The Inequities of Climate Change

Worldwatch Live Online Discussion

Janet Sawin, Molly O'Meara Sheehan, David Taylor

June 13, 2003 - 2:00pm EDT

With global average temperatures climbing to 14.52 degrees Celsius, 2002 was the second hottest year since record keeping began in the late 1800s. The nine warmest years on record have occurred since 1990, and scientists expect that the temperature record set in 1998 will be broken with a new high in 2003.

Scientists predict that higher global temperatures will translate into a greater number of extreme weather events. The number of big weather catastrophes worldwide has quadrupled since the 1960s, a trend that many attribute to rising global temperatures.

Poor nations and communities are disproportionately vulnerable to the reverberations of climate change. While wealthy nations, mostly through fossil fuel burning, contribute disproportionately to carbon emission levels, developing nations suffer far higher relative economic and human losses from weather related disasters associated with climate change. Rising global temperatures have made citizens of poor nations more vulnerable to infectious diseases like malaria, while climate change induced sea level rise threatens the very existence of some small island states.

Steve Conklin, Worldwatch Institute: Welcome to Vital Signs 2003 online chat #4: The Inequities of Climate Change. Janet Sawin, Molly O'Meara Sheehan, and David Taylor are joining us to answer your questions. Welcome, Janet, Molly, and Dave.

Janet Sawin, Molly O'Meara Sheehan, David Taylor : Thanks, Steve. It's great to be here again. We're looking forward to this.

Vienna/Europe/Austria: Tuesday this week they brought an interesting report on ARTE about this subject. Many different specialists were talking about their point of view to this subject. There was one point which astonished me much: they said that global warming is a fact today but that nobody can prove that this happens because of air pollution - and that this fact would also be the reason that the US is not signing the Kyoto- protocol. Is this true? Could this be a normal natural effect which happens from time to time to our earth? Thank you in advance for any reply to this question (I am maybe not on tomorrow during the discussion but hope I can find any information regarding this question and other discussed points here or maybe by e-mail). Yours sincereley Brigitte Schreiner

Janet Sawin, Molly O'Meara Sheehan, David Taylor : There is still some scientific debate about global warming, but it focuses on the details, such as: what will be the impact of various feedback effects, or how will climate change affect specific countries or regions? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) incorporates the full range of possibilities into its debate and analyses, including the potential role of natural factors, and has concluded that average global temperatures are rising and that most of this warming is due to human activity, primarily the burning of fossil fuels.

The Bush Administration pulled the United States out of the Kyoto Protocol for political reasons, citing that it would be too costly for the US to meet its commitments under the protocol. Yet several studies have showed that the US could meet its commitments at little to no net economic cost – possibly with net economic benefits – while also creating new industries and jobs, reducing air and water pollution, improving human health, and reducing US dependence on imported oil. Some industries and individuals would likely be hurt, including the fossil fuel industries. On the other hand, doing nothing about climate change could bring significant economic costs to the entire nation. The Administration has also criticized the protocol for not including developing nations. Although the developing world has done little to date to create the global warming problem and these nations are not required to reduce emissions during the first commitment period of the protocol, many developing countries, including India and China, have already taken important steps to slow or reduce their own emissions.

Hilo, Hawaii: How do we convince our local officials and planners that the nature of community design and transportation systems are among the most significant factors influencing greenhouse gas emissions? Are you aware of any community general plans successfully address these issues and direct its citizens to significantly more sustainable futures? What are some of the main features of such plans?

Janet Sawin, Molly O'Meara Sheehan, David Taylor : This is a great question because climate change is a global problem with local consequences. And action to combat climate change will have to be taken at the local level.

There are many local governments around the world that are trying to develop in greener ways. Some of these governments have joined the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), which is sponsored a Cities for Climate Protection Camapaign. Some 500 local governments, responsible for roughly 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions, have joined this campaign. I don't know if Hilo has joined this group, but I think Honolulu has. More information is on ICLEI's website: www.iclei.org/co2.

In Worldwatch Paper 156 (City Limits: Putting the Brakes on Sprawl) we explored about the experiences of Portland, Oregon in the United States, Curitiba, Brazil, and Copenhagen, Denmark. All 3 of these cities adopted policies to better coordinate transportation and land use. As a result, they've seen less air pollution and carbon emissions. In each case, committed political leadership and community involvement were key.

As you're writing in from a U.S. city, I'll mention 2 other books that come to mind: The Regional City by Peter Calthorpe and William Fulton, and Common Place by Douglas Kelbach. Both of these books showcase examples of how communities in the United States have taken action to become greener. There are a number of other great books; these are just the ones that popped to mind right now.

