skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Clearing up in the aftermath of superstorm Sandy. Photograph: John Moore/Getty via guardian.co.uk
Global warming is already having a major impact on life in America, a report by US government scientists has warned. The draft version of the US National Climate Assessment reveals that increasing storm surges, floods, melting glaciers and permafrost, and intensifying droughts are having a profound effect on the lives of Americans.
"Corn producers in Iowa, oyster growers in Washington state and maple syrup producers have observed changes in their local climate that are outside of their experience," states the report.
Health services, water supplies, farming and transport are already being strained, the assessment adds. Months after superstorm Sandy battered the east coast, causing billions of dollars of damage, the report concludes that severe weather disruption is going to be commonplace in coming years. Nor do the authors flinch from naming the culprit. "Global warming is due primarily to human activities, predominantly the burning of fossil fuels," it states.
The uncompromising language of the report, and the stark picture that its authors have painted of the likely effects of global warming, have profound implications for the rest of the world.
If the world's greatest economy is already feeling the strain of global warming, and is fearful of its future impact, then other nations face a very worrying future as temperatures continue to rise as more and more greenhouse gases are pumped into the atmosphere.
"The report makes for sobering reading," said Professor Chris Rapley, of University College London. "Most people in the UK and US accept human-induced climate change is happening but respond by focusing attention elsewhere. We dismiss the effects of climate change as 'not here', 'not now', 'not me' and 'not clear'.
"This compelling new assessment by the US experts challenges all four comforting assumptions. The message is clear: now is the time to act!"
Bob Ward, of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, at the London School of Economics, said: "For those outside the US, this report carries a brutal message because it shows that even the world's leading economy cannot simply adapt to the impacts of climate change. The problem clearly needs concerted international action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to avoid the worst potential consequences."
The national climate assessment, written by a team of 240 scientists, is required every four years by US law. The first was written in 2000, though no report was issued while George W Bush was president. The next came out in 2009. The latest is only a draft version and will be revised after comments by other scientists and the public.
However, observers have noted that the 2013 version is far more uncompromising in its language. "The bluntness reflects the increasing confidence we have in the science and day-to-day realities of climate change," said one of its authors, Katharine Hayhoe, director of the Climate Science Centre at Texas Tech University.
The report highlights, among other things, that 13 American airports have runways that could be inundated by rising sea levels, and that billions of dollars will be needed to repair Alaskan roads, pipelines, sewer systems, buildings and airports where melting permafrosts are disrupting the landscape. These are problems that will not just affect the US. They will be repeated across the planet.
Environmental groups are now hoping that the report will revitalise the debate over climate change in the US and stimulate the administration of Barack Obama into taking action over an issue that has been put on the backburner. "There is so much that is already happening today," said Hayhoe. "This is no longer a future issue. It's an issue that is staring us in the face today."
Oil city: steam rises from refineries outside Edmonton, Alberta. Photo courtesy: Andy Clark/Reuters
There are some times when I am not so proud to be Canadian - this is one of them. I agree with our Green party MP, Elizabeth May; and, wonder why anyone would want to attend. Perhaps given our Kyoto protocol track record, we should take the higher road and not attend unless we intend to change our stand on the issues.
Of all the delegations in the room in Doha, the Canadians adopt the lowest profile. Some question whether they should be there at all: The country's first and only Green party MP, Elizabeth May, said: "Having Canada in the room negotiating to weaken the second Kyoto, when we have already signalled that not only will we not be participating in taking on new targets in the second period but we're legally withdrawn from the protocol, should make us pariahs."
"I can't imagine how anybody would want us in the room."
Canada's current greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are 23% over the country's Kyoto protocol target, and federal government estimates place Canada 28.8% over the target by 2014. Canada is the only country to have repudiated Kyoto, the sole legally binding international policy tool to date to deal with the emissions, and ranks just behind the US and Australia in the table of worst global emitters per capita.
