programs by 2020. They have also made progress on programs to save tropical forests from clear-cutting, transfer clean energy technology to emerging nations, and refine systems for verifying that countries are taking steps to cut emissions. The holy grail of these talks, a global treaty encompassing all nations and limiting temperature rise to 3.6 °F above preindustrial levels, appears as elusive as ever. Weary of the inconclusive jousting on a treaty with teeth, many delegates and observers say that small progress may not be a bad thing. Elliot Diringer, executive vice president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, a private research and advocacy group in Washington, said that while a legal treaty remained an important prod to action, it should not get in the way of more immediate steps. “This preoccupation with ‘binding’ has become more an obstacle than a means of progress,” he said in an e-mail. “The reality is that key players including the United States and China are not prepared at this stage to take on binding commitments to reduce their emissions. Rather than arguing over that year after year, we should focus on strengthening the international climate framework step by step.”¹⁵⁶

5.3.3 Environment of China

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_China

Environmental issues in China are plentiful, severely affecting the country’s biophysical environment and human health. Environmental issues range from water resources, deforestation, coastal reclamation, land pollution, environmental pollution including coastal pollution, animal welfare, population problems, energy efficiency, animal welfare and human rights, natural disasters, community activism, and climate change. The environment of China comprises of diverse climates and rapid industrialization, population growth, and lax environmental oversight causing many environmental issues. Large-scale pollution in protected areas of China and debate over China’s economic responsibilities for climate change mitigation are some of the ongoing issues (Fig. 5.22).¹⁵⁷

Fig. 5.22

Air pollution caused by industrial plants at Yangtze River. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_of_China)

Rapid industrialization and lax environmental oversight are main factors in China’s environmental problems. According to eco-city designer Thomas V. Harwood III, 16 of the world’s 20 most polluted cities are in China (see Fig. 5.23).¹⁵⁸ The Chinese government has acknowledged the problems and made various responses, resulting in some improvements, but the responses have been criticized as inadequate.¹⁵⁹ In recent years, there has been increased citizens’ activism against government decisions that are perceived as environmentally damaging,¹⁶⁰ and a retired Chinese Communist Party official has reported that the year of 2012 saw over 50,000 environmental protests in China.¹⁶¹ Environmental policy in China is now at the center piece of international attention.

Fig. 5.23

Satellite image of China. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_of_China)

The Center for American Progress has described China’s environmental policy as similar to that of the United States before 1970. That is, the central government issues fairly strict regulations, but the actual monitoring and enforcement is largely undertaken by local governments that are more interested in economic growth. Furthermore, due to the restrictive conduct of China’s undemocratic regime, the environmental work of nongovernmental forces, such as lawyers, journalists, and nongovernmental organizations, is severely hampered.¹⁶² Since 2002, the number of complaints to the environmental authorities increased by 30% every year, reaching 600,000 in 2004; meanwhile, according to an article by the director of the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs, the number of mass protests caused by environmental issues grew by 29% every year since that time.¹⁶³ The growing attention to environmental matters caused the Chinese government to display an increased level of concern towards environmental issues and the creation of sustainable growth. For example, in his annual address in 2007, Wen Jiabao, the Premier of the People’s Republic of China, made 48 references to “environment,” “pollution,” and “environmental protection,” and stricter environmental regulations were subsequently implemented. Some of the subsidies for polluting industries were canceled, while some polluting industries were shut down. However, although the promotion of clean energy technology occurred, many environmental targets were missed.¹⁶⁴ After the 2007 address, polluting industries continued to receive inexpensive access to land, water, electricity, oil, and bank loans, while market-oriented measures, such as surcharges on fuel and coal, were not considered by the government despite their proven success in other countries. The significant influence of corruption was also a hindrance to effective enforcement, as local authorities ignored orders and hampered the effectiveness of central decisions. In response to a challenging environmental situation, President Hu Jintao implemented the “Green GDP” project, whereby China’s gross domestic product was adjusted to compensate for negative environmental effects; however, the program lost official influence in spring 2007 due to the confronting nature of the data. The project’s lead researcher claimed that provincial leaders terminated the program, stating “Officials do not like to be lined up and told how they are not meeting the leadership’s goals. They found it difficult to accept this.”¹⁶⁵ In 2014 China amended its protection laws to help fight pollution and reverse environmental damage in the country.¹⁶⁶ The water resources of China are affected by both severe water quantity shortages and severe water quality pollution. An increasing population and rapid economic growth as well as lax environmental oversight have increased water demand and pollution. China has responded by measures such as rapidly building out the water infrastructure and increased regulation as well as exploring a number of further technological solutions. Water usage by its coal-fired power stations is drying up Northern China.¹⁶⁷ According to Chinese government in 2014, 59.6% of groundwater sites are poor or extremely poor quality.¹⁶⁸ Although China’s forest cover is only 20%,¹⁶⁹ the country has some of the largest expanses of forested land in the world, making it a top target for forest preservation efforts. In 2001, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) listed China among the top 15 countries with the most “closed forest,” i.e., virgin, old growth forest or naturally regrown woods.¹⁷⁰ 12% of China’s land area, or more than 111 million hectares, is closed forest. However, the UNEP also estimates that 36% of China’s closed forests are facing pressure from high population densities, making preservation efforts especially important. In 2011, Conservation International listed the forests of southwest Sichuan as one of the world’s ten most threatened forest regions.¹⁷¹

According to the Chinese government website, the central government invested more than 40 billion yuan between 1998 and 2001 on protection of vegetation, farm subsidies, and conversion of farmland to forest.¹⁷² Between 1999 and 2002, China converted 7.7 million hectares of farmland into forest.¹⁷³ China’s marine environments, including the Yellow Sea and South China Sea, are considered among the most degraded marine areas on earth.¹⁷⁴ Loss of natural coastal habitats due to land reclamation has resulted in the destruction of more than 65% of tidal wetlands around China’s Yellow Sea coastline in approximately 50 years. Rapid coastal development for agriculture and aquaculture and industrial development are considered the primary drivers of coastal destruction in the region.¹⁷⁵ Desertification remains a serious problem, consuming an area greater than the area used as farmland. Although desertification has been curbed in some areas, it is still expanding at a rate of more than 67 km² every year. 90% of China’s desertification occurs in the west of the country.¹⁷⁶ Approximately 30% of China’s surface area is desert. China’s rapid industrialization could cause this area to drastically increase. The Gobi Desert in the north currently expands by about 950 square miles (2500 km²) per year. The vast plains in northern China used to be regularly flooded by the Yellow River. However, overgrazing and the expansion of agricultural land could cause this desert area to increase.¹⁷⁷

In 2001, China initiated a “Green Wall of China” project. It is a project to create a 2800-mile (4500 km) “green belt” to hold back the encroaching desert. The first phase of the project, to restore 9 million acres (36,000 km²) of forest, will be completed by 2010 at an estimated cost of $8 billion. The Chinese government believes that, by 2050, it can restore most desert land back to forest. The project is possibly the largest ecological project in history.¹⁷⁸ In July 2015, Council on Foreign Relations Director of Asia Studies Elizabeth Economy writing in The Diplomat listed soil contamination as a “poor stepchild” of the Chinese environmental movement and questioned whether or not recent measures from the Ministry of Environmental Protection would be adequate in combating the problem.¹⁷⁹ In her 2004 book The River Runs Black, she wrote, “China’s spectacular economic growth over the past two decades has dramatically depleted the country’s natural resources and produced skyrocketing rates of pollution. Environmental degradation has also contributed to significant public health problems, mass migration, economic loss, and social unrest.”¹⁸⁰

Various forms of pollution have increased as China has industrialized which has caused widespread environmental and health problems.¹⁸¹ China has responded with increasing environmental regulations and a build-up of pollutant treatment infrastructure which have caused improvements on some variables. As of 2013 Beijing, which lies in a topographic bowl, has significant industry, and heats with coal, is subject to air inversions resulting in extremely high levels of pollution in winter months.¹⁸²

In response to an increasingly problematic air pollution problem, the Chinese government announced a 5-year, US$277 billion plan to address the issue. Northern China will receive particular attention, as the government aims to reduce air emissions by 25% by 2017, compared with 2012 levels, in those areas where pollution is especially serious.¹⁸³ According to a report published by Greenpeace and Peking University’s School of Public Health in December 2012, the coal industry is responsible for the highest levels of air pollution (19%), followed by vehicle emissions (6%). In January 2013, fine airborne particulates that pose the largest health risks rose as high as 993 micrograms per cubic meter in Beijing, compared with World Health Organization guidelines of no more than 25. The World Bank estimates that 16 of the world’s most polluted cities are located in China.¹⁸⁴ Coastal pollution is widespread, leading to declines in habitat quality and increasing harmful algal blooms.¹⁸⁵ The largest algal bloom recorded in history occurred in China around the southern Yellow Sea in 2008 and was easily observed from space.¹⁸⁶

Rising affluence is another indirect cause of pollution. In particular, car ownership has skyrocketed. In 2014, China added a record 17 million new cars to the road and car ownership reached 154 million.¹⁸⁷ China currently has the world’s largest population but population growth is very slow in part due to the one-child policy. According to a 2007 article, during the 1980 to 2000 period, the energy efficiency improved greatly. However, in 1997, due to fears of a recession, tax incentives and state financing were introduced for rapid industrialization. This may have contributed to the rapid development of very energy-inefficient heavy industry. Chinese steel factories used one-fifth more energy per ton than the international average. Cement needed 45% more power, and ethylene needed 70% more than the average. Chinese buildings rarely had thermal insulation that used twice the energy to heat and cool as those in Europe and the United States in similar climates. 95% of new buildings did not meet China’s own energy efficiency regulations.¹⁸⁸

A 2011 report by a project facilitated by World Resources Institute stated that the 11th 5-year plan (2005 to 2010), in response to worsening energy intensity in the 2002–2005 period, set a goal of a 20% improvement of energy intensity. The report stated that this goal likely was achieved or nearly achieved. The next 5-year plan set a goal of improving energy intensity by 16%.¹⁸⁹ A 2005–2006 survey by Prof. Peter J. Li found that many farming methods that the European Union is trying to reduce or eliminate are commonplace in China, including gestation crates, battery cages, early weaning of cows, and clipping of ears/beaks/tails. Livestock in China may be transported over long distances, and there are currently no humane slaughter requirements. China farms about 10,000 Asiatic black bears for bile production, an industry worth roughly $1.6 billion per year.¹⁹⁰ Jackie Chan and Yao Ming have publicly opposed bear farming.¹⁹¹ In 2012, over 70 Chinese celebrities took part in a petition against an IPO application by Fujian Guizhentang Pharmaceutical Co. due to the company’s selling of bear bile medicines.¹⁹² China is the biggest fur-producing nation. Some fur animals are skinned alive, and others may be beaten to death with sticks. According to Prof. Peter J. Li, a few Chinese zoos are improving their welfare practices, but many remain “outdated,” have poor conditions, use live feeding, and employ animals for performances. Safari parks may feed live sheep and poultry to lions as a spectacle for crowds. China currently has no animal welfare laws.¹⁹³ In 2006, Zhou Ping of the National People’s Congress introduced the first nationwide animal protection law in China, but it didn’t move forward.¹⁹⁴ In September 2009, the first comprehensive animal protection law of the People’s Republic of China was introduced, but it hasn’t made any progress (Fig. 5.24).¹⁹⁵

Fig. 5.24

Panda in Sichuan. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_of_China)

Activist protests commenced in the southern town of Yinggehai in April 2012 following the announcement of a power plant project to be constructed in the small town. The protesters initially succeeded in halting the project, a plant worth 3.9 billion renminbi (£387 m), as another town was selected for the location of the plant; however, the residents in the second location also resisted and the authorities returned to Yinggehai. A second round of protests occurred in October 2012, and police engaged aggressively with around 1000 protesters on this occasion, leading to 50 arrests and almost 100 injuries (according to reports from the Information Centre for Human Rights and Democracy, a Hong Kong-based rights group).¹⁹⁶ In response to a waste pipeline for a paper factory in the city of Qidong, several thousand demonstrators protested in July 2012. According to the Xinhua news agency, 16 protesters from Qidong were sentenced in early 2013 to between 12 and 18 months in prison; however, 13 were granted a reprieve on the grounds that they had confessed and repented.¹⁹⁷

Rapid industrialization and population growth have caused urbanization, suburban sprawl (see Fig. 5.25), rapid regional growth, and metropolitanization resulting from lax environmental oversight and have caused many environmental issues resulting in concomitant large-scale pollution in China.¹⁹⁸ As of 2013 Beijing, which lies in a topographic bowl, has significant industry and, as it uses coal for heating, is subject to air inversions resulting in extremely high levels of pollution in winter months.¹⁹⁹

Fig. 5.25

A large proportion of motor vehicles now sold in the cities of the Yangtze Delta are electric bicycles. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_of_China)

In January 2013, fine airborne particulates that pose the largest health risks rose as high as 993 micrograms per cubic meter in Beijing, compared with World Health Organization guidelines of no more than 25. The World Bank estimates that 16 of the world’s most polluted cities are located in China.²⁰⁰ According to Jared Diamond, the six main categories of environmental problems of China are air pollution, water problems, soil problems, habitat destruction, biodiversity loss, and mega projects in addition to China being noted for the frequency, number, extent, and damage of its natural disasters.²⁰¹

5.3.4 Solving Global Warming in China

Climate change mitigation measures were adopted by China. The People’s Republic of China is an active participant in the climate change talks and other multilateral environmental negotiations and claims to take environmental challenges seriously but is pushing for the developed world to help developing countries to a greater extent. It is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, although China is not required to reduce its carbon emissions under the terms of the present agreement. China issued its first Climate Change Program in 2007, in response to its surpassing of the United States as the largest emitter of carbon dioxide emissions in the world.²⁰² The Chinese national carbon trading scheme was later announced in November 2008 by the national government to enforce a compulsory carbon emission trading scheme across the country’s provinces as part of its strategy to create a “low-carbon civilization.”²⁰³ The scheme would allow provinces to earn money by investing in carbon capture systems in those regions that fail to invest in the technology.²⁰⁴

In 2004, Premier Wen Jiabao promised to use an “iron hand” to make China more energy-efficient. China has surpassed the rest of the world as the biggest investor in wind turbines and other renewable energy technology. And it has dictated tough new energy standards for lighting and gas kilometrage for cars.²⁰⁵ With $34.6 billion invested in clean technology in 2009, China is the world’s leading investor in renewable energy technologies.²⁰⁶ China produces more wind turbines and solar panels each year than any other country.²⁰⁷ Coal is predicted to remain the most important power source in the near future, and China is seen as the world leader in clean coal technology.²⁰⁸ Nuclear power is planned to be rapidly expanded. By mid-century fast neutron reactors are seen as the main nuclear power technology which allows much more efficient use of fuel resources.²⁰⁹

A 2011 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory report predicted that Chinese CO₂ emissions will peak around 2030. This is because in many areas such as infrastructure, housing, commercial building, appliances per household, fertilizers, and cement production, a maximum intensity will be reached with inevitable replacement. The 2030 emission peak also became China’s pledge at the Paris COP21 summit. Carbon emission intensity may decrease as policies become strengthened and more effectively implemented, including more effective financial incentives, and as less carbon-intensive energy supplies are deployed. In a “baseline” computer model, CO₂ emissions were predicted to peak in 2033; in an “Accelerated Improvement Scenario,” they were predicted to peak in 2027.²¹⁰

A debate over China’s economic responsibilities for climate change mitigation is worthy of consideration.²¹¹ China is often used as a scapegoat and excuse for inaction by countries like the United States whose per capita emissions are much higher, but whose overall emissions are lower due to their smaller populations. Canada and Australia are also high on the per capita emission list, on equal footing with the United States , and have also at times used China as a carbon scapegoat. However, as “Media Matters” notes, with China beginning to take a leadership role in solving the problem, the case for climate inaction is crumbling. Good news from China is that China’s energy consumption has soared along with its economic growth, including the country’s coal consumption. However, given concerns about both climate change and deteriorating air quality (so bad it’s sometimes called “airpocalypse”), the Chinese government is signaling a significant shift towards prioritizing environmental and public health, motivated partly by worries that complaints about bad air will lead to public unrest. Currently China consumes 3.9 billion tons of coal per year, up from 1.5 billion tons in 2000, but policy advisors have signaled that through a focus on energy efficiency and other measures, this rapid growth of Chinese coal consumption is at an end. “Coal consumption will peak below 4 billion tons.” In addition, the Chinese government appears to be on the verge of taking a critical step which has eluded the American and Canadian federal governments, implementing a carbon tax. Although the carbon tax is expected to be modest, China plans to also increase coal taxes. These Chinese policies may reduce global coal shipments, 18% within 2 years, and may make China a net coal exporter.²¹²

These steps signal that China is taking climate change seriously and moving into a leadership role in solving the problem, which means that other countries like the United States can no longer point their fingers at China as an excuse not to take action to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions. There is also good news from United States, because American CO₂ emissions hit a 20-year low in 2012. 38% of the 2012 emission reduction was due to natural gas replacing coal, but 58% came from installing more renewable energy, including 27% from new wind energy. This trend continued in January 2013, when 100% of the new electric capacity added in the United States came from renewable sources, primarily from 958 megawatts of wind and 267 megawatts of solar energy. In his State of the Union speech, President Obama also promised that if US Congress doesn’t tackle climate change, he will, “...if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will. I will direct my cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.” And there is a lot President Obama could do on his own to tackle climate change, first and foremost if his administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) moves to regulate emissions from existing power plants, which account for about 40% of annual emissions in the United States. President Obama has just nominated Gina McCarthy to head the EPA. McCarthy has helped shape the EPA’s strong greenhouse gas regulations to this point and is thus a solid choice by President Obama to lead the EPA from a climate standpoint. The Keystone XL decision is another key test. While the pipeline itself represents a relatively small proportion of our overall carbon budget, it is nevertheless a key to opening up the Alberta tar sands, which could ultimately account for 13% of our average annual allowable carbon emission budget if all planned projects are approved. Since development of the tar sands would cripple any possible efforts by Canada to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, good news on preventing approval of the pipeline is good news for Canada. A rally in Washington D.C. against the pipeline was the biggest ever climate rally in the United States, drawing over 35,000 participants. John Kerry’s first speech as Secretary of State included some very strong language on climate change. “If we waste this opportunity [to address climate change], it may be the only thing our generation – generations – are remembered for. We need to find the courage to leave a far different legacy.”²¹³

Warning signs in Australia are to reverse its status as one of the world’s highest per capita carbon emitters by implementing a carbon tax. Overall there is much more good news than bad on the climate front so far in 2013. China is taking a leadership role in addressing the problem, and the United States is taking some significant steps as well. This may have some impact on Canadian emissions as well, depending on the ultimate US Keystone XL decision. Australia’s carbon tax is faring well but faces an opposition threat nonetheless. But in America, emissions are down, wind is already cost-competitive with new coal power, and a major solar project was approved in New Mexico at a price cheaper than coal. In Australia, wind is already cheaper than coal, and solar is right behind. With renewable technologies becoming more efficient and cheaper, they are also becoming more cost-effective to implement. This will accelerate with a price on carbon emissions, or with EPA greenhouse gas regulations. There is still hope to solve the climate crisis yet.²¹⁴

5.3.5 Climate Change and Global Warming in Pacific Islands

Pacific Islands are exposed to changes in climate and weather that affect every aspect of life. Ocean and island ecosystems are changing with warming air and ocean temperatures, shifting rainfall patterns, changing frequencies and intensities of storms, decreasing base flow in streams, rising sea levels, and changing ocean chemistry. Together, these changes will make it increasingly difficult for many Pacific Islanders to sustain their unique communities and cultures (see Figs. 5.26 and 5.27).²¹⁵

Fig. 5.26

The US-Affiliated Pacific Islands. (Source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/rcsd/pacific)

Fig. 5.27

Indicators of climate change in the Pacific Islands. (Source: From Pacific Islands Regional Climate Assessment (PIRCA) report aimed at assessing the state of climate knowledge, impacts, and adaptive capacity of Hawaii and the US-Affiliated Pacific Islands, cited in https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/rcsd/pacific)

Climate change in the Pacific Islands is evident in various ways in the way coral reefs are impacted (see Fig. 5.28 and see Fig. 5.29 for climate change overview in Pacific Islands). Hawaii supports more than 70% of the coral reefs in the United States with additional extensive coral reefs in the Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and National Wildlife Refuge islands and atolls throughout the Pacific. Coral reefs are particularly sensitive to the impacts of climate change as even small increases in water temperature can cause coral bleaching. Rising sea surface temperature will place many coral reefs into a temperature category that may be marginal for corals and reef ecosystems. Ocean acidification due to rising carbon dioxide levels poses an additional threat to coral reefs and the rich ecosystems they support. At the current rate of increase, atmospheric CO₂ concentrations will reduce the saturation state of carbonate minerals in the surface ocean over the next 70 years until nearly all the locations of coral reefs are at or beyond their normal environmental limits. This implies the widespread loss of coral reefs worldwide if carbon dioxide emissions continue unabated. Coral bleaching and subsequent mortality can lead to habitat phase shifts where corals are replaced by algae and algal-dominated areas occur on many healthy Pacific reef systems and algal overgrowth, as the result of climate change.²¹⁶

Fig. 5.28

Coral reefs impacted by climate change in Pacific Islands. (Source: https://www.fws.gov/pacific/Climatechange/changepi.html)

Fig. 5.29

Climate change overview in Pacific Islands. (Source: This graph is excerpted from United Global States Research Program, 2009, cited in https://www.fws.gov/pacific/Climatechange/changepi.html)

El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO), resulting from the large-scale global interaction of atmospheric and oceanic circulation, is an inter-annual climatic phenomenon that creates temperature fluctuations in the tropical surface waters of the Pacific Ocean. ENSO is a naturally occurring phenomenon, but there is uncertainty regarding how global warming and the associated climate changes will impact the frequency, magnitude, and duration of this cycle and how that will in turn affect ecosystems. For example, changes to established ocean circulation patterns can have significant effects on biological connectivity for marine organisms, distribution of species, biological productivity, and marine debris issues. Changes in storm events can impact corals directly from wave damage or more indirectly from runoff and sediment deposition.²¹⁷

Most island communities in the Pacific have limited sources of freshwater. Many islands depend on freshwater lenses below the surface, which are recharged by precipitation. Changes in precipitation, such as the decreases currently observed in Hawai’i, are thus a cause of great concern (see Fig. 5.30). Sea-level rise also affects islands’ water supplies by causing saltwater to contaminate the freshwater lens and by causing an increased frequency of flooding during storm high tides.²¹⁸ Coastal wetlands will become increasingly brackish as seawater inundates freshwater wetlands. New brackish and freshwater wetland areas will be created as seawater inundates low-lying inland areas or as the freshwater table is pushed upward by the higher stand of seawater in the Pacific Islands, and there are many low-lying atolls that are part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. These atolls are home to an estimated 10 million breeding-aged sea birds, and many marine mammals, sea turtles, coral reef communities, and other fish and wildlife. Coastal inundation will become more frequent, and coastal land will be permanently lost as the sea inundates low-lying areas and as shorelines erode in the Pacific Islands which will affect living things in coastal ecosystems. For example, the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, which are low-lying and therefore at great risk from rising sea level, have a high concentration of threatened and endangered species, some of which exist nowhere else. With further warming, hurricane and typhoon peak wind intensities and rainfall are likely to increase, which, combined with sea-level rise, would cause higher storm surge levels²¹⁹ and will impact coastal habitats (e.g., nesting areas), ports, and coastal infrastructure (e.g., roads, sewers, communities) of the Pacific Islands.²²⁰

Fig. 5.30

Coastal nesting areas of Hawaii impacted by rise in sea levels. (Source: https://www.fws.gov/pacific/Climatechange/changepi.html)

The ocean will eventually absorb most carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere as a result of the burning of fossil fuels, and ocean acidification is a result of dissolving carbon dioxide into ocean surface waters. Oceanic absorption of CO₂ from fossil fuels will result in larger acidification changes and virtually acidification changes in seawater, including photosynthesis, respiration rate, growth rates, calcification rates, reproduction, and carbonate-based animals and plants which form the foundation of our marine ecosystems. In Hawai’i carbonate-dependent animals such as marine snails and carbonate-dependent plants such as red marine algae²²¹ with the seasonal and geographic distribution of rainfall and temperature combined with steep, mountainous terrain produce a wide array of island-scale climate regimes. Hawai’i native plants and animals and human-caused greenhouse gases will likely alter the archipelago’s terrestrial and marine environments by raising air and sea surface temperatures, changing the amount and distribution of precipitation, raising sea level, increasing ocean acidification, and exacerbating severe weather events. Hawaiian climate has two main seasons: Ka’u wela, the dry high-sun season from May to October with warm, steady trade winds, and Ho’oilo, the cooler, wet season from November to April, with weaker and less frequent trade winds, and storms that bring rain across the islands. The atmospheric processes of these seasons are (1) the Hadley cell climate that drives the trade winds and trade wind inversion and (2) non-Hadley cell climate that drives winter weather events such as Kona storms, the southern tails of mid-latitude cyclonic storms, and upper-level atmospheric troughs. Other important climate features that affect Hawai’i include El Niño drought events, hurricanes, and smaller-scale weather processes. Overall, the daily temperature range in Hawai’i is decreasing, resulting in a warmer environment, especially at higher elevations and at night. The average ambient temperature (at sea level) is projected to increase by about 4.1 °F by 2100.²²² Effects of climate change on precipitation in Hawai’i with the average annual rainfall at sea level is about 25 inches. The orographic (mountain) features of the islands increase this annual average to about 70 inches but can exceed 240 inches in the wettest mountain areas. Rainfall is distributed unevenly across each high island, and rainfall gradients are extreme, creating very dry and wet areas. Global climate modeling predicts that net precipitation at sea level near the Hawaiian Islands will decrease in winter by about 4–6%, with no significant change during summer.²²³ Data on precipitation in Hawai’i, which includes sea-level precipitation and the added orographic effects, shows a steady and significant decline of about 15% over the last 15–20 years.²²⁴

5.3.6 Environment Solutions in Pacific Islands

The objective is to create more sustainable and environmentally sound plans for the nation’s future. The built environment is also at risk from coastal flooding and erosion as sea levels incrementally increase. Loss of habitat for endangered species such as monk seals, sea turtles, and Laysan ducks is expected along with increased coral bleaching episodes, expansion of avian malaria to higher elevations, and changes in the distribution and survival of the areas’ marine biodiversity. The region comprises of multiple terrestrial and marine ecosystems, ranging from mountainous alpine systems to abyssal environments deep under the ocean. Solutions need to address all of these climatic changes the Pacific Islands region is experiencing. Key indicators of the changing climate include rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, rising air and sea-surface temperatures, rising sea levels and upper-ocean heat content, changing ocean chemistry and increasing ocean acidity, changing rainfall patterns, decreasing base flow in streams, changing wind and wave patterns, changing extremes, and changing habitats and species distributions.²²⁵

The Pacific region includes the Hawaiian archipelago and the US-Affiliated Pacific Islands and comprises the Central North Pacific (blue), Western North Pacific (light orange), Central South Pacific (light green), and the islands of the Pacific Remote Island Marine National Monument (dark orange). Shaded areas indicate each island’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) (see Fig. 5.31).²²⁶ Low islands are especially prone to drought, but their varied coral reef, mangrove, and lagoon environments support rich marine ecosystems (see Figs. 5.32 and 5.33).

Fig. 5.31

Map of the Pacific Islands region and subregions. (Source: Courtesy of Miguel Castrence, East-West Center, cited in http://www.cakex.org/sites/default/files/documents/NCA-PIRCA-FINAL-int-print-1.13-web.form_.pdf)

Figs. 5.32 and 5.33

Examples of high and low islands of the Pacific region (Source: In Fig. 5.32 is Ko‘olau Mountains and Ko‘olau Mountains windward side-HDR, used under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NonDerivs license; and in Fig. 5.33 is Laysan Island, courtesy of Andy Collins, NOAA © 2008 kstrebor, cited in http://www.cakex.org/sites/default/files/documents/NCA-PIRCA-FINAL-int-print-1.13-web.form_.pdf)

The Pacific Islands region includes high islands that may rise to more than 13,000 feet above sea level, as well as low islands that are only a few feet above present sea level. As rural communities often depend on agriculture and other environmentally sensitive practices, they are extremely vulnerable to weather and climate conditions. The Mariana Trench contains some of the deepest ocean environments on earth and is a refuge for seabirds, sea turtles, unique coral reefs, and an immense diversity of seamount and hydrothermal vent life shown in Figs. 5.34, 5.35, and 5.36.²²⁷

Fig. 5.34

Bluefin Trevally in Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument. (Source: Photo courtesy of James Watt, USFWS cited in http://www.cakex.org/sites/default/files/documents/NCA-PIRCA-FINAL-int-print-1.13-web.form_.pdf)

Fig. 5.35

The threatened, endemic ‘ahinahina or Haleakala silversword (Argyroxiphium sandwicense subsp. macrocephalum) in full bloom on Maui, Hawaiian Islands. (Source: Photo courtesy of NPS cited in http://www.cakex.org/sites/default/files/documents/NCA-PIRCA-FINAL-int-print-1.13-web.form_.pdf)

Fig. 5.36

The coral reefs in American Samoa support a diversity of species, including the beaded sea anemone, Heteractis aurora. (Source: Photo courtesy of Paul Brown, NPS, cited in http://www.cakex.org/sites/default/files/documents/NCA-PIRCA-FINAL-int-print-1.13-web.form_.pdf)

Figure 5.37 shows plots of the annual average atmospheric pressure at sea level (SLP). Plot of atmospheric pressure in summer months (June–August) in the Northern Hemisphere is shown in the left versus plots in winter months (December–February) shown in the right. In June–August (left), the area of strong average high pressure (orange) that extends across the Central North Pacific (CNP) subregion of Hawaiian archipelago corresponds to the North Pacific High (NPH). In December– February (right), the area of strong average low pressure (purple) centered on the Gulf of Alaska corresponds to the Aleutian Low (AL).²²⁸

Fig. 5.37

Plot of the annual average atmospheric pressure at sea level (SLP) of the Northern Hemisphere in summer months (June–August) at the left and at the right plot of the annual average atmospheric pressure at sea level (SLP) of the Northern Hemisphere in winter months (December–February). (Source: Courtesy of NOAA – ESRL (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – Earth System Research Laboratory, Physical Sciences Division), cited in http://www.cakex.org/sites/default/files/documents/NCA-PIRCA-FINAL-int-print-1.13-web.form_.pdf)

Figure 5.38 shows El Niño (shown in the left figure) where the trade winds decrease, ocean water piles up off South America, the sea-surface temperature (SST) increases in the eastern Pacific, and there is a shift in the prevailing rain pattern from the western Pacific to the western Central Pacific. During La Niña (shown in the right figure), the trade winds increase, ocean water piles up in the western Pacific, the SST decreases in the eastern Pacific, and the prevailing rain pattern also shifts farther west than normal.²²⁹

Fig. 5.38

El Niño and La Niña events. (Source: Courtesy of NOAA National Weather Service, cited in http://www.cakex.org/sites/default/files/documents/NCA-PIRCA-FINAL-int-print-1.13-web.form_.pdf)

Figure 5.39 shows simulated natural versus human-induced global temperature, 1890–2000; using an ensemble of four climate models, scientists can differentiate between human-induced trends and natural trends in long-term global climate variables. Here, the observed change in global annual air temperature (black line) is compared to the predicted range of air temperature with only natural climate variability (blue line with blue shading) and the predicted range with both natural plus human-induced factors (red line with pink shading) (see Fig. 5.40). Natural factors include volcanic and solar activity, while human-induced activity adds the effects of greenhouse gases , sulfates, and ozone (Meehl et al. 2009). In the Pacific region, high ENSO-related variability makes it more difficult to separate the long-term and short-term trends.²³⁰

Fig. 5.39

Precipitation during El Niño in the Northern Hemisphere winter. (Source: Courtesy of NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, cited in http://www.cakex.org/sites/default/files/documents/NCA-PIRCA-FINAL-int-print-1.13-web.form_.pdf)

Fig. 5.40

Simulated natural versus human-induced global temperature, 1890–2000. (Source: From Meehl, G. A., Hu, A., & Santer, B. D. (2009), “The mid-1970s climate shift in the Pacific and the relative roles of forced versus inherent decadal variability.” Journal of Climate, 22(3), 780–792. doi:https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JCLI2552.1 by permission of American Meteorological Society, cited in http://www.cakex.org/sites/default/files/documents/NCA-PIRCA-FINAL-int-print-1.13-web.form_.pdf)

Nukuoro Atoll lagoon (see Fig. 5.41) is about 3.7 miles in diameter and has an approximate land area of 0.7 square miles. Climate-related environmental deterioration for communities at or near the coast, coupled with other socioeconomic or political motivations, may lead individuals, families, or communities to consider migrating to a new location. In 2012, the Hawaii’s State Legislature passed a law (SB 2745) that amends the State Planning Act by adding climate change as one of ten statewide priority guidelines and provides specific guidance on how to do this, including “encourage planning and management of the natural and built environments to effectively integrate climate change policy.” Impacts of sea-level rise are incorporated in plans developed by the City and County of Honolulu.²³¹

Fig. 5.41

Nukuoro Atoll is part of the Federated States of Micronesia. (Source: Picture courtesy of NASA, cited in http://www.cakex.org/sites/default/files/documents/NCA-PIRCA-FINAL-int-print-1.13-web.form_.pdf)

Namdrik Atoll (see Fig. 5.42) has a land area of 1.1 square miles and a maximum elevation of 10 feet. Namdrik and other Pacific Islands similar to it are among the first places that will face the possibility of climate-induced human migration. Maintaining an adequate freshwater supply in the Pacific Island environments is of critical concern as climate change places stresses of uncertain magnitude on already fragile resources. Freshwater wetlands are also the primary environment in which taro is grown, a food staple on many low islands.²³²

Fig. 5.42

Namdrik Atoll, in the Republic of the Marshall Islands. (Source: Picture courtesy of Darren Nakata, cited in http://www.cakex.org/sites/default/files/documents/NCA-PIRCA-FINAL-int-print-1.13-web.form_.pdf)

Precipitation is the source of both surface water, such as streams and groundwater on Pacific Islands. Variations in precipitation and evapotranspiration rates therefore affect both resources. Surface water is important for human use and provides habitats for fragile ecosystems. Groundwater in islands exists as a freshwater lens underlain by saltwater, and on high volcanic islands, it may also exist as high-level groundwater. Groundwater is a principal source of drinking water on high islands.²³³ Pictorial presentation of regional hydrological effect is shown in Fig. 5.43.

Fig. 5.43

Cross section of regional hydrological processes. (Source: Izuka, S. K. (2011). Potential effects of roadside dry wells on groundwater quality on the island of Hawaii: Assessment using numerical groundwater models (US Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report No. 2011–5072). Retrieved from http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2011/5072/, cited in http://www.cakex.org/sites/default/files/documents/NCA-PIRCA-FINAL-int-print-1.13-web.form_.pdf)

The amount and location of rainfall in Hawaii’s and other high islands is strongly controlled by orographic processes. As warm air approaches a mountain range, it rises, cools, and condenses in orographic clouds, causing rainfall. On very high mountains in Hawai’i, as the cooled air continues to rise, it reaches the trade wind inversion layer, at which point the air again warms, and above which there is little to no precipitation.²³⁴ Surface runoff on high islands is channeled into streams in valleys and gulches carved into the mountains by erosion. Groundwater exists in freshwater lenses typical of islands but may also exist as high-level groundwater (Fig. 5.44). Groundwater is often the main source of drinking water on high islands; surface water from streams is used for agriculture and to supplement drinking water, but it is also important for ecosystems, culture, recreation, and aesthetics. The state has an obligation to protect, control, and regulate the use of Hawaii’s water resources for the benefit of its people. The legislature shall provide for a water resources agency which, as provided by law, shall set overall water conservation, quality, and use policies; define beneficial and reasonable uses; protect ground and surface water resources, watersheds, and natural stream environments; establish criteria for water use priorities while assuring appurtenant rights and existing correlative and riparian uses; and establish procedures for regulating all uses of Hawaii’s water resources.²³⁵

Fig. 5.44

Depiction of the orographic effect. (Source: Giambelluca, T. W., Chen, Q., Frazier, A. G., Price, J. P., Chen, Y.-L., Chu, P.-S., Eischeid, J., et al. (2011). The rainfall atlas of Hawai‘i. Retrieved from http://rainfall.geography.hawaii.edu, cited in http://www.cakex.org/sites/default/files/documents/NCA-PIRCA-FINAL-int-print-1.13-web.form_.pdf)

Conservationists and small farmers restore historic stream flows away from plantation-era diversions that capture all base flows. Proponents of restoring historic flow levels use the water for traditional cultural and agricultural practices and for restoring the habitat of native species.²³⁶ See Figs. 5.45 and 5.46.

Fig. 5.45

In Maui’s ‘lao Valley, small farmers capture base stream flows. (Source: Courtesy of Jonathan L. Scheuer, cited in http://www.cakex.org/sites/default/files/documents/NCA-PIRCA-FINAL-int-print-1.13-web.form_.pdf)

Fig. 5.46

Anchialine–Kuki’o Pools on Hawai’i Island are unique environments found only in the coastal tropics and sub-tropics (Source: ©2010 Rosa Sey, “One of the Kuki’o anchialine ponds,” used under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs license, cited in http://www.cakex.org/sites/default/files/documents/NCA-PIRCA-FINAL-int-print-1.13-web.form_.pdf)

The pools have no surface connection to the ocean yet can range from fresh to brackish. Anchialine pools are critical habitat for several rare and endemic species, such as opae‘ula red shrimp, snails, and insects.²³⁷ Causes of sea-level change are documented in Fig. 5.47 and sea-level trend in Fig. 5.48.

Fig. 5.47

Causes of sea-level change. (Source: Climate change 2001: Synthesis report. A contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (R. T. Watson and the Core Writing Team (eds.). Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, cited in http://www.cakex.org/sites/default/files/documents/NCA-PIRCA-FINAL-int-print-1.13-web.form_.pdf)

Fig. 5.48

Sea-level trend for 1993–2010 from Aviso altimeter product, produced by Ssalto/Duacs with support from the Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales. (Source: Merrifield, M. A. (2011). A shift in Western Tropical Pacific sea level trends during the 1990s. Journal of Climate, 24(15), 4126–4138. doi:https://doi.org/10.1175/2011JCLI3932.1 by permission of American Meteorological Society, cited in http://www.cakex.org/sites/default/files/documents/NCA-PIRCA-FINAL-int-print-1.13-web.form_.pdf)

Environmental impacts in the island regions face a wide range of impacts due to increased mean water levels and the possibility of more frequent extreme inundation events. These phenomena, manifest principally as increased flooding and erosion, threaten both natural and built environments. A key consideration with respect to the potential impacts of increased flooding and erosion is the inherent differences between high versus low islands, and their corresponding differences in both social and ecosystems diversity. A figurative presentation of the critical cyclone tracks and their intensity is shown in Fig. 5.49.²³⁸

Fig. 5.49

Map of cumulative tropical cyclone tracks and intensity. (Source: Image by Robert A. Rohde, Global Warming Art. Courtesy of NASA Earth Observatory, cited in http://www.cakex.org/sites/default/files/documents/NCA-PIRCA-FINAL-int-print-1.13-web.form_.pdf)

Climate variability and change threaten marine, freshwater, and terrestrial ecosystems through rising air and sea-surface temperature, sea-level rise (SLR), seasonal changes in precipitation, changes in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events (hurricanes and typhoons, heavy rain events, and droughts), changes in solar radiation, and increasing ocean acidification which can indicate generalized effects of increased greenhouse gases on oceanic and coastal ecosystems in the tropical Pacific (see Fig. 5.49).²³⁹ The impacts of greenhouse gases are depicted in Fig. 5.50.

Fig. 5.50

Impact of greenhouse gases . (Source: Bell, J. D., Adams, T. J. H., Johnson, J. E., Hobday, A. J., & Sen Gupta, A. (2011). Pacific communities, fisheries, aquaculture and climate change: An introduction. In J. D. Bell, J. E. Johnson, & A. J. Hobday (eds.), Vulnerability of tropical Pacific fisheries and aquaculture to climate change (pgs. 1–48). Noumea, New Caledonia: Secretariat of the Pacific Community, cited in http://www.cakex.org/sites/default/files/documents/NCA-PIRCA-FINAL-int-print-1.13-web.form_.pdf)

Long before islands are submerged as a result of sea-level rise (SLR), coastal and nearshore environments (sandy beaches, shallow coral reefs, seagrass beds, intertidal flats, and mangrove forests) and the vegetation and terrestrial animals in these systems will increasingly be affected by wave over-wash during storms, reshaping and movement of islets and beaches, and salinization and rising of groundwater. For example, freshwater and brackish water wetlands will become more saline with increasing seawater inundation and intrusion into shallow water tables. Species that are dependent on fixed islands for breeding, such as seabirds and sea turtles, are particularly susceptible to such changes.²⁴⁰ Many of the considerations noted above for low islands apply to the nearshore and coastal portions of high islands. Impacts to the built environment on low-lying portions of high islands will be much the same as those experienced on low islands. Unlike low islands, however, high islands have large uplands where facilities and infrastructure could be moved inland to reduce risk. In contrast, the freshwater and terrestrial environments within the region are more likely to have been significantly impacted by invasive species, and assessment of climate impacts on these ecosystems will need to consider not only changes in native ecosystems and species but also the interaction with invasive species that will also be responding to climate changes.²⁴¹

Stream systems are found only on high islands and are home to freshwater snails and arthropods, as well as a suite of fish, snails, and shrimp that are amphidromous (whose larval stages occur in the ocean).These latter species provide a direct link between freshwater and marine environments. Rising sea level can inundate low-lying landfills, which can also affect water quality when toxicants are released into the marine environment. Impacts to specific marine ecosystems are shown in Fig. 5.51. Open ocean variables that will be impacted by climate change produce energy through primary production moves shown by a “trophic pyramid” (see Fig. 5.51) via a range of zooplankton such as copepods and larval fish, macrozooplankton such as jellyfish and salps. and micronekton such as squid, shrimp, and small fish to sustain tuna and other large pelagic fish.

Fig. 5.51

Generalized trophic pyramid for the tropical Pacific Ocean. (Source: Le Borgne, R., Allain, V., Griffiths, S. P., Matear, R. J., McKinnon, A. D., Richardson, A. J., & Young, J. W. (2011). Vulnerability of open ocean food webs in the tropical Pacific to climate change. In J. D. Bell, J. E. Johnson, & A. J. Hobday (eds.), Vulnerability of tropical Pacific fisheries and aquaculture to climate change (pgs. 189–250). Noumea, New Caledonia: Secretariat of the Pacific Community, cited in http://www.cakex.org/sites/default/files/documents/NCA-PIRCA-FINAL-int-print-1.13-web.form_.pdf)

Figure 5.52 shows frequency of future bleaching events in the 2030s and 2050s, as represented by the percentage of years in each decade where a NOAA Bleaching Alert Level 2 (i.e., severe thermal stress) is predicted to occur. Predictions are based on an IPCC A1B (business-as-usual) emission scenario and adjusted to account for historical temperature variability but not adjusted by any other resistance or resilience factors.²⁴²

Fig. 5.52

Frequency of future bleaching events in the 2030s and 2050s. (Source: From Burke, L., Reytar, K., Spalding, M., & Perry, A. (2011). Reefs at risk revisited. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Retrieved from http://www.wri.org/publication/reefs-at-risk-revisited, 2011. Data adapted from Donner, S. D. (2009). Coping with Commitment: Projected thermal stress on coral reefs under different future scenarios. PLoS ONE, 4(6), e5712. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005712, cited in http://www.cakex.org/sites/default/files/documents/NCA-PIRCA-FINAL-int-print-1.13-web.form_.pdf)

In addition, coral reef ecosystems in the region are likely to be affected by mid-century as the upward growth rates of corals are expected to slow in response to rising sea levels. Estimated aragonite saturation state (an indicator of ocean acidification) for CO₂ stabilization levels of 380 ppm, 450 ppm, and 500 ppm, corresponding approximately to the years 2005, 2030, and 2050 under the IPCC²⁴³ A1B (business-as-usual) emission scenario.²⁴⁴

Changes in rainfall patterns can alter the magnitude and timing of freshwater flows to the nearshore environment, leading to changes in salinity and mangrove community composition,²⁴⁵ and much like coral reefs and seagrass beds, mangroves can be destroyed by intense storms and cyclones. In the Pacific Island region, alpine and subalpine ecosystems are found only in Hawaii and represent some of the most fragile and unique ecosystems on earth. The harsh environment of high elevation and the natural barrier provided by lava fields have largely but not entirely spared these ecosystems from alien species invasions.²⁴⁶

The bioclimate envelope of the Hawaiian endemic ‘akoko (called Chamaesyce rockii) is projected to become greatly reduced in area and fragmented into two isolated locations. In contrast, the bioclimate envelope of the alien and invasive strawberry guava (named Psidium cattleianum) is expected to expand into the montane forest and also occupy the new lowland climate zone produced by climate change²⁴⁷ (see Fig. 5.53). The continued reduction of long-term environmental (climate) monitoring efforts degrades the validation and refinement of modeling and downscaling approaches. Such degradation critically endangers not only our ability to accurately understand the magnitude of change that is happening but also our ability to identify, forecast, and respond to extreme environmental conditions that may cause irreparable damage to ecosystems and the communities/economies that depend upon them.²⁴⁸

Fig. 5.53

Climate-induced changes in the bioclimate envelope of plant species in Hawaii. (Source: Price, J., Giambelluca, T. W., Jacobi, J., Elison Timm, O., Diaz, H. F., & Mehrhoff, L. (2009). Modeling Hawaiian plant species ranges relative to global climate change. Poster presented at the Hawaii Conservation Conference, Honolulu, HI, cited in http://www.cakex.org/sites/default/files/documents/NCA-PIRCA-FINAL-int-print-1.13-web.form_.pdf)

Environmental changes due to global warming in relation to 17 °C (yellow) and 13 °C (white) isotherms under current conditions and with a 2 °C warming of the climate are shown for Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge (blue boundary) on Hawaii and the Alakai swamp region on the island of Kauai in Fig. 5.54.²⁴⁹

Fig. 5.54

Projected changes in the location of the forest cover due to global warming. (Source: Benning, T. L., LaPointe, D., Atkinson, C. T., & Vitousek, P. M. (2002). Interactions of climate change with biological invasions and land use in the Hawaiian Islands: Modeling the fate of endemic birds using a geographic information system. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(22), 14,246–14,249. doi:https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.162372399, cited in http://www.cakex.org/sites/default/files/documents/NCA-PIRCA-FINAL-int-print-1.13-web.form_.pdf)

Thus, the above-detailed environmental changes pose enormous challenges for the region suggesting multiple concerns for human and natural communities of the East Pacific islands²⁵⁰:

• Low islands, coral reefs, nearshore and coastal areas on high islands, and high-elevation ecosystems are most vulnerable to climatic changes.

• Freshwater supplies will be more limited on many Pacific Islands, especially low islands, as the quantity and quality of water in aquifers and surface catchments change in response to warmer, drier conditions coupled with increased occurrences of saltwater intrusion.

• Rising sea levels will increase the likelihood of coastal flooding and erosion, damaging coastal infrastructure and agriculture, negatively impacting tourism, reducing habitat for endangered species, and threatening shallow reef systems.

• Extreme water levels will occur when sea-level rise related to longer-term climate change combines with seasonal high tides, inter-annual and inter-decadal sea-level variations (e.g., ENSO, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, mesoscale eddy events), and surge and/or high run-up associated with storms.

• Higher sea-surface temperatures will increase coral bleaching, leading to a change in coral species composition, coral disease, coral death, and habitat loss.

• Rising ocean acidification and changing carbonate chemistry will have negative consequences for the insular and pelagic marine ecosystems; although potentially dramatic, the exact nature of the consequences is not yet clear.

• Distribution patterns of coastal and ocean fisheries will be altered, with potential for increased catches in some areas and decreased catches in other areas, but with open-ocean fisheries being affected negatively overall in the long term.

• Increasing temperatures and, in some areas, reduced rainfall will stress native Pacific Island plant and animal populations and species, especially in high-elevation ecosystems, with increased exposure to nonnative biological invasions and fire and with extinctions as a likely result.

• Threats to traditional lifestyles of indigenous communities in the region (including destruction of coastal artifacts and structures, reduced availability of traditional food sources and subsistence fisheries, and loss of the land base that supports Pacific Island cultures) will make it increasingly difficult for Pacific Island cultures to sustain their connection with a defined place and their unique set of customs, beliefs, and languages.

• Mounting threats to food and water security, infrastructure, and public health and safety will lead increasingly to human migration from low islands to high islands and continental sites.

