Unfolding Story of Warming Planet
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: February 16, 2005
Key dates in the story of climate
change:
-- 1750: Before Industrial
Revolution, atmosphere holds 280 parts per million of heat-trapping carbon
dioxide, later research determines.
-- 1898: Swedish scientist Svante
Ahrrenius warns carbon dioxide from coal and oil burning could warm the planet.
-- 1955:
-- 1988: NASA scientist James Hansen
tells U.S. Congress global warming ``is already happening now.''
-- 1992: Climate treaty sets
voluntary goals to lower carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.
-- 1995: U.N.-organized scientific
panel says evidence suggests man-made emissions are affecting climate.
-- 1997: Treaty parties approve
Kyoto Protocol mandating emission cuts by industrial nations, an approach
rejected in advance by U.S. Senate.
-- 1998: Warmest year globally since
record-keeping began in mid-19th century.
-- 2001: U.N. scientific panel
concludes most warming likely due to man-made emissions; President Bush
renounces Kyoto Protocol.
-- 2004: Carbon dioxide reaches
record 379 parts per million;
-- 2005:
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: February 16, 2005
Filed at 7:15 a.m. ET
KYOTO, Japan (AP) -- The Kyoto
global warming pact went into force Wednesday, seven years after it was
negotiated, imposing limits on emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases
scientists blame for rising world temperatures, melting glaciers and rising
oceans.
The landmark agreement, negotiated
in Japan's ancient capital of Kyoto in 1997 and ratified by 140 nations,
targets carbon dioxide and five other gases that can trap heat in the
atmosphere, and are believed to be behind rising global temperatures that many
scientists say are disrupting weather patterns.
The United States, the world's
largest emitter of such gases, has refused to ratify the agreement, saying it
would harm the economy and is flawed by the lack of restrictions on emissions
by emerging economies China and India.
``We have been calling on the
Environmental officials, gathered in
the convention hall where the accord was adopted, hailed the protocol as a
historic first step in the battle against global warming and urged the world to
further strengthen safeguards against greenhouse gases.
``Today is a day of celebration and
also a day to renew our resolve ... to combat global warming,'' said Hiroshi
Ohki, former Japanese environment minister and president of the conference that
negotiated the protocol.
``Until such time as the major
polluters of the world including the United States and China are made part of
the Kyoto regime, it is next to useless and indeed harmful for a country such
as Australia to sign up,'' Australian Prime Minister John Howard said in
Canberra.
The
In
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan
planned to send a message. The
The
That proposal was opposed by the
U.S. Senate so adamantly that the protocol was never submitted for ratification
by then-President Bill
White House spokesman Scott
McClellan said Tuesday that ``we are still learning'' about the science of
climate change. In the meantime, McClellan said, ``We
have made an unprecedented commitment to reduce the growth of greenhouse gas
emissions in a way that continues to grow our economy.''
The Bush administration's stance has
since drawn fire from environmental experts, who say it is ignoring scientific
consensus about global warming, and that government reports have been censoring
views not in line with its politics.
Officials made solemn pledges
Tuesday to fulfill
The Cabinet will draw up concrete
plans by May, Environment Minister Yuriko Koike said.
Some officials are pondering a
``carbon tax'' to punish polluters -- a move opposed by business -- while
others favor expansion of nuclear power and promotion of energy-saving technologies.
Makoto Katagiri, whose
Natsource
``From this figure, you can imagine
how serious the Japanese companies (are),'' Katagiri said.
Key Elements of the
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 1:05 a.m. ET
Key elements of the Kyoto Protocol,
which took effect Wednesday:
-- GASES: Seeks to controls
emissions of six heat-trapping gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide,
hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride.
-- TARGETS: Assigns numerical
targets for reducing or limiting emissions, compared with a 1990 benchmark, to
35 industrialized countries among 140 nations that ratified the pact.
-- TRADING: Allows emissions trading
among the 35 countries: Industrial plants that fall below their output ceilings
can sell the resulting ``credits'' to those who exceed their allowances.
-- JOINT IMPLEMENTATION: Allows a
nation to earn credits for developing emissions-reduction projects in other
countries that have signed
-- CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM:
Allows a country to offset protocol obligations by conducting emissions-reduction
projects in developing countries that are parties to
February 15, 2005
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 11:12 p.m. ET
TOKYO (AP) -- Two centuries after
the dawn of the industrial age, the world on Wednesday takes its first
concerted step to roll back the emission of ``greenhouse gases'' believed
linked to climate change with the enactment of the Kyoto global warming pact.