This is because of Canada's size, its cold climate and its resource-based economy, especially the energy-intensive, carbon-emissions-heavy oil boiled from large swaths of bitumen know as the Alberta tar sands.
Canada holds the world's third-largest oil reserves, mostly concentrated in the western province of Alberta, the region that is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases. Where most provinces' GHG emissions have stabilised since 1990, Alberta's emissions have increased by 41%.
The cornerstone of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's policy has been to try to approve key pipelines, such the Keystone XL, from Alberta to Texas, the Enbridge Northern Gateway, from Alberta to the West Coast, and Enbridge Line 9, an eastbound pipeline reversal that could see tar-sands crude pumped to Quebec and the Atlantic coast.
Harper's 2012 budget bill, called C-38, replaced the entire Environmental Assessment Act in order to "streamline" approval of major oil and gas pipelines. The 2011 budget slashed funding for Environment Canada by over $222m (£140m), with cuts specifically to departments dealing with climate change, clean air, waste management and water resources.
"The environment assessment regime put in place in the past year would be a laughing stock in a developing country," said May. "We have a government that is less concerned about climate than the CEOs of major oil companies."
Canada has increasingly "harmonised" its energy and climate policy with the US, and in Copenhagen followed it on a non-binding agreement to "reduce emissions by 17% below 2005 level by 2020". But Canada-US harmonisation stops when it comes to investing in clean-energy jobs: were Canada to match the US on a per person basis, it would invest an additional $11bn. Canada provides less clean-energy stimulus than Saudi Arabia, China, Australia, France or the US.
A recent study by labour and environmental groups estimates Canada could create more than 20,000 jobs if it invested the $1.3bn-a-year tax subsidy currently given to oil, coal and gas companies in emerging energy sectors such as wind, solar power and home retrofits.
Global warming is likely to shrink the size of fish by as much as a quarter in coming decades, according to a groundbreaking new study of the world's oceans.
The reduction in individual fish size will be matched by a dwindling of overall fish stocks, warned scientists, at a time when the world's growing human population is putting ever greater pressure on fisheries.
"We were surprised as we did not think the effects would be so strong and so widespread," said Prof William Cheung from the University of British Columbia in Canada, who led the research. His team examined the effect of rising ocean temperatures on the growth and distribution of more than 600 species of fish around the world and found that they are expected to shrink in size by 14-24% by 2050, with the biggest effects in tropical regions.
"It could be worse than that," said Prof Callum Roberts, at the University of York, who described the research as the most comprehensive to date. Roberts, who was not one of the study's authors, said additional impacts of climate change such as the acidification of the ocean and reduction of nutrients in surface waters could decrease fish stocks even further, as would continued overfishing.
"We will see dramatic changes in the oceans likely to reduce productivity," said Roberts. "One billion people rely on fish for primary animal protein and that is going to increase, especially in developing countries. We have to get to grips with our dependence on fossil fuels otherwise we are stuffed."
The fish shrinkage predicted by the new research results from two effects: the difficulty of growing in warmer, oxygen-poor waters, and migration.
"The metabolic rate of fish in the warm oceans increases and therefore they need more oxygen," said Cheung, whose work is published in Nature Climate Change. But warm water holds less oxygen and so their growth is limited.
In addition, there are more small-bodied fish in the tropics and these will migrate to temperate or polar regions as the ocean warms, reducing the average fish size.
The two effects are similar in impact, said Cheung, who used computer models to project the effect of warming on fish physiology, distribution, migration and population.
"We are already seeing the effects," he added, pointing to a 2011 study that showed the reduction in the size of haddock in the North Sea correlated closely with increasing temperature. Cheung's team projected temperature rises using data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, based on a high-emissions scenario that matches the current trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions.
"Our work shows a very concerning future for the oceans and so it is very important to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and develop better fish management policies to adapt to these changes," said Cheung.
