Students listen when Michael Gerrard speaks on climate change and U.S. law
By Annie Madden (science) and Danielle Runfola (English), teachers at Robert E. Bell Middle School, who have organized a group of students interested in sustainability issues to write for NewCastleNOW. Students contributing to this article include Lisa Maddox, Adam Finn, Alexandre Chepigan, Adam Cooper, Bruna Paranhos, Ellen Rothschild, Lea Ono, Anup Kishore and Aemilia Phillips.
December 7, 2007
National security risks stemming from greenhouse gas emissions and the resultant effects of global warming are increasingly taking center stage in the political arena. Just ask Michael Gerrard, a local resident with an international reputation in environmental law, author of two legal works named “Best Law Book of the Year,” and a partner and head of the environmental practice group in the New York office of Arnold & Porter. Gerrard made a comprehensive presentation at the Chappaqua Library on Thursday, November 29 on the topic of global warming and U.S. law.
According to Gerrard, there are currently 27 bills before the Senate and 25 more before Congress- all designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from human activity. As global temperatures rise, numerous lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. about climate change issues, including one that is shaping the landscape of federal responsibility, Massachusetts vs. EPA, filed in 1999. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled on April 2, 2007, that the Environmental Protection Agency, a branch of the federal government, has the right and obligation to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.
Widespread acceptance that global warming is a reality and that human activity is contributing to it
There is increasingly widespread public acceptance of the fact that humans are contributing to global warming, especially since the release of the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, representing the definitive opinion of its 1500 members. However, according to Madden, Runfola and their students, there is clearly a need for national policy makers to lead efforts to reduce the nation’s carbon footprint in acknowledgment of the fact that altering the Earth’s climate will have effects far beyond temperatures alone. Hurricane Katrina, the Indian Ocean tsunami, the California wildfires and other natural phenomena have ordinary people, not just scientists, thinking about the adverse effects of climate change beyond just temperature rise.
Gerrard provides a science lesson on the greenhouse effect and global warming
Gerrard led his presentation with a brief background into the science behind the greenhouse effect and global warming. The Natural Greenhouse Effect is the natural warming of the earth’s atmosphere required for life to exist on Earth. When light from the sun enters the Earth’s atmosphere some of the energy is absorbed by the surface of the Earth and some reflects back into the atmosphere as infrared (heat) energy. Greenhouse gases, like methane, hexafluoride and carbon dioxide (there are many, many more) absorb the infrared energy and trap it in the atmosphere. With the build up of excess greenhouse gases, more heat is trapped and the temperature regulating greenhouse effect becomes what is being called global warming or the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect.
Each greenhouse gas absorbs heat with a different magnitude of effect on the Earth’s atmosphere. For example, carbon dioxide is considered the weakest greenhouse gas because it does not absorb heat as efficiently as methane or nitrous oxide. However, carbon dioxide is the most common of gases polluting the atmosphere, so its cumulative impact is greatest.
Greenhouse gases are distributed quickly around the globe after they enter the atmosphere. They stay in the atmosphere for a long time after they are released. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere will stay constant for the next forty years, no matter what action we take. To prevent the levels from increasing after that, we need to take action now. Burning coal to create electricity is the number one source of greenhouse gas emissions and the amount of coal being burned is increasing. The other significant source of carbon dioxide production in the U.S. is from motor vehicles. While developing countries as they industrialize are producing more pollution than ever before, the pollution from developed countries is much more significant because we have greater access to resources to pillage.
IPCC 2007 report chronicles the devastating impact of unchecked global warming
The IPCC is a group of 1,500 scientists who study global warming, primarily focusing on greenhouse gas emissions and their effects on Earth’s atmosphere. The group’s report, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fourth Assessment Report Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report (released in January 2007) is broad in scope, but some examples of great consequence typify the problems humankind will face as a result of global warming from excess greenhouse gasses.
In Asia, the availability of freshwater will decrease significantly because rising sea levels (a consequence of frozen freshwater deposits melting) threaten freshwater by encroachment of salt water into freshwater aquifers (underground sources of drinking water) and the migration of sea water inland. In fact, it may affect a billion people by the 2050’s. There will be fewer areas for agriculture as a result of soil moisture evaporation and dry areas will turn into deserts. Opportunistic pests, such as rodents and parasitic insects, and the diseases they carry will migrate from the equator towards the poles as the tropical climates increase in area.
Fires will eventually plague the forests of North America. After the recent wildfires in California, people are concerned because warmer temperatures appear to be increasing the duration and intensity of the wildfire season. Also, cities that are currently experiencing heat waves will encounter increased levels of intensity. Most troubling is the fact that many elderly people will have a decreased chance of surviving these longer and more intense heat waves.
Glaciers, melting at the poles, are making sea levels rise slowly, but significantly. According to the IPCC report, global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 mm per year over 1961 to 1993, for a total of 5.25 cm for the 32 year span. The average rate increased to about 3.1 mm per year from 1993 to 2003, for a total of 3.10 cm in just 10 years.