The agreement, negotiated in
Its impact, however, will be limited
by the absence of the
Proponents say the stakes are high:
the gases are believed to trap heat in the atmosphere, contributing to rising
global temperatures that are melting glaciers, raising ocean levels and
threatening dramatic and potentially damaging climate change in the future.
``The tools for keeping climate
change under control, such as renewable energy sources and energy efficiency
measures, are developed and ready to use,'' said Greenpeace International
official Stephanie Tunmore. ``There is now a price on climate pollution and
penalties for polluters. The switch to a carbon economy begins here.''
Implementation of the agreement was
delayed by a struggle to meet the requirement that countries accounting for 55
percent of the world's emissions ratify it. That goal was reached last year --
nearly seven years after the pact had been negotiated -- with
The
In Japan, the host to the 1997
conference and a tireless supporter of the pact, the enactment -- at midnight
New York time -- was being met with a mixture of pride and mounting worry that
the world's second-largest economy is unprepared to meet its emission reduction
targets.
Under
The White House has contended that
complying with the treaty's requirement could cost millions of jobs, many of
them to places like India and China, both signers of Kyoto but exempted from
any limits on greenhouse gases.
``We are still learning about the
science of climate change,'' White House spokesman Scott McClellan said
Tuesday. In the meantime, McClellan said, ``We have
made an unprecedented commitment to reduce the growth of greenhouse gas
emissions in a way that continues to grow our economy.''
Elsewhere, officials made solemn
pledges Tuesday to fulfill
``Although the hurdle is high, we
ask the Japanese people, including industries, for their cooperation,'' said
Environment Minister Yuriko Koike.
The concerns are many. The Japanese
government says many industries will need quick action to meet the goals,
studies show much of the country is behind on implementation, and critics say
A series of speeches and a panel
discussion was planned with environmental officials, experts and activists, as
well as 2004 Nobel Peace Prize laureate Wangari Maathai of
As the agreement comes into force,
Tetsunari Ida, executive director of
``Those two ministries are taking
two separate climate change strategies,'' Ida said.
A METI report this month showed that
11 of 30 top industries -- steel and power among them -- risked failing to meet
targets without quick action. Thirteen others had already cleared preliminary
goals and were expected to meet the goals, the report said.
One area where
Makoto Katagiri, whose
Natsource
``From this figure, you can imagine
how serious the Japanese companies (are),'' Katagiri said.
February 15, 2005
Bush Sees Jobs at Risk in Climate Treaty
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 10:03 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush
administration contends that the long-term benefit from the
The conspicuous
President Bush agreed in his 2000
campaign to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant but came to the view shortly
afterward that its harm has yet to be scientifically established.
``We are still learning about the
science of climate change,'' White House spokesman Scott McClellan said
Tuesday. In the meantime, McClellan said, ``We have
made an unprecedented commitment to reduce the growth of greenhouse gas
emissions in a way that continues to grow our economy.''
State Department spokesman Richard
Boucher said the
All, Boucher said, are aimed at
reducing greenhouse gases and other air pollutants while also improving energy
security, reducing poverty and promoting economic growth and development.
The White House has contended that
complying with the treaty's requirement could cost millions of jobs, many of
them to Third World countries such as India and China, both signers of Kyoto
but exempted from any limits on greenhouse gases.
Bush ``strongly opposes any treaty
or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job, let alone the
nearly 5 million jobs Kyoto would have cost,'' said James Connaughton, who
heads the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
Instead, the president unveiled a
plan in 2002 to rely on voluntary measures by industry to slow the growth of
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere mainly from
the burning of fossil fuels. It calls for the ``carbon intensity'' -- the
amount of greenhouse gases released as a percentage of economic growth -- to
fall 18 percent by 2012, or about 1.5 percent a year -- about the same rate of
reduction already occurring.
Environmentalists complain there is
no guarantee any of that will occur and that, even if it does, greenhouse gases
released into the atmosphere will continue to increase.
