Read the articles “The Heat is on”, “An
inconvenient messenger”. Answer the questions:
a) What ideas and facts presented by Al Gore in his film are echoed in the
articles?
b)
What is the stance taken by the US
federal government, state governments, energy companies, mainstream Americans
on the issue of climate change?
c)
Did Al Gore’s activity result in tangible
progress in increasing American awareness about the problem?
d)
What makes Al Gore an inconvenient messenger in
his home country?
The heat is on: how global warming
could suddenly tip over and ignite calamity
Scientists
at Nasa, instead of staring into the skies, have been using satellites to look
down at the world and track how it is changing. Within a year, the US space agency disclosed this week, an area of
sea ice "the size of Texas" had been
lost from the Arctic.
The
disappearance of Arctic ice, the retreat of glaciers from the Himalayas to Peru,
earlier springs and hotter summers - all these effects have been recorded by
climate scientists in recent years. They form the basis of Al Gore's polemic on
climate change, An Inconvenient Truth,
in which the former US
vice-president describes huge cliffs of ice breaking apart, glaciers dropping
suddenly into the sea, and polar bears found drowned because they cannot swim
between ice floes as they used to.
This,
as everyone knows, is global warming. Even those skeptical about whether the
warming is caused by fossil fuel combustion accept that world temperatures have
risen and look set to continue upward. Mr. Gore's film, which has been showing
in the US since May -
grossing $23m (£12m, €18m) - and opens in the UK
today, has raised American awareness about climate change in the face of the
federal government's stance against the Kyoto
protocol, designed to curb it.
US
state governments and businesses are beginning to take action of their own to
avert global warming by reducing the greenhouse gas emissions under their
control. These measures, repeated across the globe, may by some estimates allow
the world to stabilize emissions by the middle of the century.
But
will that be soon enough? A growing body of scientific opinion suggests the
world may be about to experience not a gradual rise in temperatures over
several decades but a wild careering into climate chaos.
That
is because some of the changes triggered by warming temperatures create a
"feedback" effect of their own. These feedbacks can cause the warming
trend to accelerate further or bring serious disruption to regions of the
world.
In
this view, the rising proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, by
creating feedbacks, is pushing the earth's climate through a series of
thresholds or tipping points that threaten to bring cataclysmic consequences.
Those could include a much more rapid melting of the Arctic ice and the
Greenland ice sheet than previously predicted, the accelerated melting of
permafrost, the cessation of the Indian monsoon, a rapid dying back of forest
in the Amazon and a halting of the sea currents that help bring warm weather to
Europe.
Action
on emissions seems to be picking up. Later this month governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
will usher in the mandatory curbs on emissions from energy-intensive industries
just approved by the California
legislature. Seven north-eastern states have agreed a separate initiative to
cap emissions from power stations in 2009 and reduce them by 10 per cent by
2019. Some think the federal government may have to follow. Greg Gordon, an
analyst at Citigroup, says: “The political will to regulate CO₂ emissions in the US
is gaining momentum. Federal legislation is likely in the next few years.”
The
world's current attempts to cut emissions, such as the Kyoto protocol and the Asia-Pacific
Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, collaboration between developed
and developing countries, presume a slowdown over decades of the rate of
increase in the world's output of greenhouse gases. But Myles Allen of Oxford University,
one of the leaders of a project that predicted up to 11 degrees of warming,
says: "The danger zone is not something that we are going to reach in the
middle of this century. We are in it now."
Financial Times
September 15, 2006
The following materials
deal with numerous examples of international cooperation:
a)
The Kyoto
protocol which came into force in
November, 2006;
b)
The Copenhagen Accord which resulted from the
work of the global climate change summit in Copenhagen, December, 2010
c)
BBC items, illustrating the problems and efforts
of world leaders to shield the world from the impact of climate change.
After reading the materials answer the following questions:
1. Why did it take so long for the Kyoto
treaty to come into force?
2.
What importance was attached to Russia’s
entry?
3.
Who is likely to bear the burden of the world’s
failure to act?
4.
How are Copenhagen’s
achievements assessed?
5.
What is your opinion on the way the situation is
likely to develop?
6.
How does relationship between developed and
developing countries come into the picture?
7.
What is the position of international bodies and
different countries on the issue of
climate change and measures to grapple with it ( The UN, the EU, the US, Russia,
China, Australia)
The Kyoto
Protocol
The
Kyoto protocol gets its name from the city in Japan
where the agreement was written. It is an environmental treaty that seeks to
limit the emission of greenhouse gases believed to cause global warming.