The Kyoto Protocol—U.S .is the only industrialized nation that has refused to sign it
The Kyoto Protocol is a treaty implemented in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan. The protocol requires industrialized countries to reduce their greenhouse gases to pre-1990 levels by 2012. Countries have varying degrees of reduction required under the treaty. Some have to reduce their emissions by 5%; but the European Union has to reduce by 8%. Iceland was allowed to have a 10% increase to accommodate their growth, and other less- developed countries were even allowed a 27% increase. The protocol also involved flexibility mechanisms. They were built into the Kyoto Protocol to allow the more industrialized nations to help out less industrialized nations with less money, to further cut emissions. According to Gerrard, these mechanisms include emissions trading, clean development mechanisms and money transfers from developed to developing countries.
The United States didn’t sign the protocol because it did not bind developing countries, such as China and India, to the same standard of emissions reduction as other industrialized countries. However, China and India weren’t required to ratify the protocol because they lacked the money to fund such initiatives. The United States government also claimed that signing the treaty could harm the U.S. economy by involuntarily requiring U.S. corporations to invest in emission reduction at the expense of their profit line. For several years, Australia was against the protocol, but a recent change in leadership led to the signing of the treaty. Just hours after the new prime minister, Kevin Rudd, was elected to office, he signed the Kyoto Protocol, saying, “this is the first official act of the new Australian government, demonstrating my government’s commitment to tackling climate change.” At the moment, the United States is the only industrialized country that has not signed the protocol.
Regional initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
The current U.S. administration is opposed to mandatory reductions of power plant emissions, as evidenced by President Bush’s refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol in 2001. Because the United States is not bound to follow the treaty’s regulations, local and regional efforts are the only effective means to attempt to reduce emissions. Other examples of action on a regional or local level include initiatives like the U.S. Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement, signed by 376 mayors from 50 states, which attempts to impose on U.S. cities the greenhouse gas emission targets of the Kyoto Protocol, and the law passed by the New York City Council on Wednesday, November 28 to reduce greenhouse emissions.
RGGI, Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, is a coalition among northeastern U.S. states including New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland. The sole purpose of the coalition is to reduce power plant emissions from coal by developing a cap and trade program for those emissions. In a typical cap and trade program, a factory has cap on the amount of greenhouse gas it is allowed to produce. To the extent that its output may exceed that cap, it must purchase greenhouse gas credits from another factory that does not release gases up to its cap. Implementation of RGGI begins in January of 2009, and its goal is to stabilize current emissions levels by 2015. Between 2015 and 2020, another ten percent reduction is planned. New York State is set to begin developing its mandates to meet those requirements in January 2008. It is important to note that this is a regional approach to a global issue.
Americans want action now on global warming
In a poll conducted by The Washington Post, ABC News and Stanford University in April 2007, 89% of Americans agreed that humans are contributing to global warming; only 1% of those polled believed that no action is necessary. Eighty percent of Americans believe that action is necessary right now. In order to lower the total carbon footprint, we must begin by acting locally. Simple individual actions could be turning off any electrical equipment when not in use. When incandescent light bulbs burn out, buy compact florescent light bulbs to take their place and when possible, use public transportation, such as trains and buses. If our national government refuses to enact federal policy to reduce carbon emissions, states and local governments must encourage their residents to take action.
While coal burning power plants are the leading emitters of greenhouse gases, automobiles are a close second. The science of carbon sequestration, the removal of carbon from industrial discharge prior to its release into the atmosphere, is emerging but not yet ready to handle the amount of waste being produced. Something that we currently have the science to address but not the federal incentive to improve is the performance of automobiles. Incentives are needed to encourage the production of vehicles with higher fuel mile standards and to encourage the development of hybrids and other alternative fuel vehicles. Other options that could be explored are cap-and-trade policies that regulate the amount of greenhouse gases a business is allowed to produce .
What we can do locally
In Chappaqua, we can set an example for other towns by integrating eco-friendly policies into our building codes. We have begun to do this by purchasing 39% of our energy from wind power. It would be beneficial to incorporate more sidewalks and bike paths in our future expansion and renovation. Also, we should buy open, undeveloped land, simply to keep it so.
While many suggestions to ameliorate the current situation were offered, perhaps the most apropos involved our future generations. During the question and answer segment of Gerrard’s presentation, a member of the audience proposed that the education of our children in sustainable practices be added to this list. Gerrard noted the large group of youths making up a portion of the audience. It is clear that without the current generation’s understanding and support of this issue, no amount of legislation will effectively address the current climate crisis.
Click here for a printable view of this article.
Click here to read more Schools articles.Click here to read more Science & Environment articles.
Click here to send a copy of this article via email.
We're interested in your opinion. Click here to submit a comment on this article, or any other.