• The high inter-annual and inter-decadal variability of the climate in the Pacific Islands region (e.g., ENSO, Pacific Decadal Oscillation) makes it difficult to discern long-term trends from short-term data.

• Many Pacific Islands lack long-term, high-quality data on rainfall, stream flows, waves, and ecosystems, and continued monitoring is needed.

• Global circulation models need to be downscaled to provide higher-resolution projections for Pacific Islands to account for the influence of local topography on weather patterns and the potential impact of climate change on ecosystems.

• Sea level in the Western North Pacific has risen dramatically starting in the 1990s. This regional change appears to be largely wind-driven, is associated with climate variability, and is not expected to persist over time.

• Some islands in the region have no human inhabitants and few human impacts, offering a relatively pristine setting in which to assess the impacts of climate change on natural settings.

• Integrated biological, geochemical, and physical models are needed to improve understanding of the pressures on ecosystems and ecological responses to climate change in the Pacific Islands region.

• A better understanding of how climate change affects invasive species and their interactions with native species is needed.

• A comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of alternative adaptation strategies is needed to refine planning and management decisions.

• The isolation of the Pacific Islands region from the contiguous United States (and the isolation of islands from one another) presents challenges to the regional exchange of information and limits the influence of regional leaders in national and global decision-making processes.

• The recovery of key marine, freshwater, and terrestrial ecosystems in the Pacific Islands combines effective local management and a global reduction in greenhouse gases .

Many of the above impacts are unavoidable, making some degree of adaptation essential. Some jurisdictions (e.g., Hawaii, American Sāmoa) are more advanced than others in developing adaptation plans and policies (see Fig. 5.55). The diversity of natural and human communities in the region means that while regional cooperation is essential to progress efficiently with adaptation activities, a place-based approach is also important. An informed and timely response along with additional research and public engagement will enhance Pacific Islanders’ ability to address the challenges they confront.²⁵¹

Fig. 5.55

Bleached Acropora corals before (left) and after (right) treatment with cooled seawater for 24 h, Tutuila, American Samoa. (Source: Courtesy of B. Von Herzen, Climate Foundation, cited in http://www.cakex.org/sites/default/files/documents/NCA-PIRCA-FINAL-int-print-1.13-web.form_.pdf)

There are some endeavors in the environmental front to combat climate change by Pacific Islanders worth noting. Pacific Islands, such as Kiribati, are at the “frontline” of climate change. With islands and atolls dotted across the ocean, they find themselves increasingly exposed and vulnerable to climate change and face the multiple threats of increasing ocean acidity, rising sea levels, and escalating natural disasters. Dependent on the sea, and on coral reefs, for much of their livelihoods, the 10 million people living on these islands are also having their incomes put at risk and their traditional way of life – often dating back several millennia – threatened.²⁵²

Marshall Islands confronted a state of disaster as worsening drought led to acute water shortages when Australia announced AU$100,000 of aid for emergency desalination units for the country, while the United States donated several reverse osmosis machines to help convert saltwater into freshwater on the islands. Many Pacific countries have also set their own ambitious climate targets and at a renewable energy meeting in the region with the Danish Government committed $2 million to renewable energy and energy efficiency projects to help countries meet these targets. The money will help run a solar photovoltaic telecommunication system in the Solomon Islands, a super-efficient demonstration house in Tuvalu, and solar-powered wall water pumping systems on the Ha’apai Islands. The Secretariat of the Regional Environmental Programme signed the $2 million agreement along with the UN Development Programme. The Pacific contributes only 0.03% of the world’s total greenhouse gases , but the islands are in the frontline of impacts of climate change. In response, Pacific countries have all set very ambitious renewable energy targets with the issue of the implementation of these targets at the forefront. Islanders rely heavily on fuel imports for transport and electricity. Over the last 5 years, potential renewable energy projects have been going through assessments in 11 Pacific Island countries. In the second phase, these projects could be replicated across the region. A second meeting – part of an initiative of France’s Research on Development Institute (IRD) and New Caledonia University – had 30 scientists from across the Pacific Basin examine possible designs of sustainable development model for the Pacific. It aimed to find ways island communities can adapt to a changing climate. One of the biggest issues they focused on was food security. As much as 40% of GDP on the Kiribati islands comes from fishing, while on the Marshall Islands, the industry accounts for 25% of the country’s income (see Fig. 5.56). But as climate change causes sea levels to rise, stable fish stocks, such as tuna, will move away from many of the islands, while damage from coral reefs could further impact coastal fisheries. The experts advocated for the development of fish farms and freshwater fisheries. On Fiji, Vanuatu, and Samoa, farms have recently started raising Nile tilapia, an alien species. To reduce pressure on the reefs and allow coastal residents to catch tuna, there are also plans to build floating pontoons to attract the fish.²⁵³

Fig. 5.56

Pacific Islands, such as Kiribati islands and atolls, are dotted across the ocean. (Source: Creative Commons: Rafael Ávila Coya, 2010, cited in http://tcktcktck.org/2013/05/vulnerable-pacific-island-nations-look-for-climate-change-solutions, Tierney Smith • May 13, 2013)

5.3.7 Climate Change and Global Warming in Australia

Climate change has been a major issue in Australia since the beginning of the twenty-first century.²⁵⁴ Rainfall in southwestern Australia has decreased by 10–20% since the 1970s. Australia continues to have the highest per capita greenhouse gas emissions.²⁵⁵ A carbon tax was introduced in 2011 by the Gillard government in an effort to reduce the impact of climate change, and despite some criticism, it successfully reduced Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions, with coal generation down 11% since 2008–2009.²⁵⁶ During the government of Malcolm Turnbull, Australia attended the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference and adopted the Paris Agreement. This agreement includes a review of emission reduction targets every 5 years from 2020.²⁵⁷

Predictions measuring the effects of global warming on Australia assert that global warming will negatively impact the continent’s environment, economy, and communities. Australia is vulnerable to the effects of global warming projected for the next 50–100 years because of its extensive arid and semiarid areas, high annual rainfall variability, and existing pressures on water supply. Global warming could lead to substantial alterations in climate extremes, such as tropical cyclones, heat waves, and severe precipitation events.²⁵⁸

The federal government and all state governments (New South Wales,²⁵⁹ Victoria,²⁶⁰ Queensland,²⁶¹ South Australia,²⁶² Western Australia,²⁶³ Tasmania,²⁶⁴ Northern Territory,²⁶⁵ and the Australian Capital Territory²⁶⁶) have explicitly recognized that climate change is being caused by greenhouse gas emissions. The per capita carbon footprint in Australia was rated 12th in the world by Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) in 2011, considerably large given the small population of the country.²⁶⁷

Effects of global warming on Australia are evident according to the CSIRO²⁶⁸ and Garnaut Climate Change Review²⁶⁹; climate change is expected to have numerous adverse effects on many species, regions, activities, and much infrastructure and areas of the economy and public health in Australia. The Stern Report²⁷⁰ and Garnaut Review on balance expect these to outweigh the costs of mitigation.²⁷¹ Sustained climate change could have drastic effects on the ecosystems of Australia. For example, rising ocean temperatures and continual erosion of the coasts from higher water levels will cause further bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef.²⁷²

The summer of 2012/2013 included the hottest summer, hottest month, and hottest day on record. The cost of the 2009 bushfires in Victoria was estimated at A$4.4bn (£3bn), and the Queensland floods of 2010/2011 cost over A$5bn.²⁷³ The Australian Government released a detailed report on the impacts of climate change on coastal areas of Australia, finding that up to 247,600 houses are at risk from flooding from a sea-level rise of 1.1 m. There were 39,000 buildings located within 110 m of “soft” erodible shorelines, at risk from accelerated erosion due to sea-level rise.²⁷⁴ A report released in October 2009 by the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts, studying the effects of a 1-m sea-level rise, quite possible within the next 30–60 years, concluded that around 700,000 properties around Australia, including 80,000 buildings, would be inundated; the collective value of these properties is estimated at $150 billion.²⁷⁵

Mitigation of global warming in Australia is one of Australia’s first national attempts to reduce emissions with the voluntary-based initiative called the Greenhouse Challenge Program which began in 1995.²⁷⁶ A collection of measures which focused on reducing the environmental impacts of the energy sector was released by Prime Minister John Howard on November 20, 1997, in a policy statement called “Safeguarding Our Future: Australia’s Response to Climate Change.”²⁷⁷ One measure was the establishment of the Australian Greenhouse Office, which was set up as the world’s first dedicated greenhouse office in April 1998.²⁷⁸

After contributing to the development and signing but not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, action to address climate change was coordinated through the Australian Greenhouse Office. The Australian Greenhouse Office released the “National Greenhouse Strategy” in 1998. The report recognized climate change was of global significance and that Australia had an international obligation to address the problem. In 2000 the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee conducted an inquiry that produced “The Heat Is On: Australia’s Greenhouse Future.”²⁷⁹ Emission trading is one of the activities of the “Prime Ministerial Task Group on Emissions Trading” for “Action on Climate Change” featured strongly in the “November 2007 Australian federal election” in which John Howard was replaced by Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister. The first official act of the new Australian Government was to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.²⁸⁰

Department of Climate Change under Minister Penny Wong is coordinating and leading climate policy in the Australian Government and aimed to have a national emission trading scheme operating by 2010. However, on April 27, 2010, the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announced that the government has decided to delay the implementation of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) until the end of the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (ending in 2012).²⁸¹ The Government cited the lack of bipartisan support for the CPRS. Australia attended the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference and adopted the Paris Agreement. The agreement includes a review of emission reduction targets every 5 years from 2020.²⁸²

The state of Victoria, in particular, has been proactive in pursuing reductions in GHG through a range of initiatives (see Figs. 5.57 and 5.58). Other states have also taken a more proactive stance than the federal government. One such initiative was undertaken by the Victorian Walk against warming in Melbourne, December 2009.

Fig. 5.57

A protest on World Environment Day in Victoria. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_Australia)

Fig. 5.58

Victorian Walk against warming in Melbourne, December 2009. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_Australia)

5.3.8 Environmental Issues and Solutions for Global Warming in Australia

The environmental issues due to global warming and corresponding solutions for Australasia are unique in respect of the location, geography, and morphology of the continent’s fauna and flora. The governments of Australia and New Zealand had been very protective of these aspects considering the continent is young and is sparsely populated, with concentrations in major metropolitan cities that tilt the balance of environmental issues to be tackled in these continents.

Australia is a major exporter and consumer of coal, the combustion of which liberates CO₂ so that in 2003 Australia was the eighth highest emitter of CO₂ gases per capita in the world liberating 16.5 tons per capita.²⁸³ Australia is claimed to be one of the country’s most at risk from climate change according to the Stern report.²⁸⁴ Most of Australia’s demand for electricity depends upon coal-fired thermal generation,²⁸⁵ owing to the plentiful indigenous coal supply, limited potential for hydroelectric generation, and political unwillingness to exploit indigenous uranium resources (although Australia accounted for the world’s second highest production of uranium in 2005²⁸⁶ to fuel a “carbon-neutral” domestic nuclear energy program). Recent climate change reports have highlighted the threat of higher water temperatures to the Great Barrier Reef. One of the notable issues with marine conservation in Australia is the protection of the Great Barrier Reef. The Great Barrier Reef’s environmental pressures include water quality from runoff, climate change and mass coral bleaching, cyclic outbreaks of the crown-of-thorns starfish, overfishing, and shipping accidents. Two images showing the relationship of water temperature to coral bleaching along the Great Barrier Reef are shown in Fig. 5.59. Warm pink and yellow tones show where sea surface temperatures were warm in the top image. The warmest waters are the shallow waters over the reef near the coast, where coral bleaching was most severe in the summer. The lower image shows chlorophyll concentrations, where high concentrations (yellow) generally point to a high concentration of phytoplankton in surface waters of the ocean. In this image, the bright yellow dots actually represent the coral reefs, and not surface phytoplankton.²⁸⁷

Fig. 5.59

Two images showing the relationship of water temperature to coral bleaching along the Great Barrier Reef. (Source: Norman Kuring and Robert Simmon, based on data provided by Scarla Weeks, University of Queensland – http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17237, cited in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_Australia)

While there have been no oil spill environmental disasters of the scale of the Exxon Valdez in Australia, it has a large oil industry, and there have been several large oil spills. Spills remain a serious threat to the marine environment and Australian coastline. The largest spill to date was the Kirki tanker in 1991 which dropped 17,280 tons of oil off the coast of Western Australia.²⁸⁸ In March 2009, the 2009 southeast Queensland oil spill occurred, where 200,000 liters were spilled from the MV Pacific Adventurer spilling more than 250 tons of oil, 30 tons of fuel, and other toxic chemicals on Brisbane’s suburban beaches. Premier Anna Bligh described the spill as “worst environmental disaster Queensland has ever seen.”²⁸⁹

Australia’s geographical isolation has resulted in the evolution of many delicate ecological relationships that are sensitive to foreign invaders and in many instances provided no natural predators for many of the species subsequently introduced which cause widespread environmental damage. Introduced plants that have caused widespread problems are lantana and the prickly pear bush. The introduction and spread of animals such as the cane toad or rabbit can disrupt the existing balances between populations and develop into serious environmental problems (Fig. 5.60).²⁹⁰

Fig. 5.60

A rabbit-proof fence enforces a barrier to protect agriculture areas in Western Australia. Rabbits are an invasive species in Australia. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_Australia)

A serious issue to the Australian marine environment is the dumping of rubbish from ships. There have been a number of cases,²⁹¹ particularly involving the navy of Australian and other countries polluting Australian waters including the dumping of chemical warfare agents and the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan in 2006 which was found to be dumping rubbish off the shores of Moreton Island.²⁹² The consequences of land clearing include dryland salinity and soil erosion. These are a major concern to the landcare movement in Australia.²⁹³ Soil salinity affects 50,000 km² of Australia and is predominantly due to land clearance. The protection of waterways in Australia is a major concern for various reasons including habitat and biodiversity but also due to use of the waterways by humans. The Murray–Darling Basin is under threat due to irrigation in Australia, causing high levels of salinity which affect agriculture and biodiversity in New South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia. These rivers are also affected by pesticide runoff and drought (see Fig. 5.61).²⁹⁴

Fig. 5.61

A Parks Victoria litter trap on the river catches floating rubbish on the Yarra at Birrarung Marr. (Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/Litter_trap.jpg)

Rivers and creeks in urban areas also face environmental issues, particularly pollution. Remediation of soil and sediment from Homebush Bay on the Parramatta River is done by desorption and incineration. Water use is a major sustainability issue in Australia. During times of drought, water restrictions in Australia apply to conserve water. Climate change may intensify drought in Australia putting pressure on water resources and leading to alternative water sources including construction of water tanks, dams, water transportation, and desalination plants, many of which affect water catchments and put increasing pressure on the environment. The urban sprawl of Melbourne is of concern in spite of being one of the most urbanized countries in the world (see Fig. 5.62). Many Australian cities have large urban footprints and are characterized by an unsustainable low-density urban sprawl. This places demand on infrastructure and services which contributes to the problems of land clearing, pollution, transport-related emissions, energy consumption, invasive species, automobile dependency, and urban heat islands.²⁹⁵

Fig. 5.62

The urban sprawl of Melbourne. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_Australia#/media/File:Melbourne2.jpg cited in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_Australia)

Formerly swamplands, the Gold Coast City developed urbanization on the coastal strip between waterways and the sea and contains many high rises, see Fig. 5.63. The urban sprawl continues to increase at a rapid rate in most Australian cities, particularly the state capital cities, all of which are metropolises. In some centers, such as Sydney and Greater Western Sydney,²⁹⁶ Greater Melbourne, and South East Queensland,²⁹⁷ large metropolitan conurbations threaten to extend for hundreds of kilometers and based on current population growth rates are expected to become megacities in the twenty-first century (Fig. 5.63).²⁹⁸

Fig. 5.63

A Queensland beach with the skyline of the heavily developed urban strip with Gold Coast in the background. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_Australia)

In most Australian cities, population growth is a result of migration in contrast to the birth rate and fertility rate in Australia, which is contributing to the ongoing trend of urban sprawl (see Fig. 5.64). In recent years, some cities have implemented transit-oriented development strategies to curb the urban sprawl. Notable examples include Melbourne 2030,²⁹⁹ South East Queensland Regional Plan, and the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy. There are also population decentralization programs at state and federal levels aimed at shifting populations out of the major centers and stemming the drivers to rapid urbanization. Albury–Wodonga³⁰⁰ was part of the federal government’s program of decentralization begun in the 1970s, which has at times had relocation policies for immigration. The Victorian government has run a decentralization program since the 1960s, having had a ministerial position appointed and ongoing promotional and investment programs for stimulating growth in regional Victoria. However policy has swung over the decades, primarily due to local development priorities and agendas and a lack of federal coordination to the problem.³⁰¹

Fig. 5.64

Map shows in white where 9% of Australia’s entire population lives. (Source: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/16044142399320404/)

Sustainable waste management is a significant problem in Australia, and serious issues include large quantities of e-waste and toxic waste going into landfill. Australia does not have restrictions on the dumping of toxic materials that are common in other countries, such as dumping cathode ray tubes which leach heavy metals into water catchments. Due to the lack of sufficient sites for toxic waste disposal, large quantities of toxic waste are trucked between states to remote dumping grounds or exported overseas in ships.³⁰²

Australia has the largest reserves of uranium in the world, and there have been a number of enquiries on uranium mining. The antinuclear movement in Australia is actively opposing mining as well as preventing the construction of nuclear power plants. At least 150 leaks, spills, and license breaches have occurred at the Ranger uranium mine between 1981 and 2009. There are various controversial development projects scattered around several states with concerns of environmental effects.³⁰³

Solutions to global warming in Australia include aggressively reducing coal dependence while simultaneously implementing a price on carbon emissions and a national renewable electricity standard; solutions for New Zealand include reforestation and sustainable farming. Australia has one of the world’s highest per capita global warming emission rates, as well as vast coal reserves that make it the largest exporter of coal in the world. While coal is also New Zealand’s most abundant fossil fuel, the island nation generated 73% of its electricity from renewable sources in 2009. New Zealand’s biggest source of emissions is from its agricultural and forestry sectors. Global warming impacts already underway in Australia and New Zealand include water stress, shrinking glaciers, rising sea level, regional disturbances in rainfall patterns, and increased frequency and intensity of fires and heat waves. Because of these impacts and its contributions to global warming emissions, this region must take swift action to curb global warming emissions. Because of these impacts and its contributions to global warming pollution, it is critical that this region take swift action to curb global warming emissions. One step Australia has taken to reduce its global warming emissions is implementing a national Renewable Electricity Standard (RES). The Australian government set a mandatory renewable energy target of 9500 gigawatt hours by 2010 and a commitment to reach 20% of national electricity supply from renewable sources by 2020. The country is also pursuing demonstration projects in carbon capture and storage from coal-burning power plants. These types of demonstration projects are critical to determining the potential role that carbon capture and storage technology can play in curbing global warming emissions from coal. Finally, Australia is taking steps to put a price on carbon emissions. The New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is one of only a few carbon trading systems in the world. The New Zealand approach requires emission sources to buy credits to cover their emissions and allows sources that reduce emissions to sell credits. Because agriculture and forestry represent a major source for New Zealand greenhouse gas emissions, tree planting and sustainable farming (including livestock farming) are key parts of the ETS.³⁰⁴ The New Zealand government’s climate change portal³⁰⁵ contains information about how climate change will impact New Zealand as well as the government’s plans, policies, and practices to reduce global warming emissions and adapt to these impacts.³⁰⁶ The Garnaut Climate Change Review³⁰⁷ is an authoritative review of Australia’s climate change mitigation options in light of the dire scientific findings on climate change. IPCC Fourth Assessment synthesizes the vulnerabilities facing Australia and New Zealand and what steps these two countries can take to adapt to climate impacts.³⁰⁸ Climate Action Network Australia (CANA)³⁰⁹ is an alliance of over 65 regional, state, and national environmental, health, community development, and research groups from throughout Australia.³¹⁰ The Union of Concerned Scientists³¹¹ works to address deforestation through international agreements and US legislation that reward countries for slowing deforestation and degradation, thus reducing their global warming pollution. Substantial scientific evidence indicates that an increase in the global average temperature of more than 2 °F above where we are today poses severe risks to natural systems and human health and well-being. To avoid this level of warming, the United States needs to reduce heat-trapping emissions by at least 80% below 2000 levels by 2050. Delay in taking such action will require much sharper cuts later, which would likely be more difficult and costly.³¹²

5.3.9 Climate Change and Global Warming in Japan

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) proposes two hypothetical future scenarios. One is Scenario “A1B” based on the assumption that a future world will have more global economic growth (the concentration of carbon dioxide will be 720 ppm in 2100). The other is Scenario “B1” based on the assumption that a future world will have global green economy (the concentration of carbon dioxide will be 550 ppm in 2100). The daily increase in mean temperature in Japan during the period of 2071–2100 in Scenario B1 is 3.0 °C and 4.2 °C in A1B compared to that of 1971–2000. Similarly, the daily maximum temperature in Japan has increased by 3.1 °C in B1 and 4.4 °C in A1B. The precipitation in summer in Japan increased steadily due to global warming with the annual average precipitation increase by 17% in Scenario B1 and by 19% in Scenario A1B during the period of 2071–2100 compared to that of 1971–2000.³¹³

Japan is a world leader in the development of new climate-friendly technologies.³¹⁴ Honda and Toyota hybrid electric vehicles were named to have the highest fuel efficiency with lowest emissions.³¹⁵ The fuel economy and emission decrease are due to the advanced technology in hybrid systems, biofuels, use of lighter weight material, and better engineering. As a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol, and host of the 1997 conference which created it, Japan is under treaty obligations to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions and to take other steps related to curbing climate change. The “Cool Biz campaign” introduced under former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi was targeted at reducing energy use through the reduction of air-conditioning use in government offices. Japan’s capital Tokyo is preparing to force industry to make big cuts in greenhouse gases, taking the lead in a country struggling to meet its Kyoto Protocol obligations. Tokyo’s outspoken governor, Shintaro Ishihara, decided to go it alone and create Japan’s first emission cap system, reducing greenhouse gas emission by a total of 25% by 2020 from the 2000 level.³¹⁶

On June 25, 2008, Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly approved a bylaw for a reduction program of CO₂ emission starting from 2010. Approximately 1300 large offices and factories in Tokyo that consume electric power equivalent to 1500 kiloliters of crude oil annually must reduce CO₂ emission by 15–20% of average volume. Even with “emission trading” or cap-and-trade, if targeted reduction is not achieved by 2020, the penalty will be up to JPY 500,000.³¹⁷

Japan created the “Kyoto Protocol Target Achievement Plan” to lay out the necessary measures required to meet their 6% reduction commitment under the Kyoto Protocol. It was first established as an outcome of the evaluation of the Climate Change Policy Program carried out in 2004. The main purpose of the plan is the pursuit of environment and economy, promoting technology, raising public awareness, utilizing policy measures, and ensuring international collaboration.³¹⁸

Japan is a heavily industrialized country, with a population of 127 million living in a small island nation, yet in 1999 it was the world’s second most powerful economy,³¹⁹ with an industrial base that was recognized as one of the most energy-efficient. Japan’s total primary energy consumption in 1999 stood at just over 22,970 petajoules (a petajoule is a 1000 million, million joules). Of this, 18,500 petajoules (80%) was imported as nuclear and fossil fuels. With a combination of the best energy efficiency technologies available today, and a massive investment in renewable energy, ultimately Japan could provide 100% of its energy needs from renewables, including transportation fuels, without expensive and environmentally damaging imported fossil and nuclear fuels. Japan’s current energy use, based on 1999 levels, shows that demand could be reduced by 50% with energy-efficient technologies that are already available today. The “ERJ High Efficiency Demand Model” showed that using highly energy-efficient technologies could save nearly 40% of today’s energy consumption in the industrial sector, more than 50% in the residential and commercial sectors and about 70% in the transport sector. It shows how renewable energy could be used to meet that new level of demand, reducing and ultimately eliminating the need for imports. Six scenarios of how this might happen are outlined in the report, all of which can provide 100% renewable energy for Japan. This study does not attempt to answer two key questions: How quickly can such a system be implemented and how much will this system cost? To demonstrate the possibility of a solar energy supply for Japan, it is not necessary to specify the costs and the time frame such a development will require. The systems described here provide a framework for a debate about the restructuring of the Japanese energy economy. Other systems that can supply Japan with renewable energy are also possible. All of the scenarios are able to be met in Japan, both in technical terms and in terms of natural resources, such as wind, solar radiation, and geothermal capacity. The decisive factors will be public acceptance, priorities set by national policy in terms of energy security.³²⁰

Climate change is inextricably linked up with climate change. For Japanese the changing seasons have always been an essential element of life and its enjoyment – the cherry blossoms in spring, the colorful leaves in autumn, and the round of seasonal delicacies on the table. In recent years abnormal weather around the world and unusually high temperatures and heavy rains in Japan are a cause for concern. While the term climate change has become familiar to everyone, Japanese fully appreciate the possible effects of global warming and the impact it could have on their whole way of life. The phenomenon of global warming can play an active role in the life of Japan which imports about 60% of what it eats. In contrast, the United Kingdom imports about 25%, and the United States is a net exporter of food. Concern over the impact of climate change on food and agriculture weighs heavily on Japan. Global warming looks like it will change what food is grown in the country, where and even what people consume. In parallel, it will also change the structure of forests and other natural environments of Japan. A range of measures have been proposed to tackle the symptoms of climate change and global warming which is predicted to have impacts on the fundamentals of life in Japan. Urgent measures to tackle the source of the problem – greenhouse gas emissions – are also needed. We need mitigation of climate change as well as adaptation to the changes already occurring. This is a challenge that requires action at global, national, and local levels. Most of the heat from the sun passes through the atmosphere as radiant energy and warms the surface of the earth. In turn, the warmed earth emits infrared rays into the atmosphere. But greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO₂), absorb the rays and force them back to the earth. This results in overall increase in the earth’s temperature. Recently greenhouse gases have been rapidly increasing, resulting in increased global warming.³²¹

Japan has acknowledged that its previous greenhouse gas reduction target of 25% below 1990 levels was unfeasible. It has stated a more realistic estimate of its level of emissions is that it will increase some 3% by 2020. Japan has opted for a different approach, namely, investing in low-carbon technologies. “Japan’s decision could be a break-through for smarter climate policies. Japan has simply given up on the approach to climate policy that has failed for the past twenty years. Instead it has promised to spend $110 billion over five years for innovation in environmental and energy technologies. Green R&D is the smartest approach to tackle climate change, and it could particularly help poor countries that rely on cheap energy to power their growth. $100 billion per year invested worldwide in green R&D would be hundreds of times more effective than the standard climate policies proposed. This is the conclusion from a panel of economists, including three Nobel laureates, documented in the book “Smart Solutions to Climate Change.”³²²

Lomborg points out that “despite all the international summits and the hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to today’s hugely inefficient green technologies, CO₂ emissions have increased some 57% since 1990. We need to look at a different approach instead of backing the same wrong horse over and over again. The economics show that the smartest long-term solution would be to focus on innovating green energy. This would push down the costs of future generations of wind, solar and many other amazing possibilities.”³²³ “Instead of criticizing Japan for abandoning an approach that has repeatedly failed, we should applaud it for committing to a policy that could actually meet the challenge of global warming, a Plan B to stop global warming.”³²⁴

5.3.10 Environmental Issues and Solutions for Global Warming in Japan

Environmental issues in Japan are a reflection of the country’s industrial leadership in East Pacific region and world. In addition, islanded Japan with scant locally available resources has to depend upon the rest of the world for its energy needs so that it has to use what is easily available. Consequently, Japan is the world’s leading importer of both exhaustible and renewable natural resources and one of the largest consumers of fossil fuels.³²⁵

Current Japanese environmental policy and regulations are the result of a number of environmental disasters in the 1950s and 1960s. Cadmium poisoning from industrial waste in Toyama Prefecture was discovered to be the cause of the extremely painful itai-itai disease (“Itai itai byō^” and “ouch ouch sickness”). People in Minamata City in Kumamoto Prefecture were poisoned by methylmercury drained from the chemical factory, known as the Minamata disease. The number of casualties in Minamata is 6500 as of November 2006.³²⁶ In Yokkaichi, a port in Mie Prefecture, air pollution caused by sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide emissions led to a rapid increase in the number of people suffering from asthma and bronchitis. In urban areas photochemical smog from automotive and industrial exhaust fumes also contributed to a rise in respiratory problems. In the early 1970s, chronic arsenic poisoning attributed to dust from arsenic mines occurred in Shimane and Miyazaki prefectures.³²⁷

Consumers Union of Japan was founded in 1969 to deal with health problems and false claims by companies, as Japan’s rampant industrial development was seen as causing problems for consumers and citizens. In the 1970s, Consumers Union of Japan led the opposition to nuclear power, calling for a nationwide Anti-Nuclear Power Week Campaign. In the 1990s, Japan’s environmental legislation was further tightened. In 1993 the government reorganized the environment law system and legislated the Basic Environment Law and related laws. The law includes restriction of industrial emissions, restriction of products, restriction of wastes, improvement of energy conservation, promotion of recycling, restriction of land utilization, arrangement of environmental pollution control programs, relief of victims, and provision for sanctions. The Environment Agency was promoted to full-fledged Ministry of the Environment in 2001, to deal with the deteriorating international environmental problems.³²⁸

In 1984 the Environmental Agency had issued its first white paper. In the 1989 study, citizens thought environmental problems had improved compared with the past, nearly 1.7% thought things had improved, 31% thought that they had stayed the same, and nearly 21% thought that they had worsened. Some 75% of those surveyed expressed concern about endangered species, shrinkage of rainforests, expansion of deserts, destruction of the ozone layer, acid rain, and increased water and air pollution in developing countries. Most believed that Japan, alone or in cooperation with other industrialized countries, had the responsibility to solve environmental problems. In the 2007 opinion poll, 31.8% of the people answered environmental conservation activity leads to more economic development, 22.0% answered the environmental activity does not always obstruct the economy, 23.3% answered environmental conservation should be given preference even if it may obstruct the economy, and 3.2% answered economic development should place priority than environmental conservation.³²⁹

The OECD’s first Environmental Performance Review of Japan was published in 1994, which applauded the nation for decoupling its economic development from air pollution, as the nation’s air quality improved while the economy thrived. However, it received poorer marks for water quality, as its rivers, lakes, and coastal waters did not meet quality standards. Another report in 2002 said that the mix of instruments used to implement environmental policy is highly effective, and regulations are strict, well enforced, and based on strong monitoring capacities.³³⁰ In the 2006 environment annual report,³³¹ the Ministry of Environment reported that current major issues are global warming and preservation of the ozone layer; conservation of the atmospheric environment, water, and soil; waste management and recycling; measures for chemical substances; conservation of the natural environment; and the participation in the international cooperation.³³²

Japan burns close to two-thirds of its waste in municipal and industrial incinerators; 70% of the world’s waste incinerators are located in Japan. As a result, Japan has higher levels of dioxin in its air than any other G20 nation. In 2001, the US Department of Justice brought suit against Japan for the deaths of US service members at Naval Air Facility Atsugi caused by a nearby waste incinerator known as Jinkanpo Atsugi Incinerator.³³³

As a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol, and host of the 1997 conference which created it, Japan is under treaty obligations to reduce its carbon dioxide emission level by 6% less than the level in 1990,³³⁴ and to take other steps related to curbing climate change. Japan is the world’s fifth biggest emission emitter.³³⁵ The Cool Biz campaign introduced under former Prime Minister of Japan Junichiro Koizumi was targeted at reducing energy use through the reduction of air-conditioning use in government offices.³³⁶

Japan maintains one-third of its electric production from nuclear power plants. While a majority of Japanese citizens generally supported the use of existing nuclear reactors, since the nuclear accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant on March 11, 2011, this support seems to have shifted to a majority wanting Japan to phase out nuclear power. Former Prime Minister Naoto Kan was the first leading politician to openly voice his opposition to Japan’s dependence upon nuclear energy and suggested a phasing out of nuclear energy sources towards other sources of renewable energy.³³⁷ Objections against the plan to construct further plants have grown as well since the March 11 earthquake and tsunami which triggered the nuclear meltdown of three reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in eastern Japan.³³⁸ The treatment of radioactive wastes also became a subject of discussion in Japan. New spent-nuclear-fuel reprocessing plant was constructed in Rokkasho in 2008; the site of the underground nuclear waste repository for the HLW and LLW has not yet been decided. Some local cities announced a plan to conduct an environmental study at the disposal site, but citizens’ groups strongly oppose the plan.³³⁹

In the Japanese diets, fish and its products are more prominent than other types of meat. Because of the depletion of ocean stocks in the late twentieth century, Japan’s total annual fish catch has been diminishing rapidly. Japan, along with the United States and the European Union, occupies the large part of international fish trade. Japanese fish catches were the third in the world in 2000, following China and Peru. The United States, Chile, Indonesia, the Russian Federation, and India were other major countries.³⁴⁰ By 2004, the number of adult Atlantic bluefin tuna capable of spawning had plummeted to roughly 19% of the 1975 level in the western half of the ocean. Japan has a quarter of the world supply of the five big species: bluefin, southern bluefin, bigeye, yellowfin, and albacore.³⁴¹ Whaling for research purposes continued even after the moratorium on commercial whaling in 1986. This whaling program has been criticized by environmental protection groups and anti-whaling countries, who say that the program is not for scientific research.³⁴²

The massive nationwide rebuilding efforts in the aftermath of World War II, and the development of the following decades, led to even further urbanization and construction (see Fig. 5.65). The construction industry in Japan is one of its largest, and while Japan maintains a great many parks and other natural spaces, even in the hearts of its cities, there are a few major restrictions on where and how construction can be undertaken. Alex Kerr, in his books Lost Japan and Dogs and Demons,³⁴³ is one of a number of authors who focuses heavily on the environmental problems related to Japan’s construction industry and the industry’s lobbying power preventing the introduction of stricter zoning laws and other environmental issues.³⁴⁴

Fig. 5.65

Densely packed buildings in Hamamatsucho, Tokyo. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_Japan)

Japan’s efforts to resolve global environmental problems focus on sustainable development which is meant to satisfy the needs of both future and present generations. Japan is making numerous efforts to realize global sustainable growth. The United Nations was spearheading sustainable development with the 1992 Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD). UN Environment and Development Summit held in Rio de Janeiro adopted the action plan titled “Agenda 21” that related to international efforts concerning the environment and the CSD. Japan is a participating country, and each year, particular topics are selected, and discussions on the topics are held with the goal of realizing sustainable development.³⁴⁵

The eight (8) Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) of the United Nations require countries to achieve all of them by 2015. The seventh goal calls for “ensuring environmental sustainability.” Japan is actively working to achieve all of the MDGs.³⁴⁶ Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD) was called for at the summit regarding sustainable development held in 2002, with efforts to create “a world in which all people benefit from quality education and learn the values, actions, and lifestyles that are necessary for positive social change and sustainable future.” This was the ideal of DESD proposed by Japan.³⁴⁷ The Japanese government has positioned efforts related to global issues such as environmental problems a high priority within its “official development assistance (ODA) guidelines” and “medium-term ODA policy.” Japan takes into account the environment when conducting ODA work, has created environment-friendly guidelines for the Japan International Cooperation Agency and Japan Bank for International Cooperation, and strives to thoroughly take the environment into account (see Fig. 5.66).³⁴⁸

Fig. 5.66

Actual environment-related ODA and percentage of total ODA held by Japan. (Source: http://g8-summit.town.toyako.hokkaido.jp/eng/summit/eco/torikumi/)

Building a recycling-based society is one of the environmental goals of Japan (see Fig. 5.67). At the 2004 G8 Sea Island Summit, Japan proposed the adopted 3Rs (reduce, reuse, and recycle) as keywords to create an environment-friendly society that balances the environment with the economy. There was an awareness of the importance of the 3Rs that are based on the idea spirit of “mottainai” (wasteful) from the perspective of conserving energy and natural resources. Wangari Maathai (the Kenyan Vice Minister of the Environment) who won the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize was impressed by the Japanese word mottainai and decided to spread the word along with the 3Rs throughout the world. In addition, at the 2005 meeting of the United Nations’ Commission on the Status of Women, she called on nations to make effective use of limited resources through sustainable development, realizable by the 4Rs (3R + repair) activities.³⁴⁹

Fig. 5.67

Japan’s Action Plan for the Internationalization of Zero Garbage. (Source: http://g8-summit.town.toyako.hokkaido.jp/eng/summit/eco/torikumi/)

At all venues, including the Conference of the Parties on Climate Change, the Conference of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol, and unofficial meetings related to “further actions to combat climate change” held in Tokyo since 2002, Japan has aggressively pushed all countries to create common rules pertaining to “Global Warming and Desertification.” United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is a convention on climate change which was adopted at the 1992 Earth Summit. One of the goals of the convention is to stabilize concentrations of greenhouse gases, such as CO₂ and methane, in the atmosphere which will negatively affect the ecosystem (see Fig. 5.68).³⁵⁰

Fig. 5.68

Japan’s CO₂, CH₂, HFCs, PFs and SF6 emissions in 1990 and 1995. (Source: http://g8-summit.town.toyako.hokkaido.jp/eng/summit/eco/torikumi/)

The Kyoto Protocol set a target for the reduction in emissions of gases such as CO₂ by advanced countries and countries transitioning to a market economy by at least 5% (6% for Japan) compared to present levels between 2008 and 2012.³⁵¹ UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) is a convention that regulates support by parties such as international organizations and advanced countries that are signatories to the convention, to combat desertification in China, Mongolia, and Africa, which are facing serious droughts and desertification. The damage from “yellow sand” (Chinese dust storms) is also becoming serious for Japan, and the Japanese government is taking various steps to support the fight against desertification, which include efforts based on official development assistance (ODA).³⁵²

Measures to protect forests and combat illegal logging are serious issues for this island nation. Illegal logging is one man-made cause of forest destruction, a serious problem based on the basic idea that lumber from illegally cut trees should not be used. Japan has promoted work towards sustainable forest management, which includes measures to combat illegal logging, at various venues such as at G8 summits and at conferences with the International Tropical Timber Organization and Asia Forest Partnership. These efforts are based on both bilateral and multilateral cooperation.³⁵³

Protection of biodiversity and living creatures is also a serious issue for Japan. Based on the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands that aims to protect internationally important wetlands as habitats for water birds and the animals and plants that populate wetlands and to promote the appropriate use of these wetlands, Japan has designated 33 locations within Japan, such as the Kushiro Wetlands, as wetlands covered by the convention, and supports programs to restore wetlands, particularly in Asia, and activities to train personnel, to educate the public, and to spread knowledge regarding the problem.³⁵⁴ In order to protect the ozone layer that shields the ecosystem and humans from ultraviolet light, Japan, as an advanced country with the technology and experience to protect the ozone layer, actively cooperates with international organizations.³⁵⁵

5.4 Europe and Central Asia

5.4.1 Climate Change in Europe and Central Asia

Projected changes in annual mean temperature (left) and annual precipitation (right) in Europe are shown in Fig. 5.69 to ascertain the extent of climatic variations. Projected changes are for 2071–2100, compared to 1971–2000, based on the average of a multi-model ensemble forced with the RCP 8.5 high-emission scenario. All changes marked with a color (i.e., not white) are statistically significant.³⁵⁶

Fig. 5.69

Projected changes in annual mean temperatures (left) and annual precipitation (right). (Source: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/projected-change-in-annual-mean)

Global climate change impacts Europe in many ways, including changes in average and extreme temperature and precipitation, warmer oceans, rising sea level, and shrinking snow and ice cover on land and at sea. These have led to a range of impacts on ecosystems, socioeconomic sectors, and human health.

Human influence, primarily emissions of greenhouse gases but also changes in land use, has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-twentieth century in Europe. The last decade was the warmest since global temperature records became available in Europe. Climate changes in various climate extremes and changes in the global water cycle impacts can be seen accelerating global sea-level rise (see Fig. 5.70). Precipitation has generally increased in northern and northwestern Europe but has generally decreased in Southern Europe. Snow cover in Europe has been decreasing, and the extent and volume of Arctic sea ice have been decreasing much faster than previously projected. These impacts vary across Europe depending on climatic, geographic and socioeconomic conditions. Figure 5.71 shows key observed and projected impacts from climate change for the main biogeographical regions in Europe.

Fig. 5.70

Figure showing rising seas swallowing sea shores and built-up land. (Source: http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer-2015/europe/climate-change-impacts-and-adaptation)

Fig. 5.71

Key observed and projected impacts from climate change for the main regions in Europe. (Source: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/key-past-and-projected-impacts-and-effects-on-sectors-for-the-main-biogeographic-regions-of-europe-3)

In the long term, the magnitude and rate of climate change impacts depend on future global greenhouse gas emissions. The European Union is committed to limiting global temperature increase to below 2 °C above the preindustrial level, as agreed globally under the UNFCCC.³⁵⁷ The Cancun Agreements are a set of significant decisions by the international community to address the long-term challenge of climate change collectively and comprehensively over time and to take concrete action now to speed up the global response. The agreements, reached on December 11 in Cancun, Mexico, at the 2010 United Nations Climate Change Conference, represent key steps forward in capturing plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to help developing nations protect themselves from climate impacts and build their own sustainable futures. However, the projected rise in global average temperatures over the twenty-first century is 0.3–1.7 °C for the lowest emission scenario and 2.6–4.8 °C for the highest emission scenario.³⁵⁸ Annual average land temperatures over Europe are projected to continue increasing by more than the global average temperature. The largest temperature increases are projected over Eastern and Northern Europe in winter and over Southern Europe in summer. Annual precipitation is generally projected to increase in Northern Europe and to decrease in Southern Europe, thereby enhancing the differences between wet regions and dry regions (see Fig. 5.71). The intensity and frequency of extreme weather events is also projected to increase in many regions, and sea-level rise is projected to accelerate significantly (see Fig. 5.71).³⁵⁹

Climate change may increase existing vulnerabilities and deepen socioeconomic imbalances in Europe. Major climate risks for Europe include increased coastal and river floods, significant reduction in water availability, and extreme heat events.³⁶⁰ According to a recent study, under a high-emission scenario and in the absence of adaptation actions, some climate impacts would roughly double by the end of this century. Heat-related deaths would reach about 200,000 per year; the cost of river flood damages would exceed EUR 10 billion/year; and every year forest fires would affect an area about 800,000 ha. In this scenario, people affected by droughts would also increase by a factor of seven to about 150 million per year, and welfare loss due to sea-level rise would more than triple to EUR 42 billion/year.³⁶¹

5.4.2 Global Warming in Europe and Central Asia

Climate change in Europe impacts the climate politics as well as the global warming in Europe. Climate change affects both people and the environment in the world and Europe. Human-induced climate change has the potential to alter the prevalence and severity of extreme weather as storms, floods, droughts, heat waves, and cold waves. These extreme weather changes may increase the severity of the diseases for animals and humans. The heat waves will increase the forest fires. Experts have warned that the climate change may increase the number of global climate refugees from 150 million in 2008 to 800 million in the future. International agreement of refugees does not recognize the climate change refugees. The summer of 2003 was probably the hottest in Europe since at latest AD 1500, and unusually large numbers of heat-related deaths were reported in France, Germany, and Italy. According to Nature (journal), it is very likely that the heat wave was human-induced by greenhouse gases .³⁶²

According to the European Environment Agency (2012),³⁶³ the average temperature over land in Europe in the last decade was 1.3 °C warmer than the preindustrial level, which makes it the warmest decade on record. Exceptional melting in the Greenland ice sheet was recorded in the summer of 2012. Arctic sea ice extent and volume have been decreasing much faster than projected.³⁶⁴ Table 5.2 provides an idea of the recorded meteorological events in Europe in which the location and estimated costs are also given.

Table 5.2 Recorded meteorological events in Europe

In the absence of climate change, extreme heat waves in Europe would be expected to occur only once every several hundred years. In addition to hydrological changes, grain crops mature earlier at higher temperatures, which may reduce the critical growth period and lead to lower grain yields. The Russian heat wave in 2010 caused grain harvest to fall by 25%, government banned wheat exports, and losses were 1% of GDP. Russian heat wave 2010 estimate for deaths is 55,000. The Arctic sea ice reached a record minimum in September 2012. It halved the area of ice covering the Arctic Ocean in summers over the last 30 years.³⁶⁵

The climate map of Europe in 2071 (Fig. 5.72) shows the equivalent climate the cities can expect in the future; for example, London in 2071 most closely matches the climate of the west coast of Portugal of today.³⁶⁶

Fig. 5.72

The climate map of Europe in 2071. (Source: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/sea-level-rise-2/assessment)

According to three different observational records of the annual global average near-surface (land and ocean) temperature, the decade from 2006 to 2015 was 0.83 °C to 0.89 °C warmer than the preindustrial average. This makes it the warmest decade on record; 15 of the 16 warmest years on record have occurred since 2000 with 2015 being the warmest year on record, around 1 °C warmer than the preindustrial period (see Fig. 5.72). In this figure the grid boxes outlined in solid black contain at least three stations and so are likely to be more representative of the grid box, and a significant (at the 5% level) long-term trend is shown by a black dot.³⁶⁷ Over the decade 2006–2015, the rate of change in global average surface temperature was between 0.10 and 0.24 °C per decade. This is close to the indicative limits of 0.2 °C/decade. The average annual temperature of the European land area, for the decade from 2006 to 2015, was around 1.5 °C above the preindustrial level, making it the warmest decade on record. Moreover, 2014 and 2015 were the joint warmest years in Europe since instrumental records began.³⁶⁸

Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) climate models project further increases in global average temperature over the twenty-first century. For the period 2081–2100 (relative to 1986–2005), increases between 0.3 and 1.7 °C for the lowest emission scenario Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP2.6) and between 2.6 and 4.8 °C for the highest-emission scenario (RCP8.5) are estimated. The EU and UNFCCC³⁶⁹ target of limiting global average temperature increase to less than 2 °C above preindustrial levels is projected to be exceeded between 2042 and 2050 by the three highest of the four RCPs. By the end of this century (2071–2100 relative to 1971–2000), annual average land temperature over Europe is projected to increase in the range of 1–4.5 °C under RCP4.5, and 2.5–5.5 °C under RCP8.5. This is more than the global average. The strongest warming is projected over northeastern Europe and Scandinavia in winter and Southern Europe in summer (Fig. 5.73).³⁷⁰

Fig. 5.73

Trends in annual temperature across Europe between 1960 and 2015. (Source: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/global-and-european-temperature-3/assessment)

In Fig. 5.74, projected changes in annual (left), summer (middle), and winter (right) near-surface air temperature (°C) in the period 2071–2100 are compared to the baseline period 1971–2000 for the scenarios RCP 4.5 (top) and RCP 8.5 (bottom). Model simulations are based on the multi-model ensemble average of RCM simulations from the EURO-CORDEX initiative.³⁷¹ In Fig. 5.75 are given observed trends in warm days across Europe between 1960 and 2015 in which the warm days are defined as being above the 90th percentile of the daily maximum temperature. Grid boxes outlined in solid black contain at least three stations and so are likely to be more representative of the grid box. A significant (at the 5% level) long-term trend is shown by a black dot.³⁷²

Fig. 5.74

Projected changes in annual, summer, and winter temperatures at RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios. (Source: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/global-and-european-temperature-3/assessment)

Fig. 5.75

Observed trends in warm days across Europe between 1960 and 2015. (Source: HadEX – global climate extremes indices provided by Met Office Hadley Centre E-OBS gridded dataset provided by Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI); Daily dataset of twentieth-century surface air temperature and precipitation series for the European Climate Assessment provided by Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI), cited in http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/global-and-european-temperature-3/assessment)

Figure 5.76 shows the number of extreme heat waves in future climates under two different climate RVP scenarios. The top maps show the median of the number of heat waves in a multi-model ensemble of the near future (2020–2052) and the latter half of the century (2068–2100) under the RCP4.5 scenario, and the lower maps are for the same time periods but under RCP8.5 using the number of heat wave data provided by Joint Research Centre (JRC).³⁷³

Fig. 5.76

Number of extreme heat waves in future climates under two different climate forcing scenarios. (Source: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/global-and-european-temperature-3/assessment)

The maps in Figs. 5.77 and 5.78 show the trend in relative sea level at selected European tide gauge stations since 1970. These measured trends are not corrected for local land movement and are suitable for use in planning or policymaking and not for execution and implementation. Geographical coverage reflects the reporting of tide gauge measurements to the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL).³⁷⁴

Fig. 5.77

Trend in absolute sea level in European seas based on satellite measurements (1992–2013). (Source: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/sea-level-rise-2/assessment)

Fig. 5.78

Trend in relative sea level at selected European tide gauge stations. (Source: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/sea-level-rise-2/assessment)

The map in Fig. 5.79 shows the projected change in relative sea level in 2081–2100 compared to 1986–2005 for the medium-to-low-emission scenario RCP4.5³⁷⁵ based on an ensemble of Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5)³⁷⁶ provided by CMIP5 climate models. Projections consider land movement due to glacial isostatic adjustment but not land subsidence due to human activities. No projections are available for the Black Sea.³⁷⁷

Fig. 5.79

Projected change in relative sea level. (Source: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/sea-level-rise-2/assessment)

Figure 5.80 shows the multiplication factor (shown at tide gauge locations by colored dots), by which the frequency of flooding events of a given height is projected to increase between 2010 and 2100 as a result of regional sea-level rise under the RCP4.5 scenario.³⁷⁸

Fig. 5.80

Increase in the frequency of flooding events under projected sea-level rise (Source: Sea level data provided by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) cited in http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/sea-level-rise-2/assessment)

Europe is one of the most intensively used continents on the globe, with the highest share of land used for settlement, production systems, and infrastructure. Land is a finite resource, but how it is used constitutes one of the principal reasons for environmental change, with significant impacts on quality of life and ecosystems, as well as on the management of infrastructure.³⁷⁹

Limiting “land take” is already an important policy target at national or subnational level. Balancing land recycling, compact urban development, place-based management, and green infrastructure will provide positive effects. “Land take” dominates in Europe, with artificial areas and agricultural intensification, resulting in land degradation, worsened by high fragmentation on 30% of land area (see picture in Fig. 5.81). Conflicting demands on land impact significantly on the land’s potential.³⁸⁰

Fig. 5.81

An aerial view of land use in Europe. (Source: http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/landuse)

5.4.3 Environmental Impact in Europe and Central Asia

Land take by the expansion of residential areas and construction sites is the main cause of the increase in the coverage of urban land at the European level. Agricultural zones and, to a lesser extent, forests and seminatural and natural areas are disappearing in favor of the development of artificial surfaces. This affects biodiversity since it decreases habitats, the living space of a number of species, and fragments the landscapes that support and connect them. The annual land take in 36 European countries was 111,788 hectares/year³⁸¹ in 2000–2006. In 21 countries covered by both periods (1990–2000 and 2000–2006), the annual land take increased by 9% in the later period. Also the composition of land areas taken also changed. More arable land and permanent crops, forests, grasslands, and open spaces and less pastures and mosaic farmland were taken by artificial development in 1990–2000.³⁸²

Proportions of agricultural, forest, and other seminatural and natural land being taken for urban and other artificial land development in Europe are given in Fig. 5.82. The largest land cover category taken by urban and other artificial land development was agriculture land. On the average, almost 46% of all areas that changed to artificial surfaces were arable land or permanent crops during 2000–2006. In 1985 the Corine program was initiated in the European Union. Corine means “coordination of information on the environment,” and it was a prototype project working on many different environmental issues.³⁸³ The next Corine Land Cover update with reference year 2012 is expected to be available in 2014. However, compared to the previous decade (1990–2000) in 21 countries covered both by Corine Land Cover (CLC) 1990–2000 and 2000–2006, it increased to 53%. This dominant land take was particularly important in Denmark (90%), Slovakia (85%), Italy (74%), Poland (67%), Germany (65%), and Hungary (65%). Pastures and mixed farmland were, on average, the next category being taken, representing 30.5% of the total. In several countries these landscapes were the major source for land uptake, for example, in Luxembourg (77%), Albania (74%), Ireland (70%), Bosnia and Herzegovina (70%), and the Netherlands (60%). The proportion of forests and transitional woodland shrub taken for artificial development during the period was slightly above 14%. It was significantly higher in Finland (79%), Norway (70%), Sweden (61%), Slovenia (61%), Portugal (50%), Croatia (46%), and Estonia (45%). The consumption of natural grassland, heathland, and sclerophyllous vegetation by artificial land take was 7.6% of the whole area and in Iceland (76%), Cyprus (23%), Belgium (21%), and Austria (20%). In general, more forests, grasslands, and open spaces were taken by artificial land development then in the previous decade. This meant a higher loss of natural ecosystems in 2000–2006.³⁸⁴

Fig. 5.82

Relative contribution of land-cover categories to uptake by urban and other artificial land development in Europe. (Source: Corine Land Cover 2006 raster data and Corine Land Cover 2000–2006 changes provided by European Environment Agency (EEA), cited in http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/land-take-2/assessment)

Thus based on the above statistics, at the European level, it can be noted that the drivers of urban land are housing, services, and recreation which made up a third of the overall increase in urban and other artificial area between 2000 and 2006. The second largest area (29%) was taken by construction sites. This driver increased almost four times compared to period 1990–2000 (in 21 countries). The construction of new industrial and commercial sites was a particularly important driver. Land take for transport infrastructures is underestimated in surveys that are based on remote sensing as Corine Land Cover ; a more than double increase (from 3% to 7% in 21 countries covered by both periods) of the total new artificial cover supports importance of this driver. The annual land take by major types of human activity in Europe during 2000–2006 is given in Fig. 5.83.