Denver, Colorado: Hi all: In "Thermageddon," Robert Hunter raises several very scary scenarios regarding global warming, which he suggests may be irreversible after 2030. He suggests that the incipient melting of the Arctic ice cap will lead to either a runaway greenhouse effect, turning the earth into something like Venus, or possibly (it's not clear to me how) disturb the oceanic currents in such a way that would trigger a new ice age. How valid are these suggestions, and how seriously should we take them?

Janet Sawin, Molly O'Meara Sheehan, David Taylor : There is a growing body of evidence that the earth’s climate can change very rapidly as certain thresholds are reached – such as a subtle shift in ocean currents or the melting of an icecap. Earlier this year scientists found that such abrupt changes have in fact occurred in the past – with the global climate changing dramatically in less than a decade, rather than centuries as was previously believed. No one yet knows what triggers these swings, and it is not possible to determine at what specific date or atmospheric concentrations of CO2 this could occur. But these concerns should be taken seriously and make it all the more urgent to take serious steps now to dramatically reduce emissions in the US and other developed nations, while helping less industrialized countries to develop along a more sustainable path.

Sudbury, Ontario, CANADA: There is a lot of discussion about how to reduce GHG emissions. This is good, but the fact is that significant global warming is going to happen, no matter what we do. What work is going on re: adaptation strategies, given the fact of global warming?

Janet Sawin, Molly O'Meara Sheehan, David Taylor : While it’s essential to continue focusing on emissions reductions, we do need a parallel track that focuses on adaptation – particularly for people in the developing world who will be hardest hit by climate change and lack the resources to cope with it. To an extent, one could say that in the US and elsewhere we are already beginning to adapt, for example by spending millions of dollars each year to restore our beaches and shorelines that are being eroded by rising seas. But for the most part I don’t think that nations or regions have really begun to establish strategies for adapting to the full range of changes that we are likely to see, including more intense and frequent storms, droughts and floods, more severe heat waves, the spread of vector-borne diseases, and the impacts these changes will have on food supplies, human health, and on social and political stability. At the international level, it is only in the past year or two that governments have begun to discuss this issue, and the debate seems to be about money as much as it is about strategy and real action.
One region of the world in which adaptation is really the only real option is the small-island states. These states, while contributing only marginally to climate change, will have to adapt their environments, and indeed, their way of life, in order to survive. Climate change threatens islands in a multitude of ways, but some of the most immediate will be by the salinization of their groundwater supplies and farmland, flooding beaches, and the increased damage due to storm events. For all of these problems, adaptation is the only real solution. So for example, Kiribati, which already has 3 desalinization plants, will likely have to add more. With the loss of agricultural land due to salinization, these states will have to import more of their food. Flooding can be controlled by the addition of expensive sea-walls and levees, and the risk posed by storm events can be mitigated through improved emergency response systems.
Of course, adaptation is a tool that is most easily used by relatively wealthy states. Most of the small-island states, in contrast, have poor economic bases and will likely not have the fiscal resources to properly adapt to the challenge. For adaptation to be truly incorporated into a global framework, it will require some sort of financial assistance from wealthier countries.

Western Australia: Significant social change has almost always come from broad social uprising. How best to enrol the public in the Climate Change debate.

Janet Sawin, Molly O'Meara Sheehan, David Taylor : People tend to get engaged in issues when they see how they are directly affected. In Western Europe, recent severe floods have heightened concerns about climate change. Similarly, citizens in low-lying island states that are already prone to flooding can readily see the effects climate change may have on them.

In other places, climate change may seem a bit more abstract. However, the same fossil fuel burning that releases carbon that traps heat in the atmosphere also contributes to local air pollution, acid rain, and smog. Many of the local governments that have already reduced their carbon emissions have done so because their investments in energy efficiency or renewable energy technologies have both saved them money and helped clean up the local environment.

Actions to combat climate change also benefit the environment and people's health. Some people may be more inclined to mobilize around these sorts of local issues.

Atzmon, Israel: Given the situation of a rising sea level which seems unlikely to change over the short to medium term, it would appear that the developed world should shoulder responsibility for the results of its actions. Do you see any indication among Western governments that this is likely to happen?

