Will Global Warming Heat up or Cool Down the Economy - Coursework Example

Will Global Warming Heat up Or Cool Down the Economy Introduction Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius first stumbled upon the greenhouse phenomenon in 1897, but it was not until 90 years later that the subject entered the public consciousness. This happened after James Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in the US refined the theory and connected it with current climate behavior to earn for himself the distinction as father of the greenhouse theory. The greenhouse effect theory postulates that the gases and carbon dioxide expelled by people through the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing and agriculture collect in the atmosphere and cause the earth's average temperature to rise. This is known as global warming, which then leads to such ecological aberrations as ozone layer depletion, rising sea levels and changes in the pattern and amount of precipitation. These changes in precipitation in turn increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events like floods, droughts, heat waves, hurricanes and tornados. The effects of these severe weather disturbances range from lower agricultural yields, glacial retreat, less summer stream flows, extinction of species and increase in the number of disease vectors (Wikipedia). The scientific community is now nearly unanimous in heaping the blame for global warming on human activities, with only a small minority of the scientists absolves man for the phenomenon. But the persistent debate centers somewhere else, such as on how much worse climate change will occur in the future, and what needs to be done to reverse or at least reduce it. Global Warming and Hurricanes The relationship between global warming and hurricanes is another subject that is hotly debated. If the world's climatic scientists agree on one thing, it is on the superlative force of Hurricane Katrina, which swept across the Americas and Europe in 2004. The consensus is that no natural calamity in memory matched the scope and magnitude of the damage it wrought on lives, property and the economy. But the suspected link between weather events like Katrina and global warming is yet to be proven. Research by a group of German scientists argues that the devastating floods in central Europe in 2002, for example, were perfectly normal events based on historical record (Murray, I., 2006). Other hurricane scientists agree that there is no way to blame global warming for Hurricane Katrina. Allegations that extreme weather events had become more damaging lately do not take into account the fact that human beings now live and invest resources in more dangerous areas, such as mountainside and seacoasts. The increase in the recorded number of these weather disturbances may be due to better observation and reporting methods. Thus, when the Inter-government Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claimed that global warming exacerbated the 2004 hurricane season that produced Katrina, a top IPCC expert resigned in January 2005 in complete disagreement. Philip Klotzbach of the Colorado State University says that based on his own studies, most increases in Category 4-5 hurricanes between the period 1986-95 and 1996-2005 are due to improved observation technology. This indicates that other factors dictate the intensity and frequency of tropical cyclones. There is as yet no scientific consensus that global warming will cause damaging climate change, notwithstanding claims by UNEP, IPICC and the US National Academy of Sciences that there is such a growing agreement. But the scientists do agree that the global average temperature is rising. What the scientists don't know yet are: 1) whether past temperature changes should be attributed to carbon dioxide levels; 2) predicting future temperature levels confidently and accurately; and 3) what temperature change levels would be damaging to life on earth. The NAS itself says that the 20 years' worth of knowledge and data on this discipline is not long and sufficient enough to estimate long-term trends. Scientific Disagreement The alarm being raised over global warming is not warranted by the science or economics of the issue, some sectors of the scientific community argue. True, global warming is happening and that man is partly responsible for its occurrence but it does not mean that it will cause enough damage to earth and humanity as to require drastic cuts in energy use, which would have unimaginable consequences of its own (Murray, I., 2006). Predictions of a 6 degrees Celsius rise in temperature over the next 100 years are said to be the results of faulty economic modeling, not science. Theories that blame greenhouse gases for global warming are also believed to be erroneous, since significant contribution has also been made by atmospheric soot, land use change and solar variation. That climate scientists do not see eye-to-eye on global warming is demonstrated by the disagreement over what ought to be the hottest year on record. The Goddard Institute for Space studies in the US lists 2005 as the warmest since instruments for a more accurate and reliable measurement became available in the 1800s. According to the NASA weather agency, the temperature readings during that year exceeded the record set in 1998 by a few hundredth degrees Celsius. But the World Meteorological Organization and Climatic Research Unit in UK disagreed, saying the earth's average temperature in 1998 was warmer than in 2005. (Wikipedia) The IPCC created a stir in 2001 when it came up with a report predicting that global temperatures will rise from 2.5 degrees Farenheit to 10.4 degrees Farenheit by the 21st century, with the US level going up by as much as 30 percent. Richard Lindzen of MIT, the world's most renowned climatologist, and Hansen, the father of the greenhouse theory himself, disagree with this claim. The two experts share the view that even if nothing is done to restrict greenhouse gases, the world will only see a global temperature increase of about 1 degrees Celsius in the next 50 to 100 years (Jorgenson, D., et al., 2004). The business sector joined the fray. The American Council for Capital Formation and the eminent British economist David Henderson said IPCC has an unrealistically high forecast of growth, which could mean more energy use and more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. (Whipple, D., 2004) Depletion of the ozone layer, which serves as screen to protect the earth from the harmful effects of the sun, shares a large part of the blame for global warming. The doomsayers say that the earth's ozone layer is now dangerously thin because of unabated fossil emission. But Ray, D. (1992) would not hear any of this dim view, arguing that the sun continuously replenishes the ozone layer through ultra-violet sunlight. He points to the massive Mt. Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines in 1991, which spewed 1,000 times more ozone-depleting chemicals per eruption than all the fluorocarbons spewed by industries and vehicles in the planet at all times. The Philippine volcano erupted non-stop for nearly a year. There are thousands of other volcanoes around the world that erupt yearly and blow massive amounts of ozone-depleting gases into the atmosphere. But Ray, D. (1992) says the ozone layer remains healthy. The reason the US and Australia have up to now refused to sign the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which was already ratified by 150 countries, is the contention of both governments that the immense cost of mitigating global warming set by the agreement is not warranted by the situation. On the part of the US, the Bush administration maintains that the Protocol-mandated reduction in carbon dioxide emission by 2010 would hurt the economy in a bad way. Economic Effects Concerns about the climate have moved into the business and financial mainstream, since it is expected to affect everything from building codes to land use policy (Lynch, D., 2005). In 2002, the UNEP warned that the increasing frequency of severe weather events coupled with social trends could cost the economy some $150 billion in the next 10 years through the increased costs of insurance and disaster relief. Already, the German economy suffered the loss of much more than that amount in 2005 alone, with the German insurance foundation Munich Re estimating that $200 billion of insurance money went down the drain during that year. In UK, the Association of British Insurers reports that a mere 1 percent increase in annual precipitation jacks up the industry's catastrophe loss by as much as 2.8 percent (Wikipedia). If so, the British economy is indeed in trouble since weather reports point to an annual increase in precipitation of a lot more than 1 per cent around the world. In fact, a UNEP report said the year 2005 was the most costly in terms of insurance losses. Yale economist William Nordhaus expresses fear that if the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere doubles its present level, the costs on the US economy would reach $14.4 billion or 0.26 percent of national income. All this money would go to increased demand for electricity, land losses due to flooding, coastal erosion and protection of threatened seaboard properties (Taylor, J., 1998). The same distortions in the economy are expected to occur in countries that comply with the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol. Testifying before the US Senate in 2000, economist Robert Mendehlson expressed fear that in the case of UK, compliance with the Kyoto Protocol would bring down its GDP by 4.5 percent and see 1 million Britons lose their jobs. The same prospects confront Germany, Spain, and the Netherlands, which are all Kyoto Protocol signatories (Murray, I., 2006). But the climate change scenario is not all bad for the economy, especially if global warming is moderate. For example, more precipitation is better for US agriculture than less precipitation since "wetter is better' for the economy (Jorgenson, D., et al., 2004). In "low, central and high climate scenarios," the US GDP is expected to grow by 1.0 percent in 2100 but in the event of a higher and drier climate with less rainfall, the American GDP is forecast to contract by 3 percent in the same year. In Mendehlson's testimony before the US Senate, he said that unless global warming is unexpectedly severe, the benefits from US agriculture would more than compensate for the damages to be sustained in the coastal, energy and water sectors. Conclusion Anyone could notice that what scientists call extreme weather events have indeed become more vicious and frequent in recent times. But there had been natural calamities in the past as devastating as, say, Hurricane Katrina. So the scientific community needs to resolve once and for all whether these are a naturally occurring phenomenon, or induced by global warming that was in turn brought about by fuel emissions from industries. The problem is that, based on a scan of the materials written on the subject, the doomsday predictions of global warming catastrophe have relied heavily on economic factors and less on science. In the meantime, the US and Australia may be within their rights to withhold their acceptance of the Kyoto Protocol, which if implemented would damage their economies the same way they would suffer from hurricanes and floods. This stance was sort of validated by the so-called Heidelberg Appeal, which was recently signed by 4,000 scientists from around the world, including 70 Nobel Prize winners. The appeal exhorts the industrialized world to go easy on fuel regulation, saying that no compelling evidence as yet exists to justify radical controls of anthropogenic greenhouse emissions. This places the industrialized world in the horns of a dilemma: Should it cut down on fuel use now to avoid possible economic dislocation due to future weather events, which may or may not happen The answer seems to be along the lines suggested by the Heidelberg Appeal. The safest way out of this dilemma would have been to turn to nuclear power, what with wind and solar power proven to be less cost-effective. Nuclear power produces almost no emissions but environmental activists oppose its use, in direct contradiction to their assertion that global warming is the greatest danger to the planet. The same problem is posed by predictions that climate change would increase the incidence of malaria, as well as the deaths caused by poverty. Murray, I. (2004) points out that the problem on malaria could be easily controlled if the worldwide environmental lobby drops its opposition to DDT, which could wipe out the mosquito vectors of the disease. As for poverty-related deaths, this problem would be exacerbated if the world decides to suppress the use of energy as per provisions of the Kyoto Protocol. References: Book Ray, Dixie Lee (1992). "Trashing the Planet." Regnery Gateway, Washington DC. Newspaper Whipple, D. (2004). "Dollar Effects of Global Warming." United Press International, Boulder, May 4, 2004. Magazine Lynch, D. (2005). "Corporate American Warms to Fight against Global Warming." USA Today, Washington DC. Website Wikipedia. "Global Warming." Academic Journals Murray, I. (2006). "What Every Citizen Needs to Know about Global Warming." Competitive Enterprise Institute, Washington DC, No. 106, July 13, 2006. Jorgenseon, D., et al. (2004). "US Market Consequences of Global Climate Change." Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Harvard University, April 2004. Read More