Fig. 5.83

Annual land take by several types of human activity during the period, 2000–2006. (Source: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/land-take-2/assessment)

It would be worthwhile to note the European countries where the artificial land uptakes have occurred. This is noted in Fig. 5.84 and is based on Corine Land Cover 2000–2006 raster data provided by European Environment Agency (EEA).³⁸⁵

Fig. 5.84

Mean annual urban land take as a percentage of total urban land take 2000–2006. (Source: Corine Land Cover 2006 raster data and Corine Land Cover 2000–2006 changes provided by European Environment Agency (EEA), cited in http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/land-take-2/assessment)

The intensity and distribution of urban land take are apparent from Figs. 5.85 and 5.86.

Fig. 5.85

Distribution of land take 2000–2006. (Source: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/land-take-2/assessment)

Fig. 5.86

Low percentage intensity distribution of land take 2000–2006. (Source: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/land-take-2/assessment)

Figure 5.86 shows a map of spatial distribution and intensity of land take for urban and other artificial land (Urban residential sprawl + Sprawl of economic sites and infrastructures) over particular territory in 2000–2006.³⁸⁶

The European Union (EU)³⁸⁷ is the world’s third largest greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter after the United States and China, accounting for 13% of global emissions in 2005.³⁸⁸ Since 1990, EU emissions have declined about 10.7% as a result of structural changes, such as Germany’s reunification and the substitution of natural gas for coal in the United Kingdom, and new policies at both the EU and member state level.³⁸⁹ Reductions have occurred across most sectors of the EU economy, although in the transportation sector, emissions have increased significantly.³⁹⁰ The EU’s emission intensity (GHG emissions per unit of GDP) is about a third lower than the United States ’ and the second lowest among industrialized countries – only Japan’s is lower. Intensity has declined 31% since 1990. Per capita emissions in the European Union are about a third lower than the developed country average and about half those of the United States . The EU’s current fuel mix is predominantly oil (37%) and natural gas (24%), followed by solid fuels including coal (18%), nuclear power (14%), and renewable energy (7%) (Figs. 5.87, 5.88, 5.89, and 5.90).³⁹¹

Fig. 5.87

GHG emission trends (1990–2006). (Source: https://www.c2es.org/docUploads/eu-fact-sheet-12-05-09.pdf)

Fig. 5.88

Sectoral emission 2007. (Source: https://www.c2es.org/docUploads/eu-fact-sheet-12-05-09.pdf)

Fig. 5.89

Per capita GHG emissions, 2005. (Source: https://www.c2es.org/docUploads/eu-fact-sheet-12-05-09.pdf)

Fig. 5.90

GHG intensity, 2005. (Source: https://www.c2es.org/docUploads/eu-fact-sheet-12-05-09.pdf)

During 1990–2008 CO₂ emissions from coal were the highest in Europe, Russia, Germany, Poland, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom. Among the top 20 coal emission countries, only four countries have increased their annual average emissions from coal during 2005–2008 compared to the year 1990, namely, Turkey (181%), Finland (121%), Italy (115%), and Greece (108%).

Many East European countries, including East Germany, Russia, Poland, Ukraine, Slovakia, Estonia, and Hungary, and also the United Kingdom declined significantly their coal dependency from 1990 to 2000. However, the statistics of IEA gives no evidence of decline of coal dependency during 2000–2008 in Europe. Among the top 20, Belgium is the only European country that has clearly declined its climate change emissions from coal during 2000–2008 (see Table 5.3).³⁹²

Table 5.3 Annual CO₂ emissions from coal in Europe (Mt)

5.4.4 Solutions for Global Warming and Environment in Europe and Central Asia

Solutions to global warming pursued by the European region include binding national commitments to reduce emissions, the multinational cap-and-trade program known as the European Union’s Emission Trading System, and strong supports for its renewable energy and energy efficiency industries. The European region, encompassing 52 countries, bears a significant responsibility for its historical contributions to global warming pollution. This region is home to six of the top 20 annual global CO₂ emitters, including Russia, which ranks third globally (using 2008 data). The European Region, however, is also home to a robust renewable energy sector and has achieved deep renewable energy penetration. In 2009 alone, the deployment of renewable energy resources enabled the EU to reduce its CO₂ emissions by about 7% against 1990 levels. Furthermore, nearly 20% of electricity in the EU in 2009 came from renewable sources. Many European countries appear to be on a path of reducing emissions and increasing efficiencies and renewable energy; given this region’s historical and current emissions, these actions are urgently needed.³⁹³

European Union Climate Commitments and Progress in 2006 consists of 27 members, committed to reducing its global warming emissions by at least 20% of 1990 levels by 2020, to consuming 20% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020, and to reducing its primary energy use by 20% from projected levels through increased energy efficiency.³⁹⁴ The EU has also committed to spending $375 billion a year to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% by 2050 compared to 1990 levels.³⁹⁵ The EU is meeting these goals through binding national commitments which vary depending on the unique situation of a given country but which average out to the overall targets. Europe has also made important commitments to international climate finance to help developing countries transition to low-carbon energy sources, reduce tropical deforestation, and adapt to climate change. One noteworthy example is Norway’s commitment of $1 billion to compensate Brazil for its emission reductions.³⁹⁶

European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) is the world’s first and largest multinational cap-and-trade program for reducing heat-trapping emissions. This program includes 27 countries and all large industrial facilities, including those that generate electricity, refine petroleum, and produce iron, steel, cement, glass, and paper. The first phase of the EU ETS – from 2005 to 2007 – drew criticism for not achieving substantial cuts in emissions, for excessive allowance price volatility, and for resulting in windfall profits for some utility firms that received carbon allowances for free but were able to pass through their full cost to consumers in the form of higher electricity prices. These criticisms are valid, even though EU viewed Phase 1 as a trial learning period. The extent to which Phase 2 – which runs from 2008 to 2012, helps Europe fulfil its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce emissions will be a better test of the program.³⁹⁷

Promoting renewable energy and energy efficiency has been the hallmark of the EU’s efforts. Europe is home to several powerhouses of renewable energy and energy efficiency. Norway, Austria, Portugal, Spain, and Germany had great success increasing the amount of renewable energy produced in their countries through the use of feed-in tariffs. Feed-in tariffs provide a specific, guaranteed price for electricity from renewable energy sources over a 10–20-year period. These tariffs have led to a massive increase in the amount of renewable energy projects in these countries. Norway gets over 99% of its electricity from renewable sources, often producing more than it requires and exporting the energy to other countries. More than 16 nations in Europe produced 15% or more of their electricity from renewable sources in 2007.³⁹⁸

In addition to the efforts of “Emissions Trading System (EU ETS)” site, worthy of note are efforts of the “European Renewable Energy Council,” “Climate Action Network Europe (CAN-E),” which is recognized as Europe’s leading network working on climate and energy issues. With 141 member organizations in 25 European countries, “CAN-E” works to prevent dangerous climate change and promote sustainable energy and environment policy in Europe. “European Environment Agency” and “The Union of Concerned Scientists” work with the international community through intergovernmental agreements and US legislation to reduce global warming pollution and impacts worldwide.³⁹⁹

Adaptation to the observed and projected impacts in the coming decades is needed, complementary to global climate mitigation actions. The EU strategy on adaptation to climate change supports national adaptation strategies and other actions in countries aimed at mainstreaming EU policies, providing funding and enhancing research and information sharing.⁴⁰⁰ Climate change has already led to a wide range of impacts on the environment, the economy, and the society.⁴⁰¹ These impacts have been felt both in Europe and across the world. Even if greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were to stop today, climate change would continue for many decades as a result of past emissions and the inertia of the climate system. It is therefore necessary to adapt to the changes that have already occurred and to prepare for plausible scenarios of future climate change. To help promote this adaptation, the European Commission in 2013 adopted the communication “An EU Strategy on adaptation to climate change.”⁴⁰² The communication supports adaptation actions in countries and supports “mainstreaming” the process whereby adaptation concerns are integrated into existing sectoral EU policies (like agriculture or regional development). Overall it aims to help make Europe more climate-resilient, enhancing its capacity to respond to the impacts of climate change at local, regional, national, and EU levels. Adaptation is also considered in other EU initiatives, particularly Europe 2020 – Europe’s growth strategy –⁴⁰³ and the resource-efficient Europe flagship initiative.⁴⁰⁴ Moreover, a new international climate change agreement is expected to be negotiated by the end of 2015. Several adaptation-related elements of such an agreement are currently being discussed. These include capacity building, institutional arrangements, financing, incentives for private investments, and provisions promoting transparency through monitoring, reporting, and verification.⁴⁰⁵ These climate change impacts have spurred policymakers at national and European level to introduce adaptation policies that will help societies and economies to cope with the effects of climate change and socioeconomic changes. On a European level, “mainstreaming” of climate change adaptation is taking place within various EU policies, such as freshwater and coastal management, biodiversity and nature protection, and disaster-risk reduction.⁴⁰⁶

In order to assist the development of adaptation policies in Europe, the EU maintains a website, the European Climate Adaptation Platform (Climate-ADAPT). Climate-ADAPT enhances the sharing of up-to-date, reliable, and targeted information and data. It supports the development and implementation of adaptation policies across all levels of governance in Europe, for example, by providing examples of adaptation options, case studies of implemented actions, and an adaptation support tool. On the national level – and at the city and regional levels – implementing adaptation is still at an early stage.⁴⁰⁷ Most progress has been reported for freshwater management, flood-risk management, and agriculture. The adaptation actions in these sectors have mostly consisted of “mainstreaming” adaptation priorities into these national sectoral policy areas. Although adaptation implementation is still at an early stage, adaptation planning work is underway in most countries. As of June 2014, 20 EEA member countries have adopted national adaptation strategies (13 more than in 2008). Seventeen of these countries have also developed an adaptation national action plan to help further define the adaptation actions they will implement. Most European countries report that the level of public awareness regarding the need for adaptation has increased during the past 5 years and that adaptation has reached the national political agenda. On a transnational level, adaptation action is mainly the result of shared natural resources such as transboundary water catchments. Transnational cooperation of this sort is often supported by European funding instruments (e.g., in the Baltic Sea region) and through European regional conventions (e.g., the Danube Commission). Adaptation policy at the European level will receive new financial resources in the coming years. 20% of the EU budget for 2014–2020 will be used for climate-related actions (i.e., adaptation and climate change mitigation). This funding will be disbursed to member-state level through a range of EU funds such as the European Regional Development and Cohesion Funds, European Structural and Investment Funds, LIFE+ projects, and the INTERREG regional cooperation funds.⁴⁰⁸

In 2017, the European Commission will report to the European Parliament and the Council on the state of implementation of the 2013 communication “An EU Strategy on adaptation to climate change” and will propose its review if needed. Assessment processes are also in place at national level and will lead to better knowledge in the future about effective adaptation. Four European countries are currently implementing a monitoring, reporting, or evaluation scheme. Nine countries have already developed or are developing indicators on climate change impacts, risks, or adaptation. Climate change risk or vulnerability assessments are available for 21 European countries, but more information is still needed, particularly on the estimated benefits and costs of different adaptation options. Another area that requires more research is the issue of how best to craft adaptation responses in the light of uncertainty concerning future climate change impacts, societal change, and effectiveness of adaptation responses.⁴⁰⁹

There is in place national legislation, international agreements, and the EU directives. The EU directive 2001/77/EU promotes renewable energy in the electricity production. British government and economist Nicholas Stern published in 2006 the Stern report. The Review states that climate change is the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen, presenting a unique challenge for economics. The Review provides prescriptions including environmental taxes to minimize the economic and social disruptions. The Stern Review’s main conclusion is that the benefits of strong, early action on climate change far outweigh the costs of not acting.⁴¹⁰ The Review points to the potential impacts of climate change on water resources, food production, health, and environment. According to the Review, without action, the overall costs of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global gross domestic product (GDP) each year, now and forever. Including a wider range of risks and impacts could increase this to 20% of GDP or more.⁴¹¹

No one can predict the consequences of climate change with complete certainty; but we now know enough to understand the risks. The review leads to a simple conclusion that the benefits of strong, early action considerably outweigh the costs.⁴¹² In the end of 2008, the parliament of the EU approved the climate and energy plan including⁴¹³:

• 20% emission cut of climate gases from 1990 to 2020

• 20% increase in the share of renewable energy from 1990 to 2020

• 20% increase of the energy efficiency from 1990 to 2020

The critics include that European companies, like in other OECD countries, have moved the energy-intensive, polluting, and climate gas-emitting industry to Asia and South America. In respect to climate change, there are no harmless areas. Carbon emissions from all countries are equal. The agreements exclude significant factors like deforestation, aviation and tourism, the actual end consumption of energy, and the history of emissions. Negotiations are country oriented, but the economical interests are in conflict between the energy producers, the consumers, and the environment (see Fig. 5.91).⁴¹⁴

Fig. 5.91

Climate change demonstrators in London recently. (Source: Photograph: NIKLAS HALLE’N/AFP/Getty Images; http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/solution-to-global-warming-will-be-found-in-new-technologies-1.2150050)

Because of global warming, extreme storms like the one that wreaked havoc in Lahinch, Co. Clare, in January 2014, and elsewhere in the west of Ireland are now likely to occur about once every 80 years rather than, as previously, every 100 years or so. This was the conclusion of research presented at a recent Environmental Protection Agency lecture by Prof. Myles Allen of Oxford University.⁴¹⁵ “Policymakers in Europe face a very difficult balancing act in tackling global warming and it is our grandchildren who will benefit from applying the brakes today to bring the momentum of climate change to a slow halt,” and solution to global warming will be found in new technologies.⁴¹⁶

While, for Ireland, this change in climate may not sound very dramatic, in other parts of the world, like low-lying Bangladesh, drought-ridden Africa, or Vanuatu, climate change arising from global warming is a more devastating threat. Even if we take action now, the “braking distance” to halt current climate deterioration is many decades. If urgent action is not taken, the world’s climate will get worse at an accelerated pace. Governments rarely choose to go to their electorates and tell them they are going to make life more expensive and that there will be no go financial reward for their pain. However, it is future generations that would see the payback for higher taxes today that would encourage a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and the introduction of carbon-saving technologies. It is our grandchildren and great grandchildren who would benefit from applying the brakes today to bring the momentum of climate change to a slow halt. Like development aid, action on climate change involves an appeal to altruism (self-sacrifice) on the part of voters; there is little in it for people living in Ireland today. Policymakers in Europe face a very difficult balancing act in tackling global warming. If they raise the cost of greenhouse gas emissions too much, the businesses worst affected will move to more emission-friendly locations. While a loss of economic activity in Europe might well be considered an acceptable cost to reduce the West’s contribution to climate change, it could also be counterproductive in terms of reducing global emissions. For example, if a steel plant moved from Europe to China as a result of a carbon tax and higher electricity prices in Europe, this would definitely reduce European carbon emissions from what they would have been otherwise. Yet if Europe continues to consume the same amount of steel but now imports it from China, the effect on global warming would, at best, be neutral. However, because Chinese electricity production tends to emit much more carbon per unit of electricity than Europe’s does, the more likely outcome would that global carbon emissions would actually rise as a consequence of Europe’s action. Dairy farming offers a similar example. Ireland has lower greenhouse gas emissions from our grass-based milk production. If we reduced our milk output to reduce these emissions, but if total world demand for milk remained unchanged, world emissions of greenhouse gases would be increased as production shifted to less carbon-efficient locations. Over the last 20 years, there has been a major relocation of world manufacturing activity with the rise of China and other Southeast Asian economies. Both Europe and the United States import large amounts of manufactured goods from China.⁴¹⁷

The manufacturing that has relocated from Europe to Asia tends to be much more emission-intensive than the industry that remains. As a result, the greenhouse gas emissions embodied in the goods imported into Europe from Asia are much greater than the emissions embodied in European exports. This pattern is also true for Ireland, where the production process for the bulk of our exports is not carbon-intensive. In theory this pattern of trade would suggest that, instead of taxing producers of goods for emitting carbon, we should tax consumers based on the carbon embodied in the goods they consume. This would mean that there would be no incentive to relocate production and consumers would be encouraged to reduce consumption. While this may be a nice idea in some economists’ heads, in reality it would be utterly unworkable. Carbon inspectors would have to determine the carbon dioxide embodied in everything from Barbie dolls to giant windmills depending on their country of origin. In the long run, the solution to global warming will have to be found in new technologies. The alternatives – either dramatically reducing living standards to reduce consumption or implementing a coordinated strategy of carbon taxes across the globe – are unlikely to prove acceptable when the governments of the world meet later this year. So far Europe has sought to take the lead in implementing measures to slow or halt greenhouse gas emissions, but to date the policies adopted have not been very effective. The best strategy remains for Europe to gradually raise the cost of emitting greenhouse gases. Although some relocation of economic activity to elsewhere in the globe could result from higher carbon taxes, if such costs rise only slowly, Europe would probably retain the bulk of its activity. By signaling that the cost of carbon will continue to rise into the future, governments will provide incentives for investors to research how best to reduce carbon. Governments can also finance research into new technologies. Western altruism (self-sacrifice) may also receive a little help from Asian economies beginning to tackle carbon pollution problems in their own self-interest. As Asian economies grow, reducing the level of air pollution becomes an important quality-of-life issue for citizens. Measures to make Asian economies more energy-efficient will also help slow the growth in greenhouse gas emissions. However, the rise in global emissions is only likely to be halted when new sources of carbon-neutral energy are available.⁴¹⁸

5.5 Latin America and the Caribbean

5.5.1 Climate Change in Latin America and the Caribbean

A look at how a changing climate will hit South and Central America suggests climate change will have major implications on South and Central America’s future food production (see Fig. 5.92). Recent trends, future projections, and impacts on regional agriculture are portrayed in a study which looks at how temperatures and precipitation have been changing in Latin America and projects changes in the years to come.⁴¹⁹ A changing climate is not something new to South and Central America. Both regions are already battling a weather war against recurring hurricanes, horrid flash floods, and landslides, linked to violent and changing rainfall patterns. Days have become noticeably warmer and the region has been losing its number of cool nights. On top of that, unusual low rainfall means Central America now has to prepare for a drought-linked food crisis. ⁴²⁰

Fig. 5.92

A picture taken in March 2012 shows a farmer in a field with season’s maize residues during the dry season, in Jamastran, Honduras. (Source: Photo by Neil Palmer (Sept. 5, 2014) in “A new study by CIAT and partners – ‘Tortillas on the Roaster (TOR)’,” which examines the expected effects of climate change on two key food crops in Central America – maize and beans – and in an article by Cecilia Schubert, Communications Officer (CCAFS Theme Data & Tools & Linking Knowledge to Action), cited in https://ccafs.cgiar.org/research-highlight/look-how-changing-climate-will-hit-south-and-central-america#.WCx26j8zU1h)

While some areas in this region have been deemed highly vulnerable to climate change, such as the Andean agroecosystem, considered one of the most vulnerable systems in the world, the consequential climate impacts – especially those related to food production – are still not completely known. A study, entitled “Climate Change in Central and South America: Recent Trends, Future Projections , and Impacts on Regional Agriculture,”⁴²¹ analyzes observed climate trends for the past 60 years while modeling future climate projections up to year 2100. It takes a close look at how the region’s most commonly grown crops will be affected by rising temperatures and unpredictable rainfall. Another major part of the paper is the evaluation of different climate models.⁴²²

One major concern, which seems to be a global epidemic, is the lack of current climate data and figures for South and Central America for researchers. This lack of data form a serious setback for Central America compared to South America. To adjust for this lack of data, the team complemented available figures with data from the IPCC AR5 report to ensure a better degree of credibility. Whatever observations are available reveal a general warming trend in Central America. The occurrence of extreme warm maximum and minimum temperatures has increased, while extremely cold temperature events have decreased. Precipitation indices in Central America indicate that although no significant increases in the total amount are found, rainfall events are intensifying and the contribution of wet and very wet days are growing. In South America results indicate significant increasing trends in the percentage of warm nights and decreasing trends in the percentage of cold nights. There seems to be an observed trend towards wetter conditions in the southwest of South America and drier conditions in the northeast. This could be explained by changes in El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO). Central America, southern and eastern Amazonia, and the coast of Northern South America will most likely experience reduced rainfall (annually), while for the equatorial Pacific region as well as over the northern coast of Peru and Ecuador, rainfall increases are projected. For Central America, the rainfall reduction may be related to a decrease in the number of hurricanes in the future, but the uncertainties of such scenario are high. Droughts will most likely intensify in some seasons and areas due to reduced precipitation and/or increased evapotranspiration in Amazonia and Northeast Brazil (medium confidence). Annual air temperature changes in 2010–2040 show increases of 2 °C in southern Amazonia and a small warming of 1 °C in all Central and South America. By 2041–2070 the warming in southern Amazon will reach 3–4 °C and 2 °C in the rest of the region.⁴²³

Climate impacts on agriculture and food security will be felt on the region’s most commonly grown crops. The way climate change will affect agricultural productivity cycle is through higher temperatures, which decelerate the farm productivity, especially due to the stages of flowering and ripening with large-scale spatial variability in the region. In southeastern South America, where climate change projections indicate more rainfall, average food productivity could be sustained or increased until the mid-century. In Central America, northeast of Brazil, and parts of the Andean region, increases in temperature and decreases in rainfall could reduce productivity in the short term, threatening the food security of the poorest population. Brazilian potato production could be restricted to a few months in currently warm areas, which today allow potato production throughout the year. In Northeast Brazil, declining crop yields in subsistence crops such as beans, corn, and cassava are projected. In the future, warming conditions combined with more variable rainfall are expected to reduce maize, bean, and rice productivity in Central America. Rice and wheat yields could decrease up to 10% by 2030. In central Chile, temperature increases with reduction in chilling hours and water shortages which may reduce productivity of winter crops, fruits and vines. The highest warming foreseen for 2100 (5.8 °C, under SRES A2 scenario) could make the coffee crop infeasible in Minas Gerais and São Paulo in southeastern Brazil. Thus, the coffee crop may have to be moved to southern regions where temperatures are lower and the frost risk is less.⁴²⁴ Considering that South America will be a key food-producing region in the future, one of the challenges is going to be increasing food and bioenergy production while maintaining environmental sustainability. Some adaptation measures, including crop risk, and water use management are therefore urgently needed.⁴²⁵ The impact of food supply and consumption which is largely dictated by climatic conditions in Latin America is amplified statistically by Figs. 5.93, 5.94, 5.95, 5.96, 5.97, and 5.98.

Fig. 5.93

Condition of undernourishment . (Source: https://ccafs.cgiar.org/bigfacts/#region=Latin-America)

Fig. 5.94

Population estimates. (Source: https://ccafs.cgiar.org/bigfacts/#region=Latin-America)

Fig. 5.95

Dietary habits . (Source: https://ccafs.cgiar.org/bigfacts/#region=Latin-America)

Fig. 5.96

Waste in production, processing . (Source: https://ccafs.cgiar.org/bigfacts/#region=Latin-America)

Fig. 5.97

Climate related disasters . (Source: https://ccafs.cgiar.org/bigfacts/#region=Latin-America)

Fig. 5.98

Impact of climate on crops . (Source: https://ccafs.cgiar.org/bigfacts/#region=Latin-America)

5.5.2 Global Warming in South and Central America

Climate change impacts in Latin America are not only on rising of temperatures and shifting of precipitation patterns but also on global warming which in turn causes several of the Latin American areas to experience changes in the frequency and severity of weather extremes such as heavy rains and devastating floods caused by melting of Andean glaciers. The two great oceans that flank the continent, the Pacific and the Atlantic, are warming and becoming more acidic while sea level also rises. Unfortunately, greater impact is in store for the region as both the atmosphere and oceans continue to rapidly change. Food and water supplies will be disrupted. Towns and cities and the infrastructure required to sustain them will be increasingly at risk. Human health and welfare will be adversely affected, along with natural ecosystems. Figures 5.99, 5.100, 5.101, 5.102, and 5.103 depict in photos the story of the devastating global warming impacts across Latin America. ⁴²⁶

Fig. 5.99

Devastating flood effects. (Source: © Shutterstock/holbox, cited in https://www.worldwildlife.org/climatico/climate-change-impacts-in-latin-america)

Fig. 5.100

Tornado impacts. (Source: © Nigel Dickinson/WWF, cited in https://www.worldwildlife.org/climatico/climate-change-impacts-in-latin-america)

Fig. 5.101

Drought conditions. (Source: © Adriano Gambarini/WWF-Brazil, cited in https://www.worldwildlife.org/climatico/climate-change-impacts-in-latin-america)

Fig. 5.102

Erosion from rising sea levels. (Source: © WWF/Carlos Drews, cited in https://www.worldwildlife.org/climatico/climate-change-impacts-in-latin-america)

Fig. 5.103

Results of ocean acidification. (Source: © Anthony B. Rath/WWF, cited in https://www.worldwildlife.org/climatico/climate-change-impacts-in-latin-america)

Global warming has been attributed to the extreme weather changes in climate and extreme events which have severely affected Latin America. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,⁴²⁷ 613 extreme climate and hydrometeorological events occurred between 2000 and 2013. Hydrometeorological events include typhoons and hurricanes, thunderstorms, hailstorms, tornados, blizzards, heavy snowfall, avalanches, coastal storm surges, floods including flash floods, drought, heatwaves, and cold spells. This has resulted in the displacement of people, numerous fatalities, and significant economic losses. Tropical storms originating in both the Atlantic and Pacific have devastated parts of Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean. Beyond the damage the storms in coastal areas and their torrential rains inland have been accounted for much greater devastation. According to the IPCC⁴²⁸ in 1998, Hurricane Mitch alone affected 600,000 people, mostly because of the floods and landslides from heavy rains.⁴²⁹

Researchers have estimated droughts in Amazon in northeastern Brazil, Central America, and the Caribbean, and some parts of Mexico will see increased drought conditions. Of particular concern is the possibility of more frequent and extreme droughts in the Amazon, which could push the region to a “tipping point,” increasing the likelihood of a large-scale dieback of the Amazon forest. Notable recent droughts are those that afflicted the Amazon in 2005 and 2010 and a drought in Southeastern Brazil that has extended from 2012 to late 2015. In addition, existing drought conditions in Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean may be intensified by the ongoing strong 2015–2016 El Niño occurring against a backdrop of rising temperatures associated with global warming.⁴³⁰

After 4 years of below-normal rainfall, São Paulo, Brazil, was experiencing its worst drought in over 80 years by mid-2015. The city’s main water system, the Cantareira reservoir, supports the water needs of 5.3 million people, but by August 2015 it was at record low levels with less than 17% of its normal water capacity, down from the 9 million before the drought. Officials in August 2015 declared the city’s water situation “critical,” and Moody’s Investors Service in early September estimated that the Companhia de Saneamento Basico do Estado de São Paulo had roughly 5 months of stored water supply remaining. The situation illustrates the vulnerability of some Latin American cities to drought as global warming and the resultant climate change alter the frequency and/or severity of drought in the region.⁴³¹

Sea-level rise and ocean acidification have caused oceans to expand as they warm, and they rise further as they receive huge amounts of freshwater from melting glaciers and ice sheets. The sea level is rising and this rise in sea level will continue to do so at an accelerated pace in the future. By 2100, sea level could rise another 1–4 feet. The IPCC states sea levels threaten the Latin American population, a large proportion of which lives on the coast, by contaminating freshwater aquifers, eroding shorelines, inundating low-lying areas, and increasing the risks of storm surges, according to one assessment.⁴³²

Much of the coastal area surrounding the Mesoamerican reef and nearby islands is low-lying and vulnerable to sea-level rise from global warming. Eroding shorelines have already been documented, which can affect nesting and reproductive success of marine turtles. Rising water temperatures cause more episodes of coral bleaching, which is devastating to reefs and the wildlife that depend on them. Ocean acidification, caused by increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the water, also threatens the coral reefs.⁴³³

5.5.3 Environmental Impact in South and Central America

To look at any country’s energy problem is to look at it holistically including the country’s transportation needs of energy⁴³⁴. This is especially true in the case of Brazil in South America and the United States which have enormous bioenergy resources. These two countries have a strong economic relationship. The United States is Brazil’s biggest export market and the largest foreign direct investor in Brazil, while Brazil is, after Mexico, by far the most important US economic partner in Latin America. When President Bush visited Brasilia, the two governments agreed to substantially increase by 2010 the volume of their bilateral trade, from $35 billion. The economic and political environment in the Americas was changing rapidly, creating new challenges for each nation. Brazil has special influence in the region because of the size of its economy, population, land mass, natural resources, and significant economic, political, and cultural ties with neighbors. Efforts at lowering trade barriers in the Americas were on hold, in part because the United States , Brazil, and Mercosur (trading zone between Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay) had differences over important issues. Resolving these differences would be a boon to both the United States and Brazil, which face challenges to energy security from the sharply rising worldwide demand for energy. Higher world energy prices, greater vulnerability to energy shocks, and increased potential for conflict are consequences that will affect all nations. But amid this new energy threat, an opportunity to fashion a win–win response could benefit both the countries. The key is ethanol, which Brazil long ago saw as an important element of its energy strategy and provides 18% of the country’s automotive fuel, thanks to a booming sugar cane-based ethanol industry. As a result, Brazil, which had to import a large share of the petroleum needed for domestic consumption, reached complete self-sufficiency in oil. For its own energy security, the United States , by far the world’s largest oil importer, similarly needs to break oil’s near-monopoly on the transport sector by turning to ethanol for a much larger share of its auto-fuel supply. Although the United States, using corn, produces nearly as much ethanol as Brazil and is expanding its annual production by 25%, the four billion gallons produced are still a tiny fraction of the 140 billion gallons of gasoline consumed. Using E-85 fuel, a blend of 15% gasoline and 85% ethanol, and easily available flexible-fuel technology so that cars can burn E-85, the United States could dramatically lower its oil dependence . Gaining consumer acceptance will spur the expansion of ethanol production and infrastructure. That means spreading the availability of E-85, now largely limited to the Midwest, to markets from coast to coast. One solution might be for the United States to import more Brazilian ethanol to blend on East Coast, where transportation costs significantly raise the price of Midwest ethanol. That would, however, require the politically difficult step of ending the protective tariffs on Brazilian ethanol that now shelters the US industry. “It makes strategic sense to import environmentally friendly ethanol from a reliable friend like Brazil in our own hemisphere. After all, the United States doesn’t tax imported crude oil, which pollutes and often comes from unstable suppliers. Policymakers would need to consider the impact on the U.S. ethanol industry, where breakthroughs in making ethanol out of cheap and widely available biomass promise to lower costs and increase supplies. Currently, ethanol makers are highly profitable and are literally overwhelmed by demand. They have little immediate prospect of marketing large volumes of their product on the East Coast. ”⁴³⁵ Analyses suggest that increasing foreign supplies to accelerate the US switch to E-85 will create a bigger ethanol pie for all. “What is clear is that dropping the tariff would remove a major source of friction between the two countries, as well as strengthen the energy security of both. This bold gesture of friendship could launch productive bilateral negotiations on trade and broader cooperation on other issues. Together, the two countries could undertake an international joint action to globalize the production and utilization of ethanol, including by sharing their technology with potential producers of ethanol throughout the world, particularly in developing countries. We share common goals. We should start sharing common programs to achieve them.”⁴³⁶ If this is truly implemented, so much pressure would be off in the use of energy for power generation!

5.5.4 Solutions for Global Warming and Environment in South and Central America

Solutions to global warming across the varied countries of Latin America include pursuing new policies to curb deforestation and forest degradation; reducing emissions from cars, trucks, and buses; and promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy. Latin America is home to a number of rapidly developing nations and vast tropical forest reserves, putting it under the watchful eye of the international community. Four countries in this region make the global top 30 list of highest annual CO₂ emitters, namely, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, and Venezuela (using 2008 data). Brazil quickly rises to the top five if emissions from deforestation are included. The region also faces a range of climate impacts, including threats to drinking water resources due to the shrinking ice pack in the Andes mountain range and potential reductions in crop yields and flooding due to sea-level rise. Tropical deforestation is a major cause of climate change; and, unfortunately, Latin America is no stranger to this issue; more forests have been destroyed in this region than in any other since the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was adopted in 1992.⁴³⁷ With 40% of its land mass covered by tropical forests, many Latin American countries have a tremendous opportunity to reduce their global warming emissions. Leaders on tropical forest management have emerged in the region and are advancing innovative solutions.⁴³⁸

One standout is Costa Rica, which aims to be carbon-neutral (have zero net greenhouse gas emissions) by 2021. Already a green leader with 96% of its electricity coming from renewable sources, Costa Rica has increased its forested area by 10% in the last decade. Another notable is Brazil, which has demonstrated the enormous potential of reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation as well as the potential of biofuels for reducing emissions from vehicles. Detailed analyses of publicly available satellite photos show that Brazil has reduced deforestation in the Amazon enough over the past 5 years to lower heat-trapping emissions more than any other country on earth.⁴³⁹

Working Group II of the IPCC Fourth Assessment synthesizes the vulnerabilities facing Latin America and what steps countries in the region can take to adapt to climate impacts. Substantial scientific evidence indicates that an increase in the global average temperature of more than 2 °F above today poses severe risks to natural systems and human health and well-being. To avoid this level of warming, the United States needs to reduce heat-trapping emissions by at least 80% below 2000 levels by 2050. Delay in taking such action will require much sharper cuts later, which would likely be more difficult and costly. ⁴⁴⁰ Due to severe climatic conditions in Latin America, 80% of the current coffee production areas need to shift to more productive areas in the continent (see Fig. 5.104).

Fig. 5.104

Percentage area for coffee production to be shifted by 2050. (Source: https://ccafs.cgiar.org/research-highlight/look-how-changing-climate-will-hit-south-and-central-america#.WCx26j8zU1h)

Solutions have to address climatic variability and extreme events which have been severely affecting the Latin America region recently. Highly unusual extreme weather events were reported, such as intense Venezuelan rainfall (1999, 2005), flooding in the Argentinean Pampas (2000–2002), Amazon drought (2005), hailstorms in Bolivia (2002) and the Great Buenos Aires area (2006), the unprecedented Hurricane Catarina in the South Atlantic (2004), and the record hurricane season of 2005 in the Caribbean Basin. Climate variability and extremes have had negative impacts on population, increasing mortality and morbidity in affected areas. Recent developments in meteorological forecasting techniques could improve the quality of information necessary for people’s welfare and security. However, the lack of modern observation equipment, the urgent need for upper-air information, the low density of weather stations, the unreliability of their reports, and the lack of monitoring of climate variables work together to undermine the quality of forecasts, with adverse effects on the public, lowering their appreciation of meteorological services as well as their trust in climate records. These shortcomings also affect hydrometeorological observing services, with a negative impact on the quality of early warnings and alert advisories. ⁴⁴¹

As is the case in several geographic areas, even in South America, land use has been an element for consideration in exploring solutions for ravages of climate change and global warming. During the last decades, important changes in precipitation and increases in temperature have been observed. Increases in rainfall in Southeast Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, the Argentinean Pampas, and some parts of Bolivia have had impacts on land use and crop yields and have increased flood frequency and intensity. On the other hand, a declining trend in precipitation has been observed in southern Chile, southwest Argentina, southern Peru, and western Central America. Increases in temperature of approximately 1 °C in Mesoamerica and South America, and of 0.5 °C in Brazil, were observed. As a consequence of temperature increases, the trend in glacier retreat reported in the Third Assessment Report is accelerating⁴⁴². This issue is critical in Bolivia, Peru, Colombia, and Ecuador, where water availability has already been compromised either for consumption or for hydropower generation. These problems with supply are expected to increase in the future, becoming chronic if appropriate, and innovative adaptation measures are not planned and implemented. Over the next decades, Andean intertropical glaciers are very likely to disappear, affecting water availability and hydropower generation.⁴⁴³

Land-use changes have intensified the use of natural resources and exacerbated many of the processes of land degradation. Almost three-quarters of the drylands in Latin America are moderately or severely affected by degradation processes. The combined effects of human action and climate change have brought about a continuous decline in natural land cover at very high rates. In particular, rates of deforestation of tropical forests in South America have increased during the last 5 years. There is evidence that biomass-burning aerosols may change regional temperature and precipitation in the southern part of Amazonia. The projected mean warming for Latin America to the end of the century, according to different climate models, ranges from 1 to 4 °C for the SRES emission scenario B2 and from 2 to 6 °C for scenario A2.⁴⁴⁴ Most general circulation model (GCM) projections indicate rather larger (positive and negative) rainfall anomalies for the tropical portions of Latin America and smaller ones for extratropical South America. In addition, the frequency of occurrence of weather and climate extremes is likely to increase in the future, as is the frequency and intensity of hurricanes in the Caribbean Basin. Under future climate change, there is a risk of significant species extinctions in many areas of tropical Latin America. Replacement of tropical forest by savannas is expected in eastern Amazonia and the tropical forests of central and southern Mexico, along with replacement of semiarid vegetation by arid vegetation in parts of Northeast Brazil and most of Central and Northern Mexico due to synergistic effects of both land use and climate changes. By the 2050s, 50% of agricultural lands are very likely to be subjected to desertification and salinization in some areas. Seven out of the 25 most critical places with high endemic species concentrations are in Latin America, and these areas are undergoing habitat loss. Biological reserves and ecological corridors have been either implemented or planned for the maintenance of biodiversity in natural ecosystems, and these can serve as adaptation measures to help protect ecosystems in the face of climate change.⁴⁴⁵

By the 2020s, the net increase in the number of people experiencing water stress due to climate change in South America is likely to be between 7 and 77 million, while, for the second half of the century, the potential water availability reduction and the increasing demand from an increasing regional population would increase these figures to between 60 and 150 million. Generalized reductions in rice yields by the 2020s, as well as increases in soybean yields, are possible when CO₂ effects are considered. For other crops (wheat, maize), the projected response to climate change is more erratic, depending on the chosen scenario. If CO₂ effects are not considered, the number of additional people at risk of hunger under the A2 scenario is likely to reach 5, 26, and 85 million in 2020, 2050, and 2080, respectively (medium confidence). On the other hand, cattle and dairy productivity is expected to decline in response to increasing temperatures. Expected increases in sea-level rise (SLR), weather, and climatic variability and extremes are very likely to affect coastal areas. During the last 10–20 years, the rate of SLR has increased from 1 to 2–3 mm/year in southeastern South America. In the future, adverse impacts would be observed on (i) low-lying areas (e.g., in El Salvador, Guyana, and the coast of Buenos Aires Province in Argentina), (ii) buildings and tourism (e.g., in Mexico and Uruguay), (iii) coastal morphology (e.g., in Peru), (iv) mangroves (e.g., in Brazil, Ecuador, Colombia, and Venezuela), and (v) availability of drinking water on the Pacific coast of Costa Rica, Ecuador, and the Rio de la Plata estuary. In particular, sea-level rise is very likely to affect both Mesoamerican coral reefs (e.g., in Mexico, Belize, and Panama) and the location of fish stocks in the Southeast Pacific (e.g., in Peru and Chile). Future sustainable development plans should include adaptation strategies to enhance the integration of climate change into development policies. Some countries have made efforts to adapt, particularly through conservation of key ecosystems, early warning systems, risk management in agriculture, strategies for flood, drought and coastal management, and disease surveillance systems. However, the effectiveness of these efforts is outweighed by a lack of basic information, observation, and monitoring systems; lack of capacity-building and appropriate political, institutional, and technological frameworks; low income; and settlements in vulnerable areas, among others. Improvements in these areas in the Latin America countries’ sustainable development goals should not be compromised which will adversely affect, among other things, their ability to reach the Millennium Development Goals. ⁴⁴⁶

Some of the options to increase the capacity to adapt to climate change include the reduction of ecosystem degradation in Latin America through the improvement and reinforcement of policy; planning and management are detailed in “Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005).”⁴⁴⁷ According to these the basic options are:⁴⁴⁸

• Government should integrate decision-making between different departments and sectors to participate in international institutions to ensure policies are focused on the protection of ecosystems.

• Identify synergies between proposed and existing adaptation policies and actions to provide benefits to endeavors.⁴⁴⁹

• Procure the empowerment of marginalized groups to influence the decisions that affect them and their ecosystem services in order to campaign for legal recognition of local communities’ ownership of natural resources.

• Include sound valuation and management of ecosystem services in all regional planning decisions and in poverty reduction strategies, e.g., Noel Kempff Mercado Climate Action Project in Bolivia and Río Bravo Carbon Sequestration Pilot Project in Belize.

• Establish protected areas in the biological or ecological corridors, for preserving the connections between protected areas, with the aim of preventing the fragmentation of natural habitats. Some programs and projects involving actions with different degrees of implementation are the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor, Binational Corridors (e.g., Tariquía–Baritú between Argentina and Bolivia, Vilcabamba–Amboro between Peru and Bolivia, Cóndor–Kutukú between Peru and Ecuador, Chocó–Manabí between Ecuador and Colombia), the natural corridor projects under way in Brazil’s Amazon region and the Atlantic forests of Colombia (e.g., Corredor Biológico Guácharos–Puracé and Corredor de Bosques Altoandinos de Roble), those in Venezuela (e.g., Corredor Biológico de la Sierra de Portuguesa) and Chile (e.g., Corredor entre la Cordillera de los Andes y la Cordillera de la Costa and Proyecto Gondwana), and some initiatives in Argentina (e.g., Iniciativa Corredor de Humedales del Litoral Fluvial de la Argentina, Corredor Verde de Misiones, and Proyecto de Biodiversidad Costera).

• Tropical countries in the region can reduce deforestation through adequate funding of programs designed to enforce environmental legislation and support for economic alternatives to extensive forest clearing (including carbon crediting) and building capacity in remote forest regions, as is the case in part of the Brazilian Amazon.⁴⁵⁰ Substantial amounts of forest can be saved in protected areas if adequate funding is available.⁴⁵¹

• Agroforestry using agroecological methods offers strong possibilities for maintaining biological diversity in Latin America, given the overlap between protected areas and agricultural zones.⁴⁵²

5.6 The Middle East and North Africa

Climate crisis is a vital question for Africa; no region has done less to contribute to the climate crisis, but no region will pay a higher price for failure to tackle it. The bold international plans could turn to dust if world average temperatures are allowed to increase in MENA region by more than 2 °C. There is now a real danger that climate change will stall and then reverse the fragile gains made over the past two decades. Meanwhile, over half of Africa’s population lacks access to basic electricity and clean cooking facilities with the numbers rising (Fig. 5.105).⁴⁵³

Fig. 5.105

Map of countries in North Africa and the Middle East, MENA. (Source: https://www.google.com/search?q=middle+east+and+energy+map+for+powerpoint&biw=1366&bih=653&tbm=isch&imgil=zXXD7XUssBLKpM%253A%253BZbcGJkeJRdlgwM%253Bhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fslideshop.com%25252FPowerPoint-Middle-East-Map-PowerPoint&source=iu&pf=m&fir=zXXD7XUssBLKpM%253A%252CZbcGJkeJRdlgwM%252C_&usg=__dNKRQNrOJsmHr3enMrGTpBKaCxA%3D&ved=0ahUKEwimifLy3qzRAhUE1oMKHaYpA8IQyjcIJQ&ei=ACVvWKaJJYSsjwSm04yQDA#tbm=isch&q=middle+east+and+NORTH+AFRICA+energy+map&imgrc=Sd7Ah8ThOAh0sM%3A)

The central message is for Africa to be a part of the leadership, with a few African countries leading the world in low-carbon, climate-resilient development. Such countries are boosting economic growth, expanding opportunity, and reducing poverty, particularly through agriculture. African nations do not have to lock into developing high-carbon old technologies, and instead they can expand power generation and achieve universal access to energy by leapfrogging into new technologies that are transforming energy systems across the world. Africa stands to gain from developing low-carbon energy, and the world stands to gain from Africa avoiding the high-carbon pathway followed by today’s rich world and emerging markets.⁴⁵⁴

An estimated 600,000 Africans in MENA and sub-Saharan Africa die each year as a result of household air pollution, half of them children under the age of 5. On current trends, universal access to nonpolluting cooking will not happen until the middle of the twenty-second century.⁴⁵⁵ Energy-sector bottlenecks and power shortages cost the region 2–4% of GDP annually, undermining sustainable economic growth, jobs, and investment. They also reinforce poverty, especially for women and people in rural areas. It is indefensible that Africa’s poorest people are paying among the world’s highest prices for energy; a woman living in a village in northern Nigeria spends around 60–80 times per unit more for her energy than a resident of New York City or London. Changing this is a huge investment opportunity. Millions of energy-poor, disconnected Africans, who earn less than US$ 2.50 a day, already constitute a US$ 10-billion yearly energy market.⁴⁵⁶

5.6.1 Climate Change in the Middle East and North Africa

Climate change impacts on water resources and agriculture in countries of North African regions and especially on Tunisia are vulnerable to climate change impacts. Scenarios predict an average rise in annual temperatures, higher than the average expected for the planet. Heat waves would then be more numerous, longer, and more intense. North Africa would be particularly affected by droughts that would be more frequent, more intense, and longer-lasting. The projections also announce a drop of 4–27% in annual rainfall. The water deficit will be worsened by increased evaporation and coastal aquifers will become more salty. The sea level could rise by 2347 cm. by the end of the twenty-first century. Many Mediterranean regions would then run a major risk of being submerged and eroded. In North Africa, rising temperatures associated with climate change are expected to decrease the land areas suitable for agriculture, shorten the length of growing seasons, and reduce crop yields. In these countries, we estimate that a 1 °C rise in temperature in a given year reduces economic growth in that year by about 1.1 points. The decrease in annual precipitation that is predicted for Northern Africa in the twenty-first century will exacerbate these effects, particularly in semiarid and arid regions that rely on irrigation for crop growth.