Janet Sawin, Molly O'Meara Sheehan, David Taylor : For the most part, I haven't seen any great upwelling of developed country support for island nations. I think that if the island is percieved to be in a relatively direct economic or military interest for a mainland country, it may take action. For instance, the US will probably work to protect areas under its jurisdiction, like Hawaii, the Northern Marianas, the Marshall Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, etc. And the British will likely take action on the Falkland Islands, Bermuda, and the Caymans. But outside of this, I've seen a great reluctance to take any responsibility for small-island states. In fact, some countries are outright resistant to the idea of support. The Pacific island of Tuvalu fought for almost two years to recieve some sort of immigration plan to start evacuating people off to larger countries. It was rebuffed by Australia, and finally reached an agreement with New Zealand to take 75 Tuvaluans/year for 30 years. This was seen as a major breakthrough. Tuvalu, having achieved a sort of international fame for its woes, last year also threatened to sue both the US and Australia in the World Court for contributing to thier loss, and to further bring to light developed country intransigence on the issue of climate change.

Houston, TX: What are some of the long term global institutions and policies we'll have to advocate over the next generation to recorrect these problems? First to minimize the impact felt by poorer communities, second to reduce the effect. Do you feel the institutions are already in place to begin?

Janet Sawin, Molly O'Meara Sheehan, David Taylor : There are already a number of international institutions that can be used to help poorer countries address both the causes and likely effects of climate change. One of the key treaties to emerge from the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio was the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, an agreement that was strengthened in 1997 by the Kyoto Protocol. The Protocol established clear targets and timetables for reducing carbon emissions and includes the “Clean Development Mechanism” (CDM), which offers industrial nations opportunities to work with developing nations to reduce carbon emissions. While countries are moving forward with projects under the CDM, the Kyoto Protocol must be ratified to enter into effect. To date, 110 countries have ratified, including the EU, Japan and Canada; when Russia ratifies it, the protocol will enter into effect.

Another outgrowth of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit was the Global Environment Facility, which was set up to finance projects in developing nations that have global environmental benefits. Among the climate-related projects undertaken with support from the GEF are a biomass cogeneration power plant in Bahia Brazil and fuel cell buses in India.

As for minimizing the effects felt by poorer countries, development agencies such as the World Bank are looking at the ways in which the effects of climate change are likely to hurt efforts to alleviate poverty. A study on the links between climate change and poverty was released last week in Bonn, Germany and should soon be available on the World Bank’s web site.

Many of these institutions need support to function on a bigger scale, and many need to begin redirecting the funds they already have. For example, most World Bank funds for energy still go to fossil and large-scale hydropower projects. In addition, export credit agencies (supported by our tax dollars) need to begin transitioning money away from projects that rely on conventional energy and focusing more on efficiency and renewable energy. Conventional projects only lock developing countries into fossil fuels while worsening the climate problem.

Kennewick WA: The usual talk is reactive, with regard to increasing climate. Are there no benefits? Use of differential temperatures as source of energy? Cultivate desired tropical species in other locations form greenhouse conditions induced by global warming? Benefits to any eco-systems?

Janet Sawin, Molly O'Meara Sheehan, David Taylor : It is possible that, with minor changes in climate, some regions of the world could see benefits from warming. For example, with slight increases in average global temperature, some states or countries will experience longer growing seasons which could increase their agricultural output. On the flip side, warmer weather will likely bring more pests and diseases, which could also impact output. And while humans can adapt by moving to another location, it is much more difficult for trees or ecosystems to pick up roots and move. There is still a great deal of uncertainty regarding what types of changes will occur and where, and how significant the changes everywhere will actually be, and the IPCC has determined that most of the effects of climate change will be negative rather than positive. Finally, we should remember that we all live on the same planet, and major economic impacts, declining agricultural output, shortages of fresh water, mass migrations, political instability in one state or region of the world can affect the people next door or those on the other side of the globe.

Chennai, India: Hi, do you think there is enough discussion among environmental activists on the implications of equity and equal rights to the atmosphere for all citizens of the world?

Janet Sawin, Molly O'Meara Sheehan, David Taylor : The question of equity as it relates to climate change is now on the radar screen of a number of environmental organizations around the world, and I am aware of at least one NGO in the US that focuses specifically on this issue. It’s difficult to say whether or not there is “enough” focus on equity at this point. I think that there should and will be more of one in the future, however, and that this question will play a critical role in the global debate to determine solutions to climate change.

Macomb, Illinois: The island nation of Tuvalu has received substantial attention for announcing its need to evacuate its citizens due to rising sea levels, and its intention to sue the USA and Australia for the climate induced damage and relocation costs. Three questions: (1)What is the current status of this effort by Tuvalu? (2) Have any serious (specific and detailed)proposals been developed by NGOs, think tanks, or individuals on how nations such as Tuvalu that suffer from climate induced change should be compensated for such damage, and on who should provide such compensation? (3) If so, where can I get more information about these proposals? (While preventing harms from climate change is more important than compensating its victims, it may be that governments and corporations will not get serious about prevention until they begin to be hit with monetary damage awards).

