BOULDER, Colo., June 21 (UPI) -- A weekly series by United Press International examining potential human impact on global climate change.
--
BALTIMORE, June 21 (UPI) -- The focus of the global warming debate is shifting somewhat, from the question of whether it really is happening to how to deal with its effects, which are beginning to look inevitable.
So far, two primary strategies are emerging to address changing climate -- mitigation and adaptation -- and Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change in Arlington, Va., thinks both need to be employed in force.
Mitigation means using active measures, such as carbon-storing, to try to hold back the build-up of carbon dioxide -- the primary greenhouse gas -- in the atmosphere. Adaptation means taking changing climate as a given and trying to cope.
"Even if mitigation measures were put in place today, we have already brought about a certain amount of warming," Claussen said during a news teleconference last week. Though policymakers must employ measures to address the resulting impacts, particularly in poorer nations, "adaptation is a complement to, but not a replacement for, greenhouse gas mitigation."
Complementary or not, it will be "a costly endeavor," she said. "The quicker the world warms, the more difficult it will be to adapt."
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projects greenhouse gases will level off in the atmosphere over the next 100 years or so at about 550 parts per million, roughly twice pre-industrial levels and by far the highest concentration in at least 2 million years. As a result, IPCC said, the global mean annual temperature will increase anywhere from 2.5 degrees to 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit (1.4 degrees to 5.8 degrees Celsius) by 2100.
Claussen convened the teleconference to unveil "Coping with Global Climate Change: The Role of Adaptation in the United States," the latest in a series of reports the center has published about issue. Among its conclusions: the United States, possessing the flexibility of response afforded by it wealth, should be able to adapt to a warmer climate -- and might even benefit from it in some ways.
On the other hand, the report said: "Warming in the United States is anticipated to be approximately one-third greater than the global average. This increase in global temperature will be accompanied by a rising sea level, an accelerated hydrologic cycle resulting in greater precipitation, and a potential increase in climate variability, such as extremes of temperature, precipitation and storm activity."
U.S. ecosystems may not be able to adapt so well to the rapid changes.
"Effects on ecosystems, and on species diversity in particular, are expected to be negative at all but perhaps the lowest magnitudes of climate change because of the limited ability of natural systems to adapt," the Pew report continued. "Although biological systems have an inherent capacity to adapt to changes in environmental conditions, given the rapid rate of projected climate change, adaptive capacity is likely to be exceeded for many species."
The report recommended using long-standing institutions and structures to ease the adaptations. For instance, the government should rely on coastal zone management, zoning and land-use planning. It also urged removing disincentives for changing behavior, such as eliminating subsidies for "maladaptive activities," a euphemism for rewarding wasteful behavior, such as giving tax cuts to sport utility vehicle purchasers.
Still, the Pew report represents only one approach to climate change adaptation. The International Policy Network, a British think tank dealing with sustainability issues, has produced its own report on the science, politics and economics of climate called "Adapt or Die" -- which probably is good advice in many situations.
Kendra Okonski, IPN's director of sustainable development, wrote in that report: "It has become increasingly clear that two possible paths could be followed to address the impacts of a warmer climate. The 'climate control' approach dogmatically suggests that the threat of global warming looms so large that we must control the Earth's climate."
Okonski said because poor countries lack sufficient resources to contribute significantly to such an effort, "wealthy countries must urgently reduce their consumption of energy resources."
She noted, however, "There are many options available to humanity to address potential threats ... which do not entail climate control."
The Pew Center report generally urged sacrifice and cuts in energy consumption to address the greenhouse issue, but the IPN approach actually was an appeal for creating more wealth around the world. Energy use, obviously, is lowest in poor countries, so if they are going to improve their lot, they must have more energy.
"There is a direct, negative causal relationship between lack of energy, the burden of poverty and environmental degradation in rural areas," the report said.
The climate control model is not the way to help these people, or to improve their environment, Okonski said.
In the same book, American Enterprise Institute visiting fellow Indur Goklany wrote, "Almost every indicator of human or environmental well-being improves with wealth." That is, people live longer, have access to clean water and good sanitation, eat better and care for the environment around them better.
"The reality is that wealth allows humanity to lead a more environmentally benign existence," Okonski said.
There are risks to either strategy. The creation of new wealth sometimes results in harsh human and environmental conditions. The early industrialization of the West was accompanied by foul air, foul water, high child labor mortality and many other problems that were only eventually addressed by external controls placed on the market.
Nevertheless, the assertion that wealth improves both human living conditions and environmental concerns essentially is correct. When the environment treats people better, they generally return the favor.
The two paths may not even be mutually exclusive. Great Britain, for instance, has embarked on a plan to cut its emission of greenhouse gases by 60 percent by 2050. The effort is not entirely selfless. The British are acting on a theory, backed by their own economic research, that the pace of technological change speeds up as they address these issues. So their hope is to be at the global forefront of energy and emissions technology when the world is forced to wean itself from reliance on petroleum.
In this sense, climate science also could be a wealth and welfare generator.
--
Dan Whipple covers the environment for UPI Science News. E-mail [email protected]