Climate change in North Africa, which emits low levels of greenhouse gases (between 1.5 and 3.5 emission tons of CO₂/inhabitant/year), represents a veritable threat to the region’s socioeconomic development and to its population.⁴⁵⁷ The severity of climate change impacts on North African countries is related to the geographic and ecological particularity of the region. Biophysical and the socioeconomic conditions as well as the state of technology in the region are the main factors behind the extreme vulnerability of the region to climate change. ⁴⁵⁸ North Africa’s major economic sectors are vulnerable to current climate sensitivity, with huge economic impacts, and this vulnerability is exacerbated by existing developmental challenges such as endemic poverty, complex governance, and institutional dimensions; limited access to capital, including markets, infrastructure, and technology; ecosystem degradation; and complex disasters and conflicts. These have been attributed to Africa’s weak adaptive capacity, increasing the continent’s vulnerability to projected climate change. ⁴⁵⁹

North Africa has a total area of about 5 million km², of which more than 90% is desert. The climate of North Africa varies substantially between coastal and inland areas of the region. Along the coast, North Africa has a Mediterranean climate, which is characterized by mild, wet winters and warm, dry summers, with ample rainfall of approximately 400–600 mm per year. Inland, the countries of North Africa have semiarid and arid desert climates, which are marked by extremes in daily high and low temperatures, with hot summers and cold winters, and little rainfall approximately 200–400 mm per year for semiarid regions and less than 100 mm per year for desert regions.⁴⁶⁰ In Egypt, for example, precipitation is only significant in the northern Mediterranean coast (about 180 mm/year), and it is extremely low in the rest of the country’s desert territory. North Africa is vulnerable to climate change impacts, particularly the Mediterranean regions, and has been qualified as the “hot spot for climate change.”⁴⁶¹ Climate change and its effects on the marine and coastal domain are already perceptible for natural reasons, lifestyles, and the development concentrated on the coastal area.⁴⁶² Model projections available for North Africa indicate a clear increase in temperature over the next 20 years that is expected to continue throughout the twenty-first century, probably at a rate higher than the estimated global average.⁴⁶³ A new reconstruction of the climate history of the Maghreb concluded that twentieth century was the driest in North Africa since severe droughts in the thirteenth and sixteenth centuries.⁴⁶⁴

The models associated with the “A1B” scenario predict an average rise in annual temperatures that could reach 2.2–5.1 °C by the end of the century, higher than the average expected for the planet. The rise should be greater in the interior than on the coasts,⁴⁶⁵ at sea, or in islands and more noticeable in the summer (2.7–6.5 °C) than in winter (1.7–4.6 °C). Heat waves would then be more numerous, longer, and more intense, with frequent days of scorching heat, with all the repercussions that these events could have on human health and the risk of fires.⁴⁶⁶ Model simulations also suggest a drying trend in the region, particularly along the Mediterranean coast, driven by large decreases expected in summertime precipitation. North Africa would be particularly affected by droughts that would be more frequent, more intense, and longer-lasting. Drought would be more marked in summer than in winter.⁴⁶⁷ The projections also announce a drop of 4–27% in annual rainfall⁴⁶⁸ and torrential rains will be more frequent .⁴⁶⁹

The water deficit, which represents a major stake for the countries concerned, will be worsened by increased evaporation and the fact that resources will become scarcer and will be over-exploited and that coastal aquifers will become more salty.⁴⁷⁰ Because coastal areas historically receive by far the largest amount of rainfall in North Africa, future decreases will likely have a significant and noticeable impact. Precipitation trends in the interior semiarid and arid regions of North Africa are more difficult to predict due to the very small amount of natural precipitation that characterizes these areas. Climate change will induce some variations in precipitation patterns, but the trend is not clear, as some models predict slight increases and others predict slight decreases in annual precipitation amounts.⁴⁷¹

Given the ecological and socioeconomic characteristics of the southern Mediterranean countries, the impact of climate change may be more marked than in other regions of the world. Still, most of the predicted impacts in the region are already occurring regardless of climate change (e.g., water stress and desertification). Climate change is expected to exacerbate these trends. Based on global climate projections and given inherent uncertainties, the most significant impacts of climate change in North Africa (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt) will likely include the especially water resource stress and agriculture.⁴⁷² As one expert stated “There are two major and immediate consequences. First, rising sea levels will affect coastlines and marine life severely and could impact on desalination plants that are the source of water for the region. Second, rising temperatures mean increasing water demand and with falling freshwater levels and increasing salinity in sea water (which affects the efficiency of desalination plants), water scarcity is a fearsome prospect.” ⁴⁷³

For the Mediterranean, more than 40% reduction in freshwater availability is suggested by the end of this century along the coastal areas. ⁴⁷⁴ This may have significant implications for future availability of freshwater resources. Water scarcity, even in the absence of climate change, will be one of the most critical problems facing North African countries in the next few decades ⁴⁷⁵ Model simulations show a general decrease in rainfall across North Africa, with median decreases in average annual precipitation of 12% and 6% projected for the Mediterranean and Saharan regions, respectively. ⁴⁷⁶ This general drying trend for North Africa is punctuated by seasonal variations in projected precipitation that differ by region. It is estimated that Morocco and Algeria’s water resources will be reduced by 10–15% by 2020, Tunisia’s water resources will decline by 28% by 2030, and 74.8% of Egyptians will have less than adequate freshwater by the same year. ⁴⁷⁷ Predicted decreases in average annual rainfall, accompanied by projected increases in the population of the region, may impede access to water for millions of inhabitants.⁴⁷⁸ North Africa is particularly exposed to water shortages. An additional 155–600 million people may suffer an increase in water stress in North Africa with a 3 °C rise in temperature. Competition for water within the region and across its borders may grow, carrying the risk of conflict. ⁴⁷⁹ Conflicts over water are likely to surface between African countries. In addition, low-efficiency surface irrigation practices may produce higher water losses, decreases in land productivity, and increased salination. Soil salination is particularly pronounced in countries south of the Mediterranean, such as in large parts of Algeria, Libya, and Egypt and a few regions in Morocco and Tunisia. For example, in Tunisia water quality is often a concern, as more than 30% of available water contains more than 3 g/l of salt. ⁴⁸⁰

All dimensions of food security (availability, stability, utilization, and access) will be affected by climate change. According to many experts because of more frequent drought periods, agriculture performance is projected to drop in the future. The adverse impacts of climate change include reduced crop yield due to drought and reduced water availability. Increasing temperature trend will make crops fail to reach mature due to lack of enough moisture in the soil. In the other side, warmer climate will probably increase crop losses caused by weeds and diseases. A number of countries in North Africa already face semiarid conditions that make agriculture challenging, and climate change will reduce the length of growing season as well as force large regions of marginal agriculture out of production. Projected reductions in yield in some countries could be as much as 50% by 2020, and crop net revenues could fall by as much as 90% by 2100, with small-scale farmers being the most affected. ⁴⁸¹

The region relies on sparse winter rainfall and short rainy seasons to grow cereals, legumes, and low-yield arboriculture as well as raises sheep and goats on fragile grazing land. The extremely arid areas in the south depend almost entirely on crop irrigation but are devoid of any major river systems. Irrigation plays the most crucial role in the arid regions, which are characterized by low rainfall or evapotranspiration exceeding precipitation most of the year and high inter-annual rainfall variability. Accordingly, water scarcity related to climate change is expected to have negative consequences on North Africa’s agriculture.⁴⁸² Water and land resources in North Africa are primarily used for agriculture. North Africa accounts for more than 41% (about 6 million hectares) of total irrigated lands in Africa. ⁴⁸³ Consequently, the Northern region represents more than half of the agricultural water withdrawal of the continent. ⁴⁸⁴ In North Africa, rising temperatures associated with climate change are expected to decrease the land areas suitable for agriculture, shorten the length of growing seasons, and reduce crop yields.⁴⁸⁵ The decrease in annual precipitation that is predicted for Northern Africa in the twenty-first century will exacerbate these effects, particularly in semiarid and arid regions that rely on irrigation for crop growth. ⁴⁸⁶ IPCC (2007) ⁴⁸⁷ reported that agricultural production in many African countries is projected to be severely compromised by climate variability and change. Yields from rained agriculture in Africa could be reduced by up to 50% by 2020, and the projected sea-level rise will affect low-lying coastal areas with large populations, which will require a total cost of adaptation that could amount to at least 5–10% of GDP. Model results are inconsistent regarding future changes in crop yields and agricultural growing seasons in North Africa, and it is not sure whether variations in temperature, precipitation, or atmospheric CO₂ will be the dominant factor. ⁴⁸⁸

Increases in air temperature are also predicted to cause a decrease in the land area suitable for growing wheat, from approximately 106,000 ha of land in Lower Egypt in 2005 to 6500 ha in 2075. The 2009 report by the World Bank, the FAO, and the IFAD confirms that the average yearly rainfall in the region could decrease by 10% in the next 50 years.⁴⁸⁹ Moreover, because of more frequent drought and heat waves rain-fed crop yields are expected to fluctuate increasingly and decrease by almost 40% in Algeria and Morocco. In poorer countries, the estimate of a 1 °C rise in temperature in a given year reduces economic growth in that year by about 1.1 points. In rich countries, changes in temperature have no discernable effect on growth. Accordingly by 2050, climate change could reduce agricultural yields of several Egyptian crops from an 11% reduction in rice to 28% for soybeans when compared to production under current climate conditions. However, the same study suggests that reductions of farm net revenue could be less severe if farmers opt to use heavy machinery on farms, and revenue could even increase if farmers use irrigation. ⁴⁹⁰

Adaptation to climate change in North Africa is a major issue from the perspectives of food production, rural population stabilization, and distribution of water resources. Previous studies have addressed adaptation in a top-down approach, evaluating theoretical options with little relation to current agricultural management. Additional anthropogenic disturbances such as deforestation, overgrazing in rangelands, non-sustainable irrigation practices, and extractive farming practices, which produce fertility reductions and depletion of carbon stored in the soil, may be contributing to desertification in North Africa. Continued investment in agriculture research and development is a key to sustainable food production as technology may well offset negative impacts of climate change on agricultural production. ⁴⁹¹

The key position of Tunisia between the tempered regions of the Northern Hemisphere and intertropical regions makes its climate a special variability. Such a characteristic makes Tunisia a country particularly vulnerable to climate change. It is foreseeable that at the 2100 horizon, a potential increase of the temperature from 1.3 to 2.5 °C and an elevation of the sea levels from 38 to 55 cm will occur. Tunisia is among the top 10 impacted countries in terms of population affect and GDP loses and increase in annual average temperature by 1.1 °C by 2030. The south of the Tunisia will be affected to a far greater extent than the north (1.6 °C and 0.9 °C, respectively), with increased number and intensity of droughts. In addition there are several adverse impacts due to climate changes and increase of temperature. Future climate change may substantially widen income gaps between rich and poor countries, with many poor countries driven towards greater poverty, other things equal. ⁴⁹²

5.6.2 Global Warming in the Middle East and North Africa

This is not to downplay the critical importance of international cooperation. Keeping global warming below the 2 °C threshold above preindustrial levels demands collective action to address a shared threat. Similarly, unlocking Africa’s energy potential and putting in place the foundations for a climate-resilient, low-carbon future will require ambitious, efficient, and properly financed multilateral cooperation. As we show in this report, the current architecture of MENA fails each of these credibility tests.⁴⁹³ Climate modeling converts these scenarios into global warming probabilities. At the greenhouse gas concentration levels in prospect under current trajectories, the likelihood of staying below 2 °C is extremely small. Temperatures at the end of the twenty-first century could be more than 4 ° C above preindustrial levels, and sub-Saharan Africa could experience warming of 5 °C above the baseline towards the end of the twenty-first century or in the following century.⁴⁹⁴ The risks associated with such an outcome for the lives, livelihoods, and security of future generations are beyond estimation. So too are the implications for Africa’s development prospects.⁴⁹⁵

5.6.3 Environmental Impact in the Middle East and North Africa

The African countries face numerous environmental challenges and have to reconcile many conflicting priorities, from promoting economic diversification, ensuring water supply and food security, and furthering environmental protection and conservation to adapting to the impacts of global warming.⁴⁹⁶

The rise in the sea level is still hard to predict at world level, and more particularly in the Mediterranean basin. According to 2007 projections,⁴⁹⁷ which are considered to be optimistic, it could rise by 23–47 cm. by the end of the twenty-first century. Many Mediterranean regions would then run a major risk of being submerged and eroded; among them the extreme cases are the Kerkennah and Kneiss archipelagos in Tunisia ⁴⁹⁸ and Alexandria and the Nile delta in Egypt ⁴⁹⁹; losses and socioeconomic impacts over the Port Said Governorate in Egypt were assessed, and it was found that some industries may be seriously affected.⁵⁰⁰

Water resource stress is an important climate change factor for the MENA with serious environmental impact. Water is at the heart of the climate change impacts on the natural environment in the Mediterranean.⁵⁰¹ In general, the African countries face numerous environmental challenges and have to reconcile many conflicting priorities, from promoting economic diversification, ensuring water supply and food security, and furthering environmental protection and conservation to adapting to the impacts of global warming.⁵⁰²

5.6.4 Solutions for Climate Change, Global Warming, and Environment in the Middle East and North Africa

From an African perspective, two priorities stood out for the Paris climate summit in December 2015. The first was an ambitious deal that delivers on the commitment to keep global warming within the 2 °C threshold. The second was the climate agreement to address the financing and capacity-building challenges that Africa faces in response to the climate challenge.⁵⁰³

Solutions to global warming in Africa include effective land-use planning to avoid forest degradation, developing renewable energy, and limiting the expansion of coal-fired power plants. Although the countries of Africa have some of the lowest overall and per capita global warming emissions on the planet, they are also likely to suffer from some of the worst consequences of climate change. These impacts may already be unfolding in the form of droughts, famine, desertification, and population displacement. In the context of high levels of poverty and malnutrition, the priority for many African countries is increasing access to energy services and improving the economic welfare of their people.⁵⁰⁴

Africa, along with South America and Southeast Asia, has experienced a significant loss of forests in the past two decades. The Congo Basin Rainforest is the world’s second largest tropical forest and spans 700,000 square miles in six countries. Fortunately, deforestation and forest degradation in the Congo Basin are historically low. New efforts are underway to ensure effective land-use planning, balancing local subsistence needs with conservation.⁵⁰⁵

By pioneering new renewable energy projects and establishing forward-thinking innovation centers, many countries in Africa are looking to renewable energy as a solution to meet their growing energy needs in a sustainable way while working towards practical adaptation strategies to mitigate global warming impacts. Meeting these adaptation challenges is the responsibility not only of the African nations that are facing them but also of developed countries that bear the historical responsibility for most global warming emissions. While progress is being made, much more needs to be done to address current and future development and energy needs on the African continent.⁵⁰⁶

The following are some of the corporate or entities in the public domain who had taken a pioneering role in finding solutions for climate change, global warming, and environment in the Middle East and North Africa: ⁵⁰⁷

• The Union of Concerned Scientists⁵⁰⁸ works to address deforestation through international agreements and US legislation that reward African countries for slowing deforestation and degradation, thus reducing their global warming pollution.⁵⁰⁹

• The African Development Bank⁵¹⁰ views tackling climate change as an essential component of advancing its mission of poverty reduction and economic growth.⁵¹¹

• Chapter 9 of the report Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability by Working Group II of the IPCC Fourth Assessment⁵¹² synthesizes the vulnerabilities facing Africa and what steps African countries can take to adapt to climate impacts; Chapter 12 details the relationship between sustainable development and mitigation.⁵¹³

• The Climate Action Network⁵¹⁴ has regional networks in East Africa, North Africa, Southern Africa, and West Africa.

• The Africa–Europe Energy Partnership⁵¹⁵ seeks to promote renewable energy and energy efficiency in Africa by mobilizing “increased financial, technical and human resources in support of Africa’s energy development.”

• The Sustainable Energy Society of Southern Africa⁵¹⁶ promotes the use of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies in Southern African countries.

The waste of scarce resources in Africa’s energy systems remains stark and disturbing. Current highly centralized energy systems often benefit the rich and bypass the poor and are underpowered, inefficient, and unequal. Energy-sector bottlenecks and power shortages cost the region 2–4% of GDP annually, undermining sustainable economic growth, jobs, and investment. They also reinforce poverty, especially for women and people in rural areas. It is indefensible that Africa’s poorest people are paying among the world’s highest prices for energy: a woman living in a village in northern Nigeria spends around 60–80 times per unit more for her energy than a resident of New York City or London. Changing this is a huge investment opportunity. Millions of energy-poor, disconnected Africans, who earn less than US $2.50 a day, already constitute a US $10-billion yearly energy market. What would it take to expand power generation and finance energy for all? It is estimated that investment of US $55 billion per year is needed until 2030 to meet demand and achieve universal access to electricity. One of the greatest barriers to the transformation of the power sector is the low level of tax collection and the failure of governments to build credible tax systems. Domestic taxes can cover almost half the financing gap in sub-Saharan Africa. Redirecting US $21 billion spent on subsidies to wasteful utilities and kerosene to productive energy investment, social protection, and targeted connectivity for the poor would show that governments are ready to do things differently. I urge African leaders to take that step. Additional revenues can be mobilized by stemming the hemorrhage of finance lost through illicit financial transfers, narrowing opportunities for tax evasion and borrowing cautiously on bond markets. Aid must play a supportive, catalytic role. Global and African investment institutions already see the growth and revenue prospects of African infrastructure in a world where demand is slowing in developed countries. Reforming energy utilities is also a key since long-term national interest must override short-term political gain, vested interests, corruption, and political patronage. Energy-sector governance and financial transparency will help bring light in the darkness. Energy entrepreneurs can join the reformed utilities in investing revenues and energy funds in sustainable power that saves the planet and pays steady dividends. Some countries in the region are already at the front of the global trend of climate-resilient, low-carbon development, including Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, and South Africa.⁵¹⁷

Securing a better deal for Africa has been possible by the efforts of the INDCs which provided African governments with a vehicle to set out their ambition for the transition to a growth-oriented, climate-resilient, low-carbon development model. Building on existing energy and land-use strategies, the submissions could go beyond outlining what countries are doing now to identify what could be done through deeper international cooperation on financing, technology, and capacity development. Africa’s governments should also use the 2015 financing and climate summits to press for wider reforms. Climate finance is a starting point. On one estimate, there are now 50 climate funds in operation under a fragmented patchwork of mechanisms with a total financing pool of around US $25 billion .⁵¹⁸

5.7 Sub-Sahara

In sub-Saharan Africa, over 600 million people still do not have access to modern energy. It is shocking that sub-Saharan Africa’s electricity consumption is less than that of Spain, and on current trends it will take until 2080 for every African to have access to electricity. Fifteen years ago, per capita energy use in sub-Saharan Africa was 30% of the level in South Asia; now it is just 24% and still falling. The region’s grid has a power generation capacity of just 90 gigawatts (GW), and half of it is located in one country, South Africa. Electricity consumption in Spain exceeds that of the whole of sub-Saharan Africa. Excluding South Africa, consumption averages around 162 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per capita per year. This compares to a global average of 7000 kWh. It would take the average Tanzanian around 8 years to consume as much electricity as an American uses in 1 month.⁵¹⁹ Average figures mask the extent of Africa’s energy deficit. Two in every three people, around 621 million in total, have no access to electricity. In Nigeria, an oil exporting superpower, 93 million people lack electricity. Angola has five times the average income level of Bangladesh, but Bangladesh has far higher levels of access to electricity (55% versus 35%). Access to clean, nonpolluting cooking facilities is even more restricted. Almost four in five rely for cooking on solid biomass, mainly fuelwood and charcoal. As a result, 600,000 people in the region die each year of household air pollution. Almost half are children under 5. The international community has set the goal of achieving universal access to modern energy by 2030. Sub-Saharan Africa is not on track to achieve that target. It is the only region in which the absolute number of people without access to modern energy is set to rise, by 45 million for electricity and 184 million for clean cooking stoves. On current trends, it will take Africa until 2080 to achieve universal access to electricity. Universal access to clean cooking facilities would occur around 100 years later, sometime after the middle of the twenty-second century. The social, economic and human costs of Africa’s energy crisis are insufficiently recognized. Energy-sector bottlenecks and power shortages cost the region 2–4% of GDP annually, undermining job creation and investment. Companies in Tanzania and Ghana are losing 15% of the value of sales as a result of power outages. Most of Africa’s school children attend classes without access to electricity. In Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Malawi, and Niger, over 80% of primary schools lack access to electricity. Governance of power utilities is at the heart of Africa’s energy crisis. Governments often view utilities primarily as sites of political patronage and vehicles for corruption; providing affordable energy can be a distant secondary concern (Fig. 5.106).⁵²⁰

Fig. 5.106

Power generation map of sub-Saharan Africa. (Source: http://www.geni.org/globalenergy/library/national_energy_grid/africa/africanelectricitygrid.shtml)

5.7.1 Climate Change in Sub-Sahara

Sub-Saharan Africa will be hit hard by climate change which will have local impacts with their timing and severity being determined by global emissions. The most severe and immediate effects will be felt by the rural poor. If global average temperatures are allowed to increase by 4 °C, large areas used for cropping sorghum, millet, and maize would become unavailable. In some areas drought could become more protracted and severe. In other cases, productivity levels will be affected by unpredictable rainfall, increased temperature, and flooding. Can the world prevent catastrophic climate change while building the energy systems needed to sustain growth, create jobs, and lift millions of people out of poverty? That question goes to the heart of the defining development challenges of the twenty-first century and is the focus of this year’s report. Climate change demands that the relationship between energy and development be addressed. The carbon-intensive energy systems that dictate economies are on a collision course with countries’ priorities. Such a collision can be avoided if the technology, finance, and ingenuity of the global community pitch in for a smooth transition to a low-carbon future of the sub-Saharan region. But so far sheer lack of the realism of climatic threats by the political leadership and practical policies are required to break the link between energy and emissions. Nowhere is the absence of the threads connecting energy, climate, and development more evident than in sub-Saharan Africa. No region has made a smaller contribution to climate change. Africa will pay the highest price for failure to avert a global climate catastrophe. The region’s energy systems are underpowered, inefficient, and unequal. Energy deficits act as a brake on economic growth, job creation, and poverty reduction, and they reinforce inequalities linked to wealth, gender, and the rural–urban divide. ⁵²¹

Africa Progress Report explores the links between energy, poverty, and climate change. ⁵²² Climate change can be construed as opportunity for transformation: The risks associated with climate change in Africa are well established. High levels of background poverty, dependence on rainfall, weak infrastructure, and limited provision of safety nets combine to make climate risk a major source of vulnerability, even without global warming. Climate justice demands international cooperation and human solidarity at local levels to contain these risks. Low-carbon energy systems are at the heart of the opportunity. Climate change raises immensely complex financial, technological, and political problems, all of which point towards a single solution. Over the next few decades, governments have to break the link between economic growth and greenhouse gas emissions. Making the transition to a low-carbon future is imperative for the well-being of future generations. It is also an opportunity to develop green energy strategies that can underpin growth, job creation, and shared prosperity. Africa is facing acute climate risks; climate change impacts will be transmitted through a complex array of mechanisms. The effects on individual countries, and parts of countries, will depend on specific social, economic, and environmental circumstances. Many effects will be associated with water in the form of drought, floods, uncertain rainfall, and stress on watersheds and river systems. Part of the region’s vulnerability can be traced to the fact that over 90% of agricultural yields and food security are dependent on rainfall. The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment concluded that “climate change is very likely to have an overall negative effect on yields of major cereals crops across Africa.” ⁵²³ Significant crop effects are already being felt. Even under warming of less than 2 °C by the 2050s, total crop production could be reduced by 10%.⁵²⁴ Across the region, yields of maize are predicted to decline sharply by 2050, with average predicted losses on this basic staple food ranging from 5% for the region overall to 11% in Southern Africa. ⁵²⁵

5.7.2 Global Warming in Sub-Sahara

The Fifth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)⁵²⁶ identifies Africa as the region at greatest risk from global warming. Regional heating will exceed the global average. While climate modeling does not provide cast-iron predictions, it does point to high levels of risk in many areas. Rising sea levels could threaten coastal cities such as Accra, Dares Salaam, and Lagos. Hydropower systems could be compromised by reduced rainfall and increased evaporation. New health threats could emerge. In each of these areas, the poor will bear the brunt ⁵²⁷ as noted below:

• Eliminate within 5 years gas flaring, which is a potent source of global warming and a waste of Africa’s energy resources.⁵²⁸ Climate risks reinforce the vicious circle. Africa has made the smallest contribution to global warming, but it is experiencing the earliest and most damaging impacts of climate change. Governments around the world have pledged to limit global warming to less than 2 °C. Several countries are pioneering climate-resilient growth strategies that hold out the prospect for “triple-win” scenarios – restoring degraded land and preventing deforestation could increase agricultural productivity, cut poverty, and reduce Africa’s contribution to global warming. One-fifth of global emissions associated with land-use changes originate in Africa, and cutting these emissions is vital to international efforts aimed at avoiding dangerous climate change.⁵²⁹

• Extreme climate events: As global warming levels increase, drought, heat waves, and heavy rainfall will become more pronounced. Southern Africa faces the risk of more severe and protracted droughts, and periods of extremely low and extremely high rainfall could become more common. Climate models are broadly consistent in predicting that rains will be heavier, particularly in the wetter areas of tropical Africa, increasing flood hazards. Eastern Africa is projected to become wetter. As exposure to flood risk goes up, socioeconomic losses will increase, especially in smaller catchments that are prone to flash floods and have high population densities.⁵³⁰ Unprecedented heat extremes are projected over an increasing percentage of land area as warming goes from 2 to 4 °C resulting in significant changes in vegetative cover and putting some species at risk of extinction. Heat and drought would also result in severe losses of livestock.⁵³¹ The loss of ecological resources is a source of local vulnerability and global warming. Changes in agriculture, forestry, and land-use patterns are responsible for emissions equivalent to 10–12 GtCO₂e, one-quarter of the global total.⁵³² Africa accounts for around 20% of these emissions divided on a roughly equal basis between agriculture, forestry, and land use. Its emissions are growing at 1–2% a year.⁵³³

• Groundwater : Most Africans rely on groundwater for domestic supply, particularly in rural areas. Precipitation changes could substantially limit water availability in some regions. One model for Southern and West Africa predicts decreases in groundwater recharge rates of 50–70%.⁵³⁴ The combination of changes in the flow of streams and rising temperatures is also expected to have broadly negative impacts on freshwater ecosystems and water quality. ⁵³⁵ In other regions, such as the Horn of Africa, greater rainfall could increase groundwater levels.⁵³⁶

• Rising sea levels: Global mean sea levels in the last two decades of the twenty-first century will be 45–82 centimeters (cm) higher under a high-emission scenario. This implies significant risks for Africa’s coastal settlements and emerging megacities such as Lagos, Dar es Salaam, Accra, and Maputo. Estimates of risk vary. One model, based on a 40-cm rise in sea levels, puts the number of people threatened by flooding in the four worst affected countries – Cameroon, Mozambique, Senegal, and Tanzania – at 10 million. There are high concentrations of poverty and low levels of investment in drainage and flood defenses in many of the areas under most immediate threat.⁵³⁷

• Energy-sector impacts: Climate change could have far-reaching consequences for Africa’s energy systems, principally through its impact on hydropower. Increased rainfall and runoff could raise capacity to generate hydropower in East Africa but have the opposite effect in parts of West and Southern Africa.⁵³⁸ Increased evaporation will affect the level of “stored” energy in reservoirs, while increasing temperatures can be expected to boost demand for water resources from other sectors, such as for irrigation and intensifying water scarcity.⁵³⁹

• Health: Warmer temperatures and, in some subregions, more water could enable disease-carrying insects to spread to new latitudes. Increased flooding in urban coastal areas lacking sanitation and waste disposal infrastructure could increase human exposure to a range of infectious diseases. Changes in agricultural productivity could also have long-term health implications, including child malnutrition.⁵⁴⁰

• Fisheries: Marine ecosystems, including coral reefs and the fisheries that depend on them, are expected to be among the natural systems affected the earliest by climatic changes.⁵⁴¹ Coral reefs off the coasts of Africa are very likely to experience thermal stress by 2050 at warming levels of 1.5–2 °C above preindustrial levels, and there is likely to be a severe coral-bleaching event once, or more, every 10 years. Most coral reefs are projected to be extinct long before 4 °C warming is reached, with associated losses for marine fisheries, tourism, and coastal protection. Evidence on fish stocks is more limited, but worrying. One study projects losses in maximum catch potential of up to 50% along the West African coast from Gabon to Mauritania, harming communities that depend on fish for protein. ⁵⁴²

Poor Households Will Bear the Brunt

Whatever the precise nature, timing, and location of the impacts of climate change, the poor will bear the brunt. The earliest and most damaging impacts will be felt by those whose livelihoods are most prone to risks caused by the climate. These include, for example, smallholder farmers and pastoralists who depend on rain-fed agriculture, live in marginal areas, and have the most limited human, financial, and physical coping mechanisms.⁵⁴³ Background poverty allied to the limited reach of welfare safety nets and underdeveloped infrastructure is at the heart of Africa’s vulnerability. Despite some gains over the past decade, the region has the world’s highest incidence of poverty (47%) and by some distance the greatest depth of poverty. The income, measured by consumption level, of the average person living on less than US $1.25 a day is just US $0.74 a day. Poverty is most widespread and most intense in rural areas. According to the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), 60% of rural Africans live on less than US $1.25 a day and 90% on less than US $2 a day.⁵⁴⁴ At these levels of income, even moderate climate shocks such as delayed rainfall or a slightly more protracted dry season can have grave consequences. More extreme climate events can have catastrophic outcomes, leading to persistent welfare losses. The Human Development Report of the UN Development Programme found that children in Kenya aged 5 years old or younger were 36% more likely to be malnourished if they were born during a drought year in their district and children in Tanzania 50% more likely.⁵⁴⁵ Even 10 years after the 1990s drought in Ethiopia and Tanzania, the consumption levels of poor households remained 17–40% below the levels before the drought.^546. Confronted with climate-related shocks that lead to losses of crops and livestock or increased food prices, the poor may have little alternative but to cut vital expenditure or sell productive assets. Distress selling of assets in turn creates a vicious circle, reducing productivity and increasing vulnerability to future climate shocks. Rebuilding livelihoods and restoring assets may prove impossible or take a very long time, trapping households in poverty.⁵⁴⁷ Lacking access to formal insurance, rural populations use their limited savings to guard against risk, which means they are effectively directing their potential investment funds into self-insurance. Data is available for 36 countries, and in 34 of these resources put aside to cover emergencies accounted for over half of total savings, rising to more than 80% for Tanzania, Kenya, and Nigeria. There is evidence to suggest that uninsured risk itself deters farmers from investing in more productive crop varieties.⁵⁴⁸ There is a vicious circle linking climate change to rural poverty: Raising agricultural productivity is an imperative. The agricultural sector not only supports the livelihoods of most Africans and underpins national food security, it also accounts for 14% of GDP. Agricultural growth is twice as effective in reducing poverty as growth in nonagricultural sectors.⁵⁴⁹ The underlying problems holding back productivity were analyzed extensively in last year’s Africa Progress Report.⁵⁵⁰ While country circumstances vary, underinvestment in rural infrastructure, barriers to cross-border trade, limited agricultural research and development, and restricted development of water resources figure prominently. It is often argued that the region’s future will be increasingly urban. This is correct, but urbanization without increased rural productivity is a prescription for food insecurity, rising food prices, and increased wage costs, which will in turn limit employment and investment. Without higher levels of agricultural productivity, rural areas will get left further behind, weakening the link between growth and poverty reduction and reinforcing inequality. Failure to increase agricultural productivity will not only exacerbate vulnerability to climate change and undermine prospects for inclusive growth but also exacerbate a critical but much neglected aspect of the global climate crisis: the damaging interaction between climate, ecological degradation, and poverty. The loss of ecological resources is a source of local vulnerability and global warming. Changes in agriculture, forestry, and land-use patterns are responsible for emissions equivalent to 10–12 GtCO2e, one-quarter of the global total.⁵⁵¹ Africa accounts for around 20% of these emissions, divided on a roughly equal basis between agriculture, forestry, and land use. Its emissions are growing at 1–2% a year.⁵⁵²

Thus agriculture, forestry, and land-use changes account for about half of total emissions for sub-Saharan Africa, and the share is rising. Low agricultural productivity is one of the most powerful causes of land degradation in Africa. The region’s farmers have increased output not by boosting productivity but by bringing more land under cultivation. ⁵⁵³ Limited access to fertilizer, high-yielding seeds, and irrigation contributes to low productivity levels. Climate risk could ratchet the effect even further. As household incomes fall and investment in seeds and fertilizer declines, smallholder farmers may be forced to further extend the margin of cultivation.⁵⁵⁴ Low productivity has intersected with population growth, urbanization, and demand for biomass energy sources to create acute pressure on land and forestry resources.⁵⁵⁵

5.7.3 Environment in Sub-Sahara

Africa’s urbanization has been a largely unplanned consequence of rural poverty. The rise of new high-income elite has deepened already pronounced social divides. The sprawling slum of Kibera in Nairobi, for example, is separated from the homes of Kenya’s super-rich by a single road. Urban sprawl is pushing settlements into agricultural areas and onto increasingly precarious sites susceptible to flooding. Cities built in this fashion hemorrhage economic opportunities and amplify social and environmental stress. Lacking access to modern energy, poor households resort to burning charcoal. Emissions of soot, traffic fumes, and smoke have created dangerously high levels of particulate matter, which is linked to premature death, asthma, heart attacks, and respiratory diseases. Road traffic problems reinforce the costs of pollution. Sub-Saharan Africa has the world’s lowest levels of car ownership, but the highest levels of road death (322 road deaths per 100,000 cars) and some of the world’s most congested cities. One study in Lagos estimated that commuters lost 3 billion hours annually to congestion and that a 20% reduction in congestion would save US $1 billion every year. There is an alternative. City authorities can work with utilities and the private sector to expand access to affordable electricity. Renewable energy technologies offer opportunities to leapfrog grid-based systems through solar and wind power. Similarly, Africa’s urban transport crisis could become an economic opportunity if managed in the right way. Cities such as Lagos and Abuja in Nigeria and Addis Ababa in Ethiopia have developed bus rapid transit and light rail systems, modelled on best international practices. Some governments are also responding to the emerging crisis of air pollution. The five member states of the East African Community have committed to a shared target for lowering sulfur emissions in fuel. Other opportunities can be created by allowing entrepreneurs access to the urban waste stream and by devolving sanitation services to communities. Compact, cohesive, and connected African cities could bring benefits in terms of economic growth, jobs, and less pollution while reducing transport-related emissions. ⁵⁵⁶

With the region’s vast untapped energy potential – Africa’s energy systems stand at crossroads. For countries across the region, this is a moment of great opportunity. Two-thirds of the energy infrastructure that should be in place by 2030 has yet to be built. Demand for energy is set to surge, fueled by economic growth, demographic change, and urbanization. Cities could emerge as hubs of innovation. As concerns over climate change spur innovation that is driving down costs for low-carbon energy, Africa could seize the opportunity to leapfrog into a new era of power generation. Decentralized power generation and distribution systems are opening up new possibilities for reaching populations currently bypassed by national grids.⁵⁵⁷

Key sources of renewable energy have gone from being prohibitively expensive to being cost-competitive in less than a decade. Wind and solar are becoming increasingly competitive with energy systems based on fossil fuels. The results are reflected in the global demand patterns. In 2013, renewable energy sources excluding hydropower accounted for 44% of new installed capacity worldwide, creating significant benefits for climate change. ⁵⁵⁸

International concern over coal focuses on the high carbon content of the energy it generates. On a per unit basis, coal generates roughly twice as much CO₂ as natural gas. Globally, it represented 29% of primary energy supply in 2012 but accounted for 44% of energy-related CO₂ emissions. ⁵⁵⁹ There are compelling grounds for eliminating coal from energy systems as early as possible. In the case of sub-Saharan Africa, the elimination date is likely to be well after 2040. Prohibiting investment in coal before then would limit power generation in countries that do not have readily available and affordable alternatives and would produce modest benefits for climate change. If current trends continue, the region’s share in energy-related CO₂ emissions will increase from 2% to just 3% by 2040.⁵⁶⁰

5.7.4 Solutions to Environmental Problems

The severity and immediacy of the risks posed by climate change have directed attention to build more climate-resilient approaches to development. Seizing the opportunity the emphasis is on land use and transformative adaptation. These opportunities offer “triple-win” benefits: boosting agricultural productivity, reducing poverty, and strengthening international efforts to combat climate change. Land use should be a focal point for strategies aimed at unlocking these benefits. Much of African agriculture is locked in a vicious circle of low productivity, poverty, and environmental degradation. Around 2 million hectares of forest were lost annually between 2000 and 2010. Changes in agriculture, forestry, and land-use patterns are responsible for emissions equivalent to 10–12 gigatons (Gt) of carbon dioxide (CO₂), around one-quarter of the global total. Africa accounts for around 20% of these emissions. While the region may account for a small share of overall greenhouse gas emissions, the region’s emissions from agriculture, forestry, and land-use changes are growing at 1–2% a year. Such changes account for about half of Africa’s emissions and the share is rising. Reversing the vicious circle of low productivity, environmental degradation, and climate change has the potential to unlock far-reaching benefits. One of the most striking examples comes from Niger, where smallholder farmers have transformed the productivity and sustainability of agriculture across 5 million hectares of land. African governments could also do far more to reduce vulnerability and raise productivity through wider measures. Investment in rural infrastructure, social protection, and developing new seeds, allied with greater financial inclusion and the promotion of regional trade, could do far more to enhance climate resilience than the current proliferation of small-scale adaptation projects.⁵⁶¹

The idea that countries in Africa have to choose between low-carbon development and economic growth is becoming increasingly anachronistic. Making the early investments needed to support a low-carbon transition has the potential to boost growth and expand power generation. However, realism is required. Recommendations that Africa abandon fossil fuels in favor of a leap into renewable energy are unrealistic. Fuels such as coal will represent a shrinking share of the region’s energy portfolio. The smart money for the future is on natural gas and green energy sources. But African governments are rightly concerned by the double standards of some aid donors and environmental groups who, having conspicuously failed to decarbonize their own energy systems, are urging Africa to go green at an implausibly rapid rate.⁵⁶² People in rural areas will make up a bigger proportion of the population who do not have access to modern energy sources. On the IEA scenario,⁵⁶³ by 2030 rural Africans will account for two-thirds of the global deficit in access to electricity and a third of the population without access to clean cooking stoves. Fortunately, current trends do not dictate the destiny of countries. The IEA scenarios highlight⁵⁶⁴ the failure of current public policies, financial allocations, and business models to serve the needs of the most disadvantaged people, especially those living in rural areas. There are alternatives to these policies. The 2030 target is within reach, but only if governments and the private sector create an enabling environment that serves the interest of the poor.⁵⁶⁵ Unsustainable firewood and charcoal use is damaging the environment: The way energy is produced, distributed, and consumed has a strong bearing on poverty and on environmental resources. Reliance on biomass such as firewood and charcoal without sustainable agroforestry management can lead directly to land degradation and deforestation, damaging ecosystems that play a vital role for vulnerable populations.⁵⁶⁶

Since the near collapse of the 2009 Copenhagen summit on climate, governments have tended to treat the avoidance of a breakdown in the global talks as an indicator of success. The world cannot afford to continue this pattern of climate diplomacy. The window of opportunity to limit global warming to 2 °C is closing. For sub-Saharan Africa, the Paris summit in late 2015 represents a fork in the road. Failure to agree on an ambitious and practical agenda for action will greatly increase the likelihood of reversals in human development. The consequences will be measured in lost opportunities for Africa and the rest of the world to sustain growth and reduce poverty.⁵⁶⁷ The multilateral funds do finance some important and innovative work. Niger has secured significant benefits. It is using some US $110 million in resources to develop climate-resilient land and water management systems and to integrate adaptation into planning by national and local governments. However, this is an exception in what is overall an inefficient system for financing adaptation. Estimating the required financing for adaptation is intrinsically difficult. The UNEP is the most comprehensive and authoritative source for adaptation financing estimates, and it puts annual average costs of adapting to unavoidable climate change at US $7–15 billion (at 2010 prices) by 2020, rising to US $15–18 billion in the following decade if the world follows a trajectory that leads to 3.5–4 °C average global warming. Taking the midrange figure, around US $11 billion is required by 2020, but so far development finance for adaptation in Africa from both bilateral and multilateral sources has amounted to US $516 million on average each year.⁵⁶⁸ Make the link to national energy planning and renewable energy ambition. If sub-Saharan Africa aggressively promotes renewables, it could reduce CO₂ emissions by 27%. But this would require an additional US $153 billion in finance to 2040: ⁵⁶⁹

• Convert fossil fuel energy subsidies into investments in sustainable energy for all: Governments in Africa should use their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs)⁵⁷⁰ to set timetables for eliminating the US $21 billion spent on subsidies to fossil fuel energy, identifying measures for protecting the interests of poor consumers.⁵⁷¹

• End gas flaring: The flaring of gas from oil wells and gas extraction sites wastes energy and creates pollution and contributes to global warming. The principal countries involved in gas flaring – Angola, Cameroon, Congo, Gabon, and Nigeria – should use their INDCs to identify the investment costs and technical requirements for phasing out flaring by 2020. Angola, Cameroon, and Gabon are signatories to the Zero Routine Flaring by 2030 initiative. Other relevant countries should sign up. Private-sector companies should support this effort, working through the Gas Flaring Reduction Partnership.⁵⁷²

• Set out strategies on land use and conservation: The INDCs could build on the strategies developed by Ethiopia to identify interventions aimed at valuing forestry resources, extending access to clean cooking facilities and establishing communal rights to identify opportunities for scaled-up development partnerships.⁵⁷³

• Put the African climate vision into action:⁵⁷⁴ The African Common Positions developed by the African Group of Negotiators (AGN) and endorsed by the African Ministerial Conference on the Environment (AMCEN) provide the basis for a strong set of demands that African countries can collectively take to Paris. However, African governments have often failed to act on agreed positions and the shared interests that underpin those positions. “Going it alone” is an ill-advised strategy. International negotiations on climate change are marked by power asymmetry not just between African countries and the governments of rich countries but between Africa and the major emerging economies. Acting separately, African governments will weaken the region’s collective voice, opening the door to a deal that lacks sufficient ambition and fails to provide adequate adaptation finance. There is a need for greater cohesion among African countries in terms of the positions they take to Paris, as well as in how they negotiate.⁵⁷⁵

See Fig. 5.107 for distribution of power in Africa and Table 5.4 for top five power countries in sub-Sahara.

Fig. 5.107

Distribution of power in Africa. (Source: http://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/Power-Africa-Report-Card-paper.pdf)

Table 5.4 Top five power countries

5.8 South Asia

5.8.1 Global Warming Effects in South Asia

“Global warming will hit Asia hardest,” warns new report on climate change. Flooding, famine, and rising sea levels as a result of climate change will slow down economic growth, further erode food security, and trigger new poverty traps, particularly “in urban areas and emerging hot spots of hunger.” This combination of a high-risk region and the special vulnerability of cities make coastal Asian urban centers likely flashpoints for future conflict and hardship as the planet warms up this century. Acrid plumes of smoke – produced by forest fires triggered by drought and other factors – are already choking cities across Southeast Asia. Other potential crises include that yields of major crops such as wheat, rice, and maize are likely to decline at rates of up to 2% a decade, at a time when world population increases are likely to rise by 14%. At the same time, coral reefs face devastating destruction triggered by increasing amounts of carbon dioxide dissolving in seawater and acidifying earth’s oceans.⁵⁷⁶

Global warming has started showing its impacts worldwide. Climate is the primary determinant of agricultural productivity which directly impacts food production across the globe. The agriculture sector is the most sensitive sector to climate changes because the climate of a region/country determines the nature and characteristics of vegetation and crops. Increase in the mean seasonal temperature can reduce the duration of many crops and hence reduce final yield. Food production systems are extremely sensitive to climate changes like changes in temperature and precipitation, which may lead to outbreaks of pests and diseases thereby reducing harvest ultimately affecting the food security of the country. The net impact of food security will depend on the exposure to global environmental change and the capacity to cope with and recover from global environmental change. Coping with the impact of climate change on agriculture will require careful management of resources like soil, water, and biodiversity. To cope with the impact of climate change on agriculture and food production in South Asia, we will need to act at the global, regional, national, and local level.⁵⁷⁷

Industrial development is important for economic growth, employment generation, and improvement in the quality of life. However, industrial activities without proper precautionary measures for environmental protection are known to cause pollution and associated problems. If ecological and environmental criteria are forsaken, “industrialize and perish” will be the nature’s retort.⁵⁷⁸ The disagreement about global warming is how to go about altering human activities that unleash greenhouse gases, fueling global warming. The report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change provided scientific assessment of the impact of global warming on human, animal, and plant life. The culprit is greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The greenhouse gases act like a blanket around the earth, trapping too much of the heat that would otherwise have escaped into space.⁵⁷⁹

5.8.2 Impact of Climate Changes in South Asia

Global warming is the immediate cause of climate change that makes monsoons unpredictable. As a result, rain-fed wheat cultivation in South Asia will suffer in a big way. Total cereal production will go down. The crop yield per hectare will be hit badly, causing food insecurity and loss of livelihood. The rising levels of the sea in the coastal areas will damage nursery areas for fisheries, causing coastal erosion and flooding.⁵⁸⁰

If the introduction of these greenhouse gases continued to soar, global temperature could rise up by 2.4–6.4 °C by the end of the century; the panel is convinced that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can be pegged at relatively safe levels, with measures that will not affect GDP growth. It is not a surprise that the panel found that owing to human activity and gas emissions, primarily CO₂, increased by 70% between 1970 and 2004. What is of great interest to policymakers is the actionable part of the report, which addresses emissions by sectors such as energy producers, transport, buildings, land use, agriculture, and forestry. Much of that challenge is in implementing carbon capture and storage technologies in the energy supply sector, which in the past three and half decades has been responsible for a 145% increase in gas emissions.⁵⁸¹

Food security is both directly and indirectly linked with climate change. Changes in climate around the globe are expected to trigger a steep fall in the production of cereals, says R K Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC. He estimated that a rise of 0.5 °C in winter temperatures could cause a 0.45 ton per hectare fall in India’s wheat production.⁵⁸² Any alteration in the climatic parameters such as temperature and humidity which govern crop growth will have a direct impact on quantity of food produced. Indirect linkage pertains to catastrophic events such as floods and droughts which are projected to multiply as a consequence of climate change leading to huge crop loss and leaving large patches of arable land unfit for cultivation which hence threatens food security. The net impact of food security will depend on the exposure to global environmental change and the capacity to cope with and recover from global environmental changes. On a global level, increasingly unpredictable weather patterns will lead to a fall in agricultural production and higher food prices, leading to food insecurity. Food insecurity could be an indicator for assessing vulnerability to extreme events and slow-onset changes. This impact of global warming has significant consequences for agricultural production and an increased risk of hunger. The number of people suffering from chronic hunger has increased from under 800 million in 1996 to over 1 billion recently. United Nations’ population data and projections show the global population reaching 9.1 billion by 2050, an increase of 32% from 2010. The world’s population is expected to grow by 2.2 billion in the next 40 years, and a significant portion of the additional population will be in countries that have difficulties feeding themselves. Preliminary estimates for the period up to 2080 suggest a decline of some 15–30% of agricultural productivity in the most climate change-exposed developing country regions – Africa and South Asia. But increased anthropogenic activities such as industrialization, urbanization, deforestation, agriculture, change in land-use pattern, etc. lead to emission of greenhouse gases due to which the rate of climate change is much faster. Climate change scenarios include higher temperatures, changes in precipitation, and higher atmospheric CO₂ concentrations. There are three ways in which the “greenhouse effect” may be important for agriculture. First, increased atmospheric CO₂ concentrations can have a direct effect on the growth rate of crops. Second, CO₂-induced changes of climate may alter levels of temperature, rainfall, and sunshine that can influence plant and animal productivity. Finally, rises in sea level may lead to loss of farmland by inundation and increasing salinity of groundwater in coastal areas .⁵⁸³

5.8.3 Environmental Impacts in South Asia

As in the previous subsections, the discussions pertaining to the environmental impacts need to be dovetailed to the implications of climate change affect, global warming, and thereby environmental issues in South Asia especially the countries of India and Bangladesh which have caused serious environmental issues deserving our attention particularly in regard to the large-scale poverty in these countries. The primary purpose of the discussions regarding wind energy in this book is for wind energy to be utilized as an effective tool for the economic development, i.e., for the “have-nots” to get off their poverty dilemma or for the “haves” to become economically better equipped or the rich and well-to-do to become wealthier by investing in more greener pastures. Towards these ends availability of energy solution becomes an important paradigm in development formula. The question then is how does wind energy fit into this exercise? The availability of unbridled energy is not ubiquitous in South Asia especially if it relates to renewable energy sources which can be sustained without any help from other energy sources for the vast amount of populations we’re talking about such as in India and Bangladesh.