Janet Sawin, Molly O'Meara Sheehan, David Taylor : Thanks for this very detailed question. I don't know all the ins and outs of the Tuvalu lawsuit, except that for all practical reasons, it has been discontinued. Tuvalu inititated the threat in 2001, in which the primary intent was to assembe a type of class-action lawsuit, encouraging other small states to get on board and sue bigger carbon-producing countries. The two prime targets were the US and Australia. Tuvalu continued to push the lawsuit through most of 2002. But in late 2002, Tuvalu's government changed and the new prime minister has said that he is not interested in pursuing the lawsuit.
I also think that countries will probably have a hard time suing another county for climate reasons, until the target country makes a committment to the treaty (like Kyoto) through ratification.
I don't have any further contacts on hand, but Janet said she'd love to forward you some if you're interested. Send an email to "Attn:Janet Sawin" at worldwatch@worldwatch.org.

Kennewick WA: The end of May, the 2nd Sustainability Forum was held in Portland, Oregon. About 750 individuals were registered participants and about 1000 people attended on Saturday, when entry was free. The Northwest is approaching sustainability and sustainable development in a rather concerted effort, by individuals, businesses, communities, government. One of the major opportunities for open discussions came in the small roundtable sessions. Perhaps a half dozen to a dozen people representing the same number of agendas but together, under the umbrella of the Big S.D., got to talk one-on-one. Most left with new ideas, new contacts, new colleagues, new friends. Is Worldwatch in a position to encourage similar forums? Seems they may achieve greater results than world summits that few can afford to attend.

Janet Sawin, Molly O'Meara Sheehan, David Taylor : Thanks for your question. Worldwatch has hosted a number of events in the past related to climate change, primarily with a focus on solutions such as renewable energy and successful policies around the world to promote these technologies. Most recently, we co-hosted an event on Capitol Hill where the leader of GLOBE Europe (Global Legislators for a Balanced Environment) spoke about climate and renewable energy policies in the EU and a member of the Bush Administration provided the US perspective, followed by a discussion on how to move forward. This was the first in a series of events that Worldwatch plans as a lead up to the German-sponsored international conference on renewable energy to be held in June 2004. We will continue to be involved in such efforts.

Hilo, Hawaii: Has the UN or any other organization addressed the fate of those displaced by climate change? Have plans been developed to preserve the community and social structures of these people, and their unique cultures? Can displaced people be helped to avoid being assimilated into the main cultures of their new homes?

Janet Sawin, Molly O'Meara Sheehan, David Taylor : As far as I know, nothing is being planned at this point. Unfortunately, it will probably be difficult if not impossible for displaced people to avoid assimilation. Much of the culture of people in small island states, for example, derives from the very place where they live and this will be lost with the place.

Hilo, Hawaii: How do we as concerned citizens go about reversing the trend towards urban sprawl, larger houses, and wider streets and highways that contribute heavily to inefficient resources use, pollution, and global warming? The inertia in local governments favoring these unsustainable trends seems overwhelming.

Janet Sawin, Molly O'Meara Sheehan, David Taylor : A couple of recent opinion surveys in the United States found that a majority of Americans would like to see the U.S. government take action on climate change. For instance, a University of Oregon survey found that 80% of Americans support climate change initiatives. Similarly, a Gallup Poll from April 2003 found 75% of Americans would support mandatory controls on carbon dioxide.

The challenge, as you point out, is turning these sentiments into action. As a citizen, you influence some decisions with your votes. One option would be to join a local organization that advocates renewable energy use, energy efficiency, and greater links between transportation and land use planning. If no such group exists locally, you might start one of your own -- perhaps modeled on other successful groups. For instance, the citizen's organization 1,000 Friends of Oregon, which has played a key role in influencing local development in cities such as Portland, has inspired 1,000 Friends groups in various U.S. states.

You can also make your voice heard at the national level, as federal policies influence what happens locally. Right now, there are important energy and transportation bills that your representatives are discussing in Congress. One organization that has worked on national transportation policy in the United States is STPP. Their website is www.transact.org.

Steve Conklin, Worldwatch Institute: Thanks for joining us today, Molly, Janet, and Dave. Thank you as well to all of our chat participants.

Janet Sawin, Molly O'Meara Sheehan, David Taylor : Thank you! We've enjoyed this continued discussion of Vital Signs 2003. Please come back to our website for future chats, as well as to download free Vital Signs.