 |
Al-Ahram Weekly On-line 23 - 29 November 2000 Issue No.509 
| ||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly On-line 23 - 29 November 2000 Issue No.509
| ||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Focus Travel Living Sports Profile People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Global warming
By Mohamed Sid-Ahmed
For a period of two weeks starting 13 November, representatives from 180 countries are meeting in the Hague to discuss what measures can be taken to curtail global warming. There is growing concern that if the trend towards a warmer climate continues at its present rate, it will disrupt weather patterns, ecosystems and agriculture around the world with disastrous consequences for the human race.
The first official acknowledgement that environmental problems needed to be addressed from a global perspective came in 1992, with the Earth summit organised by the United Nations in Rio. But it was only recently that scientific evidence emerged to confirm the role of humans in altering the atmosphere of the planet, a role that began with the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century and which has grown exponentially since. Scientists now recognise the existence of an organic link between industrial pollution and global warming, and warn that it is only by reducing the former that the latter can be controlled.
In 1997, a conference was held in Japan which brought together representatives from 38 industrialised nations to discuss the issue. The conference issued a treaty, called the Kyoto Protocol, which required the industrialised nations to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases over the next eight to 12 years by at least five per cent below the levels of 1990. The United States, far and away the largest producer of heat-trapping gases, was required to reduce its emissions of those gases by six per cent, Japan by seven per cent and Europe by eight per cent. Instead, America's emissions have increased by 11 per cent and Japan's by seven per cent, while Europe's have remained the same.
Experts predict that unless the trend towards global warming is reversed, the amount of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere is expected to triple and temperatures to rise by two to six degrees Celsius by the end of this century. The effects of such a development will be disastrous. Satellites monitoring the polar atmosphere show that the hole which opens in the ozone layer over Antarctica each spring was bigger than ever this year. As warmer temperatures melt the ice-caps in the North and South poles, sea levels will rise and flood wide areas of land, including Holland, which is below sea-level (awareness of their vulnerability prompted the Dutch to host the conference) and parts of the Nile Delta. We can also expect strange climatic disturbances such as hurricanes, earthquakes and floods in unexpected places (the string of devastating floods and storms that swept Europe in recent weeks are a taste of what may lie ahead). And, although health considerations are not yet a priority concern, the continued rise in global temperatures is certain to have extremely adverse effects on the health of future generations as they struggle to cope with climates hotter than any experienced in millions of years.
Despite the negative connotations that have come to be associated with the term "greenhouse effect", it is the natural phenomenon responsible for maintaining the temperature of the earth in a range hospitable to life, around 14 degrees Celsius instead of -18 degrees Celsius. The atmosphere is largely transparent to incoming short-wave solar radiation, which is absorbed by the earth's surface. Much of this radiation is then reemitted from the earth at infrared wavelengths, but is reflected back to earth by gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. These gases have existed in the atmosphere for millions of years, but their levels rose dramatically with the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Since 1860, the temperature of the surface of the earth has risen by an average 0.6 degrees Celsius every year. The last decade of the 20th century was the warmest ever thanks to the stepped-up use of fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal, as well as to the denudation of tropical rain forests.
Indeed, a new analysis of the climate of the last 1,000 years confirms that human activity is the dominant force behind the sharp global warming trend seen in the 20th century. With the link between man's pollution of his environment and global warming now scientifically established, the time has come for the international community to face up to its responsibility towards future generations by taking concerted action to combat this deadly phenomenon. To that end, all states of the world should commit themselves to an international convention that would spell out the specific measures to be taken in this regard and impose punitive measures on any state party violating its provisions. The Hague conference, which is being held to flesh out details of the Kyoto Protocol, and crowns four years of arduous negotiations, is a step in the right direction. The problem is that although the Protocol has been signed by more than 100 countries, it has been ratified by only 30 industrialised nations. For the Protocol to take effect, it must be ratified by the 55 states producing 55 per cent of the greenhouse effect worldwide.
However, that is easier said than done. There are widely divergent views on how the Protocol should be implemented between three distinct groups; the United States, Europe and the developing countries. To further complicate matters, there is a division within the United States itself, with the two presidential candidates adopting antipodal positions on the matter.
On the eve of the Hague conference, Clinton issued a statement, in which he invoked the alarming findings of a federal report to stress the need for urgent action to reduce environmental threats. However, he has been unable to rally support for the Protocol within the Senate, which has been in no hurry to ratify it. Much will depend on the new president.
The Democratic candidate, Al Gore, has made the environment a central issue of his election campaign and, despite accusations to the contrary by the Green Party candidate Ralph Nader, is widely regarded as a strong champion of environmental issues. As to the Republican candidate, George W Bush, he has made no secret of his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol, which bears the imprint of the Clinton administration, and is against placing any constraints on American industrial expansion. Indeed, since he became governor of Texas, the state capital, Houston, is said to have replaced Los Angeles as America's most heavily polluted city!
As to the European nations, although they now recognise that their heavy dependence on fossil fuels as their primary source of energy is no longer a viable proposition, they are finding it difficult to agree on an alternative source. For example, France has opted for nuclear energy, which now account for 70 per cent of its electricity needs, while Italy considers this a high risk source and is calling for greater reliance on solar energy. In general, there is a growing interest in developing renewable sources of energy, not only solar, but also geo-thermic, biomass, aeolien, micro-electrical plants, etc.
Still, whatever the problems facing the industrialised nations because of global warming, these will not substantially affect their continued progress. The same is not true when it comes to the developing countries. Although they now emit far less greenhouse pollution than the industrialised nations (an American citizen emits an average 20 tons of carbon dioxide annually as compared with 2.6 tons by a Chinese citizen and less than one ton by citizens in the least developed countries), their development processes require heavier energy consumption which, given the available source of energy, will increase their contribution to global pollution and hence to global warming.
At present America's consumption of energy far outstrips China's. But if the US observes the recommended limits of its carbon dioxide emissions and China refuses to be bound by any constraints when it comes to its development needs, China's emissions of greenhouse gases could come to surpass those of the US. This is a quandary not only for China but for more than two billion citizens of the less developed countries, whose primary concern is to push the development process forward, not to place additional obstacles in its path. That is why an intensive effort should be directed at finding more efficient means of harnessing solar energy which can meet global energy needs without producing pollution. This should be a top priority for our part of the world which is blessed with strong sunlight throughout the year and is better placed than many other regions to tap into this unlimited source of clean energy.
Many ideas are being floated to curtail global warming, including an American proposal to treat pollution as a commodity that can be bought and sold on the market in the form of 'heating coupons'. Thus a country with high emissions of greenhouse gases could purchase these coupons from countries with low emissions, while countries which take active measures to counter global warming, such as replanting forests to sop up carbon dioxide or cutting emissions from smokestacks and exhaust pipes, would build up a credit balance of heating coupons. However, the Europeans have expressed reservations on the American proposal to address the issue of global warming in the logic of the market, not least because of the difficulties involved in measuring heating coupons with any degree of precision. In the final analysis, there is a growing sense of urgency that immediate action must be taken in fact of this challenge to our very survival. It is to be hoped that The Hague conference will come up with concrete proposals that can halt global warming before it renders our habitat unfit for human life.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