The following discussions therefore will show how the available energy sources in South Asia, especially India and Bangladesh, are dependent upon nonrenewable energy causing climatic change affects, global warming, and large-scale environmental effects. Thus the argument by governmental agencies and politicians that they cannot be without depending upon nonrenewable energies although reasonable is not completely tenable. For example, the energy needs of these two countries with vast amount of populations below or par at the poverty level require multifaceted energy approach beyond merely depending upon fossil fuels of India and hydroelectric power in Bangladesh. The discussions in the following pages show how dangerous it can be for the environmental impacts if renewable energy, especially wind, is not taken as a part of the energy solution. An alarming situation can arise, if neglected, not only for the vast agrarian population but also the inhabitants of the metropolitan cities which attract immense rural population in search of better employment conditions. In Chap. 2, the social economic conditions have been discussed, and in Chap. 3, availability of the wind in South Asia including India and Bangladesh was elaborated. In aggregate, solar and wind energy are available in abundance, even in isolated locations, which can replace nonrenewable energy sources if judiciously utilized.

The concern is not about the historical precedents or even about the current scenario as much as what would happen if environmental effects including global warming and climate change are not given the attention they are due at World Bank’s regional level or at a country level and even at a local level.⁵⁸⁴ For example, what happens at Mumbai or Beijing can impact not only the immediate vicinity but also the hinterland so that externalities can extend over the entire country and on a larger scale can affect the adjoining countries as well. Thus, the projected effects of global warming can be rise in sea levels, increased cyclonic activity, and changes in ambient temperature and precipitation patterns that affect the subcontinent.⁵⁸⁵ The projected global average surface warming will result in temperature increases worldwide at the end of the twenty-first century relative to the end of the twentieth century that ranges from 0.6 to 4 °C.⁵⁸⁶ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) figure projected for the mean annual increase in temperature by the end of the century in South Asia is 3.3 °C with the minmax range of 2.7–4.7 °C. Even the mean value for Tibet would be higher with mean increase of 3.8 °C and extending to 6.1 °C which implies harsher warming conditions for the Himalayan watersheds.⁵⁸⁷

Rise in sea level is an important environmental condition due to global warming. The sea-level rise at the end of the twenty-first century relative to the end of the twentieth century ranges from 0.18 to 0.59 m (excluding any rapid dynamical changes in ice flows in the future). Ongoing sea-level rises have already submerged several low-lying islands in the Sundarbans in West Bengal, India, displacing thousands of people.⁵⁸⁸ It is predicted that the historical city of Thatta and Badin, in Sindh, Pakistan, would be swallowed by the sea by 2025, as the sea is already encroaching 80 acres of land here, every day. ⁵⁸⁹

There are observed changes in the natural and human environment due to increased landslides and flooding which are projected to have an impact on states such as Assam. Ecological disasters, such as the 1998 coral bleaching event that killed more than 70% of corals in the reef ecosystems off Lakshadweep and the Andamans, were brought on by elevated ocean temperatures tied to global warming.⁵⁹⁰ The first among the countries to be affected by severe climate change is Bangladesh. Its sea level, temperature, evaporation, and changes in precipitation and cross-boundary river flows are causing drainage congestion. There is a reduction in freshwater availability, disturbance of morphologic processes, and a higher intensity of flooding and associated disasters. Bangladesh only contributes 0.1% of the world’s emissions yet it has 2.4% of the world’s population. In contrast, the United States makes up about 5% of the world’s population, yet they produce approximately 25% of the pollution that causes global warming.⁵⁹¹

The economic predictions relating to global warming and climate-related factors indicate that India’s gross domestic product (GDP) could decline significantly if the shifting growing seasons for major crops such as rice production could reduce by 40%. In addition, around seven million people are projected to be displaced due to, among other factors, submersion of parts of Mumbai and Chennai, if global temperatures were to rise by a mere 2 °C (3.6 °F)⁵⁹². If severe climate changes occur, Bangladesh will lose coastal land, in a country largely dependent upon ocean fishing and oceanic trade, and where two-thirds of the population is engaged in the agriculture sector, with rice as the single most important product. Bangladesh remains a poor, overpopulated, and inefficiently governed nation ill equipped to handle additional expenditures on health hazards caused by global warming and drastic climatic changes.⁵⁹³

5.8.4 Solutions for Resolving Environmental Impacts in South Asia

Solutions to global warming across the varied countries of the Asian region include providing cleaner cook stoves to rural families, improving rice cultivation to decrease methane emissions, reducing emissions from deforestation, cutting a deepening dependence on carbon-emitting coal, and tackling emissions from a growing number of cars, trucks, and buses.⁵⁹⁴ Solutions need to be developed for the rapidly developing nations of China and India (currently the world’s number one and four emitters of CO₂, respectively, using 2008 data). Asia currently contributes the most global warming emissions annually. The Asian region also faces a range of climate impacts, including extreme heat, imperiled drinking water resources, and accelerated sea-level rise, which can lead to widespread population displacement, food insecurity, and costly damage to coastal cities and towns. This region’s diversity is also apparent in its solutions. The global warming solutions pursued by countries across Asia need to be specific and unique to the individual countries’ needs and opportunities.⁵⁹⁵

5.8.5 Global Warming In India

Global warming has now started showing its impacts worldwide, and especially so in India. Climate is the primary determinant of agricultural productivity which directly impacts food production across the globe. The agriculture sector is the most sensitive sector to climate changes because the climate of a region/country determines the nature and characteristics of vegetation and crops. Increase in the mean seasonal temperature can reduce the duration of many crops and hence reduce final yield. Food production systems are extremely sensitive to climate changes like changes in temperature and precipitation, which may lead to outbreaks of pests and diseases thereby reducing harvest ultimately affecting the food security of the country. The net impact of food security will depend on the exposure to global environmental change and the capacity to cope with and recover from global environmental change. Coping with the impact of climate change on agriculture will require careful management of resources like soil, water, and biodiversity. To cope with the impact of climate change on agriculture and food production, India will need to act at the global, regional, national, and local level.⁵⁹⁶

5.8.6 Climate Change Issues in India

Even the IPCC, scarcely an alarmist, says a 0.5 degree rise in winter temperature would reduce wheat yield by 0.45 tons per hectare in India. Rice and wheat have an important share in total food grain production in India. Any change in rice and wheat yields may have a significant impact on food security of the country, more so since Indian agriculture is already in crisis, where 300,000 farmers have killed themselves the last 20 years. 290 million Indians live below the international poverty line of $1.25 per day.⁵⁹⁷ These low-income populations bear the brunt of the problems caused by the changing climate. Therefore, there is a great need for a pathway to development that is sustainable and resilient to climate change. ⁵⁹⁸

Climate change has significant impact on Asian mega deltas, including the Ganga and Brahmaputra, which are impacted by it. The average per hectare production in India is 2.6 tons. The total agricultural land will shrink and the available land may not remain suitable for the present crops for too long. Farmers have to explore options of changing crops suitable to weather. Climatic changes could lead to major food security issues for a country like India. Huge coastal erosion could occur due to a rise in sea levels of about 40 cm resulting from faster melting of glaciers in the Himalayan and Hindukush ranges. It can affect half-a-million people in India because of excessive flooding in coastal areas and also can increase the salinity of groundwater in the Sundarbans and surface water in coastal areas. India needs to sustain 8–10% economic growth rate, over the next 25 years, if it is to eradicate poverty and meet its human development goals, according to a 2006 report on an integrated energy policy prepared by an expert committee of the Planning Commission.⁵⁹⁹ Consequently, the country needs at the very least to increase its primary energy supply three- or fourfold over the 2003–2004 level. India’s economic growth would involve increase in greenhouse gas emissions. India should be willing to contain greenhouse gas emissions as long as it is compensated for the additional cost involved. In his Budget speech, Union Finance Minister P Chidambaram had promised the appointment of an expert committee “to study the impact of climate change on India and identify the measures that we may have to take in the future” (Fig. 5.108). ⁶⁰⁰

Fig. 5.108

A gleeful Indian farmer with a normal maize plantation. (https://www.edf.org/climate/india-development-while-fighting-climate-change)

From ancient times India’s agriculture has been dependent on monsoons. Any change in monsoon trends drastically affects agriculture. Even the increasing temperature is affecting Indian agriculture. In the Indo-Gangetic Plain, these pre-monsoon changes will primarily affect the wheat crop (>0.5 °C increase in temperature during 2010–2039). In the states of Jharkhand, Odisha, and Chhattisgarh alone, rice production losses during severe droughts (about once in 5 years) average about 40% of total production, with an estimated value of $800 million. A 1 °C increase in temperature may reduce yields of wheat, soybeans, mustards, groundnuts, and potatoes by 3–7%. There would be higher losses at higher temperatures. Productivity of most crops decreases by 10–40% by 2100 due to increases in temperature, rainfall variability, and decreases in irrigation water. The major impacts of climate change will be on rain-fed or un-irrigated crops, which are cultivated on nearly 60% of cropland. A temperature rise by 0.5 °C in winter temperature is projected to reduce rain-fed wheat yield by 0.45 tons per hectare. Recent studies done at the Indian Agricultural Research Institute indicate the possibility of a loss of 5 million tons in wheat production with rise of 1 °C temperature throughout the growing period. Rice production is slated to decrease by almost a ton/hectare if the temperature rises by 2 °C. In Rajasthan, a 2 °C rise in temperature was estimated to reduce production of pearl millet by 10–15%. If maximum and minimum temperatures rise by 3 and 3.5 degrees, respectively, then soya bean yields in M.P., India, will decline by 5% compared to 1998. Agriculture will also be affected in the coastal regions of Gujarat and Maharashtra, as fertile areas are vulnerable to inundation and salinization. ⁶⁰¹

5.8.7 Environmental Impacts in India

Social implications of climate change in India will have a disproportionate impact on more than 400 million that make up India’s poor (see poverty in India detailed in Chap. 2), because so many depend on natural resources for their food, shelter, and income. More than 56% of people in India work in agriculture, while many others earn their living in coastal areas. Villagers in India’s North Eastern state of Meghalaya are also concerned that rising sea levels will submerge neighboring low-lying Bangladesh, resulting in an influx of refugees into Meghalaya, India, which has few resources to handle such a situation. Similarly social implications of global warming on the large number of population in poverty in Bangladesh and Pakistan, (detailed in Chap. 2), in addition to population located in coastal areas, could be devastating.

The environmental pollution ⁶⁰² in the subcontinent with thick haze and smoke (see Fig. 5.109), originating from burning biomass in northeastern India,⁶⁰³ and air pollution from large industrial cities in northern India often concentrate inside the Ganges basin. Prevailing westerly winds carry aerosols along the southern margins of the steep-faced Tibetan Plateau to eastern India and the Bay of Bengal. Dust and black carbon, which are blown towards higher altitudes by winds at the southern faces of the Himalayas, can absorb shortwave radiation and heat the air over the Tibetan Plateau. The net atmospheric heating due to aerosol absorption causes the air to warm to create convection currents upwards, increasing the concentration of moisture in the mid-troposphere and providing positive feedback that stimulates further heating of aerosols.⁶⁰⁴

Fig. 5.109

Thick haze and smoke along the Ganges River in northern India (Source: http://atmospheres.gsfc.nasa.gov/climate/?id=110; and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hazesmoke_Gangeticbasin.jpg)

Awareness of environmental pollution, global warming, and climate change in the Indian media continues to have a positive effect on the masses about the climate change and related issues. A qualitative analysis by some of the mainstream Indian newspapers (particularly opinion and editorial articles) during the release of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report and during the Nobel Peace Prize win by Al Gore and the IPCC strongly influenced public opinion in India. The scientific coverage of climate change, energy challenge, public accountability, and looming disaster by the published media in the Indian subcontinent swayed the politicians also to be aware of the perils of global warming. This is in contrast to the skepticism displayed by American public opinion at the time. This sort of coverage finds parallels in European media narratives as well and helps build a transnational, globalized discourse on climate change.⁶⁰⁵ Tribal people in India’s remote northeast honored former US Vice President Al Gore with an award for promoting awareness on climate change that they say will have a devastating impact on their homeland, Meghalaya, which is home to the towns of Cherrapunji and Mawsynram, which are credited with being the wettest places in the world due to their high rainfall. But scientists state that global climate change is causing even in these areas an increasingly sparse and erratic rainfall pattern and a lengthened dry season,⁶⁰⁶ affecting the livelihoods of thousands of villagers who cultivate paddy and maize. Initiative is being taken on their own by people from Sangamner, Maharashtra (near Shirdi), who have started a campaign in 2005 of planting trees known as “Dandakaranya,” “The Green Movement.” To date, they have sowed more than 12 million seeds and planted half a million plants. According to data from 2009, India is the world’s third biggest emitter of CO₂ after China and the United States – pushing Russia into fourth place.⁶⁰⁷

Most of the above and definitely the following discussions relate to the influence of the need of energy in a predominantly agro-based economy. In a scenario such as this with vast habitable land dispersed over almost a subcontinent, diverse energy generation sources have a predominant role. Thus, instead of encouraging coal and fossil fuels which in turn cause health hazards, depending upon locally available renewable energies such as solar, wind, biomass, hydro, and tidal energy sources could be a boon.

Fig. 5.110

Coffee plantation workers in Karnataka, South India. (Source: Photo: Sofi Lundin, cited in http://www.climatehotmap.org/global-warming-locations/karnataka-india.html)

Maximum daily rainfall amounts in Western India have been rising at a rate of 0.3% per year. About half of this increase is attributable to emissions of heat-trapping gases, primarily from the burning of oil, trees, and gas. Monsoon system brings heavy rains to the country every summer. The average seasonal rainfall is 33.6 inches (853 millimeters), with a historical variation of only 10%.¹¹ When rainfall is more than 10% above average, widespread floods occur, and when rainfall is more than 10% below average, droughts occur. Despite the historical regularity of the summer monsoon, the occurrence of extreme rainfall events throughout Western India is on the rise. Maximum daily rainfall amounts have been increasing at a rate of 0.3% per year, with about half of that amount estimated to be attributable to emissions of heat-trapping gases, primarily from the burning of oil, trees, and gas. Extreme rainfall events constitute a growing proportion of the total summer monsoon rainfall, and rainfall during the non-monsoon season has been increasing from 1871 to the present. Seasonal rainfall totals are strongly correlated with the yield of various crops, but the timing of rainfall within the monsoon season is important as well. During drought years, crop production declines, while during years with above average rainfall, production increases. During extreme rainfall events, however, crop damage can occur.⁶⁰⁸

As part of a larger global pattern, it can be summed up that because temperature and rainfall can affect coffee plants directly, by making growing conditions less optimal, and indirectly by enabling the success of pests such as the coffee berry borer, coffee-growing regions of Karnataka are susceptible to climate change. In the coffee-growing Cauca region of Colombia, for example, declines in coffee production have been linked to a combination of rising temperatures and more frequent extreme rainfall events. Similarly in Ethiopia, coffee yields dropped by nearly 35% from 2002 to 2009, as a result of rising temperatures and widespread infestations of the coffee berry borer beetle, which exploits the warmer conditions. ⁶⁰⁹

As regards the future of climate change in Karnataka, because of the continued burning of oil, gas, and trees, temperatures in Karnataka and throughout India are projected to continue to rise during this century. A midrange scenario for future emissions of heat-trapping gases projects a warming of about 4.5 °F (2.5 °C) in Karnataka by 2100. Both annual rainfall totals and the number of extreme rainfall events are projected to increase along with climate warming. The combination of warming and increases in extreme rainfall events is likely to contribute to a 4–10% decrease in overall crop production in South India by the end of the century, even under a low-emission scenario. Because of coffee’s sensitivity to extremes in both rainfall and temperature, climate change could do great harm to India’s coffee industry. The Coffee Board of India recently introduced a rainfall insurance program to help coffee growers cope with declining yields that result from variability in rainfall. This and other adaptation measures, such as growing the desirable Robusta coffee, could help preserve India’s coffee industry.⁶¹⁰

The mangrove forest of the Sundarbans provides important protection against storms and flooding for cities including Kolkata (Calcutta) in the West Bengal state of India. Global warming in addition to inundating already unstable mangroves and intensifying storms has devastating consequences for millions of people (see Fig. 5.111). The consequence of this is the occasional mixing of freshwater with outlying saltwater of the Bay of Bengal impacting the Sundarbans of India and Bangladesh in the world’s largest mangrove forest. In early 2010, a Sundarbans island disappeared under the rising waters of the Bay of Bengal. ⁶¹¹ Scientists project that under a high-emission scenario, relative sea-level rise is likely to inundate most of the Sundarbans by mid-century and wipe them out by the end of the century. ⁶¹² The people of the Ganges-Brahmaputra Delta – including the metropolis of Kolkata (Calcutta), India – depend on the mangroves of the Sundarbans for protection against storms and floods. As climate change destroys mangroves and worsens storms in the region, it puts lives and livelihoods at risk. The Sundarbans is the world’s largest mangrove forest. Designated as a United Nations World Heritage site in both India and Bangladesh, it covers nearly 4000 square miles (10,000 km²). The forest provides habitat for the Bengal tiger, as well as numerous other rare and endangered species of birds, reptiles, and aquatic mammals.⁶¹³ Mangroves play a vital role in coastal ecosystems and food chains, by supporting communities of fish and shellfish. Mangroves are salt-tolerant trees and shrubs that help protect coastal areas from increasingly intense tropical storms, waves, and erosion. By serving as a flood barrier, they can reduce the damage caused by storms such as cyclones. Damage and erosion to mangroves leave the coast increasingly exposed and therefore more vulnerable to storms. In more than a quarter of a million people, 60% of them in Bangladesh died in tropical cyclones in the last two decades of the twentieth century. Densely populated coastal areas like the Ganges-Brahmaputra Delta are the most vulnerable to deadly storms. In the last half of the twentieth century, a substantial portion of the mangroves in South and Southeast Asia were lost. This was largely due to human activities, including deforestation and large-scale conversion of mangroves to shrimp farming.⁶¹⁴

Fig. 5.111

The mangrove forest of the Sundarbans gets inundated by floods as a result of climatic changes with devastating consequences for millions of people. (Source: http://www.climatehotmap.org/global-warming-locations/kolkata-west-bengal-india.html)

Global warming compounds the dangers to the Sundarbans. These low-lying mangrove forests are highly susceptible to the effects of sea-level rise – including inundation of coastal areas, increased exposure to storm surges, increased coastal erosion, and rising salinity in ground and surface waters. During the twentieth century, global mean sea level rose at an average of 0.07 inches (1.8 millimeters) per year, but between 1993 and 2003, the average rate of sea-level rise nearly doubled to increase around 0.12 inches (3.1 millimeters) per year. Local sea-level rise of as much as 1 inch (25 millimeters) per year has been recorded in parts of the Ganges-Brahmaputra Delta. In early 2010, the rising waters of the Bay of Bengal claimed the Sundarbans island between India and Bangladesh.⁶¹⁵

The future for this part of South Asia in India and West Bengal is bleak unless deep and swift cuts are made in heat-trapping emissions, since most of the Sundarbans may disappear underwater, and those that remain could be threatened by saltwater incursion. Continuing along a high heat-trapping emission trajectory, global sea level is projected to increase as much as 23 inches (59 cm) by the end of this century. On the other hand, with significant efforts to reduce emissions, sea-level rise between now and the end of the century could be limited to around 15 inches (38 cm). Sea-level rise and loss of the Sundarbans could have a devastating impact on the 500 million people of the Ganges basin. Tens of millions of people in low-lying areas of South Asia could be flooded annually. India and Bangladesh are particularly susceptible to increasing salinity of water resources, especially along the coast. For residents of cities like Kolkata, the greatest danger is likely to come from higher tides and more intense storms – with storm surges unchecked by the disappearing mangroves of the Sundarbans. As sea levels rise and storm patterns shift in the Bay of Bengal, scientists project increases in extreme water levels near Kolkata.⁶¹⁶

5.8.8 Solutions for Resolving Environmental Impacts in India

Solutions addressing environmental impacts in India should consider the influence of climate. In a country where most of the population is rural and thereby their livelihood is sustained by agriculture climate plays a significant influence. Two-thirds of Indians live in rural areas on small farms with little or no access to electricity. ⁶¹⁷ 70% of the population uses stoves that burn firewood and dung. The impacts of climate change – such as drought and pollution – have the potential to devastate lands that these rural farmers rely on for their livelihoods. Food and energy security can be enhanced which will resolve the perpetual rural poverty in India.⁶¹⁸ India has embarked on an ambitious and unique program covering this purpose. The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) is a leading international nongovernmental organization representing more than one million members worldwide. Since 1967, EDF has been connecting science, economics, and law to create innovative, equitable, and cost-effective solutions to society’s most urgent environmental problems. One of the largest networks of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in India is FCN which is a consortium of 3 dozen groups and more than 100 development workers, bankers and financiers, environmentalists, scientists, and other professionals from India and abroad. Together, they are working to move India towards a sustainable development pathway while alleviating poverty, minimizing greenhouse gas emissions, and delivering social, health, and environmental gains. In 2014, EDF catalyzed a major domestic greenhouse gas offset program between IndiGo Airlines and Fair Climate Network. When IndiGo flyers purchase their tickets online, they can contribute Rs 100 (approximately $1.60) to offset carbon pollution. Revenue generated through this program is used to implement low-carbon rural development programs across the country. The strategy is that “low-carbon rural development” can lift millions of people in India’s countryside out of poverty while also addressing climate change and food and energy security.⁶¹⁹ Villagers in India use stoves which release smoke into Indian homes contributing to greenhouse gas pollution and putting the villagers at risk of diseases including lung cancer and pneumonia. Thus activities include installing household and community biogas units to power clean-burning methane stoves, replacing conventional wood-burning stoves with more efficient ones, providing solar-powered lighting and wind energy programs, and promoting scientifically and economically sound sustainable farming techniques. India is hungry for rapid development and economic growth; therefore this hunger can be channeled into supporting climate-resilient development and facilitating innovative partnerships between corporations, local and national government, and community groups. Any such effort needs to include India’s youth under age 25 and are about two-thirds of India’s population, and those under the age of 35 comprise 50% of India’s 1 billion people.⁶²⁰ However, India’s youth had been historically underrepresented in global climate negotiations. EDF worked with talented young leaders to set up the Indian Youth Climate Network (IYCN), a youth-oriented organization dedicated to combatting climate change. IYCN is now India’s largest youth network on climate change and has local chapters across the country. IYCN uses public awareness campaigns, policy advocacy, and results-oriented, on-the-ground projects to highlight the issues surrounding climate change and the impacts on local communities. ⁶²¹ In addition, in view of drastic environmental changes taking place, it is necessary for farmers to adapt to climate changes to some degree by shifting planting dates, choosing varieties with different growth duration, or changing crop rotations and to monitor changes in pest and disease outbreaks for integrated pest management to take care of multiple pests in a given climatic scenario. Efforts should be to develop short-duration crop varieties that can mature before the peak heat phase sets in. Efficient water use such as frequent but shallow irrigation, drip and sprinkler irrigation for high-value crops, and irrigation at critical stages needs to be encouraged.⁶²² Provide greater coverage of weather-linked agriculture insurance.⁶²³

The State Pollution Control Boards are restructured into statutory Environment Protection Authorities with the mandate of developing regulations, standards, and upgraded facilities for enforcing compliance. At the district level, the scheme of Paryavaran Vahinis, or committees of concerned citizens, is revived to serve as environmental watchdogs and undertake selective firsthand monitoring of the environmental situation in the districts. Other crucial elements to combat environmental efforts are afforestation as well as a program for real-time air quality monitoring for cities with population of more than 1 million and vehicular pollution; effective urban transport planning and the process of adaptation to climate change are given priority. First commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol was 2008–2012 to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions which were given a priority.⁶²⁴ Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is used as an important management tool for integrating environmental concerns in the development process and for improved decision-making, and this has been recognized in the “Strategy for the Eleventh Plan (2007-2012).”⁶²⁵ The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), defined in Article 12 of the Protocol, allows a country with an emission–reduction or emission–limitation commitment under the Kyoto Protocol (Annex B Party) to implement an emission–reduction project in developing countries.⁶²⁶ Such projects can earn saleable certified emission–reduction (CER) credits, each equivalent to one ton of CO₂, which can be counted towards meeting Kyoto targets. India’s CDM potential is a significant component of the global CDM market. Till February 14, 2008, out of a total of 871 projects accorded Host Country Approval, 314 projects in India have been registered by the CDM Executive Board, so far the highest in any country. However, in terms of the corresponding Certified Emission Reduction (CERs), India is second to China.⁶²⁷

India argues at all climate negotiations that though it is among the top 10 emitters of carbon dioxide, the per capita emission is still one-sixth of the global average. Further, it has managed an 8% growth with only a 3.7% growth in energy consumption. India opposes any move to seek its commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and asks the developed world to transfer intellectual property rights with the clean technologies. The Indian Constitution has a sensitive provision in Article 48-A which states, “The State shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.” This is a fundamental obligation of the state since its violation has fatal implications. Article 51A (g) creates a fundamental duty on every individual to obey the mandate of environment and ecology. India needs to chart out a roadmap for itself in the light of the report on climate change. Climate change can be mitigated in many ways, such as improving the efficiency of energy-intensive devices, vehicles, and buildings, all of which involve direct and indirect gas emissions. Developing countries like India must adopt new energy-efficient technologies. Fuel-efficient vehicles, hybrid vehicles, and affordable and safe public transport need policy support in the form of lower taxes and promotion of usage. The government can mandate that buildings integrate green technologies such as solar photovoltaic systems, which are particularly relevant in a country with plentiful sunlight. The energy efficiency of end-user equipment can be ensured through appropriate tax breaks and certification systems. The improved cooking stoves and high-efficiency lighting, heating, and cooling devices should be made available in plenty.⁶²⁸

EDF and FCN’s network has reached 254,571 households across more than 589,000 acres throughout India. India is installing 108,500 domestic biogas units and 54,000 fuel-efficient wood-burning stoves in households while also applying low-carbon farming techniques to more than 79,000 acres of land. EDF and FCN have been in vogue in India since 2009 developing market-based solutions to tough environmental challenges. EDF and FCN’s pilot low-carbon rural development (LCRD) project began in five states: Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, and Odisha (see Fig. 5.112). With the success of this pilot and continued support from funding partners, network has grown and now extends to Bihar, Maharashtra, and Uttarakhand. At the national level, to promote climate resilience, EDF helped set up the South Asia office of “Climate Parliament,” a cross-party network of legislators dedicated to stopping climate change and increasing national ambition for renewable energy. The Climate Parliament works with policymakers to develop a strong case for government investments in renewable energy and low-carbon rural development across districts and states. EDF and its partners also work to help directly with rural communities to share how climate change impacts their everyday lives (see Fig. 5.113). India teamed up with “The Hunger Project” to produce a Bollywood style film, Aarohan – A New Beginning – to highlight the challenges rural communities face from climate change. This film also introduces climate-resilient solutions, such as stoves powered by dung and techniques on how to better manage natural resources. The film is used as a training tool to spark discussions on climate change, its impacts, and what communities can do about it.⁶²⁹

Fig. 5.112

Map shows the Indian states where EDF is working. (Source: https://www.edf.org/climate/india-development-while-fighting-climate-change)

Fig. 5.113

Rural women learning the tools for better climate control agriculture. (Source: https://www.edf.org/climate/india-development-while-fighting-climate-change)

The public sentiments on global warming and climate changes in India are shown by a few of the newspaper clippings copied below:

• Financial Times: “India demands climate cash pledges” by Fiona Harvey in Bonn, Financial Times, March 15, 2009.

• Financial Times: “India rebuffs Clinton call on low – carbon future”; New Delhi speaks of suspicions; U.S. believes in economic progress, by James Lamont in New Delhi, James Fontanella-Khan in Mumbai, and Daniel Dombey in Washington, July 20, 2009.

• Wall Street Journal: “India Rejects U. S. Proposal of Carbon Limits”; Clinton Expresses Hope for Common Ground on Climate Change Despite Disagreement on Capping green House Gases, by Mathew Rosenberg, New Delhi, Wall Street Journal, July 20, 2009, pg. A7.

• India News: “G8 makes scant progress on Copenhagen climate pact”; ‘The G8 failed to persuade China and India and other developing nations to agree to have world emissions by 2050, by Alister Doyle, L’AQUILA, Italy, India News, July 17, 2009.

• News India Times: “SERENADING SUBCONTINENT”; News India Times, July 31, 2009; pg. 8.

• Times of India: “WARMING CAN” – Times News Network-Varanasi, Nov. 7, 2009; pg. 3.

• Hindustan Times: “Climate Change: How India Hopes to Lead the World” – AMBITIOUS PLANS India going ahead with plans to pare domestic emissions; by Samir Halamkar, New Delhi, Hindustan Times, Oct. 30, 2009, and Nov. 7, 2009; pg. 1.

5.8.9 Climate Change and Global Warming Effects in Bangladesh (Fig. 5.114)

Fig. 5.114

Picture shows woman spreading rice on a street to separate husk. (Source: http://www.climatehotmap.org/global-warming-locations/ganges-brahmaputra-delta-bangladesh.html)

5.8.10 Global Warming in Bangladesh

As a least developed country (LDC), Bangladesh is exempt from any responsibility to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which primarily cause global warming. But lately this has been the rallying factor for policymakers to give off higher amounts of emissions in nearly all sectors with disregard for the environment. Large developed industrial nations are emitting increasing quantities of GHGs. The country cannot go far in their struggle with reducing emissions and fighting global warming with the considerable scantily supported funding and help it receives from the international community. There exist plans such as the “National Action Plan on Adaptation” (NAPA) of 2005 and the “Bangladesh Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan” (BCCSAP) of 2009.⁶³⁰

BCCSAP states that an integrated approach is necessary and the only way to gain sustainability for economic and social development taking into account disaster management since one major calamity can destroy the socioeconomic gains. Around 40–45% of GHG emissions are to be reduced by 2020 and 90–95% by 2050. This considers the 1990 GHG concentration levels as a benchmark. With higher population and rapid industrialization, Bangladesh should be on its way to developing a low-carbon path given it initially received significant financial and technical support from the international community so that national goals of economic growth and social development are not hampered. But a more holistic short-term plan is also necessary. Bangladesh has established the Bangladesh Climate Change Trust Fund (BCCTF) and the Bangladesh Climate Change Resilience Fund (BCCRF) allocating $200 million and accumulating additional $114 million. Although 3000 cyclone shelters were constructed with over 40,000 trained volunteers and 10,000 km of embankments erected, Bangladesh should not only place emphasis on capacity-building shelters and disaster management but also on institutional and infrastructure strengthening and development of research in low-carbon technologies in order to create an inclusive and truly comprehensive mitigation scheme for global warming. Even though it was agreed in principle and ratified by the Paris Agreement on global warming about the willingness and cooperation by the 115 out of 197 member states of the United Nations Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as of October 5, 2016,⁶³¹ it is necessary to help LDC nations such as Bangladesh with funds to implement the Special Climate and Adaptation Funds. ⁶³²

5.8.11 Impact of Climate Change in Bangladesh

It is projected that, by 2020, about 750 million people will be affected by water stress caused by climate change around the world. Low-lying coastal regions, such as Bangladesh, are vulnerable to sea-level rise and increased occurrence of intense, extreme weather conditions such as the cyclones. In most countries like Bangladesh, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced to 50% by 2020. For a country with increasing population and hunger, this will have an extremely adverse effect on food security. Although effects of climate change are highly variable, by 2030, South Asia could lose 10% of rice and maize yields, while neighboring states like Pakistan could experience a 50% reduction in crop yield.⁶³³

Climate change in Bangladesh is an extremely crucial issue, and according to National Geographic, Bangladesh ranks first as the nation most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change in the coming decades. Bangladesh is the nation most vulnerable to global climate change in the world, according to German Watch’s Global Climate Risk Index (CRI) of 2011. This is based on the analysis of impacts of major climate events that occurred around the world in the 20-year period since 1990. The reasons are complex and extremely intertwined. Located at the bottom of the mighty GBM (Ganges, Brahmaputra, and Meghna) river system, Bangladesh has watershed area from a total of 57 transboundary rivers, 54 from neighboring India and 3 from Myanmar. The country, which has no control of the water flow and volume, drains 90% of the total runoff to the Bay of Bengal. Coupled with the widespread poverty and population density with limited adaptive capacity and lack of funds, the ineffective local government has made the region one of the most adversely affected countries on the planet. There are an estimated 1000 people in each square kilometer, with the national population increasing by 2 million people each year. Almost half the population is in poverty (purchasing power parity of $1.25 per person a day). Hence these people do not have the ability to respond to a natural disaster and the government cannot help them.⁶³⁴ Thus climate change poses an additional risk and burden to the already malnourished population of Bangladesh. Although the country has managed to increase the production of rice since the nation’s birth, from 10 metric tons (MT) to over 30 MT, around 30% of the population is still malnourished. Now more than five million hectares of land are irrigated, almost fourfold beyond 1990. Even though modern rice varieties have been introduced in three-fourths of the total rice irrigation area, the sudden shift in population increase is a strain on the production. Climate change threatens the agricultural economy, which, although it counts for just 20% of GDP, contributes to over half the population’s labor force. The loss of rice production was estimated at around 2 million metric tons (MT), which could potentially feed 10 million people. This was the single most important catalyst in the 2008 price increase, which led to around 15 million people going without much food. As a result of all this, Bangladesh would need to prepare for long-term adaptation, which could be as drastic as changing sowing dates due to seasonal variations, introducing different varieties and species and practicing novel water supply and irrigation systems.⁶³⁵

5.8.12 Environmental Impact in Bangladesh

Climate change-linked natural disasters are common in Bangladesh, with cyclones and storm surges displacing huge numbers of people as a result of environmental impact. Bangladesh is going ahead with an ambitious plan to reclaim land from the sea to help relocate people who have lost their homes to sea-level rise, erosion, and extreme weather. “River erosion alone claims about 20,000 acres of land in Bangladesh every year,” said Water Resources Minister Anisul Islam Mahmud. That leaves up to 200,000 people homeless each year, according to a 2013 study by the Refugee and Migratory Movements Research Unit at the University of Dhaka and the Sussex Centre for Migration Research at the University of Sussex in Britain. The government plans to use the natural movement of sediment through the country’s rivers to build new land on which to house displaced communities. In June, the government signed a deal with the government of the Netherlands – another low-lying nation – to cooperate on land reclamation efforts. Under the partnership, the Netherlands will conduct a feasibility study and develop and implement land reclamation programs in Bangladesh. Bangladesh’s three major rivers – Padma, Brahmaputra, and Meghna – carry large amounts of silt with their water. According to Dhaka-based Center for Environmental and Geographic Information Services (CEGIS), about 1 billion tons of silt flow through the country’s river channels every year, most of it eventually settling in the southern coastal area of the Bay of Bengal. According to Malik Khan, the CEGIS deputy executive director, if sediment can be directed into low-lying areas of the coastal Noakhali district through a system of cross dams – walls constructed between islands and polders – and land surrounded by embankments, then new land can be reclaimed from the sea. “There is a potential for land reclamation through the displacement of the sediment the rivers carry,” Malik Khan said. Cross dams catch sediment as it travels downstream, holding it back before it reaches the Bay of Bengal. As it collects behind the dams, sediment can build up into solid land masses large enough to use for settlements. Zahirul Haque Khan, director of the Coast, Port and Estuary Division at the Dhaka-based Institute of Water Modelling (IWM), notes that many small islands, called chars, have already emerged in the coastal areas near Nijhum Dwip and Manpura islands. With the tide bringing large sediments deposited around Urir Char in Noakhali and Sandwip in the Chittagong district, hundreds of square kilometers of land could be reclaimed from those areas through the construction of cross dams (Fig. 5.115).⁶³⁶

Fig. 5.115

Boats along the Buriganga River in Dhaka, Bangladesh. (Source: Credit: mariusz kluzniak/flickr, cited in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_Bangladesh)

5.8.13 Solutions for Global Warming, Climate Control, and Resolving Environmental Impacts

Learning from the past, Bangladesh has worked for over two decades to reclaim land from the sea. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, global sea levels could rise by as much as 98 cm (more than 3 feet) by 2100. And a 2012 report by Unnayan Onneshan, a Bangladesh think tank, states that sea-level rise in Bangladesh’s coastal region could exceed that estimate and hit 1 m by 2100. That would affect 25,000 km² of land (17.5% of the country’s total land) and displace an estimated 31.5 million people, the report said. “Bangladesh is experiencing adverse impacts of climate change,” said Khan of the CEGIS. “Land reclamation would be a good solution in dealing with future climate migrant crises.”⁶³⁷ Given the frequent climate change-based catastrophes, Bangladesh needs to enhance food security by drafting and implementing new policies such as the 2006 National Food Policy. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) supported this policy through the “National Food Policy Capacity Strengthening Program” (NFPCSP). There is also an initiative for the start of a “Food Security Country Investment Plan” enabling the country to secure around US$52 million under the “Global Agriculture and Food Security Program” (GAFSP), making it Asia’s first recipient. More work and better implementation from the government’s side is necessary for the activities to reach fruitful outcomes. Already, there are a cumulative of 11 Ministries and Government divisions involved in this integrated endeavor. In the aftermath of the “East Pakistan Coastal Embankment plan” (CEP) in the mid-twentieth century, Bangladesh has recently started work on the “Master Plan for the South.” The southern coastal area is vulnerable to the ill effects of global climate and a huge threat to crops, livestock, and fisheries of the southern delta. There are plans of a $3 billion multipurpose bridge named “Padma” in order to transform the agriculture sector in the region. The government even estimates a GDP increase of around 2% implying that the investment will ultimately lead to economic growth for the country (Fig. 5.116).⁶³⁸

Fig. 5.116

Dhaka, the capital city of Bangladesh inundated by floods. (Source: Photo Credit: Marufish/flickr, cited in http://www.climatecentral.org/news/bangladesh-takes-back-land-19440)

In an effort to be a “middle-income country” by 2021, the country is focusing on increasing agriculture production, productivity, water management techniques such as surface water infrastructure irrigation, and effective fisheries and promoting poultry and dairy development. Biofuels fit into this scenario, and the Ministry of Agriculture provided 30% subsidy for diesel to run irrigation for farming, further proposing to help almost a million farmers with machinery fuel. Mitigation policies include discussion of potential land lost to sea-level rise in Bangladesh looked at in tandem with the phenomenon of land accretion, or the creation of new land from sediment deposits. The effects of sea-level rise and land accretion in Bangladesh are highly regional and variegated. Natural land accretion, paired with targeted policies to secure such land for farming use, has the potential to partially mitigate the effects of land lost. Various countries have pledged to provide funding for adaptation and mitigation in developing nations, such as Bangladesh. The accord committed up to $30 billion of immediate short-term funding over the 2010–2012 period from developed to developing countries to support their action in climate change mitigation. This funding is available for developing nations to build their capacity to reduce emissions and responds to impacts of climate change. Furthermore, this funding will be balanced between mitigation and infrastructure adaptation in various sectors including forestry, science, technology, and capacity-building. Moreover, the Copenhagen Accord (COP 15) also pledges $100 million of public and private finance by 2020, mostly to developing nations. The advisory group comprises high-level officials, researchers, professionals, and academics, and they constantly study ways to fund this global initiative.⁶³⁹ Another misconception is that this accord’s commitments will divert funding from poverty reduction. The private sector alone contributes more than 85% of current investments for a low-carbon economy. In order to maximize any future contributions from this sector, the public sector needs to overcome the political and bureaucratic barriers the private sector has to face towards a low-carbon future.⁶⁴⁰

5.8.14 Republic of Maldives (An Island Nation in the Indian Ocean)

Because the Republic of Maldives is formed from coral sands and sits very close to sea level, it is likely to suffer heavy impacts as a result of sea-level rise. The 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean, although unrelated to climate change, highlighted the vulnerability of the country’s infrastructure, such as the Malé Airport, to inundation. Thus the key issue impacting the country from global warming is rise in ocean (sea) level there by inundation of much of the flat terrain of the island nation, causing dislocation of the population and scarcity of freshwater and disrupting the tourist trade on which much of the nation’s GDP and economy are dependent (Fig. 5.117).⁶⁴¹

Fig. 5.117

View of the international airport located close to the ocean front, in fear of inundation due to rising sea level. (Source: Photo: Husain Rasheed, used with permission. Online at http://www.flickr.com/photos/husain7773925/2137925090/, cited in http://www.climatehotmap.org/global-warming-locations/republic-of-maldives.html)

As the flattest country on earth, the Republic of Maldives is extremely vulnerable to rising sea level and faces the very real possibility that the majority of its land area will be underwater by the end of this century.⁶⁴² Today, the white sand beaches and extensive coral reefs of the Maldives’ 1190 islands draw more than 600,000 tourists annually.⁶⁴³ Sea-level rise is likely to worsen existing environmental stresses in the Maldives, such as periodic flooding from storm surge and a scarcity of freshwater for drinking and other purposes. Given mid-level scenarios for global warming emissions,⁶⁴⁴ the Maldives is projected to experience sea-level rise on the order of 1.5 feet (half a meter) and to lose some 77% of its land area, by around the year 2100. If sea level was to rise by 3 feet (1 m), the Maldives could be almost completely inundated by about 2085.⁶⁴⁵ The Maldivian government has identified many potential strategies for adapting to rising seas but is also considering relocating its people to a new homeland.⁶⁴⁶

With no ground surface higher than 9.9 feet (3 m), and 80% of the land area lying below 3.3 feet (1 m) above average sea level, the Maldives is the flattest country on earth. The lack of topography in the Maldives makes it one of the most vulnerable nations to rising sea level and coastal flooding. Some 191 of the country’s 358 inhabited islands have fewer than 5000 people, and about one-third of all residents live in the capital city of Malé on North Malé Atoll. With roughly 104,000 people residing within 2.2 square miles (5.8 km²), North Malé Atoll encompasses some of the most densely populated islands in the world.⁶⁴⁷ Housing and critical infrastructure in the Maldives, including 5 airports and 128 harbors, are concentrated along coastlines. The country’s two international airports and the critical components of the tourism sector lie within 165 feet (50 m) of the coastline. Since the 1950s sea level in and around the Maldives has been rising at a rate of 0.03–0.06 inches (0.8–1.6 millimeters) per year. Because of the Maldivian topography, small changes in sea level translate into extensive land inundation posing a looming threat to homes and industries near the coast. Even small increases in sea level are likely to worsen existing environmental challenges on the islands, such as persistent flooding from waves often generated by storms far away. More than 90 of the inhabited Maldives islands experience annual floods. In 2007, a series of swells forced the evacuation of more than 1600 people from their homes and damaged more than 500 housing units. While the nation provides drinking water to about 87% of the population by collecting rainwater, groundwater is required for nondrinking purposes, and for drinking water during dry season months. Groundwater aquifers on the islands are shallow, and high extraction levels have made them vulnerable to inundation by saltwater. ⁶⁴⁸ Sea-level rise is attributed to two main processes. First, human induced warming of the oceans, stemming from heat-trapping emissions which cause seawater to expand. This thermal expansion has contributed to about 25% of the long-term rise in sea level over the latter half of the twentieth century. However, this percentage is expected to fall as the second source of sea-level rise, i.e., due to shrinking glaciers and ice sheets worldwide which adds a growing percentage of water to the oceans. ⁶⁴⁹

With the future glacial and ice sheet melt by the year 2100, scientists estimate that sea level could rise 2.6 feet (80 cm), and as much as 6.6 feet (2 m) is possible, depending on the pace at which heat-trapping emissions are released. Given mid-level scenarios for those emissions , the Maldives is projected to experience sea-level rise on the order of 1.5 feet (50 cm) by around 2100. The country would lose 77% of its land area by the end of the century. If sea level were to rise by 3.3 feet (1 m) and the Maldives did not pursue further coastal protection measures, it would be nearly completely inundated by about 2085. The Maldivian Ministry of Home Affairs, Housing and Environment has identified potential measures to help the country adapt to rising seas. These include protecting and increasing rainwater harvesting, as well as increasing the elevation of critical infrastructure. Migration is also a potential solution for Maldivians. In November 2008, the president announced the country’s interest in buying a new homeland, though this approach would come at a high price, both financially and culturally .⁶⁵⁰

5.9 Environment in Canada, Mexico, and the Rest of North America

In Canada mitigation of anthropogenic climate change is being addressed more seriously by the provinces than by the federal government. The 2015 election signals greater federal leadership as noted in Canada’s National Statement at 2015 COP21, also known as the 2015 Paris Climate Conference, making climate change a top priority and pledging actions based on the best scientific evidence and advice (Fig. 5.118).⁶⁵¹

Fig. 5.118

Map of Canada showing the increases in GHG emissions by province/territory in 2008, compared to the 1990 base year. (Source: Canada_GHG_map_2007-en.svg: by Paul Robinson derivative work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_Canada#/media/File:Canada_GHG_map_2008-en.svg)

5.9.1 Climate Change in Canada, Mexico, and the Rest of North America

Maps in Figs. 5.119, 5.120, 5.121, 5.122, and 5.123 will provide the way climate change is looked at in Canada as created by the climate research division of Environment Canada. The maps in these figures show predicted winter temperatures (December–February) later in this century (2081–2100) assuming current global greenhouse gas emissions continue at their current rates. As part of Canadian Geographic’s June 2016 issue dedicated to climate change, a series of maps in these figures show the potential impacts of global warming regionally and nationally.⁶⁵²

Rain

The two maps shown in Fig. 5.119 from Environment Canada show predicted increases in precipitation based on low-emission (left) and high-emission (right) targets.⁶⁵³

Fig. 5.119

Precipitation change, December–February. (Source: https://www.canadiangeographic.ca/article/mapping-climate-change)

Ice Loss

The two maps shown in Fig. 5.120 compare observed average February sea ice extents in the Arctic from 1966 to 2005 (left) with the same projected for 2081 to 2100 under a high-emission scenario.⁶⁵⁴

Fig. 5.120

February sea ice. (Source: https://www.canadiangeographic.ca/article/mapping-climate-change)

Range Change

In Fig. 5.119 two maps with the 1971–2000 distribution of aspen (top) compared with a projection of where the species’ current climate is expected to be between 2071 and 2100 based on high-emission targets. ⁶⁵⁵

Fig. 5.121

Current suitability zone of aspen. (Source: https://www.canadiangeographic.ca/article/mapping-climate-change)

Fig. 5.122

Projected suitability zone of aspen. (Source: https://www.canadiangeographic.ca/article/mapping-climate-change)

Meltdown

Map shown in Fig. 5.123 from the Geological Survey of Canada shows the difference in permafrost temperatures measured between 2012 and 2014 as compared to the same from about 5 years earlier.⁶⁵⁶

Fig. 5.123

Meltdown in Canada, Mexico, and the rest of North America. (https://www.canadiangeographic.ca/article/mapping-climate-change)

Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), formerly Environment Canada, is a federal department with the stated role of protecting the environment, conserving national natural heritage, and also providing weather and meteorological information.⁶⁵⁷ According to ECCC,⁶⁵⁸ “warming over the 20^th century is indisputable and largely due to human activities” adding “Canada’s rate of warming is about twice the global rate: a 2 °C increase globally means a 3 to 4° C increase for Canada.”⁶⁵⁹ ECCC lists impacts of climate change consistent with global changes. Temperature-related changes include longer growing season, more heat waves and fewer cold spells, thawing permafrost, earlier river ice breakup, earlier spring runoff, and earlier budding of trees. Meteorological changes include an increase in precipitation and more snowfall in Northwest Arctic. Highlighting that “Warming is not uniform ...(the) Arctic is warming even faster,” ECCC notes 2012 had the lowest extent of Arctic sea ice on record up to 2014. ECCC’s Climate Research Division summarized annual precipitation changes to support biodiversity assessments by the Canadian Councils of Resource Ministers. Evaluating records up to 2007 they observed, “Precipitation has generally increased over Canada since 1950 with the majority of stations with significant trends showing increases. The increasing trend is most coherent over northern Canada where many stations show significant increases. There is not much evidence of clear regional patterns in stations showing significant changes in seasonal precipitation except for significant decreases which tend to be concentrated in the winter season over southwestern and southeastern Canada. Also, increasing precipitation over the Arctic appears to be occurring in all seasons except summer.”⁶⁶⁰ ECCC climate specialists have assessed trends in short-duration rainfall patterns using Engineering Climate Datasets: “Short-duration (5 minutes to 24 hours) rainfall extremes are important for a number of purposes, including engineering infrastructure design, because they represent the different meteorological scales of extreme rainfall events.” A “general lack of a detectable trend signal,” meaning no overall change in extreme, short-duration rainfall patterns, was observed in the single-station analysis. In relation to design criteria used for traditional water management and urban drainage design practice (e.g., intensity–duration–frequency (IDF) statistics), the evaluation “shows that fewer than 5.6% and 3.4% of the stations have significant increasing and decreasing trends, respectively, in extreme annual maximum single location observation amounts.” On a regional basis, southwest and the east (Newfoundland) coastal regions generally showed significant increasing regional trends for 1- and 2-hour extreme rainfall durations. Decreasing regional trends for 5–15-min rainfall amounts were observed in the St. Lawrence region of southern Quebec and in the Atlantic Provinces.⁶⁶¹ In this regard, there are few select projects worthy of mention, namely, “Arctic Climate Impact Assessment,”⁶⁶² a project of the intergovernmental Arctic Council and the International Arctic Science Committee, and US Environmental Protection Agency site⁶⁶³ on the health and environmental effects of climate change on the polar regions.

