News
General Interest
Leading UA scholars say early action is best “insurance policy” against climate change
January 12, 2006
By Stephanie Doster
While climatologists work to understand the relationships between natural variability and the effects of human activity on the climate system, leading scholars at the University of Arizona say one thing is certain: More, immediate steps must be taken as “an insurance policy” against climate change.
The scientists’ comments were occasioned by a two-week United Nations conference on climate change last month in Montreal, where the United States ultimately agreed to begin nonbinding talks that “will not open any negotiations leading to new commitments” to cut emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.
The UA scientists said they were disappointed, but not surprised, that the United States and some of the rapidly-developing countries are resisting joining nearly all of the other industrialized nations in agreeing to binding limits on their emissions.
“It’s disappointing because the available science on a broad front indicates two things: The risk of greenhouse warming is very great and that it would have some serious consequences,” said Dr. Malcolm Hughes, a professor in the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research who studies the climate of the past.
“I’d like to see all the major economies take a more proactive role on several counts: Reducing emissions and preparing for the likely short term consequences,” Hughes said. “That has to be done on a global scale because we live in such an interconnected world.”
Dr. Gregg Garfin, program manager of the Climate Assessment for the Southwest (CLIMAS), agreed.
“It’s my impression that by this time we know for sure that the benefits are greater than the costs to mitigate climate change and it’s probably too late to make a big impact if we don’t act soon,” Garfin said. “There are things we could do as individuals collectively to make an impact and there are things we can do on larger scales, like setting limits for emissions or changing our energy portfolio, that really require some top-down action.”
In the Southwest, he said, warmer temperatures would melt snow in the mountains earlier and more suddenly than normal. The rapid runoff would reduce the amount of water absorbed into the soil and increase evaporation in reservoirs, putting more stress on the region’s resources.
Dr. Xubin Zeng, professor of atmospheric sciences, and Garfin said help from the government is like “an insurance policy” against a potential environmental disaster.
“Do you know when you are going to die? No, but the probability is there so you spend the money to buy insurance,” Zeng said. “We probably have better knowledge about global warming than about other things we buy insurance for.”
The climate change issue involves the Earth’s surface temperature, which has increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century.
The issue most relevant to Montreal, Hughes said, is not why the Earth has warmed in the last century, but whether climate models that are projecting excess global warming are reliable. The overwhelming weight of available evidence indicates that they are, and new evidence continues to accumulate, he said. These climate models indicate that warming will continue and accelerate in the coming decades due to the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities, coupled with natural variability, Hughes said.
To address climate change, more than 150 nations ratified the Kyoto Protocol, an agreement that took effect in February 2005 requiring 38 industrial countries to reduce their greenhouse gases below 1990 levels. President Bush rejected the agreement in 2001, saying it unfairly exempted developing countries, including rapidly-growing China and India, from complying and could harm the U.S. economy.
During the Montreal conference, which ended December 10, parties to the Kyoto treaty agreed to begin talks about setting binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions that would take effect when the Kyoto terms expire in 2012.
“It’s important that we move beyond Kyoto or scientifically we will be faced with reducing carbon dioxide emissions quickly or having to adapt to bigger and faster changes,” Hughes said. “Each year’s delay is very important because the longer we delay, the harder it is to turn it around.”
Zeng said one of his main concerns about the United States’ stance on climate change is that other countries will develop new technology for decreasing greenhouse emissions, putting less advanced American companies and jobs in jeopardy.
“We still spend a lot of research dollars on global change,” Zeng said. “But by not taking a leadership role, we are not pushing industry to move faster.”
The lack of federal action in the United States has helped push some states and regions to develop their own measures for limiting emissions, independent of the federal government, said UA law professor Kirsten Engel.
In 2004, California adopted regulations designed to cut automotive emissions of greenhouse gases, and a number of other states have adopted or are considering similar rules. In Arizona, Gov. Janet Napolitano's Climate Change Advisory Group is drafting recommendations for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions in the state. On a regional level, seven states in the Northeast recently signed an agreement to cut emissions from power plants.
The actual emissions reductions outlined in the states’ various regulations is relatively small, said Engel, a member of the Arizona advisory group. But the important point is that their efforts could prompt federal legislation or more activity on a regional scale, she said.
“They are experimenting with different types of proposals that could push the federal government into action,” Engel said. “When states are all doing something slightly different, that is when it is more likely that the federal government will sweep in to enact a national program that is more uniform.”