Because of heavy reliance on coal to
produce electricity and oil for transportation over the next two decades,
``Reducing greenhouse intensity does
not reduce total greenhouse gas emissions, and is therefore not real climate
stewardship,'' said Annie Petsonk, a lawyer for Environmental Defense. ``
Former Vice President Al Gore was a
main participant in putting the
``The evidence of this worsening
crises continues to mount,'' Gore said Tuesday, accusing the Bush
administration of showing the world ``a stunning display of moral cowardice.''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 10, 2005
2004 Was Fourth-Warmest Year Ever Recorded
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
ast year was the fourth warmest since systematic temperature
measurements began around the world in the 19th century, NASA scientists said
yesterday.
Particularly high temperatures were
measured over
The main source of such gases is
smokestack and tailpipe emissions from burning coal and oil.
The highest global average was
measured in 1998, when temperatures were raised by a strong cycle of El Niņo in
the
Dr. Hansen said a weak Niņo pattern
was likely to make 2005 at least the second warmest year and could push it
beyond 1998 and set a record.
The unusual nature of the recent
warming was corroborated separately yesterday by a new analysis of 2,000 years
of indirect temperature records in tree rings, stalagmites, seabed layers, and
other evidence from around the Northern Hemisphere.
That study, published in the journal
Nature, found that previous peaks of warming, particularly during medieval
times about 1,000 years ago, were as warm as the 20th-century average but that
no spikes in the last 2,000 years matched the warming since 1990.
It is one of several recent studies
challenging a longstanding view that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere
were relatively unvarying until the recent warming, a pattern enshrined in a graph
scientists have taken to calling the hockey stick for its long horizontal
"shaft" and upward-hooking "blade."
The lead author of the new paper,
Anders Moberg of
But his paper "should not be a
fuel for greenhouse skeptics in their arguments," Mr. Moberg said, adding
that there were ample signs that the warming was now outside nature's recent
bounds.
February 1, 2005
Deciding How Much Global Warming Is Too Much
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
nder the first treaty addressing global warming, 193 countries,
including the
There was one small problem with
that treaty, enacted 11 years ago. No one defined dangerous. With no clear
goal, smokestack and tailpipe emissions of gases linked to rising temperatures
relentlessly climbed.
On Feb. 16, a stricter addendum to
that treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, enters into force, requiring participating
industrialized countries to cut such emissions.
But its targets and timetable were
negotiated with no agreement on what amount of cuts would lead the world toward
climatic stability. The arbitrary terms were cited by President Bush when he
rejected the
After a decade of cautious circling,
some scientists and policy makers are now trying to agree on how much warming
is too much.
One possible step toward clarity
comes today, as 200 experts from around the world meet at the invitation of
Prime Minister Tony Blair in
The researcher running the meeting,
Dennis A. Tirpak, formerly of the Environmental Protection Agency, said that
experts always realized it would take a long time for science's projections to
be absorbed by society, but few thought it would take this long.
"I've always been a believer
that science and truth will win out in the end," he said. "But I have
a sense we might be running out of time."
It has taken this long not just
because the "dangerous" question is complicated, but because it holds
dangers in and of itself. If scientists offer answers, as some have in recent
days, they can be criticized for playing down uncertainties and intruding into
the policy arena. If a politician answers, that creates a yardstick for
measuring later progress or failure.
It is much easier for everyone
simply to call for more research.
But some experts now say that by the
time clear evidence is at hand, calamity later in the century will be
unavoidable. They say fresh findings show that potentially enormous environmental
changes lie ahead.
"I think that the scientific
evidence now warrants a new sense of urgency," said Dr. James E. Hansen, a
climate scientist and director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
A particular concern is the
With pressure building for
resolution and fresh action, some countries and groups of experts have tried to
define a specific rise in earth's average temperature that presents
unacceptable risks.
The European Union has set this
threshold at 2.5 degrees of additional warming from current conditions. That
was also the danger level chosen last week by an international task force of
scientists, policy experts, business leaders and elected officials led by
Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine, and Stephen Byers, a Labor Party
member of the British Parliament.
Some scientists have criticized this
approach, saying understanding of the impact of greenhouse gases on the
atmosphere remains far too primitive to manage emissions and thus avoid a
particular temperature target.