5.9.2 Global Warming in Canada, Mexico, and the Rest of North America

The progress of “Solutions to Global Warming for the Polar Regions” at the international level towards a binding agreement to reduce global warming emissions is critical to ensuring the future stability of the polar regions. The Arctic (North Pole) has shown the most rapid rate of warming, with dramatic effects such as shrinking of this region’s glaciers, ice caps, ice sheets, and permafrost. The loss of permafrost is of particular concern: when permafrost melts, it releases carbon stored in the soils, and when boreal forests and peat bogs burn, they release carbon stored in the trees and peat. Unfortunately, all of these impacts are due to the combined effect of global warming emissions from other regions. In the Antarctic (South Pole), rapid change is evident on the Antarctic Peninsula, southeast of Argentina, and Chile. Changes at the poles have both local and global implications. The retreat of glaciers and shrinking of the Greenland ice sheet in the Arctic is predicted to cause significant sea-level rise, changes in the salinity of our oceans, and altered feedback loops that will make the Arctic warm up even faster. Organizations like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)⁶⁶⁴and the International Arctic Science Committee play a critical role in advancing the science related to polar areas.⁶⁶⁵

In 2000 Canada ranked ninth out of 186 countries in terms of per capita greenhouse gas emissions without taking into account land-use changes. In 2005 it ranked eighth.⁶⁶⁶ In 2009, Canada was ranked seventh in total greenhouse gas emissions behind Germany and Japan.⁶⁶⁷ Canada is a large country with a low population density, so transportation – often in cold weather when fuel efficiency drops – is a big part of the economy. About 25% of Canada’s greenhouse gases (GHGs) come from trucks, trains, airplanes, and, especially, cars. Commerce, residential fuel consumption, and industry (excluding oil and gas) account for 24% of the total, but much of those emissions come from equipment (mining trucks, front-end loaders) that do not get recorded in the transportation ledger. Another 14% come from non-energy sources. The rest come from the production and manufacture of energy and power. The following table summarizes forecast changes to annual emissions by sector in megatons. As Canada creates targets for GHG reductions, policymakers will likely zero in on the three areas deserving their attention, i.e., transportation, electricity generation, and fossil fuel production, in which the greatest reductions are possible. Together, these activities account for nearly two-thirds of Canada’s greenhouse gases in which efficiencies are possible.⁶⁶⁸

According to Canada’s Energy Outlook, the Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) report,⁶⁶⁹ NRCan estimates that Canada’s GHG emissions will increase by 139 million tons between 2004 and 2020, with more than a third of the total coming from petroleum production and refining. Upstream emissions will decline slightly, primarily from gas field depletion and from increasing production of coalbed methane, which requires less processing than conventional natural gas. Meanwhile, emissions from unconventional resources and refining will soar. However, the estimates for carbon emissions differ among Environment Canada , World Resources Institute , and the International Energy Agency by nearly 50%. The reasons for the differences have not been determined (Table 5.5).⁶⁷⁰

Table 5.5 Forecast changes to annual emissions by sector in megatons

5.9.3 Environment in Canada, Mexico, and the Rest of North America

Extreme weather risks causing climatic impacts in Canada and Mexico include sea-level rise and agricultural productivity loss.⁶⁷¹ The United States, Canada, and Mexico create new climate change partnership (CMP) by the North American energy ministers who met to set up a working group on climate change and energy, a partnership designed to help Canada, the United States , and Mexico harmonize policies. The partnership does not include binding targets but will enhance cooperation and integrate more climate change-related policies into energy discussions between the countries. All three governments will prioritize working together on issues, including efficiency of electricity grids, pursuing new clean energy technologies, and aligning regulations to control emissions from the oil and gas sector. The agreement comes even as Canada’s right-leaning Conservative government and the Obama administration clash over the lengthy and ongoing US review of TransCanada Corp’s proposed Keystone XL pipeline that would connect Alberta’s oil sand region with the Gulf Coast of Texas. Environmental groups have aggressively campaigned against the project, arguing that it would accelerate heat-trapping emissions from the oil sands. Canada’s government has criticized the Obama administration for delaying the decision, while US President Barack Obama has questioned the economic benefits of the project, indicating he would not approve it if it exacerbates global warming. Canada has also repeatedly pledged to introduce emission regulations for the oil and gas sector in recent years, only to delay those plans. North American counterparts, Mexico and Canada, could align with recently proposed US rules to cut methane emissions from oil and gas operations as part of CMP agreement. This would enhance cooperation on technologies to capture and bury greenhouse gas emissions underground.⁶⁷²

The Canada–Mexico Partnership (CMP) has working groups to bring together representatives from the public sector and the private sector. Each group is co-chaired by senior decision-makers from Canada and Mexico, from both the government and private sectors. The public sector is represented by individuals at both the federal and provincial/state levels, while the private sector comprises members of business and industry associations, academic communities, and other organizations. Work of each group is to develop its own goals and work plans to advance its objectives on an as-needed basis. An annual CMP meeting brings together all working groups to take stock of progress, highlight results, and set new priorities.⁶⁷³

Canada–Mexico Partnership (CMP) Environmental Working Group was launched on October 24, 2004, with the purpose of Bilateral Environmental Cooperation and as a Cooperative Forum. Environmental Working Group was established in 2008 which was an ongoing diplomatic mechanism (not a treaty or MOU). The key document was Environment and Climate Change Canada with partners being Global Affairs Canada and others (depending on cooperative activity). For information a web link has established Canada–Mexico Partnership⁶⁷⁴ with the objective of bilateral cooperation between Canada and Mexico on mutual domestic priorities, including environmental issues. The Environmental Working Group provides a high-level forum to discuss priorities and undertake bilateral cooperation activities, with key element being for the Environment Working Group to meet annually to review projects and plan upcoming initiatives at the same time as the annual meeting of the Canada–Mexico Partnership, which includes representatives from all seven working groups led by Global Affairs Canada. Participation by subnational governments, as well as private sector and nongovernment representatives, is encouraged in the activities. Expected results are expected to facilitate collaboration between Canada and Mexico on environmental priorities to address issues of mutual interest. Canada’s involvement is for the Environment and Climate Change Canada to work with Mexico’s Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) to coordinate Environmental Working Group activities, in partnership with external experts (including representatives of other government department/agencies, academics, private sector, and NGOs) who support collaborative activities. There are annual Canada–Mexico Partnership and Environmental Working Group meetings to discuss cooperative activities and approve the work program. Both parties support the implementation of projects focusing on priority topics identified in the work program. The Environmental Working Group provides updates on activities to the annual report of the Canada–Mexico Partnership (available on the Canada–Mexico Partnership website). Under this mechanism, Canada and Mexico have strengthened bilateral relations on environmental matters. The annual Environmental Working Group meeting provides an opportunity for policy dialogue and information exchanges on a wide range of priority topics. Activities supported under the Canada–Mexico Partnership have fostered capacity-building and collaborative research on issues of importance to Canada and Mexico. Recent cooperative activities have focused on climate change, addressing environmental impacts associated with the extractive sector and conservation/biodiversity.⁶⁷⁵

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, President Barack Obama, and President Enrique Peña Nieto share a common commitment to a competitive, low-carbon, and sustainable North American economy and society (see picture in Fig. 5.124). The Paris Agreement was a turning point representing unprecedented accord on the urgent need to take action to combat climate change through innovation and deployment of low-carbon solutions. In recognition of the close ties and shared vision, leaders committed to an ambitious and enduring North American Climate, Clean Energy, and Environment Partnership with a historic goal for North America to strive to achieve 50% clean power generation by 2025. This was arrived with a North American Energy Ministerial Memorandum Concerning Climate Change and Energy Collaboration covering a range of initiatives to support this goal to include (1) advancing clean and secure power, (2) driving down short-lived climate pollutants, (3) promoting clean and efficient transportation, (4) protecting nature and advancing science, (5) showing global leadership in addressing climate change, (6) protecting nature and advancing science, and (7) North American Climate, Clean Energy, and Environment Partnership Action Plan. The North American Energy Ministerial Memorandum Action Plan included advance clean energy and integration of energy resources, including renewables; improving energy efficiency; accelerating clean energy innovation and advance cooperation on energy information; strengthening the reliability, resilience, and security of the North American Electricity Grid; driving down short-lived climate pollutants; reducing methane emissions in the oil and gas sector; developing national methane strategies with a focus on key sectors; decreasing methane emissions from landfills and the agriculture sector; reducing hydrofluorocarbons, energy consumption, maritime shipping emissions, international aviation emissions, mainstream conservation, and sustainable use of biodiversity; showing global leadership in addressing climate change; supporting implementation of the Paris Agreement; enhancing domestic adaptation efforts and resilience to climate change; and encouraging robust action by the G20 to adopt a Montreal Protocol hydrofluorocarbons (hfc) phase-down amendment.⁶⁷⁶

Fig. 5.124

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, President Barack Obama, and President Enrique Peña Nieto pose for a photo during the North American Leaders’ Summit in Ottawa, Ontario, June 29, 2016. (Source: http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2016/06/29/leaders-statement-north-american-climate-clean-energy-and-environment-partnership)

5.9.4 Solutions to Environmental Problems in Canada, Mexico, and the Rest of North America

Up to this point, discussions pertaining to the environmental problems, the role of global warming, and climate change were identified showing the criticality of the environmental issues with respect to the elements culminating in RCP 8.5 scenario elaborated in Sect. 3.1. Since most of the environmental issues of RCP 8.5 accrue due to the dependence on fossil- and carbon-related energy sources for owner generation, the simplistic approach is to adopt renewable energy for power generation. Thus by the use of wind as an energy source if not all, but by all means, considerable extent of the environmental problems in Canada, Mexico, and the rest of North America can be avoided. The following brief notations pertaining to the environmental measures in the Canadian provinces are germane to wind energy’s role in power and energy generation.

Climate Change by Canadian Provinces

Report of the IPCC Fourth Assessment deals with “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” ⁶⁷⁷ and synthesizes the vulnerabilities facing the polar regions and steps these regions can take to tackle climatic impacts as part of the solutions to global warming. Substantial scientific evidence indicates that an increase in the global average temperature of more than 2 °F above where we are today poses severe risks to natural systems and human health and well-being. Delay in taking action will require much sharper cuts later, which would likely be more difficult and costly. While the federal government was slow to develop a monitoring and credible reduction regime, several provincial governments have established substantial programs to reduce emissions on their respective territories. British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec have joined the Western Climate Initiative, ⁶⁷⁸with a group of seven states of the Western United States to establish a common framework for a carbon credit market. These provinces have also made commitments regarding the reduction and announced concrete steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Alberta has an established “Climate Change Action Plan,”⁶⁷⁹ released in 2008. The Specified Gas Emitters Regulation in Alberta made it the first jurisdiction in North America to have a price on carbon reduction program. Canada’s two largest provinces, Ontario and Quebec, are wary of federal policies of shifting the burden of greenhouse reductions on them in order to give Alberta and Saskatchewan more room to further develop their tar sand reserves, thereby chilling relations between the 13 provinces and territories.⁶⁸⁰

Alberta

The Specified Gas Emitters Regulation has placed a price on carbon dioxide emissions in Alberta since 2007 ⁶⁸¹ and was renewed to 2017 with increased stringency. It requires “large final emitters,” defined as facilities emitting more than 100,000 t CO₂e per year, to comply with an emission intensity reduction which increases over time and caps at 12% in 2015, 15% in 2016, and 20% in 2017. Facilities have several options for compliance. They may actually make reductions, pay into the Climate Change and Emission Management Fund (CCEMF), purchase credits from other large final emitters, or purchase credits from non-large final emitters in the form of offset credits. ⁶⁸² Criticisms against the intensity-based approach to pricing carbon include the fact that there is no hard cap on emissions, and actual emissions may always continue to rise despite the fact that carbon has a price. Benefits of an intensity-based system include the fact that during economic recessions, the carbon intensity reduction will remain equally as stringent and challenging, while hard caps tend to become easily met, although not totally relevant and do not work to reduce emissions. Alberta has also been criticized that its goals are too weak and that the measures enacted are not likely to achieve the goals. In 2015, the newly elected government committed to revising the climate change strategy. ⁶⁸³ In Alberta there has been a trend of high summer temperatures and low summer precipitation. This has led much of Alberta to face drought conditions. ⁶⁸⁴Drought conditions are negatively impacting on the agriculture sector of this province, mainly the cattle ranching area. ⁶⁸⁵When there is a drought, there is a shortage of feed for cattle (hay, grain). With the shortage on crops, ranchers are forced to purchase the feed at the increased prices while they can. For those who cannot afford to pay top money for feed are forced to sell their herds. ⁶⁸⁶During the drought of 2002, Ontario had a good season and produced enough crops to send a vast amount of hay to those hit the hardest in Alberta. However this is not something that can or will be expected every time there is a drought in the Prairie Provinces.⁶⁸⁷ This causes a great deficit in income for many as they are buying heads of cattle for high prices and selling them for very low prices. ⁶⁸⁸ Historical forecasts show there is a strong indication that there is no true way to estimate or to know the amount of rain to expect for the upcoming growing season. This does not allow for the agricultural sector to plan accordingly. As of 2008, Alberta’s electricity sector was the most carbon-intensive of all Canadian provinces and territories, with total emissions of 55.9 million tons of CO₂ equivalent in 2008, accounting for 47% of all Canadian emissions in the electricity and heat generation sector. ⁶⁸⁹ In November 2015, Premier Rachel Notley unveiled plans to increase the province’s carbon tax to $20 per ton in 2017, increasing further to $30 per ton by 2018. ⁶⁹⁰ This policy shift came about partly because of the rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline, which the premier likened to a “kick in the teeth.” ⁶⁹¹ The province’s new climate policies also include phasing out coal-fired power plants by 2030 and cutting emissions of methane by 45% by 2025. ⁶⁹² Alberta witnessed the effects of climate change in a dramatic manner when a “perfect storm” of El Niño and global warming contributed to the 2016 Fort McMurray wildfire, which led to the evacuation of the oil-producing town at the heart of the tar sand industry.⁶⁹³ The area has witnessed an increased frequency of wildfires, as Canada’s wildfire season now starts a month earlier than it used to and the annual area burned is twice to what it was in 1970.⁶⁹⁴

British Columbia

The extreme weather events of greatest concern in British Columbia include heavy rain and snow falls, heat waves, and drought. They are linked to flooding and landslides, water shortages, forest fires, reduced air quality, as well as costs related to damage to property and infrastructure, business disruptions, and increased illness and mortality. In recent years, significant extreme events and climate impacts in BC have included (a) the pine beetle epidemic, which resulted in 18 million hectares of dead trees and economic impacts for forest-dependent communities;⁶⁹⁵ (b) 330,000 hectares of forest lost to forest fire in the 2010 fire season alone,⁶⁹⁶ and the loss of 334 homes in the 2003 forest fire season; (c) flooding in 2010 leading to the destruction of the Bella Coola highway and evacuation of residents from Kingcome Inlet;⁶⁹⁷ and (d) heat waves, including the one in the summer of 2009, which are associated with increases in heat stroke and respiratory illness. BC has implemented many ambitious policies to address climate change mitigation, particularly through its Climate Action Plan,⁶⁹⁸ released in 2008. It has set legislated greenhouse gas reduction targets of 33% below 2007 levels by 2020 and 80% by 2050.⁶⁹⁹ BC’s revenue neutral carbon tax is the first of its kind in North America. It was introduced at $10/ton of CO₂e in 2008 and has risen by $5/ton annual increases until it reached $30/ton in 2012, where the rate has remained. It is required in legislation that all revenues from the carbon tax are returned to British Columbians through tax cuts in other areas.⁷⁰⁰ BC’s public sector became the first in North America to be carbon-neutral in 2010.⁷⁰¹ The Clean Energy Vehicle Program provides incentives for the purchase of approved clean energy vehicles and for charging infrastructure installation.⁷⁰² There has been action across sectors including financing options and incentives for building retrofits, a “Forest Carbon Offset Protocol,” a Renewable and Low-Carbon Fuel Standard, and Landfill Gas Management Regulation. BC’s GHG emissions have been going down, and in 2012 BC declared it was within reach of meeting its interim target of a 6% reduction below 2007 levels by 2012. GHG emissions went down by 4.5% between 2007 and 2010, and consumption of all the main fossil fuels is down in BC as well, while GDP and population have both been growing.⁷⁰³ In 2010, BC launched its adaptation strategy which focuses on building knowledge and tools to guide decision-making affected by future climate, integrating adaptation into government business, and building adaptation approaches for key sectors such as agriculture and industry. ⁷⁰⁴

Ontario

Ontario is Canada’s most populated province ⁷⁰⁵and, in 2010, had the second highest greenhouse gas emission inventory in the country. In 1990, Ontario’s greenhouse gas emissions were 176 megatons (Mt) of CO₂ equivalent. According to Canada’s 2012 National Inventory Report, ⁷⁰⁶Ontario’s emissions were 171 Mt in 2010, an amount that represented 25% of Canada’s total emissions for that year. Over the 20-year period between 1990 and 2010, Ontario’s emissions continued to increase until the mid-2000s. Emissions declined significantly in 2008–2009 due in large part to the economic recession. In 2010, Ontario emitted 12.95 tons per person,⁷⁰⁷ compared with the Canadian average of 20.3 tons per person⁷⁰⁸. In August 2007, the Ontario government released Go Green − “Ontario’s Action Plan on Climate Change.” The plan established three targets: (a) 6% reduction in emissions by 2014, (b) 15% by 2020, and (c) 80% by 2050. The government has committed to report annually on the actions it is taking to reduce emissions and adapt to climate change.⁷⁰⁹ With the initiatives currently in place, the government projects 60% of those needed to meet the 2020 target.⁷¹⁰ The largest emission reductions to date have come from the phase out of coal-fired power generation by Ontario Power Generation. In August 2007, the government issued a regulation that required the end of coal burning at Ontario’s four remaining coal-fired power plants by the end of 2014.⁷¹¹ Since 2003, emissions from these plants have dropped from 36.5 Mt to 4.2 Mt.⁷¹² In January 2013, the government announced that coal will be completely phased out 1 year early, by the end of 2013.⁷¹³ Through the Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009, ⁷¹⁴ Ontario implemented a feed-in tariff to promote the development of renewable energy generation. Ontario is also a member of the Western Climate Initiative. In January 2013, a discussion paper was posted on the Environmental Registry seeking input on the development of a greenhouse gas emission reduction program for industry. Over the years, transportation emissions have continued to increase. Growing from 44.8 Mt in 1990 to 59.5 Mt in 2010, transportation is responsible for the largest amount of greenhouse gas emissions in the province. Efforts to reduce these emissions include investing in public transit and providing incentives for the purchase of electric vehicles. The government also recognizes the need for climate change adaptation and, in April 2011, released Climate Ready: Ontario’s Adaptation Strategy and Action Plan 2011–2014.⁷¹⁵ As required by the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993 , the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario does an independent review and reports annually to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario on the progress of activities in the province to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.⁷¹⁶

Quebec

Greenhouse gas emissions increased by 3.8% in Quebec between 1990 and 2007, to 85.7 megatons of CO₂ equivalent. At 11.1 tons per capita , Quebec’s emissions are well below the Canadian average (22.1 tons) and accounted for 11.6% of Canada’s total in 2007.⁷¹⁷ The latest data confirm a strong trend towards declining emissions in the industrial and residential sectors, which decreased by 23.6% and 27.9%, respectively, and a sharp rise in transportation (+29.5%) and in the tertiary sector (+53.2%). Emissions in the electricity sector have also spiked in 2007, due to the operation of the TransCanada Energy’s combined cycle gas turbine in Becancour. The generating station, Quebec’s largest source of greenhouse gas emissions that year, released 1.687 m tons of CO₂ equivalent in 2007 ⁷¹⁸ or 72.1% of all emissions from the sector and 2% of total emissions. Between 1990, the reference year of the Kyoto Protocol, and 2006, Quebec’s population, grew by 9.2% and Quebec’s GDP of 41.3%. The emission intensity relative to GDP declined from 28.1% during this period, dropping from 4500 to 3300 tons of CO₂ equivalent per million dollars of gross domestic product (GDP)⁷¹⁹. In May 2009, Quebec became the first jurisdiction in the Americas to impose an emission cap after the Quebec National Assembly passed a bill capping emissions from certain sectors. The move was coordinated with a similar policy in the neighboring province of Ontario and reflects the commitment of both provinces as members of the Western Climate Initiative.⁷²⁰ On November 23, 2009, the Quebec government pledged to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 20% below the 1990 base year level by 2020, a goal similar to that adopted by the European Union. The government intends to achieve its target by promoting public transit, electric vehicles, and intermodal freight transport. The plan also calls for the increased use of wood as a building material, energy recovery from biomass, and a land-use planning reform.⁷²¹ According to simulations conducted with Quebec’s Ministry of Finance econometric model, the reduction goal should impact the province’s real GDP by 0.16% in 2020. ⁷²²

Impacts on Forestry

Canada’s boreal forest comprises about one-third of the circumpolar boreal forest that rings the Northern Hemisphere, mostly north of the 50th parallel.^723. Other countries with boreal forest, also called taiga, include Russia, which contains the majority, the United States in its northernmost state of Alaska, and the Scandinavian and Nordic countries (e.g., Sweden, Finland, and Norway). The boreal forest is visible in satellite imagery of the Northern Hemisphere as a broad green band stretching from coast to coast between the northern tundra and southern temperate forests and grasslands⁷²⁴ (see Fig. 5.125).

Fig. 5.125

Boreal forest lands in Northern America, Europe, and Asia. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boreal_forest_of_Canada#/media/File:Taiga_ecoregion.png)

According to Environment Canada’s 2011 annual report, there is evidence that some regional areas within the western Canadian boreal forest have increased by 2 °C since 1948.^.725 The boreal region in Canada covers almost 60% of the country’s land area.^726.The Canadian boreal region spans the landscape from the most easterly part of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador to the border between the far northern Yukon and Alaska (see Fig. 5.126). The area is dominated by coniferous forests, particularly spruce, interspersed with vast wetlands, mostly bogs and fens. The boreal region of Canada includes eight ecozones. While the biodiversity of regions varies, each ecozone has a characteristic native flora and fauna⁷²⁷.

Fig. 5.126

Distribution of taiga and boreal forests in North America (dark blue area in Canada and Alaska). (Source: Terrestrial ecoregions of North America: a conservation assessment, Taylor H Ricketts; et al. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, ©1999; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boreal_forest_of_Canada#/media/File:Major_habitat_type_CAN_USA.svg cited in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_Canada)

The rate of the changing climate is leading to drier conditions in the boreal forests which lead to a challenge for the forestry industry to sustainably manage and conserve trees within these boreal forests. Climate change will have a direct impact on the productivity of these boreal forests, as well as health and regeneration.⁷²⁸ As a result of the rapidly changing climate, trees are migrating to higher latitudes and altitudes (northward), but some species may not be migrating fast enough to follow their climatic habitat.⁷²⁹ Moreover, trees within the southern limit of their range may begin to show declines in growth.⁷³⁰ Drier conditions are also leading to a shift from conifers to aspen in more fire- and drought-prone areas.⁷³¹ Assisted migration of tree species within the boreal forest is one tool that has been proposed and is currently under study.⁷³² It involves deliberately moving tree species to locations that may better climatically suit them in the future.⁷³³ For species that may not be able to disperse easily, have long generation times, or have small populations, this form of adaptive management and human intervention may help them survive in this rapidly changing climate.⁷³⁴ Assisted migration may offer a potential option to lessen the risks that climate change poses towards maintaining a sustainable industry, in terms of productivity and health. There may be benefits and/or consequences to applying assisted migration on wide scale in Canada.⁷³⁵ Assisted migration may prevent the extinction of certain tree species, enable and conserve market-based goods such as wood products, and conserve processes and services of an ecosystem.⁷³⁶ Unfortunately, assisted migration could result in competition between the already established trees with the introduced trees, breeding of the introduced trees with established trees, or the disruption of key ecological processes. Any decision made on assisted migration to be implemented in the forestry industry will need to continue and rely on informed research and long-term studies (Table 5.6).⁷³⁷

Table 5.6 Greenhouse gases emissions by Canadian province/territory, 1990–2008

5.10 Environment in the United States

5.10.1 Climate Change in the United States

By 2030, most of the United States could experience at least four seasons equally as intense as the hottest season ever recorded from 1951 to 1999, according to Stanford University climate scientists. In most of Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico, the number of extremely hot season could be as high as seven.⁷³⁸ See Fig. 5.127 which shows the decennial occurrence of number of extremely hot seasons.

Fig. 5.127

Number of extremely hot seasons per decade (2010 through 2039). (Source: http://www.umces.edu/commentaries)

Figs. 5.128 and 5.129

Projected change in average surface air temperature at lower-emission scenario (B1) and higher-emission scenario (A2), respectively. (Source: Figure sources are NOAA NCDC / CICS-NC cited in http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/report-findings/future-climate#intro-section-2)

The 2014 National Climate Assessment in collaboration with the US Global Change Research Program summarizes the impacts of climate change on the United States, now and in the future.⁷³⁹ The effects of future climate change are explored. Human-induced climate change is projected to continue, and it will accelerate significantly if global emissions of heat-trapping gases continue to increase. Heat-trapping gases already in the atmosphere have committed the United States to a hotter future with more climate-related impacts over the next few decades. Projected temperature changes are examined at lower emissions (B1) and higher emissions (A2).⁷⁴⁰

Maps in Figs. 5.128 and 5.129 show projected change in average surface air temperature in the later part of this century (2071–2099) relative to the later part of the last century (1970–1999) under a scenario that assumes substantial reductions in heat-trapping gases (B1) and a higher-emission scenario that assumes continued increases in global emissions (A2).⁷⁴¹

Projected changes in soil moisture are indicated in Fig. 5.130 at lower-emission scenario (B1) and Fig. 5.131 higher-emission scenario (A2). Increased temperatures and changing precipitation patterns will alter soil moisture, which is important for agriculture and ecosystems and has many societal implications. The above maps show average change in soil moisture compared to 1971–2000, as projected for later part of this century (2071–2100) under two emission scenarios, a lower scenario (B1) and a higher scenario (A2). Eastern United States is not displayed because model simulations were only run for the area shown.

Fig. 5.130

Lower-emission scenario B1. (Source: Figure sources are NOAA NCDC/CICS-NC, cited in http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/report-findings/future-climate#intro-section-2)

Fig. 5.131

Higher-emission scenario A2. (Source: Figure sources are NOAA NCDC/CICS-NC, cited in http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/report-findings/future-climate#intro-section-2)

Climate change effects are more than just temperature. The location, timing, and amounts of precipitation will also change as temperatures rise. Maps in Fig. 5.132 show projected percent change in precipitation in each season for 2071–2099 (compared to the period 1970–1999) under an emission scenario that assumes continued increases in emissions (A2). Teal color indicates precipitation increases and brown color decreases. Hatched areas indicate that the projected changes are significant and consistent among models. White areas indicate that the changes are not projected to be larger than could be expected from natural variability. In general, the northern part of the United States is projected to see more winter and spring precipitation, while the southwestern United States is projected to experience less precipitation in the spring. Wet regions are generally projected to become wetter, while dry regions become drier. Summer drying is projected for parts of the United States, including the Northwest and Southern Great Plains.⁷⁴²

Fig. 5.132

Projected precipitation changes by season. (Source: Figure sources are NOAA NCDC/CICS-NC, cited in http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/report-findings/future-climate#intro-section-2)

Map in Fig. 5.133 shows change in the number of consecutive dry days (days receiving less than 0.04 inches of precipitation) at the end of this century (2070–2099) relative to the end of last century (1971–2000) under the highest scenario considered in this report, RCP 8.5. Stippling indicates areas where changes are consistent among at least 80% of the 25 models used in this analysis. Global sea level has risen about 8 inches since reliable record keeping began in 1880. It is projected to rise another 1–4 feet by 2100. The oceans are absorbing over 90% of the increased atmospheric heat associated with emissions from human activity.⁷⁴³ Like mercury in a thermometer, water expands as it warms up (this is referred to as “thermal expansion”) causing sea levels to rise. Melting of glaciers and ice sheets is also contributing to sea-level rise at increasing rates.⁷⁴⁴

Fig. 5.133

Change in maximum number of consecutive dry days. (Source: Figure source: NOAA NCDC/CICS-NC, cited in http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/report-findings/future-climate#intro-section-2)

Both voluntary activities and a variety of policies and measures that lower emissions are currently in place at federal, state, and local levels in the United States, even though there is no comprehensive national climate legislation. Over the remainder of this century, aggressive and sustained greenhouse gas emission reductions by the United States and by other nations would be needed to reduce global emissions to a level consistent with the lower scenario (B1) analyzed in this assessment. Different amounts of heat-trapping gases released into the atmosphere by human activities produce different projected increases in the earth’s temperature. In the Fig. 5.134, each line represents a central estimate of global average temperature rise for a specific emission pathway (relative to the 1901–1960 average). Shading indicates the range (5th–95th percentile) of results from a suite of climate models. Projections in 2099 for additional emission pathways are indicated by the bars to the right of each panel. In all cases, temperatures are expected to rise, although the difference between lower and higher emission pathways is substantial. The left panel shows the two main scenarios (SRES) used in this report: A2 assumes continued increases in emissions throughout this century, and B1 assumes significant emission reductions beginning around 2050, though not due explicitly to climate change policies. The right panel shows newer analyses, which are results from the most recent generation of climate models (CMIP5) using the most recent emission pathways (RCPs). Some of these new projections explicitly consider climate policies that would result in emission reductions, which the SRES set did not. The newest set includes both lower and higher pathways than did the previous set. The lowest emission pathway shown here, RCP 2.6, assumes immediate and rapid reductions in emissions and would result in about 2.5 °F of warming in this century. The highest pathway, RCP 8.5, roughly similar to a continuation of the current path of global emission increases, is projected to lead to more than 8 °F 2100 warming by 2100, with a high-end possibility of more than 11 °F (Fig. 5.134).⁷⁴⁵

Fig. 5.134

Emission levels determine temperature rises. (Source: Data from CMIP3, CMIP5, and NOAA NCDC, cited in http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/report-findings/future-climate#intro-section-2)

Climate Central’s Surging Seas global Risk Zone Map provides the ability to explore inundation risk up to 30 m across the world’s coastlines as well as local sea-level rise projections at over 1000 tide gauges on 6 continents. In Figs. 5.135 and 5.136, the map areas below the selected water level are displayed as satellite imagery shaded in blue indicating vulnerability to flooding from combined sea-level rise, storm surge, and tides or to permanent submergence by long-term sea-level rise. Map areas above the selected water level are shown in map style using white and pale grays. The map is searchable by city, state, postal code, and other location names. For map areas in the United States, the Risk Zone Map shows areas vulnerable to near-term flooding from different combinations of sea-level rise, storm surge, tides, and tsunamis or to permanent submersion by long-term sea-level rise and high-accuracy elevation data supplied by NOAA, displays points of interest, and contains layers displaying social vulnerability, population density, and property value.⁷⁴⁶

Fig. 5.135

Risk Zone Map. (Source: http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/maps/risk-zone)

Fig. 5.136

Risk Zone Map of a part of Eastern seaboard of the United States. (Source: http://ss2.climatecentral.org/#9/40.7285/-74.0067?show=satellite&projections=0-RCP85-SLR&level=5&unit=feet&pois=hide)

Scientists agree that climate change has been driving a rise in global sea level, and the rise will accelerate, leading to ocean intrusion on land and aggravated coastal flood risk. Global tide gauges provide local projections for sea-level rise through the year 2200. Select tide gauges within the United States where at least 30 years of hourly water level data are available also give flood risk projections which integrate sea-level rise. In all cases, users may select from among different carbon pollution scenarios, including “unchecked pollution” (technically, Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5, or RCP 8.5), “moderate carbon cuts” (RCP 4.5), and “extreme carbon cuts” (RCP 2.6), this last choice meaning a peak in emissions near the year 2020 followed by a sharp decline to zero near 2070. For gauges with flood risk projections, users may choose between viewing accrued risk (i.e., what is the risk of flooding between the present and a future year) and annual risk (i.e., what is the risk of flooding within a single future year).⁷⁴⁷

Water level means feet or meters above the local high tide line (“Mean Higher High Water”) instead of standard elevation. Each of the maps in Figs. 5.136 and 5.137 is generated based on a selected water level. Water can reach different levels in different time frames through combinations of sea-level rise, tide, and storm surge. ⁷⁴⁸

Fig. 5.137

A Risk Zone Map. (Source: http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/maps/risk-zone)

The maps in Figs. 5.135 and 5.136 define social vulnerability which is the ability of communities to prepare and respond to hazards like flooding. “High” and “low” indicate the 20% most and least vulnerable in coastal areas of each state.⁷⁴⁹

Temperatures rise, and satellites watch glaciers and ice sheets shrink; networks of robotic buoys sample ocean waters as they heat and expand. Coastal floods are increasing. The link to sea-level rise is clear. A higher starting level means that the same tide, the same storm surge, goes higher than it otherwise would have. Tide gauges dotting our bays and beaches have been recording this shift. For the twentieth century, estimate of global sea level has risen about 4.5 inches. Many sea-level projections for this century run beyond 3 feet, for example, in Annapolis or Charleston, Atlantic City, or Port Isabel. The National Weather Service defines local nuisance flood thresholds based on decades of observing local impacts. From 1950 to 2014, out of the 8726 actual nuisance flood days have been identified. When a street floods with saltwater, and you can’t drive home, or you have to sandbag your store, human instinct looks for the nearby cause: it was a very high tide, or a strong wind blew from the wrong direction. But what if the tide or the wind were not enough to tip the balance? What if the waters would not have crossed the last lip, the critical threshold, without a few inches of boost? It takes nearly 1000 years to form 1 inch of soil. Many don’t realize that climate is one of the five soil-forming factors. Rising ambient temperatures cause soil temperatures to rise, accelerating breakdown of soils. With rising sea levels, soils that are currently poorly drained or have seasonal high water tables may be inundated throughout the year, thus increasing flooding. Healthy functional soils are at the root of everything⁷⁵⁰ (see Figs. 5.137 and 5.138).

Fig. 5.138

Coastal flood fingerprint in the United States. (Source: “The Human Fingerprints on Coastal Floods,” A COMMENTARY by Benjamin Strauss, published February 22, 2016, cited in http://www.climatecentral.org/news/the-human-fingerprints-on-coastal-floods-20050)

5.10.2 Global Warming in the United States

Global warming has raised global sea level about 8 inches since 1880, and the rate of rise is accelerating. Rising seas dramatically increase the odds of damaging floods from storm surges. A Climate Central analysis finds the odds of “century” or worse floods occurring by 2030 are on track to double or more, over widespread areas of the United States. These increases threaten an enormous amount of damage. Across the country, nearly 5 million people live in 2.6 million homes at less than 4 feet above high tide – a level lower than the century flood line for most locations analyzed. And compounding this risk, scientists expect roughly 2–7 more feet of sea-level rise this century – a lot depending upon how much more heat-trapping pollution humanity puts into the sky. One such scenario is shown in Fig. 5.139 which depicts St. Petersburg area where land below 5 feet is colored yellow to denote populations with low through high social vulnerability. Social vulnerability is especially for low-income groups, which compounds coastal risk. Maroon lines are shown by the levees. Warming oceans and melting ice sheets are plausible reasons for raising global sea levels as at St. Petersburg area waters which could rise 15 inches by 2050 and 4 feet or more by 2100, localizing effects from the intermediate high sea-level scenario in the latest US National Climate Assessment. This pathway suggests to 18% risk of flooding over 5 feet between 2016 and 2030 and 46% between Nov. 2016 and mid-century. Statistical impacts of what sits below 5 feet in St. Petersburg in Nov. 2016 in rounded figures are (a) population of 49,000, (b) high social vulnerability population of 9800, (c) 27,000 homes, (d) property value of $7 billion, and (e) 16 hazardous waste sites. ⁷⁵¹

Fig. 5.139

Risk Zone Map of St. Petersburg and environs. (Source: http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/)

As many as 3.7 million US residents in 2150, coastal areas could be battered by damaging floods caused by global warming-induced storm surges, see Fig. 5.140. Sea levels could rise as much as 19 inches by 2050, according to what the report calls “midrange projections.” All areas along the continental US coastline containing homes that lie within 1 to 10 feet from the water level are in high tide areas with risk of flooding from every foot of sea-level rise in Florida, Louisiana, California, New York, and New Jersey which have the largest populations in the flood zone. Among those, Florida has the highest population density in harm’s way (see Fig. 5.141). ⁷⁵²

Fig. 5.140

Human fingerprints of coastal floods in the United States. (Source: http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/)

Fig. 5.141

Coastal in Eastern seaboard of the United States most susceptible to floods due to global warming. (Source: According to a report by Rebecca Jacobson, March 14, 2012, published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, cited in http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/will-you-be-underwater-theres-a-map-for-that/)

The effects of global warming-induced climate change have been helping make forests in the western United States, in states including New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, and everything else to the west, drier and easier to burn since the 1970s (see Fig. 5.142). During the last three decades, this global warming-induced climate change played a role in nearly doubling the area hit by forest fires since 1984. Eight different systems of measurement were used to calculate the dryness of fuel in fire areas. Each one suggested that there have been significant increases in dryness between 1979 and 2015 with a strong relationship between the increasing dryness and the area of land affected by forest fires. Overall, dryness accounted for more than three-quarters of the changes in burned area over the last three decades. Anthropogenic climate change induced by global warming was responsible for just over half of the total observed increase in fuel dryness since 1979. In turn, this influence has added more than 16,000 square miles of forest fire area to the western United States since 1984, an area larger than the state of Maryland, nearly doubling the area scientists might have expected without the influence of similar global warming-induced climate change. The past few decades have seen significant declines in spring precipitation out west, a change partly attributed to a shift in a natural, large-scale ocean–atmosphere pattern known as the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation, which can cause long-term changes in ocean temperatures and global weather patterns. Compounding effect of natural climate variability aligning with climate change every degree of warming has a bigger impact on forest fire area than the previous degree of warming.⁷⁵³

Fig. 5.142

A firefighter watches the “Blue Cut Fire” in the San Bernardino National Forest in California in Summer, 2016. (Source: A Reuters/Gene Blevins article cited in https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/10/10/climate-change-has-been-making-western-forest-fires-worse-for-decades-study-says/?utm_term=.fd7821ff408a&wpisrc=nl_green&wpmm=1)

“Now that we understand the problem, it’s time to urge our representatives to act,” according to Donald Boesch, President of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, and Edward Maibach, Director for Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University. Roughly three-quarters of Marylanders understand that climate change is a threat to our health, homes, businesses, and natural resources, and more than half of them support state initiatives to address the problem. Maryland is highly vulnerable, with more than 3000 miles of coastline with the shorelines retreating as sea levels rise, unless greenhouse gas emissions are reduced substantially in the coming decades, with sea levels continually rising. In the last few years, increased flooding and violent storms such as Hurricane Irene, Hurricane Sandy, and Tropical Storm Lee had been battering the Maryland coastline due to derecho and heavy snowfalls. As climate change advances, changes to the Chesapeake Bay will compound challenges in cleaning up Maryland’s seafood industry.⁷⁵⁴ The George Mason University research found that 73% of Marylanders support requiring the state’s electricity suppliers to provide 20% of their total electricity from renewable energy by 2022, and more than half of Marylanders support nearly all of our state’s current policies to mitigate the impacts of climate change.⁷⁵⁵

The politics of global warming is apparent from Fig. 5.143⁷⁵⁶ in which the United States as a leader of the developed world has a key role to play. The complex politics of results from numerous cofactors arising from the global economy’s interdependence on carbon dioxide emitting hydrocarbon energy sources and because carbon dioxide is directly implicated in global warming ⁷⁵⁷ making it a nontraditional environmental challenge. The intimate linkage between global warming and economic vitality implicates almost every aspect of a nation-state’s economy.⁷⁵⁸ Perceived lack of adequate advanced energy technologies with fossil fuel abundance and low prices continues to put pressure on the development of adequate advanced energy technologies that can realistically replace the role of fossil fuels, as of 2010; over 91% of the world’s energy is derived from fossil fuels and non-carbon-neutral technologies.⁷⁵⁹ Developing countries do not have cost-effective access to the advanced energy technologies that they need for the development (most advanced technologies have been developed by and exist in the developed world). Without adequate and cost-effective post-hydrocarbon energy sources, it is unlikely that countries of the developed or developing world would accept policies that would materially affect their economic vitality or economic development prospects. Industrialization of the developing world is becoming a key factor in the politics of global warming. As developing nations industrialize, their energy needs are increasing with the use of conventional energy sources which produce carbon dioxide emissions. The scientific community, global governance institutions, and advocacy groups are telling these developing countries to control the carbon dioxide emissions. Without access to cost-effective and abundant energy sources, many developing countries see climate change as a hindrance to their unfettered economic development. Metric selection (transparency) and perceived responsibility with ability to respond is an item the US energy system has an opportunity that they can ill afford to miss being the wheeler-dealer. Among the countries of the world, disagreements exist over which greenhouse gas emission metrics should be used such as total emissions per year, per capita emissions per year, CO₂ emissions only, deforestation emissions, livestock emissions, or even total historical emissions. Historically, the release of carbon dioxide has not been even among all nation-states with challenges for determining who should restrict emissions and at what point of their industrial development they should be subject to such commitments. With vulnerable developing country and developed country legacy emissions being contentious issues, the United States cannot afford to take a back-bench attitude. Some developing nations blame the developed world for having created the global warming crisis because it was the developed countries that emitted most of the carbon dioxide over the twentieth century, and vulnerable countries perceive that it should be the developed countries that should pay to address the challenge. Consensus-driven global governance models are prone to make the global governance institutions that evolved during the twentieth century all consensus-driven deliberative forums where agreement is difficult to achieve, and even when agreement is achieved, it is almost impossible to enforce. Well-organized and funded special-interest lobbying bodies such as environmental lobbying, energy industry lobbying, and other special-interest lobbying can distort and amplify aspects of the challenge. In spite of a consensus on the science of global warming and its likely effects, even as some special interests, groups work to suppress the consensus others work to amplify the alarm of global warming. All parties that engage in such acts add to the politicization of the science of global warming. The result is a clouding of the reality of the global warming problem.⁷⁶⁰

Fig. 5.143

Politics of global warming pictogram. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_global_warming)

The focus areas for global warming politics are adaptation, mitigation, finance, technology, and losses which are well quantified and studied, but the urgency of the global warming challenge combined with the implication to almost every facet of a nation-state’s economic interests places significant burdens on the established largely voluntary global institutions that have developed over the last century. In this respect the US federal and state agencies are adequately equipped in addition to the institutions that have been able to effectively reshape themselves and move fast enough to deal with the unique challenge of changing administrations. Aggressive environmental lobbying groups and an established fossil fuel energy paradigm boasting a mature and sophisticated political lobbying infrastructure all combine to make global warming politics extremely polarized in the United States. Distrust between developed and developing countries at most international conferences that seek to address the topic adds to the challenges. Further adding to the complexity is the advent of the Internet and the development of media technologies like blogs and other mechanisms for disseminating information that enable the exponential growth in production and dissemination of competing points of view which make it nearly impossible for the development and dissemination of an objective view into the enormity of the subject matter and its politics. Because carbon dioxide emitting fossil fuels are intrinsically connected to a developed nation-state’s economy, such as the United States and the States, the taxation of fossil fuels or policies that decrease the availability of cost-effective fossil fuels is a significant political matter for fear that those taxes might precipitate a decrease in economic vitality. The replacement of cost-effective fossil fuels with more expensive renewable energy sources is seen by many as a hidden tax that would achieve the same result of depressing economic vitality and lead to impoverishment. Beyond the economic vitality of the United States, in some of the developed nations, some are concerned that taxation would depress economic activity in a manner that could affect the geo-political order by providing incentives to one set of countries over another.⁷⁶¹

The House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming was a select committee of the United States House of Representatives which was established in March 8, 2007, through adoption of a resolution by a 269/150 vote of the full House. ⁷⁶² The committee existed from 2007 to 2011 and was not renewed when the Republicans gained control of the House for the 112th Congress. ⁷⁶³

The key US projections show that by 2100, the average US temperature is projected to increase by about 3–12 °F, depending on emission scenario and climate model. An increase in average temperatures implies more frequent and intense extreme heat events, or heat waves. The number of days with high temperatures above 90 °F is expected to increase throughout the United States, especially towards the end of the century. Climate models project that if global emissions of greenhouse gases continue to grow, summertime temperatures in the United States that ranked among the hottest 5% in 1950–1979 will occur at least 70% of the time by 2035–2064. ⁷⁶⁴

In Fig. 5.144 projected temperature changes for mid-century in the United States are shown on the left and end of century on the right; under higher (top) and lower (bottom) are emission scenarios in the United States. The brackets on the thermometers represent the likely range of model projections, though lower or higher outcomes are possible.⁷⁶⁵

Fig. 5.144

Higher and lower emission scenario – projected temperature change (°F). (Source: Source is USGCRP (2009), cited in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_global_warming)

The other key US projections are in northern areas which tend to become wetter, especially in the winter and spring. Southern areas, especially the southwest, are projected to become drier. Heavy precipitation events will likely be more frequent, even in areas where total precipitation is projected to decrease. Heavy downpours that currently occur about once every 20 years are projected to occur between twice and five times as frequently by 2100, depending on the location. The proportion of precipitation falling as rain rather than snow is expected to increase, except in far northern areas. The intensity of Atlantic hurricanes is likely to increase as the ocean warms. Climate models project an increase in the number of the strongest (Category 4 and 5) hurricanes, as well as greater rainfall rates in hurricanes. There is less confidence in projections of the frequency of hurricanes. Cold-season storm tracks are expected to continue to shift northward. The strongest cold-season storms are projected to become stronger and more frequent.⁷⁶⁶

The maps in Fig. 5.145 show projected future changes in precipitation for the end of this century, compared with 1970–1999, under a higher-emission scenario. For example, in winter and spring, climate models agree that northern areas in the United States are likely to get wetter and southern areas drier. There is less confidence in exactly where the transition between wetter and drier areas will occur. Confidence in the projected changes is highest in the areas marked with diagonal lines. The changes in white areas are not projected to be larger than what would be expected from natural variability.⁷⁶⁷

Fig. 5.145

Percentage changes in winter, spring summer, and fall months in the United States. (Source: US National Climate Assessment, 2014, cited in https://www.epa.gov/climate-change-science/future-climate-change)

Arctic sea ice is already declining with the result area of snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere which has decreased since about 1970. Permafrost temperatures in Alaska and much of the Arctic ⁷⁶⁸ have increased over the last century.⁷⁶⁹ Over the next century, it is expected that sea ice will continue to decline, glaciers will continue to shrink, snow cover will continue to decrease, and permafrost will continue to thaw.⁷⁷⁰

Regional and local factors will influence future relative sea-level rise for specific coastlines around the world. For example, relative sea-level rise depends on land elevation changes that occur as a result of subsidence (sinking) or uplift (rising). Assuming that these historical geological forces continue, a 2-foot rise in global sea level by 2100 would result in the following relative sea-level rise ⁷⁷¹: (a) 2.3 feet at New York City; (b) 2.9 feet at Hampton Roads, Virginia; (c) 3.5 feet at Galveston, Texas; and (d) 1 foot at Neah Bay in Washington state. Relative sea-level rise also depends on local changes in currents, winds, salinity, and water temperatures, as well as proximity to thinning ice sheets.⁷⁷²

The National Drought Mitigation Center launched the Drought Impact Reporter in July 2005 as the nation’s first comprehensive database of drought impacts. The Drought Impact Reporter collects and displays drought impact information for the United State, providing researchers and the public with more context and detail on drought as well as more readily summarized information.⁷⁷³

5.10.3 Environment in the United States

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or sometimes USEPA) is an agency of the federal government of the United States which was created for the purpose of protecting human health and the environment by writing and enforcing regulations based on laws passed by Congress. The EPA was proposed by President Richard Nixon and began operation on December 2, 1970, after Nixon signed an executive order. The order establishing the EPA was ratified by committee hearings in the House and Senate. The agency is led by its administrator, who is appointed by the president and approved by Congress. The EPA is not a cabinet department, but the administrator is normally given cabinet rank (see picture in Fig. 5.146). ⁷⁷⁴

Fig. 5.146

Ruckelshaus sworn in as first EPA administrator. (Source: EPA Administrator Bill Ruckelshaus sworn in as Administrator of the new agency in 1970 cited in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency)

Organization Offices of EPA are Office of the Administrator (OA), Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of General Counsel (OGC), Office of Inspector General (OIG), Office of International and Tribal Affairs (OITA), Office of Research and Development (ORD), Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM), Office of Water (OW), and Regions. ⁷⁷⁵ Creating ten EPA regions was an initiative that came from President Richard Nixon (see Fig. 5.147). ⁷⁷⁶ Each EPA regional office is responsible within its states for implementing the agency’s programs, except those programs that have been specifically delegated to states. Each region is responsible for the states listed here:

• Region 1 – Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont (New England).