Roberts said the research showed the impact of climate change on the oceans looked set to be greater than previously predicted. The reduction in fish size due to overfishing was well known, he said, as for the last century fish have increasingly "lived fast and died young", preventing them reaching full size. But, if overfishing continues, this effect would be additional to the shrinkage caused by warming, Roberts said.
Furthermore, rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leads to more of the gas dissolving in the ocean, increasing its acidity. "That makes life much tougher for animals that make a chalky skeleton," said Roberts. "We need to worry about these tiny animals – such as coccoliths and foraminifera – which are an important part of primary production: the base of the food chain."
Lastly, Roberts said the heating of the oceans means that the warmer layer at the surface mixes less with the colder layer below. As the colder layer contains most of the nutrients, that means less food for fish. "We are already seeing some evidence of this, as oceanic 'deserts' are getting larger."
"All this is yet one more reason to do something to cut greenhouse gases urgently," he said.
A haze engulfing buildings in Wuhan, China. Air pollution is believed to be the main cause of global dimming. Photo courtesy: STR/AFP/Getty Images
Measurements from the 1960s to the early 1990s, backed up by a wide range of data and a number of independent studies, showed there were substantial declines in the amount of the sun's energy reaching the Earth's surface. This reduction is known as "global dimming".
The observed "dimming" has strong regional differences across the globe. While the southern hemisphere saw modest dimming in the period 1961–90 (which has continued to date), the northern hemisphere saw much more significant declines (reductions of 4–8%). Since then some parts of the world, such as Europe and North America, have seen partial recovery (known as "brightening"), while other regions (most notably China and India) have seen further although regionally mixed declines.
Global dimming is not thought to be due to changes in the sun's luminosity, as these have been too small to explain the magnitude of dimming observed. Instead, air pollution from human activity is thought to be the major contributor. Aerosols which form from pollution can directly reflect and absorb radiation before it reaches the planet's surface and make clouds brighter and longer lasting, meaning they reflect more sunlight.
While we cannot rule out the possibility that natural variations in the Earth's climate (via naturally occurring cloud variations) have contributed to global dimming, the effects are so closely correlated to trends in atmospheric pollution that there is strong evidence to say human activity is a major player. For example, European and North American clean air legislation in the 1990s corresponded to brightening in these regions. By contrast, China and India have seen further dimming, matching pollution increases from rapid industrialisation.
Global dimming is thought to have had a number of substantial impacts. For example, there is evidence to suggest it has masked part of the historical warming caused by greenhouse gases. Indeed, areas that have undergone brightening have seen rapid warming.
Future global dimming changes can be expected to be closely tied to emissions of atmospheric pollution. Another factor which has not played much of a role historically but which may become more significant in the future is the impact of greenhouse gas warming on global dimming. Warming of higher levels of the atmosphere leads to increased atmospheric water vapour, which in turn absorbs some of the sun's energy before it reaches the surface. If future global warming proves to be substantial, widespread dimming by water vapour could be a consequence – though the cooling effect of this would be unlikely to reduce the overall warming trend significantly.
Image of projected climate change. Image by NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association).
Finally, a government is admitting to what we have known all along. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued a finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. Hopefully, this type of finding will begin to be recognized by governments worldwide.
"Today’s action shows that President Obama takes the threats posed by global warming seriously and is ready to act," said Martin Hayden, vice president of policy and legislation. "The Obama administration has removed a road block in curbing pollution responsible for climate change and signaled a turn toward a clean energy future. We applaud this action, and welcome the President’s leadership to overcome the greatest environmental challenge of our time.”
The action is a response to the Supreme Court’s landmark Massachusetts v. EPA decision from 2007. Earthjustice co-argued this case at the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2005.
"The Obama administration has reaffirmed that the Clean Air Act gives EPA authority to combat global warming pollution, and this is what we have been fighting for all along," Hayden said.
Read the proposed finding here:
Posts