Others say the most logical response
to the problem is to make societies more resilient to inherent extremes of
climate. "If we just significantly minimize our vulnerabilities to the
extremes which occurred during the last 250 years, we'll be O.K. for the next
100," said Dr. John Christy, a climate scientist at the
Dr. Michael Schlesinger, who directs
climate research at the
Only with such a prod will societies
move toward less-polluting choices, even as research continues on energy
options that could in a few decades sharply reduce the human contribution to
the greenhouse effect.
Without global participation in such
emission curbs, though, the shared atmosphere will essentially remain a dump
with no gate or tipping fee for countries rejecting action.
Any consensus on climate risks will
likely intensify pressure on the Bush administration to shift from its current
opposition to any cuts in the gases.
In a speech Wednesday at the World
Economic Forum, Mr. Blair pressed the
While the risks remained uncertain,
Mr. Blair said, "It would be wrong to say that the evidence of danger is
not clearly and persuasively advocated by a very large number of entirely
independent and compelling voices."
The
In three reports to date, that panel
has fastidiously avoided defining unacceptable danger, though it has confirmed
that humans have contributed to recent warming.
Its current chairman, Dr. Rajendra
K. Pachauri, an economist and engineer from
In an interview, he said it was
clear that emissions contributing to warming had to be reduced, but defining
what is dangerous remained a "value judgment" that was fundamentally
the responsibility of society and its elected officials.
He and several other experts said
that everyone in the climate debate, scientists and policy makers,
had to get used to the idea that whatever decisions were made, they would be
made without scientific clarity.
Efforts to imply a false sense of
certainty will backfire, and efforts to use uncertainty as an excuse for doing
nothing will simply raise the stakes as more years slide by,
and more long-lived emissions accumulate in the air.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 30, 2004
Big Arctic Perils Seen in Warming, Survey Finds
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
comprehensive four-year study of warming
in the Arctic shows that heat-trapping gases from tailpipes and smokestacks
around the world are contributing to profound environmental changes, including
sharp retreats of glaciers and sea ice, thawing of permafrost and shifts in the
weather, the oceans and the atmosphere.
The study, commissioned by eight
nations with Arctic territory, including the
While Arctic warming has been going
on for decades and has been studied before, this is the first thorough
assessment of the causes and consequences of the trend.
It was conducted by nearly 300
scientists, as well as elders from the native communities in the region, after
representatives of the eight nations met in October 2000 in Barrow, Alaska, amid
a growing sense of urgency about the effects of global warming on the Arctic.
The findings support the broad but
politically controversial scientific consensus that global warming is caused
mainly by rising atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases,
and that the
The State Department, which has
reviewed the report, declined to comment on it yesterday.
The report says that "while
some historical changes in climate have resulted from natural causes and
variations, the strength of the trends and the patterns of change that have
emerged in recent decades indicate that human influences, resulting primarily
from increased emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, have now
become the dominant factor."
The Arctic "is now experiencing
some of the most rapid and severe climate change on Earth," the report
says, adding, "Over the next 100 years, climate change is expected to
accelerate, contributing to major physical, ecological, social and economic
changes, many of which have already begun."
Scientists have long expected the
The report says the effects of
warming may be heightened by other factors, including overfishing, rising
populations, rising levels of ultraviolet radiation from the depleted ozone
layer (a condition at both poles). "The sum of these factors threatens to
overwhelm the adaptive capacity of some Arctic populations and
ecosystems," it says.
Prompt efforts to curb
greenhouse-gas emissions could slow the pace of change, allowing communities
and wildlife to adapt, the report says. But it also stresses that further
warming and melting are unavoidable, given the century-long buildup of the
gases, mainly carbon dioxide.
Several of the Europeans who
provided parts of the report said they had done so because the Bush
administration had delayed publication until after the presidential election,
partly because of the political contentiousness of global warming.
But Gunnar Palsson of
Mr. Palsson said all the countries
had agreed to delay the release, originally scheduled for September, because of
conflicts with another international meeting in
The American scientist directing the
assessment, Dr. Robert W. Corell, an oceanographer and senior fellow of the
American Meteorological Society, said the timing was set during diplomatic
discussions that did not involve the scientists.
He said he could not yet comment on
the specific findings, but noted that the signals from the
"The major message is that
climate change is here and now in the
The report is a profusely
illustrated window on a region in remarkable flux, incorporating reams of
scientific data as well as observations by elders from native communities
around the
The potential benefits of the
changes include projected growth in marine fish stocks and improved prospects
for agriculture and timber harvests in some regions, as well as expanded access
to Arctic waters.