• Region 2 – New Jersey, New York and the US territories of Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands.

• Region 3 – Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia.

• Region 4 – Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee.

• Region 5 – Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin.

• Region 6 – Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.

• Region 7 – Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska.

• Region 8 – Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.

• Region 9 – Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, the territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the Navajo Nation

• Region 10 – Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. Each regional office also implements programs on Indian Tribal lands, except those programs delegated to Tribal authorities. ⁷⁷⁷

Fig. 5.147

The administrative regions of the US Environmental Protection Agency. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency)

When EPA first began, the private sector felt strongly that the environmental protection movement was a passing fad, and the agency’s first administrator, William Ruckelshaus, felt pressure to show a public that was deeply skeptical about government’s effectiveness that EPA could respond effectively to widespread concerns about pollution.⁷⁷⁸ The Air Quality Modeling Group (AQMG) is in the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) and provides leadership and direction on the full range of air quality models, air pollution dispersion models, ⁷⁷⁹ and other mathematical simulation techniques used in assessing pollution control strategies and the impacts of air pollution sources. The AQMG serves as the focal point on air pollution modeling techniques for other EPA headquarters staff, EPA regional offices, and state and local environmental agencies. It coordinates with the EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) on the development of new models and techniques, as well as wider issues of atmospheric research. Finally, the AQMG conducts modeling analyses to support the policy and regulatory decisions of the EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS). The AQMG is located in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Addressing air quality issues helps diminish the risk of pollution-related diseases. In May 2013, Congress renamed the EPA headquarters as the William Jefferson Clinton Federal Building, after former president Bill Clinton (see picture in Fig. 5.148).⁷⁸⁰

Fig. 5.148

EPA headquarters in Washington, D.C. (Source: Wald, Matthew L. “E.P.A. Building Re-named for Clinton.” The New York Times. Retrieved 17 July 2013, cited in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency)

Related EPA legislation is rather extensive in addition to the general environmental protection legislation and may also apply to other units of the government, including the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture. The EPA legislation pertaining to “air” is listed along with years the legislation came into effect: 1955, Air Pollution Control Act PL 84-159; 1963, Clean Air Act PL 88-206; 1965, Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act PL 89-272; 1966, Clean Air Act Amendments PL 89-675; 1967, Air Quality Act PL 90-148; 1970, Clean Air Act Extension PL 91-604; 1977, Clean Air Act Amendments PL 95-95; and 1990, Clean Air Act Amendments PL 101-549. In addition EPA legislation pertaining to “water” is listed along with years legislation came into effect: 1948, Water Pollution Control Act PL 80-845; 1965, Water Quality Act PL 89-234; 1966, Clean Waters Restoration Act PL 89-753; 1970, Water Quality Improvement Act PL 91-224; 1972, Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972 PL 92-500; 1974, Safe Drinking Water Act PL 93-523; 1977, Clean Water Act PL 95-217; 1987, Water Quality Act PL 100-4; and 1996, Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. The EPA legislation pertaining to “land” is listed along with years the legislation came into effect: 1964, Wilderness Act PL 88-577; 1968, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act PL 90-542; 1970, Wilderness Act PL 91-504; 1977, Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act PL 95-87; 1978, Wilderness Act PL 98-625; 1980, Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act PL 96-487; 1994, California Desert Protection Act PL 103-433; and 2010, California Desert Protection Act. The EPA legislation pertaining to “endangered species” is listed along with years the legislation came into effect: 1946, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act PL 79-732; 1966, Endangered Species Preservation Act PL 89-669; 1969, Endangered Species Conservation Act PL 91-135; 1972, Marine Mammal Protection Act PL 92-522; 1973, Endangered Species Act PL 93-205; and 1979, Endangered Species Preservation Act PL 95335. The EPA legislation pertaining to “hazardous waste” is listed along with years legislation came into effect: 1965, Solid Waste Disposal Act PL 89-272; 1970, Resource Recovery Act PL 91-512; 1976, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act PL 94-580; 1980, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“Superfund”) PL 96-510; 1984, Hazardous and Solid Wastes Amendments Act PL 98-616; 1986, Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act PL 99-499; and 2002, Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (“Brownfields Law”) PL 107–118. And the EPA legislation pertaining to “other items” is listed along with years legislation came into effect: 1947, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act PL 80-104; 1969, National Environmental Policy Act PL 91-190; 1972, Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act PL 92-516; 1976, Toxic Substances Control Act PL 94-469; 1982, Nuclear Waste Repository Act PL 97-425; and 1996, Food Quality Protection Act PL 104-170.⁷⁸¹

The jurisdiction of EPA also extends to the climatic changes and services including drought and trends in water availability, hydrology, forest and vegetation, global warming, and mercury emissions; it addresses via the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) located in Western Regional Climate Center,⁷⁸² Southern Regional Climate Center,⁷⁸³ Pacific Northwest Regional Center,⁷⁸⁴ Central Region,⁷⁸⁵ Alaska Region,⁷⁸⁶ Eastern Regional Center,⁷⁸⁷ and Northeast Regional Climate Center.⁷⁸⁸

The printed media opinions about the environmental issues in the United States are apparent from the public outcry from the following citations: “Mysterious green meanies – parakeets in her New York garden Prompted Judith Matloff to investigate the wider effects of global warming”⁷⁸⁹; “Green Vs Growth: The battle rages on – in the 1990s, conservationists won converts with an economic – growth agenda. But the issue is far from settled”⁷⁹⁰; WSJ, “A new shade of green – today’s environmental challenges are far different from those of 40 years ago. And so, argues William Ruckelshaus, the solutions must change as well” ⁷⁹¹; “green investments plummet”⁷⁹²; “Obama’s green light for green jobs – All that stimulus dough should make clean energy a fertile sector after the recession”⁷⁹³; “Getting rid of green” – why columnist Tom Friedman thinks we’re dumb about energy”⁷⁹⁴; “Sustainable luxury along the Rhode island coast”⁷⁹⁵; “Why green matters now – an old debate has taken on a sudden new urgency”⁷⁹⁶; “A rough time for green investments – the stock prices of many alternative energy firms have hit record lows”;⁷⁹⁷ “Early look at ecological toll is alarming, scientists say”⁷⁹⁸; “Florida sees new threat to its beaches – deep water drilling project in Cuban waters to launch next year could kick off a spate of exploitation in the region”⁷⁹⁹; “Employment, environment at odds- US agency won’t back sale of coal equipment; company says that costs jobs”⁸⁰⁰; “Obama gets reasonable on the environment”⁸⁰¹; “Why the clean air act may be past its prime – critics say that applying the 1970s law to today’s problems will stifle growth and kill jobs”⁸⁰²; “Environmentalism as religion” ⁸⁰³; “The dirty truth about the air – New research weighs pollution’s effect on heart health, obesity and fertility”⁸⁰⁴; “Show me the money at tax time – Consumers who go green may qualify for federal credits and deductions”⁸⁰⁵; “More carbon dissidents”⁸⁰⁶; “Green decisions – what a tangled web we weave when first we design with the environment in mind”⁸⁰⁷; “Can countries cut carbon emissions without hurting economic growth?”⁸⁰⁸; “Visions of an energy starved world”⁸⁰⁹; “Low carbon industries come of age – revenue beats aero and defense sectors; Area a new linchpin in global economy”⁸¹⁰; “High hopes put Obama in a bind over climate change” ⁸¹¹; “Can countries cut carbon emissions without hurting economic growth?”⁸¹²; “Hot Job: Calculating products’ pollution” ⁸¹³; “More energy firms go uninsured – Gulf coast rigs face storm season without coverage because of high cost”⁸¹⁴; “How to grow in a low carbon future – collaboration between companies and across industries is helping the development of sustainable new businesses”⁸¹⁵; “A new flight over pollution curbs takes root – energy intensive companies hope to counter emissions by preserving trees that might not have been at risk of destruction”⁸¹⁶; “Two way technology for leaner, cleaner networks” ⁸¹⁷; “This is the house that conversation built – An environmental pioneer raises the bar on a green energy show case, but can his latest innovations help the rest of us?” ⁸¹⁸; “Climate change is seen as a threat to US Security ⁸¹⁹; “Green for green – If you are looking for a break in your mortgage energy efficiency might just be the ticket”⁸²⁰; “Scientists call on world leaders to take action on climate change⁸²¹; “As an efficiency rating, the energy star has faded – Homes give the eco-designation could face tougher rules if the EPA revises a program it says is too lax”⁸²²; “Reactor opposition softens – A change in strategies”;⁸²³ “A Sea Change in Attitudes”; “ Carbon is perceived as a greater evil”⁸²⁴; “US Change of tack seen as Proof of Pressure,” “Environmental concerns will have profound effects”⁸²⁵; and “Release: Settlement with Interstate Power and Light to Reduce Emissions from Iowa Power Plants.”⁸²⁶

5.10.4 Solutions to Environmental Problems in the United States

Without help developing countries usually do not have access to the advanced energy technologies like wind and solar that they require for development forcing them to rely on hydrocarbon energy sources like fossil fuels and biomass. Without adequate and cost-effective post-hydrocarbon energy sources, it is very unlikely the countries in developed or developing world would accept policies that would materially affect their economic vitality or economic development prospects. To date, developing countries have resisted adopting verifiable carbon dioxide targets for fear of impacts to their economies, and the United States, Russia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Belarus, and Ukraine have either not ratified the Kyoto Protocol or withdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol or have chosen to not accept a second commitment period leaving the Kyoto Protocol extension covering only 15% of global carbon dioxide emissions. A strong contributor to these decisions is that the existing technologies are not yet adequate to replace the role of fossil hydrocarbon fuels.⁸²⁷

Arguments have been made that fostering renewable energy through subsidies and other adoption mechanisms are the path towards increasing the percentage of carbon-neutral renewable technologies that are used. According to IEA (2011), energy subsidies artificially lower the price of energy paid by consumers, raise the price received by producers, or lower the cost of production.⁸²⁸ “Fossil fuels subsidies costs generally outweigh the benefits. Subsidies to renewables and low-carbon energy technologies can bring long-term economic and environmental benefits.”⁸²⁹ In November 2011, an IEA report entitled “Deploying Renewables 2011” stated “subsidies in green energy technologies that were not yet competitive are justified in order to give an incentive to investing into technologies with clear environmental and energy security benefits.” The IEA’s report disagreed with claims that renewable energy technologies are only viable through costly subsidies and not able to produce energy reliably to meet demand. “A portfolio of renewable energy technologies is becoming cost-competitive in an increasingly broad range of circumstances, in some cases providing investment opportunities without the need for specific economic support,” the IEA said and added that “cost reductions in critical technologies, such as wind and solar, are set to continue.”⁸³⁰ By contrast, fossil fuel consumption subsidies were $409 billion in 2010, oil products being half of it. Renewable energy subsidies were $66 billion in 2010 and will reach according to IEA $250 billion by 2035. Renewable energy is subsidized in order to compete in the market, increase their volume, and develop the technology so that the subsidies become unnecessary with the development. Eliminating fossil fuel subsidies could bring economic and environmental benefits. Phasing out fossil fuel subsidies by 2020 would cut primary energy demand 5%. Since the start of 2010, at least 15 countries have taken steps to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. According to IEA onshore wind may become competitive around 2020 in the European Union.⁸³¹

Industrialization of the developing world and economic development are linked to energy consumption in which the United States and developed world have a key role to play. Some developing countries expressly state that they require assistance if they are to develop, which is seen as a right so that they do not contribute carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Many times, these needs materialize as profound differences in global conferences by countries on the subject and the debates quickly turn to pecuniary matters. Most developing countries are unwilling to accept limits on their carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, while most developed countries, including the United States, place very modest limits on their willingness to assist developing countries. In addition, most developed countries would rather not participate in greenhouse gas reduction treaties if those would lead to decreased economic activity, transfers of wealth to developing countries, or significant shifts in the geo-political balance of power of the world (see Fig. 5.149).⁸³²

Fig. 5.149

OECD and non-OECD total GDP in trillions US$. (Source: By US Government – http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/pdf/0484(2011).pdf, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=23183621, cited in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_global_warming)

Vulnerable developing countries and developed country legacy emissions are a debate entailing political economy of climate change and “Climate Vulnerable Forums.” Some developing countries fall under the category of vulnerable to climate change. These countries involve small, sometimes isolated, island nations, low-lying nations, nations who rely on drinking water from shrinking glaciers, etc. These vulnerable countries see themselves as the victims of climate change, and some have organized themselves under groups like the Climate Vulnerable Forum. These countries seek mitigation monies from the developed and the industrializing countries, especially the United States, to help them adapt to the impending catastrophes that they see climate change will bring upon them.⁸³³ For these countries climate change is seen as an existential threat, and the politics of these countries is to seek reparation and adaptation monies from the developed world, including the United States, and some see it as their right.⁸³⁴

The interaction of climate science and actual policy involve global warmin g controversy, politicization of science, and knowledge policy. The politicization of science in the sense of a manipulation of science for political gains is a part of the political process. It is part of the controversies about intelligent design⁸³⁵ and scientists that are under suspicion to willingly obscure findings, e.g., about issues like ozone depletion, global warming, or acid rain. However, in case of the ozone depletion, global regulation based on the Montreal Protocol has been successful, in a climate of high uncertainty and against strong resistance, while in case of climate change, the Kyoto Protocol failed.⁸³⁶ While the IPCC process tries to find and orchestrate the findings of global (climate) change research to shape a worldwide consensus on the matter,⁸³⁷ it has been itself an object of a strong politicization. Anthropogenic climate change evolved from a mere science issue to a top global policy topic. The IPCC process faces currently a paradox lock step⁸³⁸ where having built a broad science consensus does not hinder governments to follow different, if not opposing, goals.⁸³⁹ In case of the ozone depletion challenge, there was global regulation already being installed before a scientific consensus was established. A linear model of policymaking, based on a more knowledge, the better the political response will be, does not apply. Knowledge policy, ⁸⁴⁰ successfully managing knowledge and uncertainties as base of political decision-making, requires a better understanding of the relation between science, public (lack of) understanding, and policy instead.⁸⁴¹ Michael Oppenheimer confirms limitations of the IPCC consensus approach and asks for concurring smaller assessments of special problems instead of large-scale attempts as in the previous IPCC assessment reports. He claims that governments require a broader exploration of uncertainties in the future.⁸⁴²

In Maryland, Gov. Martin O’Malley took action by creating the Maryland Climate Change Commission, charging it with developing an action plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to explore ways to adapt to the changes ahead in the passage of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act in 2009 and the release of Maryland’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan in 2013. The act required the development of a plan to reduce Maryland’s greenhouse gas emissions 25% by 2020 while increasing jobs and economic development. Maryland has made important progress, reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 7% through such steps as regulating auto-emissions and carbon dioxide emissions from coal-burning power plants, setting energy efficiency standards, and facilitating offshore wind and other renewal energy sources. Maryland’s plan also is about better personal choices that we all can make, things like purchasing Energy Star appliances, riding public transit, carpooling, biking to work, or telecommuting President Barack Obama announced a national plan to limit the impacts of climate change last year (2011).⁸⁴³

EPA has the responsibility in the United States for maintaining and enforcing national standards under a variety of environmental laws, in consultation with state, tribal, and local governments. It delegates some permitting, monitoring, and enforcement responsibility to US states and the federally recognized tribes. EPA enforcement powers include fines, sanctions, and other measures. The agency also works with industries and all levels of government in a wide variety of voluntary pollution prevention programs and energy conservation efforts. In 2016, the agency had 15,376 full-time employees.⁸⁴⁴ More than half of EPA human resources are engineers, scientists, and environmental protection specialists; other groups include legal, public affairs, financial, and information technologists. For at least 10 years before National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was enacted,⁸⁴⁵ Congress debated issues that the act would ultimately address. The act was modeled on the Resources and Conservation Act of 1959, introduced by Senator James E. Murray in the 86th Congress.⁸⁴⁶ The EPA began regulating greenhouse gases (GHGs) from mobile and stationary sources of air pollution under the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the first time on January 2, 2011. In 1992 the EPA launched the Energy Star program, a voluntary program that fosters energy efficiency. EPA’s Smart Growth Program helps communities improve their development practices and get the type of development they want. EPA works with local, state, and national experts to discover and encourage development strategies that protect human health and the environment, create economic opportunities, and provide attractive and affordable neighborhoods for people of all income levels.⁸⁴⁷

The White House maintained direct control over the EPA, and its enforcements are subject to the political agenda of who is in power. Conflicting political powers ensue with Republicans and Democrats differing in their approaches to, and perceived concerns of environmental justice. While President Bill Clinton signed Executive Order 12898, the Bush administration did not develop a clear plan or establish goals for integrating environmental justice into everyday practices, which in turn affected the motivation for environmental enforcement.⁸⁴⁸ Responsibilities of the EPA are for preventing and detecting environmental crimes, informing the public of environmental enforcement, and setting and monitoring standards of air pollution, water pollution, and hazardous wastes and chemicals. While the EPA aids in preventing and identifying hazardous situations, it is hard to construct a specific mission statement given its wide range of responsibilities.⁸⁴⁹ It is impossible to address every environmental crime adequately or efficiently if there is no specific mission statement to refer to. The EPA answers to various groups, competes for resources, and confronts a wide array of harms to the environment. All of these present challenges, including a lack of resources, its self-policing policy, and a broadly defined legislation that creates too much discretion for EPA officers.⁸⁵⁰ Authority of the EPA under different circumstances faces many limitations to enforcing environmental justice. It does not have the authority or resources to address injustices without an increase in federal mandates requiring private industries to consider the environmental ramifications of their activities.⁸⁵¹

Political pressure and scientific integrity was expressed in April 2008 by the Union of Concerned Scientists’ statement that more than half of the nearly 1600 EPA staff scientists who responded online to a detailed questionnaire reported they had experienced incidents of political interference in their work. The survey included chemists, toxicologists, engineers, geologists, and experts in other fields of science. About 40% of the scientists reported that the interference had been more prevalent in the last 5 years than in previous years. The highest number of complaints came from scientists who were involved in determining the risks of cancer by chemicals used in food and other aspects of everyday life.⁸⁵² EPA research has also been suppressed by career managers.⁸⁵³ Supervisors at EPA’s National Center for Environmental Assessment required several paragraphs to be deleted from a peer-reviewed journal article about EPA’s integrated risk information system, which led two coauthors to have their names removed from the publication, and the corresponding author, Ching-Hung Hsu, to leave EPA “because of the draconian restrictions placed on publishing.”⁸⁵⁴ EPA subjects employees who author scientific papers to prior restraint, even if those papers are written on personal time.⁸⁵⁵ A $3 million mapping study on sea-level rise was suppressed by EPA management during both the Bush and Obama Administrations, and managers changed a key interagency report to reflect the removal of the maps.⁸⁵⁶ EPA employees have reported difficulty in conducting and reporting the results of studies on hydraulic fracturing due to industry and governmental pressure, and are concerned about the censorship of environmental reports. ⁸⁵⁷

The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, or Assembly Bill (AB) 32, is a California State Law that fights global warming by establishing a comprehensive program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from all sources throughout the state. AB 32 was authored by then-Assembly member Fran Pavley and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-Los Angeles) and signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on September 27, 2006. On June 1, 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger signed an executive order known as Executive Order S-3-05 ⁸⁵⁸ which established greenhouse gas emission targets for the state. The executive order required the state to reduce its greenhouse gas emission levels to 2000 levels by 2010, to 1990 levels by 2020, and to a level 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. However, to implement this measure, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) needed authority from the legislature. The California State Legislature passed the Global Warming Solutions Act to address this issue and gave the CARB authority to implement the program. AB 32 requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB or ARB) to develop regulations and market mechanisms to reduce California’s greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year of 2020, representing approximately a 30% reduction statewide,⁸⁵⁹ with mandatory caps beginning in 2012 for significant emissions sources. The bill also allows the Governor to suspend the emission caps for up to a year in case of emergency or significant economic harm. The State of California leads the nation in energy efficiency standards and plays a lead role in environmental protection but is also the 12th largest emitter of carbon worldwide.⁸⁶⁰ Greenhouse gas emissions are defined in the bill to include all of the following: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, and perfluorocarbons.⁸⁶¹ These are the same greenhouse gases listed in Annex A of the Kyoto Protocol.⁸⁶²

Cap-and-trade is a measure looked at by the global environmental community to restrict global warming. On December 17, 2010, ARB adopted a cap-and-trade program to place an upper limit on statewide greenhouse gas emissions. This is the first program of its kind on this scale in the United States, though in the northeastern United States, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) works on a similar principle. Through the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), California is working to link its cap-and-trade system to other states. In October 2013, California officially linked its cap-and-trade program with Quebec Ministry of Sustainable Development, Environment, Wildlife, and Parks. The program had a soft start in 2012, with the first required compliance period starting in 2013. Emissions are to be reduced by 2% each year through 2015 and 3% each year from 2015 to 2020. The rules apply first to utilities and large industrial plants and in 2015 will begin to be applied to fuel distributors as well, eventually totaling 360 businesses at 600 locations throughout the State of California. Free credits will be distributed to businesses to account for about 90% of overall emissions in their sector, but they must buy allowances (credits) at auction, to account for additional emissions. The auction format used will be single-round, sealed bid auction. A preliminary auction was held on August 30, 2012, with the first actual quarterly auction to take place on November 14, 2012.⁸⁶³

Economic impacts according to ARB, AB 32, are “generating jobs, promoting a growing, clean-energy economy and a healthy environment for California at the same time.” AB 32 supports efficiency-driven job growth; California gets more clean energy venture capital investment than all states combined. Green technologies produce new jobs faster with venture capital investment producing thousands of new jobs. Green jobs are growing faster than any other industry with California leading the nation in clean technology. California’s economic powerhouses support AB 32.⁸⁶⁴ AB 32 requires California to lower greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.⁸⁶⁵ Climate change will have a significant impact on the sustainability of water supplies in the coming decades.⁸⁶⁶ Political challenges ensued. The bill was challenged by Proposition 23 on the November 2010 ballot, which aimed to suspend AB 32 until state unemployment stayed below 5.5% for four consecutive quarters. The proposition was defeated by a wide margin. Legal challenges followed. Two lawsuits have been filed challenging the legality of ARB’s auctions of GHG emission permits.⁸⁶⁷ The petitioners contended that the auctions are not authorized under AB 32 and that the revenues generated by the auctions violate California’s Proposition 13 or Proposition 26. A hearing was conducted on both challenges on August 28, 2013, in Sacramento County Superior Court.⁸⁶⁸ AB 26 was initiated by Assembly woman Susan Bonilla, District of Concord, and it was heard in the Senate Environmental Quality Committee June 19, 2013. The bill was sponsored by the State Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO, and supported by California Teamsters Public Affairs Council and the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators Local 5. Briefly, the bill is about the labor unions who wants portion from cap-and-trade’s revenue to increasing wages for their workers, getting more jobs and increasing the number of union members that work in the industry that actually produce greenhouse gas emission. In this case, union labor will be fighting environmental groups supportive of AB 32 goals. The bill passed, 7-0.⁸⁶⁹ On November 12, 2013, the California Chamber of Commerce launched the first industry lawsuit against the auction portion of California’s cap-and-trade program on the basis that auctioning off allowances constitutes an unauthorized, unconstitutional tax. The complaint was filed for Sacramento Superior Court and seeks to stop the auction and have the auction regulations declared invalid. However, California Superior Court has rejected the challenges to the state’s cap-and-trade program, upholding a significant element of California’s suite of programs to comply with AB 32 and to reduce the state’s greenhouse gas emissions. ⁸⁷⁰

Adaptation: The effects of climate change are complex and far-reaching, and while the scope, severity, and pace of future climate change impacts are difficult to predict, it is clear that changes could have important effects on producers and on the ability of USDA to fulfill its core mission. Adaptation refers to the process of finding ways to prepare for and flexibly respond to changes in climate. USDA is developing a multipronged approach towards adaptation, including research, education, extension, risk management, and strategic planning. CCPO works across USDA to help ensure that climate change adaptation is integrated into USDA programs, policies, and operations. CCPO also provides data, tools, and information to assist land managers, stakeholders, and USDA agencies and mission areas with adaptation assessments, planning, and implementation.⁸⁷¹ Solutions to global warming in North America include reducing coal emissions, increasing the use of energy efficiency and renewable energy, greening transportation, and helping developing countries reduce deforestation. The North American region includes the United States and Canada, which rank number two and seven, in CO₂ emissions globally (using 2008 data). The United States and Canada also have very high per capita emissions.⁸⁷²

The United States is often noted as being the most significant contributor to historical emissions of global warming pollution. Most of these emissions occur when power plants burn coal or natural gas and when vehicles burn gasoline or diesel. The National Academy of Sciences released a series of reports (2010) emphasizing the urgency of climate change and why the United States should act now to reduce emissions of heat-trapping gases. “The longer the nation waits to begin reducing emissions, the harder and more expensive it will likely be to reach any given emissions target.” Analysis performed by the Union of Concerned Scientists has demonstrated that the United States can dramatically reduce its reliance on fossil fuels and nearly phase-out coal by 2030 while saving consumers and businesses money by investing primarily in energy efficiency and renewable energy. There are concrete actions that citizens, businesses, and policymakers can take to reduce global warming emissions. Experience has shown that government policies are critical to spurring and enabling global warming solutions, and individual actions alone will not solve the problem. While comprehensive climate and energy legislation has thus far failed to pass the United States Congress, there are a series of vital programs and strategies underway in the United States to reduce global warming emissions, such as elevating energy efficiency, promoting renewable energy, reducing coal emissions, greening transportation, and providing assistance to developing countries to reduce deforestation and switch to clean energy technologies.⁸⁷³

Energy efficiency is one of the goals to be achieved. Substantial scientific evidence indicates that an increase in the global average temperature of more than 2 °F above where we are today poses severe risks to natural systems and human health and well-being (see Fig. 5.150 for an idea of global CO₂ from various sources). To avoid this level of warming, the United States needs to reduce heat-trapping emissions by at least 80% below 2000 levels by 2050. Delay in taking such action will require much sharper cuts later, which would likely be more difficult and costly.⁸⁷⁴

Fig. 5.150

Picture of global CO₂ emissions from various sources. (Source: US Energy Information Administration, cited in http://www.climatehotmap.org/global-warming-solutions/north-america.html)

The United States has political connections and interests in the Pacific region. NOAA/NCEI’s Pacific Region Climate Services deliver tools and information to communities and businesses to reduce climate risk and improve resiliency. Located across a vast expanse of ocean, the Pacific Islands are exposed to changes in climate and weather that affect every aspect of life. Ocean and island ecosystems are changing with warming air and ocean temperatures, shifting rainfall patterns, changing frequencies and intensities of storms, decreasing base flow in streams, rising sea levels, and changing ocean chemistry. Together, these changes will make it increasingly difficult for many Pacific Islanders to sustain their unique communities and cultures. The recent activities in this regard in the Pacific Islands are shown in Figs. 5.151 and 5.152.

Fig. 5.151

The US-Affiliated Pacific Islands. (Source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/rcsd/pacific)

Fig. 5.152

The US-Affiliated Pacific Islands. (Source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/rcsd/pacific)

5.11 Public Perspective for Wind as an Energy and Power Generation Source

Printed media clippings are all assembled for the United States and global coverage of energy and power generation. Limitations, reservations, and possibilities to harness wind energy from a variety of sources; comparative environmental advantages of wind energy vis-a-vis other renewable and nonrenewable energy resources; economic incentives, governmental protections, and regulations for wind energy including UN and global efforts; climate path and climate change; technological advances and energy efficiency; other environmental issues and political pressure of wind energy; carbon footprint and pollution; impact of urban planning and building efficiency in power generation; and role of green power movement are covered. The coverage is grouped accordingly with titles, publication sources, actual dates, and article occurrence which authenticate the global interest in wind as against other energy resources.

5.11.1 Limitations, Reservations, and Possibilities to Harness Wind Energy from a Variety of Sources Around the Globe

• “France shows how EU is vexed in push for energy deregulation”; EU is urging its 27 member states to free up their power markets, by opening their retail electricity to market competition by July 1, 2007. French state-controlled power company Electricite de France (EDF) SA supplies 25 million French households with electric power generated from EDF’s nuclear power plant which covers 70% of France’s needs and costs less than €40/mw-hour to produce, compared with €50 to €60/mw-hr from gas- and coal-based power plants in Spain and Germany (by Anne-Sylvaine Chassany; Wall Street Journal, June 9, 2007; pg. A10).

• “China expects power-plant boost to curb black outs”; this article cites how the overburdened Chinese grid was plagued by black-outs which caused the Chinese to resort to small-sized generators that drove the world oil prices up. Chinese resorted to cheaper coal from oil-fired plants. China resorted to new pricing policy encouraging electricity usage to off-peak hours and to diversify its energy supply (an article by Shai Oster in Wall Street Journal, June 9, 2006; pg. 6).

• “China considers ways to boost energy ties with its suppliers”; consumption in 2009 was 7 mb/day, compared to 5 mb/day in 2002, an increase that exceeds that of combined 26 countries that the IEA advises on energy policy. Chinese government agency is calling for China’s closer cooperation with its energy-trading partners and greater opening of its energy sector and closer integration with world energy markets (by Shai Oster in Wall Street Journal, June 14, 2006; pg. A13).

• “Mumbai battles against blackouts”; this is a news analysis about “how chronic shortages of electricity are damaging many Indian industries’ ability to expand the economy” (by Joe Leahy; Financial Times, June 22, 2007, pg. 5).

• “Beijing pressed to raise power prices,” “Threat on further impact on inflation,” “Fears economy is at risk of overheating”; China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) and the leading Chinese refiners and power companies on one hand and the concern of inflation on the other hand are at loggerheads. Coal prices are rising rapidly and the power production is growing much faster; the five state monopoly power producers are seeking the government to raise prices to protect profit margin and to offset rising coal prices. Passing on the rise in crude oil prices to consumers would increase consumer price inflation (CPI) which was at 4.45% in June. Rise in inflation largely due to food prices, particularly pork and eggs, could overheat the economy. GDP growth was 11.9% in the second quarter. Thus, NDRC’s top concern was to prevent overheating of the economy in 2007 (report by Mure Dickie and Mail Anderlini in Beijing, Financial Times, July 26, 2007; pg. 2).

• “Inflation threat caps energy prices”; under pressure from power producers complaining about soaring coal prices, Chinese government agreed in 2005 and 2006 to pass on some of the prices on to the customers; now, however with coal prices soaring and due to the threat of inflation, the “pass-through policy” has not been enacted. The threat of inflation split the investment community who see this inflation as temporary phase due to scarcity of staple food items. The consumer price index for July is expected to exceed 44% recorded in June, 2007. Government admits that inflation could be short term due to scarcity of staple items and did not take any anti-inflationary measures that could impede economic development. However, the market and government underestimated the extent of inflation that impacted migrant workers in the manufacturing sector and thereon to service sector. Power producers, however, did not have the luxury to take any steps since they were bound by government regulations. Government under the threat of inflation took steps to keep power prices down (report by Richard McGregor in Beijing; Financial Times, August 10, 2007; pg. 3).

• “Power is key to raising the utilization of capacity” in North America, a continent which “leads the way in the cost of electricity” (by Bernard Simon; Financial Times, Oct. 9, 2007; pg. 2).

• “Dark Side of the Hunt for Energy,” “Beijing should start acting like a responsible superpower”; West considers deals that China made with unsavory regimes such as Sudan (with genocide history) and $2bn oil contract with Iran (with questionable nuclear program) are irresponsible and indiscriminate. China had been making imports from all over the world for last 14 years. So far this year China added 90gw of new electricity generation capacity this year, more than the entire generation capacity of UK grid; most of it is from coal-fired stations causing global warming (an editorial in Financial Times, December 12, 2007; pg. 10).

• The new research identifies areas with large-scale, high wind power in regions of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans such as “The Wind at Germany’s Back,” “Cutting-Edge Tech and Govt. Incentives have made it a world-beater in renewable energy” (by Jack Ewing; Business Week, Feb. 1, 2008).

• IEI News: Technology Update – “Satellites Aid Wind Farm Planning” – “Mapping from Outer Space Identifies the Best Spots in Which to Locate Offshore Wind Farms” (IEI News, Oct. 2008, pg. 3; source cited in Professional Engineering Volume 21, No. 13, July 2008).

• “Green energy tangled in web of shady deals – Sicilian projects – Italian investigators try to track Mafia attempts to move into mainstream business” (by Guy Dinmore; Financial Times, May 5, 2009; pg.4).

• “WAR CAN”; psychological and environmental damages that Poland incurred because of war have been expressed by Prof. Piotr Ktodkowski, Polish Ambassador to India, addressing students of Banaras University (Times News Network-Varanasi, Nov. 7, 2009; pg. 3).

• “Siemens to unveil Russian wind deal – electricity – joint venture to include two partners” by Daniel Schaffer, Frankfurt; Siemens that ranked sixth in worldwide wind energy production in 2009 trailing behind GE and Vestas of Denmark hopes to be by 2012 in the top 3 energy operators of global wind energy sector (Financial Times, July 14, 2010; pg. 15).

• “Thirst for Energy Drives Beijing’s Global Push”; China’s trying up to sew up energy resources of Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America has serious repercussions for the United States in addition to China taking a lead in advanced energy technology. China has signed major deals to extract or export oil, gas, uranium, coal, gas, and other key natural resources with Canada, Venezuela, Iraq, Australia, Turkmenistan, and South Africa. China outpaced Saudi Arabia as the largest buyer of crude. Chinese warships made a port call in Abu Dhabi, the oil-rich capital of United Arab Republic. China’s thirst for oil has increased Beijing’s influence in the Middle East and Africa, a serious concern for the United States. China is pushing for oil and gas contracts with Iran. China is the largest foreign player in Iraq. China completed a 1100-mile gas pipeline from its factories and power plants with vast gas reserves in Central Asia, in competition with Europe. China has become a major buyer of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Australia, Qatar, and Malaysia. China has taken major leads in advanced energy-efficient technologies – solar, advanced batteries for electric vehicles. China is now the largest exporter of solar panels and manufacture of wind turbines (report by Neil King Jr., Washington WSJ: July 20, 2010; pg. A12)

• “Wheat price raises fear of food crisis – crops markets – riots broke out in developing nations in 2007–2008 when commodity prices soared”; it is not a repetition of the 2007–2008 food crisis, yet the current wheat rally is fastest in 40 years and could soon transform into a full-blown price spiral, spiraling on to other crops. The 2007–2008 food crisis, the first in 3 decades, saw food prices rise from rice to corn whose surge caused even food riots in developing countries including Haiti and Bangladesh. Food prices surged to an all-time high of $13/bushel. Panic buying and export bans could fuel food prices and lead to a food crisis similar to 2007–2008 (by Javier Blas; Financial Times, Aug. 16, 2010; pg. 3).

5.11.2 Comparative Environmental Efforts of Renewable and Nonrenewable Energy Resources

• “EU maps out energy priorities, to slash reliance on Russian gas and stepped use of clean fuels. EU decided, with high oil prices, for a break-down of European energy sector cartels and swift adoption of low carbon technologies across 27-nation EU bloc” (Wall Street Journal, Brussels, Jan. 11, 2007; pg.14).

• “The race heats up to find renewable sources of power – but the country is unlikely to fulfill its EU quota”; the “meltemi,” a northerly wind that cools the Aegean islands and is a quintessential part of the Greek summer, is now exploited as a source of renewable energy. Greece has been allocated 20.1% of their share for renewables as energy source. It will add 770 mw of hydroelectricity over the next 2 years. State electric utility Public Power Corporation of Greece signed with Iberdrola of Spain for 1540 mw of wind capacity. That leaves another 4940 mw to be developed by private sector. As against all this wind capacity installed is 800 mw. To get the private sector, government is providing generous subsidies for building renewable energy plants in remote areas and special tariffs for providing power to the national grid; result has been for private Greek companies to team up with Electricite de France, Italy’s Enel, and Edison, Edesa, and Iberdrola to invest up to €5bn for 3750-mw generation capacity in wind parks. Cash grants covering up to 60% of investments are given for northeastern province of Thrace that gets north-easterly winds from the Black Sea all year round. Locally mined lignite although widely available is a heavy polluter with brown coal (report by Robert McDonald; Financial Times, July 13, 2007; pg. 6).

• “Role of Renewable Energy in Enhancing Energy Diversity and Security”; the Orissa State Center of the Institution of Engineers, India, after 2-day All-India Seminar on the topic “Portfolio-Based Electricity Generation Planning: The Role of Renewables in Enhancing Energy Diversity and Security” held August 11–12, 2007, noted that government should encourage production of biodiesel as an alternative of fossil fuel since the Jatropha could be harvested in wasteland and arid regions and emphasize on management, conservation, and efficiency in energy production and use (report in IEI News, Oct. 2007; pg. 2.)

• “A Seismic Shock”; as demand for OPEC oil is shifting from west, United States and Europe, to east, India and China, due to rapid growth, these countries are soaking up the world’s oil (by Carola Hoyos; Financial Times, March 29, 2010; pg. 1).

5.11.3 Climate Path, Climate Change, and Global Warming

• “Indonesia has been urged to ratify pollution deal. Indonesia is facing growing pressure from its neighbors for haze and smoke pollution due to brush fires to reclaim forest lands for palm oil. Indonesia is the only country that has not ratified Association of South East Asian Nation’s 10 members 2002 agreement. Malaysia and Singapore expressed anger at this annual event in the dry seasons caused by Indonesia to mitigate forest lands; Respiratory and health hazards and closing of Schools in Sumatra and Borneo are attendant problems. Biggest outbreak of haze occurred in 1997-78 costing local economies billions of dollars” (by John Burton, Singapore; Financial Times, Oct. 9, 2006).

• “Haze proves too much for some; The forest fires and burning of forest and farm lands, trees all the time cause the haze, to which are added toxic gas emissions, car pollution and garbage incinerators has reached an unbearable level in Bangkok. In spite of wearing masks, eye irritation, chronic headaches and breathing problems and poor visibility” (Chiang Mai, by Kultida Samabuddhi and Onnucha Hutasingh, reported in Bangkok Post, March 15, 2007; pg. 2).

• “Noise compensation bill to top B120 billion” (by Amornrat Mahitthirook, reported in Bangkok Post, March 15, 2007; pg. 2).

• “Economic cost of bad air” has China transformed in 25 years into a global powerhouse; far less is the environment; energy consumption outpaced GDP by 5%. In 2006 consumption grew less than GDP by 1.25%. Thus, finally China got control over energy consumption. However, pollution emission rose between 1.2% and 1.8%; in 2004 loss by pollution was equivalent to 3% of GDP in 2004 with 70% of rivers and lakes polluted (cited in The Straits Times, Singapore, March 19, 2007; pg. 32).

• “Hong Kong to review air quality goals; Hong Kong intends to review city’s guidelines on acceptable concentrations of air pollutants for the 1^st time since 1987. The particulate levels in Hong Kong are more than 3 times as high as guidelines of WHO” (Hong Kong; Wall Street Journal, July 6, 2007; pg. A8).

• “Climate change fought on Bali beach which is a successor to UN Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse emissions that expire by 2012 and preparatory to the 2009 Copenhagen conference” (by John Aglionby, Jakarta; Financial Times, Dec. 27, 2007; pg. 1).

• “Stop this practice of burn offs; the idea of declaring a full state of environmental emergency in the North makes good sense if the situation does not improve soon The haze that blankets Bangkok has been covering the 3 provinces for days; forest fires had been cause of smoke engulfing the three northern states. Level of dust particles measured by the Pollution Control Department is between 24–290 microgrammes per cubic meter. Use of artificial rain has been tried to mitigate smoke without success. Cause of this smoke is for plantation purposes, slash-and-burn the fields for the next planting season” (Bangkok Post, 2007; pg. 10).

• “Climate change threatens Europe’s energy resources” (by Tony Barber, Brussels; Financial Times, March 11, 2008; pg. 8).

• “Uganda Seeks to Reconcile Oil and Nature.” “Government Plans for Drilling in National Park Spark Worries that ‘Money Will Win over Animals’.” The battleground is Uganda’s biggest national park, Murchison Falls National Park (MFNP), pitting foreign energy companies (Tullow Oil PLC that found 2bn oil reserves); Uganda’s state-run National Management Authority, NEMA, (concerned with this home of giraffes, elephants, lions, and rare birds); and environmentalists and villagers who benefit from the $600 million per year tourism industry (report filed by Will Connors in Buliisa, Uganda, for Wall Street Journal, 4-19-10; pg. A13).

• “Scientists warn of carbon danger levels; The ‘carbon budget’ scientists in Oxford and Germany estimate is 1000bn tons of carbon as the ‘tipping point’ for global warming. Scientists predicate the limit of safety for climate change to avoid a 2 °C jump above preindustrial levels is burning of 25% of the world’s proven and economically recoverable fossil reserves between now and 2050” (by Fiona Harvey, London; Financial Times, April 30, 2009; pg. 4).

• “Where climate change hurts most – In Bangladesh, rural farmers suffer the consequences of emissions from afar” (by Anuj Chopra, Khajura, Bangladesh, US News & World Report, April 2009; pg. 52).

• House speaker Pelosi’s “Chinese Climate Change” which concerns about CO₂ emissions is considered as a shift of ruling Democratic Party’s emphasis from “human rights” to “environmental justice” (as noted in a Wall Street Journal editorial, June 1, 2009; pg. A18).

• “Self-interest must lead business to climate path; The US House of representatives in June approved 17% cut in the emissions by 2020 and set a course to reach 83% cut by 2050” (report by Timothy E. Worth; Financial Times, Sept. 21, 2009; pg. 3).

• It is an “industrial poison crisis,” “a concern for consumers of Chinese imports” (by Scott Clark, Cincinnati; Wall Street Journal, Oct. 12, 2009; pg. A19).

• The Indian press voices in “Climate Change: Worse than we than we thought” global warming countdown to Copenhagen with 37 days to go (New Delhi, Hindustan Times, Oct. 30, 2009; pg. 15).

• “Africa Leads Charge on Climate Change in Barcelona Deadlock”; the recalcitrant group of industrialized countries came under fire at Barcelona climate talks with African countries. Led by Gambia, the African Group demanded mitigation of carbon emissions by developed nations and their financial and technological support to developing countries. The G77 and African countries launched a strong media offensive for achieving their goals. Strong support came from India and China in addition to G77 and African countries for developed countries to come up with absolute numbers for achieving their commitments under Kyoto Protocol which are due to start in 2012 (by Nitin Sethi, Tamil Nadu News, New Delhi, 11/5/09; pg. 5).

• “China Acts to Raise Profile on Climate Change”; China is trying to strengthen its role as leader of the developing world in climate change because its performance in Copenhagen talks was tarnished by its role in those talks, as not supporting the cause of the poor and developing countries. Since the talks at Copenhagen did not produce a binding agreement between the industrialized nations led by the United States and China, developing nations blamed China. China hosted a global warming forum of country’s top leaders and ministers from key negotiating blocs of the developing world that included Brazil, South Africa, and India to discuss the climate change issues. The forum decided to have domestic target for the member countries. Beijing decided to send strong signals and messages to local governments about reaching energy-efficiency targets, to reduce energy intensity – amount of energy used to produce each dollar of GDP. Beijing said it would take extreme measures to cut back on energy waste. Such a measure backed by action would be useful; earlier this week Premier Wen Jiabao pledged to use an “iron-hand” to crack down on polluting industries and earmarked an extra $12bn to increase energy efficiency. Such a signal and message are urgent because China’s infrastructure and housing-led economic recovery increased the country’s energy intensity 3.2% in the first quarter compared with a year earlier, reversing a steady decline. China made a commitment to cut energy intensity by 20% by the end of this year, compatible to what China committed to the international community to reduce carbon emission per dollar of GDP – by 40% to 45% by 2020. Most of China’s energy comes from burning coal, a major source of carbon emissions. Until last year, China was doing well, lowering the use of energy by 14.4% (report by Shai Oster; Beijing; Wall Street Journal, May 8–9, 2010, pg. A10).

5.11.4 Carbon Pollution, Carbon Capture, Carbon Footprint, and Carbon Credits

• “Struggling to breathe,” with reference to metropolitan cities of China and other major polluting countries of the world in a report by Karen Wenman, March, 13, 2007; pg. 13 in Wall Street Journal.

Decennial progress of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel consumption (in billions of metric tons)
Major polluting countries cited in the report	1996	2006
China	6.02	2.94
United States	5.90	5.51
Russia	1.70	1.62
India	1.29	0.84
Japan	1.25	1.14
Germany	0.86	0.89
United Kingdom	0.59	0.59
France	0.42	0.39

• “Power Plant: In China, a Plan to Turn Rice into Carbon Credits.” Entrepreneurs around the globe are racing to feed a $30bn market for carbon credits that offer companies a way to comply with carbon emission reduction requirements, without actually cutting their own output of greenhouse gases. The market arose in the wake of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, in which most industrial countries except the United States agreed to a collective 5% reduction in their greenhouse gas emissions by 2012. In a typical transaction, an industrial company that is having trouble reducing emissions can buy credits from another company that has figured out a cost-efficient way to cut its own carbon output beyond what is required. Many early carbon-credit projects focused on curbing emissions at industrial facilities, including reducing methane emissions at landfills. Some entrepreneurs see huge potential in tapping into agriculture – no. 4 producer of global warming gas. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicated that agriculture contributed about 14% of global greenhouse gas emissions. This is smaller than emissions from energy use, forestry, and industry but larger than transportation. Much of the greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture come from nitrogen fertilizer. China is the biggest user of fertilizer and the world’s largest rice producer. So entrepreneurs are now in a quest to turn Chinese rice into carbon credits, but face big hurdles (a report by Paul Davis; WSJ, Oct. 9, 2007; pgs. A1, A15)

• “China gets tough on climate talks”; “Rich states urged to cut emissions 40%”; “Beijing demands help for reductions.” China argues that rich states with 0.5–1.0% annual economic growth should cut emissions by 40% which is the amount by which rich states are told to cut gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2010 and help pay for reduction schemes in poorer countries. Also demands by China are for certain rich nations to cut gas emissions to 80% by 2020. Rich countries contend that India, China, and other emerging economies should agree to absolute cuts in emissions in the medium term, before rich countries agree for finance packages. Rich nations want a commitment from poorer countries to curb emissions to certain levels and will not consider “business as usual” (a report by Jamil Anderlini in Beijing and Flora Harvey in London; May 22, 2009; pg. 2).