The
Kyoto protocol
resulted from a number of conventions dealing with world climate. In 1997 more
than 150 nations attending a UN conference on global warming in Kyoto agreed to specific
limits on heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions from the world’s most
industrialized nations.
The Kyoto protocol
calls for nations including the US,
Canada, Japan and countries in the European
Union to cut emissions of several greenhouse gases – mostly carbon dioxide –
each year during the years 2008 through 2012 to five percent below 1990 levels.
The protocol will enter into force and become legally binding when it’s
ratified by developed nations accounting for at least 55 percent of the total
carbon dioxide emissions.
The plan requires each nation to reduce emissions of
greenhouse gases by different amounts. The emissions are measured in tons of
carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. For example, the US must reduce its emissions by
seven percent. The European Union – by a total of eight percent. Some countries
don’t need to reduce their emissions. And some countries like Australia, Norway
and Iceland
may increase their emissions. Such countries will be given credits which are
equal to tons of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. These credits can
be sold or traded. Negotiators of the treaty hope that sales of credits will be
used to develop technology for cleaner energy.
However, negotiations on climate change were not completed
at the Kyoto
meeting: countries didn’t agree on the exact amount of emissions to permit, the
cost of carbon dioxide was not set, nations didn’t agree on a target date for
reducing emissions. Negotiations at the Hague in
the Netherlands were supposed
to complete the Kyoto
agreement but representatives of 175 countries were not able to reach a
compromise. One of the major problems was that the US
and Canada
would like farmland and forestland to count toward emission reduction. Both
countries argued that plants use dioxide and their forests and farmlands would
use up a large part of their greenhouse emissions. Smaller countries in the
European Union did not think the plan was fair.
After the US,
the largest producer of greenhouse gases in the world, pulled out of the treaty in 2001 the fate of
the treaty depended on Russia
with its 17 percent of global emissions. Moscow
was hesistant in making any commitment. But during negotiations regarding Russia’s accession to the World Trade
Organization, Russian president Putin promised the European Union in return for
its support that Russia
would move towards approving the protocol.
Mr. Putin’s cabinet of ministers was
completely torn on the issue. Some of his advisers believed that the treaty was
scientifically unfounded and harmful to Russia’s economy. Russia’s economy would grow fast
and greenhouse gas emissions would reach 1990 level as early as in 2008.
Besides the treaty even if enforced would not curb the greenhouse effect and
the sacrifice made by Russia
would be useless.
The opposite point of view suggested that ratifying
the Kyoto prorocol would help Russia to receive investments. If Russia’s economic growth remained at 8 % a year,
the average level of greenhouse gas emission in 2008-2012 would still be 15%
less than the level determined for Russia
in the Kyoto
protocol. The rest of the quotas could then be sold to the countries of the European
Union, Canada and Japan,
whose emissions would exceed the quotas set for them by the treaty.
On October 22 Russia's lower house, the State Duma,
voted 334-73 to approve the treaty, meaning enough nations have signed up to
bring it officially into force. Within 90 days of Russia's
ratification, Kyoto
signatories must start making cuts that will reduce emissions of six key
greenhouse gases to an average of 5.2% below 1990 levels by 2012. Countries
which fail to meet the targets will face penalties and the prospect of having
to make deeper cuts in future.
The EU nations hailed Russia’s decision which is
considered political rather than environmental. Still many experts believe that
Kyoto will be largely ineffective as the world's
two biggest emitters, the US
and China,
will not cut their outputs. Although China
did sign the protocol, as a developing country it is not yet required to begin
reducing emissions.
And what do you think of the Kyoto
protocol?
Kyoto Protocol comes into force
The Kyoto
accord, which aims to curb the air pollution blamed for global warming, has
come into force seven years after it was agreed.
The
accord requires countries to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases.
Some 141 countries, accounting for 55% of
greenhouse gas emissions, have ratified the treaty, which pledges to cut these
emissions by 5.2% by 2012.
But
the world's top polluter - the US
- has not signed up to the treaty.
The
US
says the changes would be too costly to introduce and that the agreement is
flawed.
Large developing countries including India, China
and Brazil
are not required to meet specific targets for now.
'Out of control'
The
ancient Japanese capital of Kyoto,
where the pact was negotiated, is hosting the main ceremony marking the
treaty's coming into force.