But the list of potential harms is
far longer.
The retreat of sea ice, the report
says, "is very likely to have devastating consequences for polar bears,
ice-living seals and local people for whom these animals are a primary food
source."
Oil and gas deposits on land are
likely to be harder to extract as tundra thaws, limiting the frozen season when
drilling convoys can traverse the otherwise spongy ground, the report says.
The report concludes that the
consequences of the fast-paced Arctic warming will be global. In particular,
the accelerated melting of
Nations Ranked as Protectors of the Environment
By FELICITY BARRINGER
Published: January 24, 2005
Correction Appended
Advertisement
The lowest-ranking country was
The index is the second produced in
collaboration with the World Economic Forum, which meets in
The report is based on 75 measures,
including the rate at which children die from respiratory diseases, fertility
rates, water quality, overfishing, emission of
heat-trapping gases and the export of sodium dioxide, a crucial component of
acid rain.
In its opening chapter, the
Environmental Sustainability Index report said: "Although imperfect, the
E.S.I. helps to fill a long-existing gap in environmental performance
evaluation. It offers a small step toward a more vigorous and quantitative
approach to environmental decision making."
The report also cited a
statistically significant correlation between high-ranking countries and
countries with open political systems and effective governments.
The report's flaws stem largely from
inadequate data, Mr. Esty said, adding that the ranking system is at best
approximate, because some individual scores had to be imputed in many cases.
But he said that data might improve in coming years.
He also said a system that rated
At 33,
Because such differences make many
countries inherently difficult to compare, he said, this report also analyzed
seven clusters of similar countries; in this analysis, the
Another cluster ranked countries
whose land is more than 50 percent desert, including
After
Irritation at low rankings in the
2002 index spurred countries like
South Korea moved up 13 spots
between 2002 and the new report, but was only No. 122 in the overall index, and
14th out of 21 high-density countries in which more than half the land has a
population density greater than 100 people per square kilometer.
Correction: January 28, 2005, Friday:
An article on Monday about a study that ranks nations by their
success in managing environmental problems referred incorrectly to an air
pollutant that is an important component of acid rain. It is sulfur dioxide,
not sodium dioxide.
December 19, 2004
By LARRY ROHTER
UENOS AIRES, Dec. 18 - Two weeks of
negotiations at a United Nations conference here on climate change ended early
Saturday with a weak pledge to start limited, informal talks on ways to slow
down global warming, after the United States blocked efforts to begin more
substantive discussions.
The main focus was to discuss the
Kyoto Protocol on global warming, which goes into force on Feb. 16 and will
require industrial nations to make substantial cuts in their emissions of
so-called greenhouse gases. But another goal had been to draw the
Governments that are already
committed to reducing emissions under the
"This is a new low for the
Because the
But the
"We are very flexible, but not
at all costs," said Pieter van Geel, state secretary of the environment
for the
Delegations and observer groups also
criticized what they described as an effort led by
The group that would receive the aid
includes Pacific Ocean states like
But the issue was complicated by
Harlan Watson, a senior member of
the American delegation, would not specifically discuss the American position
other than to say there are "always tos and fros in any negotiation."
He described the results as "the most comprehensive adaptation package
that has ever been completed," and "something that satisfied all
parties."
The
At a side meeting organized by
insurance companies, however, concerns were expressed about rapidly rising
payments resulting from more severe and frequent hurricanes, heat waves and
flooding. Representatives of major European reinsurance companies described
2004 as "the costliest year for the insurance industry worldwide" and
warned that worse is likely to come.
Thomas Loster, a climate expert at
the Munich Re insurance group, estimated that the cost of disasters will rise
to as much as $95 billion annually, compared to an average of $70 billion over
the past decade. Experts here acknowledge that extreme weather patterns have
always existed, but maintain that their frequency and intensity has been
increasing because of global warming.
"There is more and more
evidence building up that indicates that whatever is going on is not natural
and is no longer within the realm of variability," said Alden Meyer,
policy director of the Union of Concerned Scientists. Enough research has been
done, especially in the
Those sharply different perceptions
led to a clash even over what language should be used in discussing disaster
relief. Bush administration emissaries opposed the use of the phrase
"climate change," employed since the days of the first Bush
administration, in favor of "climate variability," a much more
nebulous term.