• “Many Dutch citizens are wary of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology that involves capturing green gas emissions from power plants, factories and other installations and burning them deep underground where they cannot rise into the atmosphere and contribute to global warming.” The Netherlands is not the only country that still opposes CCS; Berlin had disagreements about the sites CCS will be located (an article by Joshua Chaffin in Financial Times, July 28, 2009, pg. 2, and July 30, 2009, pg. 2).

• WSJ: “China Softens Stand on Emissions Cap position on global warming on what was a key impediment to negotiate a successor pact to the Kyoto Protocol on climate change in time for a planned December meeting in Copenhagen. USA and China were reaching a bilateral deal for gas emissions. China insisted that rich countries should curb emissions to 40% of the 1990 levels by 2020. In addition China wants technology and money for itself and developing nations to meet the low carbon emission levels in a smother time frame. The contention of US and western nations is that India and US are developing so fast that unless they agree to pollution levels for new factories the gains made will be obliterated” (reported by Shai Oster; Beijing; August 8, 2009; pg. A7).

• “Australian senate rules on lower carbon use, 20% of energy from renewables by 2020 and is a concession won for heavy users.” The target is an important jigsaw piece in the clean low-carbon solution. This legislation is supposed to spur investment in solar, wind, hydroelectric, and geothermal energy with A$20bn ($16bn, £10bn, €12bn) invested in more than 200 projects. It is expected that within 10 years these energy sources would supply the same amount of electricity as currently used by Australian households. Government will subsidize electricity costs of aluminum, paper, and silicon industries. In addition government will subsidize all industries if their renewable energy costs cross a certain point. Mandatory cut in emissions of 5% by 2020 with 2000 levels and a “conditional cut” of 25% of energy need to be met from renewable energy. Australia generates 80% of the power generation from coal making it the biggest per capita polluter in the developed world, accounting for 1.5% of the global greenhouse gas emissions. This legislation is supposed to be transitional since it will end in 2030, by which time the dependence on renewable energy will be established (an article by Peter Smith, Sydney; Financial Times, Aug. 21, 2009; pg. 6).

• “China and India hit back over climate change and demand that developed nations, whose industrialization they claim caused global warming, must help developing nations with the money and technology to fight it” (by Kathyrn Hills in Beijing and Amy Kazmin in New Delhi; Shanghai; Aug. 25, 2009; pg. 2).

• “Britain is urged to exploit potential of CO₂ capture. The United Kingdom could earn billions of pounds a year by selling deep sea space for storing CO₂ captured from power station emissions. Carbon capture storage (CCS) could be a big industry, the size of North Sea oil; it would be in the geological strata beneath the Scottish sector of the North Sea. According to an Edinburgh University study, North Sea storage could be 60bn tons, even as much as 150bn tons of CO₂; this CCS business could be £2bn–£4bn in value to the United Kingdom by 2030 and sustain 30,000 to 60,000 jobs. When pumped into the aquifer, the CO₂ displaces water and is absorbed in the sandstone. CO₂ movement can be monitored 1000 m below the seabed using seismic techniques. This has been demonstrated and tested for 10 years in a saline aquifer in the Norwegian North Sea, where naturally occurring CO₂ has been injected at million tons per year for the past 10 years. Although results are promising, more R&D is needed to ensure investor confidence for financing large-scale industrial CCS” (a report by Clive Cookson, Guildford; Financial Times, Sept. 9, 2009; pg. 4).

• “US Seeks China’s Support in Climate Fight; President Obama and Chinese President Hu pledged to reduce emissions.” The United States and China account for 40% of greenhouse gas emissions. Obama wanted to have agreements signed in the Copenhagen meeting on Dec. 12, 2009, and hoped the G20 meeting at Pittsburgh would address climate change (a report by Jonathan Weisman and Joe Lauria of United Nations; Wall Street Journal, Sept. 23, 2009; pg. A5).

• “China’s high price for emission cuts and Climate Change is the call for wealthy nations to share the cost. The cost of reducing China’s total greenhouse emissions will reach $438bn a year within 20 years, a figure which assumes China will reduce emissions and will increase the use renewable fuels. Beijing’s argument at Copenhagen December 2009 summit is that this is equivalent to 7.5% of estimated GDP in 2030. China’s contention is that international community has to pay for the emission controls since it is for “global public good.” China argued that developed economies should pay 0.5%–1.0% of their annual GDP to poorer countries. This would cost the Group of 8 countries $300bn (£185bn, €210bn) yearly. China’s emissions are expected to peak in 2050. China argues that it would be impossible to even achieve half of the 2050 emissions technologically. If China postpones its efforts, it would cost $284bn/year in 2030 and $508bn/year thereafter. A study indicated that 68 technologies are considered crucial for cutting emissions, for which China does not have intellectual property rights or even research capabilities to develop them as quickly as developed nations” (a report by Kathyrn Hills in Beijing and Fiona Harvey in London ; Shanghai, Sept 9, 2010; pg. 4).

5.11.5 Other Environmental Issues and Political Pressures

• “Piles of rubbish are a pungent addition to political woes threatening to bury Prodi’s support for the five month old Italian government policies. Across Naples and the grimy towns that sprawl around it, tons of uncollected rubbish is piled face-high with garbage accumulation as a sore point amongst other more serious social and economic policy initiatives” (by Tony Barber, Financial Times, Oct.12, 2006; pg. 3).

• “To stop dust bowl, Mongolia builds ‘Great Wall’ of trees.” The great “Gobi Desert” in Mongolia has last remaining nomads, camels, rare desert bear, camels with 2 humps, and barren land without shady trees; the land under “desertification” stretches 50,000 sq mls (size of NY state); it either has no trees at all or is slowly losing them. Recently 683 rivers have dried up. More than 2000 years back, China built the Great Wall to keep the nomadic Mongolians out. Today a 2000-mile stretch of zig-zagging line of pine trees, willows, oleasters, junipers, hawthorns, aspens, and other trees called the “Green Wall” that will take 30 years to complete at a cost of $150 m are planted. The Gobi Desert stretches from southern Mongolia to northern China, twice the size of Texas. It produces dust storms that can rip the car paint, moves eastward to Asia, and darkens the skies of China and Korea. In spring it dumped 300,000 tons of sand and grit on Beijing, burying cars, houses, and trees in a thick layer of sand. According to Chinese records, they frequent once in 7 years in the 1950s and once in 2 or 3 years in the 1970s, but now they are an annual feature. Gobi storms have even made their way to the west up to Utah in 2001 and as far as Kansas (a report by Patrick Barta, Dalanzadgad, Mongolia, for Wall Street Journal, Oct. 24, 2006; pg. A1).

• “Extreme weather norm across the globe, land temperatures at record high, over 500 killed by adverse conditions; UN World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has warned that global land temperatures are reaching their highest levels since records began in 1800. Global land surface temperatures in 2007 were 1.89 °C warmer than in January and 1.39 °C warmer than in April” (by Mark Turner, United Nations; Financial Times, Aug. 8, 2007, pg. 3).

• “Green leaves, black gold beneath a vast conifer forest in Canada lies the biggest proven oil reserve outside Saudi Arabia with crude close to $100 a barrel, what price the trees?” (by Sheila McNutty; Financial Times, December 15, 2007; pg.1).

• “The climate change” had skeptics such as Australian senator Steve Fielding, who is a symbol of a shift in the global warming debate, who do not subscribe to President Obama’s “cap-and-trade” program and wants the Australian Parliament to kill the global warming legislation. The Polish Academy of Sciences and Czech President Vaclav Klaus lead the skeptical lobby; they state that only 11% of population believes humans play a role. There are sections of the scientific community in Australia, Europe, and Japan and those even less reported by US media who fall into this category of “non-believers.” New Zealand’s new government suspended the week-old “cap-and-trade” program (a report by Kimberley A. Strassel in Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2008; pg. A13).

• “Japan firms warn on gas targets.” Determined to cut emissions to 25% from 1990 levels by 2020, Honda and Toyota are not happy about this. After 50 years of uninterrupted rule by outgoing Liberal Party, the incoming Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) is much more aggressive to cut emissions (reported by Yoshio Takahashi and Kazuhiro Shimamura, Tokyo; Wall Street Journal, Sept. 9, 2009; pg. A14).

• “Gas emissions targets can strengthen economies” is a “Letter to Editor” by Angel Gurria, Secretary General, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris, France. The letter is a prescriptive note regarding a call by ministers of France, Germany, and the United Kingdom for Europe to target lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 30% and steer private investment for a low-carbon future at least cost. This could generate €90bn revenue (equivalent to 1% of EU countries’ combined gross GDP in 2020) by carbon taxes or permit auctions via EU Emissions Trading System (ETS). Germany has used proceeds from auctioned permits under the ETS to finance climate change in developing countries. Core effort has to come from innovative power and investment of private sector to achieve GHG targets. Triple benefits can accrue: (a) keeping mitigation costs low, (b) cutting fiscal deficits via additional public revenues, and (c) cutting emissions (Financial Times, Aug. 2, 2010; pg. 6).

5.11.6 Impact of Urban Planning and Building Efficiency in Power Generation

• “Energy-efficient buildings – get in at the ground floor – Design-Eco concerns should be integral not an afterthought”; as much as 40% of the greenhouse gas emissions in the developed world come from buildings; items addressed are as follows: Energy Generation – Solar panels and mini-wind turbines are installed on the buildings’ roofs and windows to generate electricity from natural sources, while biomass and solar thermal boilers can provide heating and hot water. Heating/Cooling Technology – Most of the building energy goes to heating and cooling, so efficient boilers and air conditioners are a minimum requirement, so proper maintenance and keeping them efficient are a must. Water Conservation – Fixing leaks and installing sensors or sprays to monitor leaks and excessive flows are as important as installing porous pavements or water recycling units. Insulation – Energy Leakage in buildings can be costly, so insulation can be cost-effective, but improper and excessive insulation can cause development of molds. Roofing materials – Green roofs are a modern trend; a grass carpet on the roofs not only insulates buildings but also absorbs water and avoids flooding in addition to pleasant space for employees. Lighting – Energy-efficient lighting by sensors that turn off and on lighting will cut down energy costs. Glass technology – Thermal efficient glazing helps to keep heat in; electrochromic windows will darken in response to sunlight and keep heat out. Utilizing other heat sources – Computers and other electronic equipment generate heat unless vented properly. Existing buildings have too many “unsustainable elements,” with monstrous carbuncles due called out by architects. Keep buildings at optimum temperature gradients considering outside temperature, day and night, floor surface and underground; circulate air and provide fresh air ventilation; ducts in the ground can provide cool air (temperatures are 1° cooler for every 10 m underground). Human behavior and employee dressings can dictate building designs – why wear suits with summer heat and outside temperature at 35 °C? Rain caused by SO₂ emissions is also to be gauged; coal-burning power plants are to install de-sulfurization equipment; this resulted in reducing SO₂ emissions to 1.81% in the first 9 months of 2007 (a report by Tom Griggs; Financial Times, April 27, 2009; pg. 2).

• FT: energy efficiency – “Best step forward to cut carbon foot print – energy efficiency – Banks are seeing the light on reducing their consumption”; skylines of Wall Street and the city of London routinely leave their lights on through the night; data centers of financial institutions account for 40% of their energy bill. To achieve an energy-efficient data center, factors to be optimized are (a) server utilization, (b) hardware, (c) utilities, (d) infrastructure, and (e) building design itself. Deutsche Bank invested €200 m in Frankfurt’s “Green Towers,” Europe’s largest building renovation, reducing heating energy by 67%, electric power by 55%, water use by 74%, and CO₂ emissions by 89%. The Bank of America intends to invest $20bn over 10 years to address climate change and committed $5.9bn by 2009; it received for its first high-rise Bank of America Tower in Manhattan platinum rating by the US Green Building Council for the environmental design. HSBC has been carbon-neutral since 2005 and in 2009 emitted 991,000 tons of CO₂, 3.8% less than in 2008; its 10,000 buildings and 170 data centers accounted for 87% of the total. Merely turning off desktop computers when they go home brought a worldwide savings of 7.3 m kwh of electricity and 3.1 m kg of CO₂ emissions in 2009. In spite of all of the above, carbon reduction or switch to renewable sources is not a prime consideration for business including banking industry that matches in size the global aerospace industry (a report by Rod Newing; Financial Times, June 3, 2010; pg. 4).

5.11.7 Technological Advances and Energy Efficiency

• “China is to Ramp up Greenhouse Gas Efforts.” China is determined to devise a new model for industrial development that minimizes global warming; China doubles spending on R&D to reduce greenhouse gases. Government has allocated 4.6bn yuan ($602.7 m) for R&D in 2006 compared to 2.5bn yuan for the previous 5 years. China’s thinking is to avoid polluting and then cleaning up later; China is committed now to tackle global warming due to its vast population (by Shai Oster, Beijing; Wall Street Journal, July 15, 2007; pg. A8).

• “Light Out for Old Bulbs?”; “U.S. Plans a Switch to All Fluorescents for Efficiency’s Sake.” US Congress and Senate are working on legislation to weave, in the next 7 years, energy-efficient compact fluorescent bulbs in place of conventional incandescent light bulbs that were in vogue for the past 100 years. This will reduce man-made emissions and save energy since current light bulbs can convert only 5% of the electricity they use to visible light. They lose the rest as heat. Incandescent bulbs will disappear from US markets from 2012, with 100-watt bulbs going first, 75-watt bulbs going next, and 60- and 40-watt bulbs going by 2014; these will be replaced by compact fluorescent bulbs that can cut CO₂ emissions which might equal three-fourths of the reductions of the industrial nations promised under the Kyoto Protocol to curb global warming. EU, Canada, China, and Australia are following the cue from the United States in planning phase-outs; in 10–15 years incandescent bulbs will be removed from the global markets. The United States has 4bn electric bulbs equal to one-third of the world market and is switching to compact fluorescent bulbs. The long-term perspective is that compact fluorescent bulbs cost more to buy but less to use (a report filed by John J. Flaka and Katyhryn Kranhold; Wall Street Journal, Sept 13, 2007; pg. A8).

• “Power is key to raising the utilization of capacity and North American leads the way in the cost per unit of electricity” (by Bernard Simon, Financial Times, Oct. 9, 2007; pg. 2).

• “Turbine makers struggle to meet dynamic demand in a sector that grew by 20% in 2007. Wind turbines to generate electricity have grown by 25% in 2007 according to the World Wind Energy Association (WWEA). Growth rates will rise for wind capacity to reach 160GW by 2010. Wind turbine technology now has bigger turbines and a wider choice of offshore models about 11GW each. It accounts for 1% of electricity. India ended nearly 2GW last year to reach a total of 6GW by 2006. China’s wind market is the sixth largest in the world, behind Denmark. Most turbine manufacturers have a huge backlog due to record growth and demands of wind energy” (a report filed by Fiona Harvey in Financial Times, Nov. 9, 2007; pg. 11).

• “China Struggles on energy efficiency targets.” China’s target for energy intensity (defined as the pace of the fall in energy required to generate each unit of GDP) of fast-growing economies is to cut it by 20% over 5 years, and its environmental target is 10% emission reduction of selected pollutants between 2006 and 2010. China cut energy consumption per unit of GDP by 1.33% in 2006 far below the 4% goal; in the first 6 months of 2007, it fell by 2.78%. Slow progress has been attributed to local officials not geared to the goals, and Beijing made it clear that energy intensity is a “priority,” and officials will be judged by pollution levels and conservation results (as reported by Mure Dickie in Beijing; Nov. 30, 2007; pg. 4).

• “Community power developments on the Costa Blanca offer innovative energy saving devices.” Innovative, environmentally sound practices have been used in new home building development at Costa Blanca, Spain, built by a Spanish developer Joaquin Cuenca Franco for homes that cost no more than conventional buildings. Eco-features include dual building orientation that include cross-ventilation and maximizing year-round sunlight. Developer is installing geothermal heat pumps that use heat from the ground to heat the houses in winter and cool them in summer by discharging heat from the house to the ground. It is a process similar to that used in the fridge and it is a renewable source. The only energy it takes is the electricity to power the compressor, which will be gained from solar energy. Biofuels will be used to drive the motors (including site vehicles) and biodegradable cleaning products will be used with recycled paper, metal, and plastics and green waste composted and reused to benefit soils on site. Ethos is encouraged by Spain’s government and provides incentives for renewable energy. Wind accounts for 12% of Spain’s installed capacity, making Spain the second largest producer of wind power. Grants to the tune of €1bn have been given in direct subsidies for upgrading older energy-inefficient buildings. Government spends annually €2bn for existing homeowners to make their homes 35–60% more energy-efficient. The environmental imperative has filtered through to local communities as well. Grants to the tune of €1bn have been given in direct subsidies for upgrading older energy-inefficient buildings (a report by Gordon Miller, Financial Times, June 22, 2008; pg. 7).

• “SAVE ENERGY 2008,” a slogan of Energy Conservation mission (ECM), Institution of Engineers, India, Hyderabad, 2008, had a mission in India to provide (a) energy-saving cooking tips and (b) energy-saving lighting tips to save money (2008).

• “Stronger links would benefit gown and town.” University spin-outs much of the initial research and innovation in the environmental field takes place in academia. Many universities have established in-house enterprise companies to assist the commercialization of intellectual property (IP). University enterprise companies typically take care of (a) patent applications for inventors and (b) provide access to two types of funding to help academic ideas off the ground – (i) proof of concept funding that takes ideas to the stage of a working prototype and (ii) seed funds that are used to establish startups as businesses (by Jessica Milton who “examines some of the problems of bringing ideas from academia to market”; Financial Times, May 19, 2010; pg. 21).

• “Beijing denied energy use claim” “Watchdog’s estimate wrong, says officials; Identity of biggest consumer in dispute”; China had limited success in encouraging energy efficiency and in its efforts to ban electricity subsidies for industrial users. It hopes to reduce energy intensity, a measure of energy consumed per unit of GDP, by 20% by the end of the year based on 2005 levels. The People’s Bank of China directed Chinese banks to stop lending to energy-intensive industries (by Leslie Hook in Hong Kong and Carlos Hoyos in London ; Financial Times, July 21, 2010; pg. 2).

5.11.8 Role of Green Power Movement

• “Indonesian proposal: Pay us not to chop down our trees.” Papua governor touts carbon-credit fund which developers put on hold. Chinese and Indonesian companies have plans to spend billions of dollars on huge palm oil plantations, to feed demand for biodiesel. Governor wants Papua to be an active player in the world’s emerging carbon markets. Papua’s plea is that global investors should pay to not cut trees and burn pristine forests; Western environmentalists are concerned about global warming from forest fires; without funding Papua may need to hand over large tracts of forest lands to Malaysian and Chinese palm tree plantation companies (by Tom Wright in an article “Rain Forest Rescue. Papua, Indonesia”; pgs. A1 and A7, Wall Street Journal, Aug. 10, 2007).

• “Norwegian state fund is in 44bn green push investment companies with Oslo’s bid to tackle climate change. Indian clean energy groups also targeted.” With carbon markets worth more than $63bn, investment in clean energy in 2007 peaked to $150bn. A losing company can collect turkey, cow, and pig dung and burns and produces methane to generate electricity. This not only produces revenue but also carbon credits because methane is a greenhouse gas that is 21 times as potent as CO₂. A US company wants to “seed” the ocean with iron filings; iron is a key component for phytoplankton micro-organisms that “fix” CO₂ from the atmosphere and store the carbon in their exoskeletons. Seeding encourages plankton growth, with some eaten and large proportion sinking to the ocean floor sequestering carbon for thousands of years. 10,000 tons of iron could sequester 1bn tons of CO₂. Biofuels have come under criticism due to their sustainability; however, there are “second-generation” technologies to get around this. Generating biofuel from algae is one such method; the advantage is that algae are fast-growing and highly efficient in converting sunlight into energy, 30 times as productive as the current oilseed crops per acre, according to analysts of Energy France. CO₂ from power stations can be pumped into the ponds where the algae grow; the algae take CO₂ from the flue gases and use it to grow more quickly. Another area that has widespread applications in cutting emissions is nanotechnology. A nanoparticle is one billionth of a meter, and at the nanoscale materials behave differently than they do at the “bulk” scale. Nanotechnology offers a range environmental improvements in fields ranging from insulation, silicon-based photovoltaic cells, thin film solar panels, and carbon nanotubes, which are 100 times stronger than steel and one-sixth the weight of steel making it both lighter and stronger. Wind energy, even though the most mature of the renewable energies, also can incorporate some innovations in turbines. The United States and China have plans to produce wind turbines that use magnetic levitation (maglev) technology, which reduces friction allowing turbines to operate at lower wind speeds and cut costs (a report by James Lamont, New Delhi; Financial Times, Sept. 1, 2008; pg. 9; and “Innovative plans may be key to greener future” by Mike Scott; Financial Times, April 18, 2008; pg. 6).

• “New Delhi in overhaul of green regulation – Concern over natural resources, Global pressure to reduce emissions”; India is planning a radical overhaul of its environmental regulation to improve long neglected standards of compliance as the states scrambles to protect degraded natural resources. Ruling Congress Party intends to set up on the lines of US Environmental Protection Agency. Overburdened Indian judiciary is not able to handle environmental lawsuits and cases. “The Green Courts” that have Cabinet approval are going to seek Parliamentary approval aimed at resolving tangled environmental issues. Green Courts will have authority to address all issues concerning forestry and the environment; they would have civil powers allowing them to impose fines and jail sentences. Overstretched legal system is burdened with growing population and rapid urbanization, it being one of the world’s largest and fast-growing economies. Previously environmental clearances for approval of business projects and industries were given a “rubber stamp” approach, with few rejected on environmental grounds. The State of the Environment Report (2009), the first in 8 years, sounded a stark warning of the state of air pollution and water resources, with half of the land degraded (report by James Lamont, New Delhi; Financial Times, Aug. 13, 2009).

• “How to resolve the green paradox?” The chief goal of EU commission is to curb fossil energy consumption. Environmental policy has to shift from fossil fuel demand to its supply. The answer provided was for suppliers to leave more carbon underground! The two solutions are either refrain from extracting carbon or stuff it back underground after harvesting energy. It takes a third of energy to convert CO₂ from chimneys back into liquids; in addition it takes an enormous storage volume, as each carbon atom is joined by two oxygen atoms and these need to be stored. Carbon from anthracite coal occupies five times the space underground as the coal itself; in case of crude oil, three times the volume would be needed. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change argued that the earth’s coal, oil, and gas deposits and naturally occurring caves will offer room barely for 10% of the CO₂ that would be generated by all of the recoverable carbon resources. The beneficiary of EU policy is not climate change but rest of the world; Americans, Chinese, and all other environmental sinners have raised their fossil consumption. With oil prices at $70/b, extraction and exploration costs in the Gulf amount to $1–$1.50 for Gulf countries; even the Canadian tar stands at $15/b. What is required is not a marginally tinkering environmental policy but a hammer to cap down fossil consumption. The Emissions Trading System need to put a cap on worldwide fossil fuel consumption, with consequent reduction in extraction and fuel prices; any financial gains should be diverted from resource owner’s pockets to the national treasuries selling emission certificates and renewable energy such as encouragement of wind, etc. (report by Hans Werner Sinn; Financial Times, Aug. 27, 2009; pg. 7).

• “Turmoil in biofuels threatens green energy revolution.” Costs of oil dictated the need for biofuels, due to its soaring prices; business models of biofuel companies were predicated on much higher oil prices, with government subsidizing biofuel companies. With oil prices plummeting, government-guaranteed biofuel subsidies are in jeopardy; critics claim that government created the mess in the first place. In 2007 biofuels including ethanol received $3.25bn in subsidies and support, more than for nuclear, solar, or any other energy source, according to the Energy Information Administration. The case against biofuels is that if the entire US supply of vegetable oils and animal fats were diverted to biofuel industry, it would still amount to 7% of US diesel demand. US biodiesel industry tends to lose 29,000 jobs in 2009 alone. When oil prices soared and hovered around $120/b and traditional diesel was at $4/gallon, biodiesel from animal fat was $1.25/gallon. However this was not sustainable since the price of animal fat soared, cutting into the profit margins of biodiesels. EU made a final blow on biofuels when it slapped a tariff on US biodiesel, killing what was the industry’s main sales outlet (reported in Wall Street Journal, Aug. 27, 2009; pg. A12).

• “Green eatery finds a niche in the world’s energy capital” (by Shiela McNulty; Financial Times, Sept. 6, 2009; pg. 8).

• “Vattenfall’s new head faces green challenge,” based on an interview with the utility’s chief who has to reconcile environmental and political pressures. Vattenfall produces almost nil “greenhouse gases” in Sweden, with most of its electricity in Sweden coming from hydro and nuclear except in Germany and Poland; 51% is from coal. Vattenfall is committed to eliminate all greenhouse gases by 2050, irrespective of the Copenhagen talks. Vattenfall’s 50% of revenue is from Germany and Poland, a quarter from the Nordic region, and the rest from the United Kingdom, Belgium, and the Netherlands. In association with Iberdrola of Spain, Vattenfall is to build an offshore wind farm in the east coast of the United Kingdom. Vattenfall is stepping up investment in wind and biomass energy. Vattenfall intends to replace 40% of its hard coal usage with biomass such as wood chips (a report by Andrew Ward; Financial Times, April 14, 2010; pg. 18).

• “Europe’s green energy movement heads out to sea.” Britain is making the biggest wager in wind power generation and is following the commitment of the EU to achieve 30% target by renewable sources by 2020, although it is only 7% now. In view of the large financial outlay, there is talk to even abandon the target. Irrespectively the United Kingdom awarded huge contracts to fund nine enormous wind farms stretching from Scotland’s Moray Firth to the Isle of Wight in southern England. By the end of the decade, Europe envisages 6000 huge turbines from United Kingdom’s efforts to meet 30% of its electricity needs. This is a boost for global turbine business. GE will invest $150 m on a turbine plant, Mitsubishi will invest $154 m on turbine development in the United Kingdom, and Clipper will have a turbine blade plant near Newcastle. Sweden’s Vattenfall has a $1.2bn wind farm plant in Thanet off the coast of Kent which is in shallow waters. Most of the other projects are in turbulent waters of the North Sea with 30′ high waves of 60 mph in 90′ deep waters 180 miles offshore. The challenge is in hauling the huge equipment and procurement of ships large enough to do the job; this will become even more difficult with 10-mw turbines being commissioned for the tasks. Clipper is developing skyscraper-sized blades with a price tag of wind farms at sea being 3× times cost of onshore wind farms. Offshore wind farms are the most expensive approaches to reduce CO₂ emissions. Replacing 4–5 GW of coal with gas CO₂ would be similar, and cost would be about £5bn to £7bn, whereas with offshore wind farms it would cost £100bn. However, on the positive side, long-run costs to operate are much economical, and with coal expected to last 5 years, wind is there forever. The United Kingdom has territorial waters greater than any EU country with gusty winds. The United Kingdom provides lavish subsidies; for each MWhr of electricity from green energy source a company produces, it gets 1 Renewable Obligation Certificate (ROC) that power producers can sell to electric utilities, and this is mandated by government for use of renewable power. Utilities pass much of the cost to customers, adding an average $18 to the household’s annual electricity bill. Operator of a single offshore turbine producing 9000 MWhrs a year can earn $1 m selling ROCs because offshore gets 1.5 ROCs per MWh instead of one; by 2010 they are expected to get 2 ROCs. In EU there is no land to put up wind farms of 100–200 turbines such as in the United States and Canada. There are problems associated with wind farm turbines; Thanet had to shift turbines attacked by marine worm called Sabellaria spinulosa. Herring that spawns in Thames estuary is scared off by turbine noise. Avoiding shipwrecks on the seabed to route underwater deep sea cables is another problem. Renting costs of $450,000 per day had to be incurred by Vattenfall for the state-of-the-art heavy-lift ships, under construction in South Korean ship yards. Owners of a Dutch wind farm reported last year that turbines shifted a few inches, as a result of design flaw in connecting the towers to their foundations (a report in Wall Street Journal, April 21, 2010; pg. A16).

• “Palm oil firm rebuts Greenpeace claim”; Indonesian palm oil company PT Sinar Mas Agro Resources & Technology (SMART) was involved in clearing land and draining of peat land for palm tree plantations used in palm oil production. Greenpeace alleged that this was done illegally and destroyed orangutan habitat as, due to deforestation, immense rainforest land was cleared. All this was done by burning existing forest trees. SMART claimed cleared “peat land” is part of water management and “deforestation” for developing degraded land (a report by Shie Lynn in Kuala Lumpur and Andreas Isama in Jakarta for Wall Street Journal, Aug. 11, 2010; pg. B8).

5.11.9 Economical Incentives, Governmental Protections, and Regulations for Wind Energy

• “China ‘no threat to Global Energy Security’,” “It met 90% of its own needs in past 30 years, says top official” China is self-reliant in its energy needs; China met 90% of its energy needs in the past 30 years. China is the world’s fourth largest economy which has been criticized for its growing appetite for energy imports, partly responsible for a hike in global oil prices. China’s oil imports rose 3.5% to a record 13.7 m tons in January 2007; IEA stated that China has to import 77% of its energy supplies by 2030. On a per capita basis, China used 242 kg of oil in 2005, whereas global average is 590 kg and the United States used 3 tons and United Kingdom 1.9 tons in January 2007. China is slated to invest heavily on hydroelectric and wind power to achieve balanced self-sufficiency. China has set targets for 2010 to cut energy consumption by 20% and the emission of harmful pollutants by 10%; however China failed to meet 2006 goals by 4% amount of energy required to generate each unit of GDP growth and succeeded only to achieve 1.23% (a report on China by Vince Chong in Beijing for The Straits Times, March 8, 2007; pg. 15).

• “Energy Education Park in Vijayawada” (reported by K. N. Murali Sankar, Vijayawada, Hindu, April 7, 2007; pg. 5).

• “Drive on Biofuels risks price surge, OPEC chief warns cost could go ‘through roof’; Cartel considers cut in production investment, OPEC controls 40% of the global oil production. This is in response to US and EU calling for increased use of Biofuels for combating global warming and strengthening energy security” (by Javier Blas and Ed Crooks, London; Financial Times, July 10, 2007; pg. 1).

• Commenting on China Power “Long march to modernization begins,” “Coal fired plants labeled inefficient,” “Beijing increases pollution controls.” This is an example how outmoded power plants are slowly being modernized or let to close down; The Fengzhen power plant is located on the border of Inner Mongolia, just west of Beijing (by Richard McGregor in Beijing; August 10, 2007; pg. 3).

• “Calderon faces a challenging year ahead with energy reform as one among many pressing issues.” Mexico’s three political parties, Democratic Revolution Party (PRD) which is the second biggest force in Congress, President Calderon’s ruling National Action Party (PAN), and Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) which is the third biggest party in Congress, were knit with political wrangles. President Calderon addressed the nation on the energy reform, which is not a favorite political party topic. Oil revenue provides 40% of government income (reported by Adam Thomas for Financial Times, Dec. 12, 2007; pg.2).

• “EU targets helping to drive growth and development with regulation companies and investors can be confident of solid returns”; climate change will be one of the biggest investment themes for the foreseeable future; regulation has been one of the key drivers of environmental markets. Many of these markets would not exist without regulation, because historically, since the Industrial Revolution, companies could pollute freely. Legislation to curb pollutants such as smoke particles, mercury, lead, and sulfur led to the abatement technologies; CO₂, the chief greenhouse gas contributing to climate change, is on a different footing. This will require a wholesale shift to a “low-carbon economy,” diverting resources from rampant fossil fuel consumption to alternative fuels. The scale of the problem is apparent from EU targets; the sheer size of the problem is “irreversible.” Regulation in the short run is unclear due to volatility in these markets depending upon how the regulation is applied. The United States that spurned Kyoto protocol is taking part in these discussions (reported by Fiona Harvey for Financial Times, Feb. 4, 2008; pg. 21).

• “India finds cheap energy may be an easy nut to crack”; “The government and individual states are experimenting with bio-fuel producing Jatropha plants that do not use up arable land”; Chhattisgarh’s 40 official vehicles are run on oil from the Jatropha plants. This can be an alternative energy source for solar, wind, small hydroelectric, and biomass and industrial waste. India’s Ministry of Rural Development has proposed spending $375 m over 5 years to plant 1.2 m acres of Jatropha across India. Chhattisgarh state hopes to generate 1000 mw or one-third of the state’s generating capacity from alternative energy sources. The state has planted 160,000 hectares with Jatropha plant. By 2012 yield could be 2 m tons/year of biodiesel. With $100,000 funding from the Indian government and British High Commission, four generators have been powered by Jatropha oil along with machines used to crush seeds and filter the raw oil. 250,000 Jatropha saplings have been planted on road side, rail lines, bunds, and strips of lands that separate farmer’s fields. 110 homes in Village Ranidhera, 4-h drive from Raipur, are electrified by Jatropha oil. Villagers pay $1 a month for two lights, comparable to the cost of a month’s kerosene oil. 4kgm of Jatropha give a liter of oil. State and central governments set aside an annual budget of $20 m for Jatropha plantations. Chhattisgarh allocated $85,000 plant to produce 1000 liters of biodiesel a day. Other countries such as Madagascar, South Africa, Ghana, and Brazil are experimenting with Jatropha projects although commercialization has not been achieved (reported by Amy Yee, Financial Times, March 10, 2008; pg.8).

• “Solar Pollution”; solar is supposed to be clean; on the other hand the combined capacity of 20 companies in China is producing polysilicon, an essential component of sunlight-capturing waters. The combined capacity of these plants is 80,000 to 100,000 tons; more than the 40,000 have been produced worldwide. Very few of the facilities have installed expensive equipment required to recycle the polluting by-products. Instead they are simply dumping the mess, which contains high concentrations of chlorine and hydrochloric acid, in empty fields or stockpiling it in drums (Washington Post; March 24, 2008; pg. 8).

• “India needs to triple energy capacity to meet demand”; India needs to add the equivalent of half the electricity-generating capacity of the United Kingdom each year or about 30 GW if India is to maintain its present rapid rate of economic growth. Yet India’s growth has been only 4GW of fresh capacity a year, a fraction of what is required if the economy is to expand at 8% a year. India will need power generation capacity up to 440 GW by 2017 or triple its existing capacity or about one-third more than most projections. India will require $600bn (€386bn, £304.8bn) in investment over 10 years or half of the present GDP, much of which will come from the private sector. The flipside is using the shortage as an opportunity. Based on a return of 15%, $600bn in investment would generate annual profits of $100bn – huge opportunity for the government and the private sector if they can get the formula right. A study by McKinsey & Co. suggests remedies for what it takes to build a power plant in India as it requires several permits (in India power plant developers need eight different central government ministry authorizations), land issues, equipment manufacturing, and bottlenecks in construction and fuel supply (by Joe Leahy, Mumbai; Financial Times, June 4, 2008; pg. 3).

• “Fuel Costs push India’s inflation to record high”; against the “comfort level inflation” rate of 5.5%, the inflation rate hit 11.05% in June 2008, a 13-year high, mostly due to 10% increase in retail fuel gas prices accounting for 3% of GDP. Social implications leading to political ramifications were many. Likewise, China had increased retail fuel prices in April by 18% and jet fuel by 25% contributing to inflation that hit 7.7%, a 12-year high. Similarly, Singapore inflation hit 7.7% against last year’s high of 7.5%, biggest since March 1982 (a report filed by Joe Leahy in Mumbai for Financial Times, June 22, 2008; pg. 3).

• “A land of wind and sun, ‘but no proper rules’”; Italy and Sicily are infested with Mafia infiltrating into windmill business plus labyrinthine bureaucracy and lack of transparency are serious problems narrated and reported in this article. Under Italian Law, project proposals for wind farm licenses should be responded in 180 days, but it has taken 4 years without end in sight. These delays mean increase in investment costs. More immediate problem is the regional government’s freeze on wind farms. Moncada Energy Group is the largest local Costa Nostra island company in windmill farms, up to 100 MW, challenging the multinational companies such as Enel of Italy, Eon of Germany, and International Power of the United Kingdom (a report by Guy Dinmore, Agrigento, Sicily in Financial Times, May 5, 2009, pg. 4).

• “Green bonus for saving forests; India’s central government will give the Himalayan States from Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) to Sikkim in the North East a ‘Green Bonus’ that can be regarded as ‘carbon sinks’; forests that cover 25% of land area could absorb 11% of India’s greenhouse carbon emissions. This ‘Green Bonus’ would help cash remissions from the rich countries by the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) at the Copenhagen climate change conference in December 2009 for conserving forests. CDM enables developing countries to be funded for offsetting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through use of cleaner techniques. Indian government intends to extend this to Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, J&K, Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim. The 13th Finance Commission will decide the amount of ‘Green Bonus’” (by Archana Phull, Shimla, Wall Street Journal, Nov.1, 2009, pg. 7).

• “Climate Change: How India Hopes to Lead the World”; with ambitious plans, India is leading the way to pare domestic emissions. India is pursuing methods to incentivize companies to save energy; India ranks fourth in the world in terms of emission volumes. India is targeting 714 of the country’s most energy-intensive industries in 9 sectors of economy, aiming to reduce energy per unit of product, especially to cement and steel industries. India is targeting energy efficiency. India claims that it will have national energy efficiency certificates of 1-year tenure, after Parliament passes the energy bill; these carbon credits can be traded at a physical exchange or online. Government has identified 127 research institutes to monitor climate changes in India (a report by Samir Halamkar, New Delhi, Hindustan Times, Nov.7, 2009; pgs. 1 & 9).

• “Thailand tightens environmental regulation; Bangkok pushes for tougher oversight after years of industrial expansion, sparing some investors to consider relocation” (by James Hookway and Wilawan Watcharasakwet, Map Ta Phut, Thailand; Wall Street Journal, March 5, 2010; pg. A15).

• “Asian funds to take stakes in Chesapeake energy”; the Sovereign Wealth Funds of China and South Korea have $900 m investment in the United States for producing natural gas (NG) from shale rock. Korea Investment Corporation (KIC) and China Investment Corporation (CIC) are negotiating to acquire convertible preferred stock in NY-listed Chesapeake Energy. KIC and CIC are each expected to acquire $800 m of the stock with the remainder by others; gas is 30% less carbon intensive than oil and 50% less than coal (a report by Sundeep Tucker, Hong Kong; Financial Times, May 20, 2010; pg. 17).

• “China brings fresh source of domestic supply onstream with big investments in unconventional gas.” China has taken several measures to satisfy its boundless energy needs. Investments were made overseas for exploration and energy supply deals, in addition to China’s domestic reserves for solving the energy dilemma. In addition to nuclear energy, solar and wind energy options are taken up seriously. China manufactures the biggest solar panels and wind turbines. China gravitated to sizable investments in unconventional gas sources, particularly coalbed methane, where natural gas is extracted from coalbeds and shale gas. China has been developing methane for at least a decade and has proven reserves of coalbed methane of 170bn cubic meters, third largest in the world. In 2008 China offered a string of tax incentives and reduced tariffs on several crucial components which made PetroChina to become the biggest company in the field. China targeted 40 m cu meters of coalbed methane by 2020. China also targeted 450,000bn cu m of its domestic shale gas deposits which is more than Russia’s proven reserves in 2009. China has bid for $3.2bn Australian company’s coal seam gas (a report by Geoff Dyer, Beijing, Financial Times, May 26, 2010; pg. 3).

• “States aim to cut carbon footprints and increase jobs; government help is needed; Why are funds pouring into green technology?” Government funding can make all the difference for green technology pioneers. EU earmarked €1.8bn for environmental research projects. The United States earmarked under President Obama’s pledge to invest $150bn over 10 years for clean energy allocated $80bn; US companies enjoy larger stimulus packages; for example, $2bn has been awarded solely to develop the next generation of batteries and solid state lighting. China’s green technology spending is soaring and reached $34.6bn in 2009 as against $2.5bn 5 years ago. The United Kingdom has spent £22 m for marine energy that is a part of £80 m budget for green technology announced in 2009. Even small amounts can be crucial for startup clean energy companies; where £500,000 to £1 m are required, companies often form consortia to share administrative costs. Germany, the Netherlands, and Ireland likewise give good government grants (a report by Jane Bird, Financial Times, June 4, 2010; pg. 3).

• “Specialist funds are keen to invest in clean technology” “in Private Equity ‘investment by funds is steadily increasing’”; there are structural drivers of growth which are separate from the economy in general. Private equity bosses were dubbed a few years ago as masters for their ability to acquire any company however large in the debt-fueled leverage buyout bubble. Now the credit crisis has shattered this superhuman image even though a few equity bosses are there to invest in the hottest areas of economy – “clean technology.” Structural drivers of growth, such as regulatory limits on landfill in Europe, are driving demand for resource-efficiency products and services such as “recycling and clean energy.” Financial crisis has taken some froth out of clean energy tech. To make up this shortage from financial institutions, specialist funds are taking care of the demand. Venture capital protects intellectual property in the form of patents or proprietary industrial know-how that increases the value of the company for investors. Global venture capital investment in clean tech reached $773.5 m in the third quarter of 2010, an 87% rise from previous quarter and more than treble a year ago. However, in 2008 77 clean tech funds raised $26.9bn sharply down from 104 funds that raised $48.5bn in 2008 (by Martin Arnold, Financial Times, June 4, 2010; pg. 3).

• “Technology takes a lead in cutting carbon in the environment in which IT bosses have a crucial role to play” (by Jessica Twentyman; Financial Times, June 4, 2010; pg. 21).

• “A carbon give away Europe cannot afford is similar to Greece bailout in many ways; both debts had been built over a long period during which time policy is dominated by lobbying and short term political expediency until a day of reckoning. European council sets a price on carbon and gives away tens of billions of euros in free emission allowances to companies operating under the European Union’s emissions trading system. Result is a big profit for the most energy intensive sectors at the expense of the rest of the EU business. Economists had pointed out granting free emission allowances could generate windfall profits, because carbon price may still be passed on and added to the product price. However, energy intensive industries – cement, aluminum and steel – tend to move abroad to avoid carbon costs. As a result of intense lobbying by these polluting industries, there is a move to give these energy intensive industries free emission allowances until at least 2020 and may be years beyond. With free emissions to these industries other industries have to compensate by additional carbon cuts, which increases the carbon price” (report by Michael Grubb and Susanne Droege; Financial Times, June 15, 2010; pg. 9).

• “Reliance Lays out its Plan for Energy Diversification.” Reliance brothers split and Mukesh Ambani, world’s richest man, will continue to invest in the development of shale gas in North America. Mukesh retained interests of Reliance Industries in oil, gas and petro-chemicals, textiles, and retail. Reliance will hold full range of business, including development of shale gas in North America. Younger brother Anil Ambani retained control over tele-communications, power, and financial services (a report by Raghavendra Upadhyaya, Santanu Choudhury, and Ankur Relia, Mumbai, Wall Street Journal, June 21, 2010; pg. B5).

• “China’s energy giants are more image-conscious-and less successful – than many people think”, writes Mathew Green; China’s energy giants marching across Africa have made them image-conscious; grabbing huge oil reserves and shoving aside established majors with the help of bottomless funding from Beijing have given rise to human rights groups screaming about China’s involvement in Sudan. To keep the economic boom and engines running, it is eager to target Africa for oil wealth. Cnooc paid $2.7bn for lucrative Nigerian crude. Sinopec gained a 50% stake in the BP-operated Greater Plutonio project. However, facts provide a different story – Chinese oil companies produced 267,000 barrels of oil equivalent/day in Africa in 2005, which is one-third of what ExxonMobil, the largest foreign producer, generated (Financial Times, Jan 24, 2008; pg. 6.).

• “Light shone on energy savings – MBA interns are helping companies make substantial financial savings by identifying efficiency gains”; using MBAs to coop with establishments is yet another unique idea, adopted by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), a New York-based nonprofit organization that launched Climate Corp. internship programs in 2008. Assessing the potential for energy efficiency gains in lighting systems is among the challenges that EDF interns face. Walmart gained considerable financial gains by this program; McDonald’s Chicago offices used Duke’s MBA interns; Target at Minneapolis used University of Michigan’s MBAs. This turns out to be a business problem for finding environmental solutions and benefits. Collectively 2008 and 2009 fellows identified $90 m in energy savings, cutting an equivalent of 280 m kw hrs of energy use annually; this is enough to light 240,000 homes and eliminates 157,000 metric tons of greenhouse emissions. Reducing the intensity of cooling by a fraction could save $1.8 m a year without hurting the IT equipment (by Sarah Murray in Financial Times, June 28, 2010; pg. 9).

• “China Improves Energy Record”; China’s energy efficiency was questionable; China’s consumption of electricity relative to economic output increased by 0.09% for the first half of the year from the previous year; but this pace was slower than 3.2% increase China reported for the first quarter. China’s energy efficiency improved in the second quarter of the year; China committed to cut the amount of carbon emissions per dollar by 40%–45% by 2020 compared with 2005 levels; China surpassed the United States in carbon emissions in 2007 and in 2009. Government pledged to reduce emissions by 20% from 2005 levels to 2010; government reported that by 2009 energy use was reduced by 16% relative to economic output. The economic stimulus package caused an infrastructure construction and housing boom, which caused energy consumption by less efficient sectors; heavy industry accounted for 56% of energy consumption and only 28% of GDP. Based on poor performance of the first quarter, government took an “iron-hand” attitude and shut down dozen industries including steel, cement, leather, and even food additive monosodium glutamate; economic growth slowed down to 10.3% in the second quarter from a year earlier, down from 11.9% in the first quarter (by Shai Oster; Wall Street Journal, August 4, 2010; pg. A11).

• “China to clamp down on energy use” “Closure of outdated factories planned; Beijing determined to meet targets”; China’s seriousness to reduce in 5 years energy intensity – a measure of energy consumed per unit of GDP – by 20% by the end of 2010 is evident; this could reduce industrial production growth by 1.5%: China’s policy statements to clamp down on heavy industry that accounts for more than half of the country’s energy demand. China intends to promote energy conservation in energy-intensive industries, targeting 18 industries including steel and cement. China’s growth could slow down during the second half as government rushes to meet its demand; previous attempts to reduce energy consumption were thrown off course by $586 (€456bn, £374bn) stimulus package launched in 2008. This stimulus and easy credit fueled construction and drove up demands for energy-intensive products such as steel and cement that boosted heavy industry; as a result China’s energy intensity worsened in the first quarter. At the end of 2009, China reduced its energy intensity by 15.6% from 2005 levels. In 2009, during the first quarter, energy intensity increased by 3.2% (by Leslei Hook in Beijing; FT: August 10, 2010; pg. 4).

5.12 Conclusion

In the preceding pages , the global warming, consequent climate change, and environmental impact on each of the World Bank regions were addressed with special reference to countries and geographic entities of importance. The following diagram subsumes the coverage.

When we talk about environment, we need to ask this question: Can this planet sustain the environmental resilience of the human activity not only in the immediate future but also in the distant future – earth’s sustainability for the current and next generation? In fact the question should address up to the end of this century. Based on a review of historical records of human activity during the last 100 years, given the demographics, urbanization, land utilization, economic growth, and industrial activity, we will be answerable as to how we can sustain the environment up to the end of this century (see Fig. 5.153).

Fig. 5.153

Driving forces for global environmental changes. (Picture of globe (Source: https://pixabay.com/en/globe-world-map-earth-32299/))

Economists, governance bodies, and scientists have answered just that question by way of enumerating four scenarios RCP 2.6, 4.5, 6.0, and 8.5 as discussed in Sect. 5.1 followed by the role of wind energy in Sect. 5.2. Contribution of wind energy is not to annul whatever environmental woes had been created in the past nor even to rectify whatever industrial activity is accruing now but to provide a sort of environmental warranty if renewable energy including wind power is resorted for a major quantum of energy being produced. This way the use of fossil power can eventually be reduced or even eased out!

The discussions in Sects. 5.3 through 5.11 elaborately cover several countries in each of the World Bank region’s role in global warming causing climate change and environmental degradation. While developed countries are blamed for not adhering to the norms of the Kyoto Protocol, developing countries in their urge to catch up for the lost time are blamed for gushing the pollutants into the world scene. Underdeveloped countries due to lack of legislative authority do not adhere to regulatory control for reducing the carbon pollutants. Thus, irrespective of the cause, the net outcome seems to be relatively same. Figure 5.154 depicts a schematic outline of the countries subjected to environmental pollution and the pattern for handling it.

Fig. 5.154

A schematic of items and discussions covered in this chapter relating to environment

Thus, the route to tackle the environmental problem is not easy and is even circuitous; the only possible path seems to be disintegrating, at the power generation source, into renewables and nonrenewables. Renewables including wind power have the capability to disengage themselves from carbon-related environmental issues. The discussion contained in the country profiles elaborates the extent of carbon-related environmental issues by the use of fossil energy, and as shown in the previous chapter, wherever wind energy is available if it is used, they can minimize or even eliminate the carbon-related environmental issues .