Russia ratified the treaty in November 2004 - the crucial moment making the
treaty legally binding.
Russia's entry was vital, because the protocol had to be ratified by nations
accounting for at least 55% of greenhouse gas emissions to become valid.
This target was only met after Russia
joined.
But the head of the UN Environment Programme,
Klaus Toepfer, said Kyoto
was only a first step and much hard work needed to be done to fight global
warming.
"Climate change is the specter at the
feast, capable of undermining our attempts to deliver a healthier, fairer and
more resilient world," he said.
Recent
projections on planet warming made terrifying reading, he said, painting a
vision of a planet that is "spinning out of control."
He
said it would be Africa which bore the burden
of the world's failure to act.
BBC News. 29.11.2006.
Copenhagen:
Key questions on climate deal
Amid the chaos and confusion of frantic negotiations
on the final night of the summit, what kind of deal actually emerged?
So what's the deal?
The Copenhagen Accord, as it was named last night,
makes reference to the need to keep temperature rises to no more than 2C and says rich countries will
commit to cutting greenhouse gases and developing nations will take steps to
limit the growth of their emissions – but sets no targets.
Under the accord, countries will set out their pledges
for the action they plan to take to tackle climate change, in an appendix to
the document, and will provide information to other nations on their progress.
There are promises of short term finance to the tune
of $10bn a year over three years for poor countries to help them fight climate
change, and a long term funding package worth $100bn a year by 2020.
There are also references to the importance of
reducing deforestation and efforts to give poor countries access to technology
that helps them go green.
Is it what we expected?
Originally, the plan was for the Copenhagen talks to deliver a comprehensive,
legally-binding international deal to tackle climate change. But it has been
clear for some time that such an agreement would not materialize at these talks.
In the immediate run-up to the negotiations, it was
hoped a political agreement could be reached, which could then be turned into a
legal treaty next year.
We did come out of the talks with a political
agreement drawn up by leaders and which was eventually accepted by the
conference of more than 190 countries this morning, but there are some major
holes in the deal.
So what's missing?
Some key things. Firstly there is no mention of any
long term global emissions cut targets – although the 50% reduction by 2050,
which was dropped at the last minute, is what would be needed to meet the 2C temperature cap still
referred to in the deal. There is no target, either, for the long term cuts
developed countries must make.
Perhaps more significant, though, is the absence of
any timescale for when or even if the deal could be turned into a legally-binding
treaty.
And a series of other agreements which would have
formed part of the deal, such as one on how to tackle deforestation, have been
shelved until the next conference.
Who drew it up?
Leaders had expected to arrive in Copenhagen for the end of the talks to sign
an agreement drawn up by negotiators, but when they arrived – mostly on
Thursday – officials had not managed to agree something they could give them.
As a result heads of state and government from a
number of countries themselves ended up thrashing out parts of the text in the
early hours of Friday morning, and held talks with one another while officials
and negotiators continued to work out details throughout the day.
Eventually the US announced it had secured agreement
with China, India, Brazil and South Africa for the deal, which got the eventual
backing of the EU and – in the end – the majority of developed and developing
countries at the conference.
This was billed as a historic opportunity for the
world to tackle climate change, but faces have been glum around the talks in
the wake of the announcement.
Is anyone happy with the deal?
Key players, including Prime Minister Gordon Brown, US president
Barack Obama and EU leaders have described it as a "first step" to
dealing with global warming.
But they admit that as it stands, it isn't enough to
address the problem.
Nevertheless, there was probably a certain amount of relief
that any deal at all was done – as at moments last night things didn't look
good.
But campaigners have reacted furiously to the accord,
which they say does not tackle climate change, deliver sufficient emissions
cuts or help the poor.
And some countries – including Venezuela, Bolivia,
Ecuador and Cuba – refused to accept it, forcing UN climate chiefs to forge a
compromise at the talks this morning in which those who do agree will sign up
to the declaration directly.
So where do we go from here?
Countries will be expected over the next month to
submit their pledges for the action they will take to tackle climate change,
for entry into the appendix, and some who promised a range of figures need to
decide if they go for the most ambitious targets.
Climate change secretary Ed Miliband said this morning
he wished there had been a timescale for a legally-binding deal, and he is
among those who have said they would continue to work for that at upcoming
climate summits.
But if this is, as leaders said, the first step, then
it is the first step on what seems likely to be a long and difficult road.
Guardian
13.01.2010
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий