GREEN HOUSE EFFECT / GLOBAL WARMING
B.COM. GENERAL
NAME : SISIR DAS
SEMESTER : II
C.U. REGISTRATION NO. : 023-1111-0955-20
C.U. ROLL NO. : 201023-22-0042
GREEN HOUSE EFFECT / GLOBAL WARMING
INTRODUCTION
What is Global Warming?
Global warming is the slow increase in the average temperature of the earth‟s atmosphere because an
increased amount of the energy (heat) striking the earth from the sun is being trapped in the atmosphere and
not radiated out into space.
The earth‟s atmosphere has always acted like a greenhouse to capture the sun‟s heat, ensuring that the earth
has enjoyed temperatures that permitted the emergence of life forms as we know them, including humans.
Without our atmospheric greenhouse the earth would be very cold. Global warming, however, is the
equivalent of a greenhouse with high efficiency reflective glass installed the wrong way around.
Ionically, the best evidence of this may come from a terrible cooling event that took place some 1,500 years
ago. Two massive volcanic eruptions, one year after another placed so much black dust into the upper
atmosphere that little sunlight could penetrate. Temperatures plummeted. Crops failed. People died of
starvation and the Black Death started its march. As the dust slowly fell to earth, the sun was again able to
warn the world and life returned to normal.
Today, we have the opposite problem. Today, the problem is not that too little sun warmth is reaching the
earth, but that too much is being trapped in our atmosphere.
So much heat is being kept inside greenhouse earth that the temperature of the earth is going up faster than
at any previous time in history. NASA provides an excellent course module on the science of global
warming.
How does Global Warming drive Climate Change?
Heat is energy and when you add energy to any system changes occur.
Because all systems in the global climate system are connected, adding heat energy causes the global
climate as a whole to change.
Much of the world is covered with ocean which heats up. When the ocean heats up, more water evaporates
into clouds.
Where storms like hurricanes and typhoons are forming, the result is more energy-intensive storms. A
warmer atmosphere makes glaciers and mountain snow packs, the Polar ice cap, and the great ice shield
jutting off of Antarctica melt raising sea levels.
(
Changes in temperature change the great patterns of wind that bring the monsoons in Asia and rain and snow
around the world, making drought and unpredictable weather more common.
This is why scientists have stopped focusing just on global warming and now focus on the larger topic of
climate change.
DISCUSSION
What Causes Global Warming?
There are three positions on global warming: (1) that global warming is not occurring and so neither is
climate change; (2) that global warming and climate change are occurring, but these are natural, cyclic
events unrelated to human activity; and (3) that global warming is occurring as a result primarily of human
activity and so climate change is also the result of human activity.
The claim that nothing is happening is very hard to defend in the face or masses of visual, land-based and
satellite data that clearly shows rising average sea and land temperatures and shrinking ice masses.
The claim that the observed global warming is natural or at least not the result of human carbon emissions
(see Climate Skeptics below) focuses on data that shows that world temperatures and atmospheric CO2
levels have been equally high or higher in the past. They also point to the well understood effects of solar
activity on the amount of radiation striking the earth and the fact that in recent times the sun has been
particularly active.
In general, climate scientists and environmentalists either (1) dispute the data based on, for example, new ice
core data or (2) suggest that the timing issue – that is, the rapidity with which the globe has warmed and the
climate changed simply do not fit the model of previous natural events. They note also that compared to
other stars the sun is actually very stable, varying in energy output by just 0.1% and over a relatively short
cycle of 11 to 50 years quite unrelated to global warming as a whole. The data strongly suggests that solar
activity affects the global climate in many important ways, but is not a factor in the systemic change over
time that we call global warming.
As for the final position that global warming and climate change result from human activity (are
“anthropogenic”), scientists attribute current atmospheric warming to human activities that have increased
the amount of carbon containing gases in the upper atmosphere and to increased amounts of tiny particles in
the lower atmosphere. (NASA offers a good course module on “The Carbon Question.”)
Specifically, gases released primarily by the burning of fossil fuels and the tiny particles produced by
incomplete burning trap the sun‟s energy in the atmosphere. Scientists call these gases “greenhouse gases”
(GHGs) because they act like the wrong way reflective glass in our global greenhouse.
Scientists call the tiny particles „black carbon‟ (you call it soot or smoke) and attribute their warming effect
to the fact that the resulting layer of black particles in the lower atmosphere absorbs heat like a black
blanket.
Scientists date the beginning of the current warming trend to the end of the 18th or beginning of the 19th
century when coal first came into common use.
This warming trend has accelerated as we have increased our use of fossil fuels to include gasoline, diesel,
kerosene and natural gas, as well as the petrochemicals (plastics, pharmaceuticals, fertilizers) we now make
from oil.
Scientists attribute the current warming trend to the use of fossil fuels because using them releases into the
atmosphere stores of carbon that were sequestered (buried) millions of years ago.
The addition of this “old” carbon to the world‟s current stock of carbon, scientists have concluded, is what is
heating our earth which causes global warming.
What are the most important greenhouse gases(GHGs)?
The most common and most talked about greenhouse gases is CO2 or carbon dioxide. In fact, because it is
so common, scientists use it as the benchmark or measure of things that warm the atmosphere.
Methane, another important GHG, for example, is 28-36 times as warming as CO2 when in the upper
atmosphere (USEPA GWP – Global Warming Potential – estimate over 100 years), therefore, 1 ton of
methane = 28-36 tons eCO2 or CO2 equivalents.
The most commonly discussed GHGs are:
o CO2 or carbon dioxide is produced any time something is burned. It is the most common
GHG, constituting by some measures almost 55% of total long-term GHGs. It is used as a
marker by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, for example, because of its
ubiquity. Carbon dioxide is assigned a GWP or Global Warming Potential of 1.
o Methane or CH4 is produced in many combustion processes and also by anaerobic
decomposition, for example, in flooded rice paddies, pig and cow stomachs, and pig manure
ponds. Methane breaks down in approximately 10 years, but is a precursor of ozone, itself an
important GHG. CH4 has a GWP of 28-36.
o Nitrous oxide in parean (laughing gas), NO/N2O or simply NOx is a byproduct of fertilizer
production and use, other industrial processes and the combustion of certain materials.
Nitrous oxide lasts a very long time in the atmosphere, but at the 100 year point of
comparison to CO2, its GWP is 265-298.
o Fluorinated gases were created as replacements for ozone depleting refrigerants, but have
proved to be both extremely long lasting and extremely warming GHGs. They have no
natural sources, but are entirely man-made. At the 100 year point of comparison, their GWPs
range from 1,800 to 8,000 and some variants top 10,000.
Sulphur hexafluoride or SF6 is used for specialized medical procedures, but primarily in what are
called dielectric materials, especially dielectric liquids. These are used as insulators in high voltage
applications such as transformers and grid switching gear. SF6 will last thousands of years in the
upper atmosphere and has a GWP of 22,800.
What is black carbon and how does it cause global warming?
Black carbon (BC) is tiny particles of carbon released as a result of the incomplete combustion of fossil
fuels, biofuels and biomass. These particles are extremely small, ranging from 10 µm (micrometers, PM10),
the size of a single bacterium to less than 2.5 µm (PM2.5), one thirtieth the width of a human hair and small
enough to pass through the walls of the human lung and into the bloodstream.
Although BC – think of the plume of smoke from a chimney or a fire – falls out of the lower atmosphere in
days, while it is suspended in the air, it absorbs the sun‟s heat millions of times more effectively than CO2.
When wind carries BC over snow, glaciers or ice caps where it falls out onto the white, normally reflective
surface, it is particularly damaging because it contributes directly to melting. Overall, BC is considered the
second biggest contributor to global warming after CO2.
What are the most important sources of GHGs and black carbon?
Fossil fuel and related uses of coal and petroleum are the most important sources of GHGs and black carbon
(power generation, industry, transportation, buildings).
Agriculture is the second most important source (animals – cows and pigs), feed production, chemical
intensive food production, and flooded paddy rice production, as well as deforestation driven by the desire to
expand cultivated areas.
(New studies suggest that agriculture is the largest contributor of particulate emissions in the US and other
developed agricultural countries.)
Natural sources of GHGs and black carbon include forest fires, savanna fires and volcanos.
What evidence do we have of climate change?
The most compelling climate change evidence scientists have of climate change is long term data relating
atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperature, sea level, the expanse of ice, the fossil record and the
distribution of species.
This data, which goes back millions of years, shows a strong correlation between CO2 levels and
temperature. Recent data shows a trend of increasing temperature and rising CO2 levels beginning in the
early 19th century.
Because all parts of the global climate are connected, scientists have been able to create models of how
changes caused by heating should work their way through the entire system and appear in different areas, for
example, sea level, intemperate weather, the movement of fish species in the ocean.
Testing whether or not predicted changes have occurred is an important way to verify underlying theory.
This can be done in two ways.
First, it is possible to load a model with historical data and ask: how well does this model predict what we
know happened?
NASA and other scientific agencies have done this and found that the models work well.
A second way to test is to use the model to predict upcoming changes and then to see if emerging reality fits.
It is possible to track the rapid retreat of glaciers and observe the summer melting of the Polar Ice Cap. Sea
levels are rising measurably, the temperature of the world‟s oceans is demonstrably rising and consequently
many fish species are moving to follow waters that are the right temperature for them.
Correlating these changes to the timing of rises in CO2 levels and temperature suggests
relationship. NASA provides a good visual tool for viewing these relational models “in action”.
In specific instances, for example, CO2 levels, temperature and ocean pH, the chemical processes are
traceable proving direct causal connection.
Climate change difficulties – Why are climate change difficulties so hard to manage?
Managing climate change difficulties arise from two, related reasons: climate change management is viewed
as expensive and it poses what we call a collective action problem.
Why managing climate change difficulties seems so expensive
When business and politicians talk about climate change, the first thing they mention is cost. If you
start from the status quo today, adding CO2 removing equipment to a coal power plant is expensive –
but only if you do not value the environment. When you buy coal for a power plant, you pay for a
limited resource and the cost of supplying it to you.
Today, when you dump the GHGs and black carbon from burning coal into the air, you pay nothing.
But a clean atmosphere is a limited resource; the atmosphere will absorb only so much GHGs and
black carbon before it is not clean, at which point it is costly to clean it.Logically, there is no reason
why businesses that pay for a scarce resource like coal as an input should not pay for a scarce
resource like the environment as a disposal site.
This is called “costing” or “accounting” the environment. If the environment is included among the
basic costs of doing business that all businesses plan into their profit and loss statements, then
“managing climate change” would no longer be an expensive extra. It would be a standard cost of
doing business.
Today, however, no one values the environment and, therefore, environmental expenses are
considered “extras” and so expensive, not expenses.
What is a collective action problem?
Collective action problems arise when all of the members of a large group enjoy a resource equally –
say clean air – but protecting that resource must be paid for by each group member.When such
situations arise – especially when the cost of protection is high – each member really, really wants
his/her neighbors to pay and to avoid paying him/herself.Each person‟s thinking is simple: “I‟m just
one person. If I don‟t contribute, it won‟t make any difference to the total amount of money raised,
but it will save me money – and I will still get to breathe clean air!In our case, everyone enjoys a
world which is not too hot and the climate is normal, but who wants to pay to change our dependence
on cars and trucks and plastics and and and? So what happens?Where there are collective action
problems there are collective action failures – and the higher the cost to each actor, the more likely
the actor is to “free ride” – that is, to welch on his/her commitment and hope that others will pay
(which they don‟t for the same reason).In the case of managing climate change difficulties, as in all
such cases, collective action failure means that all of us end up with less of what we want – an end to
climate change.
What does this portend for the current process?
Don‟t hold your breath. Slowing global and domestic growth, rising global and domestic divisions,
especially the increasingly strident “us first” tone of domestic politics worldwide, and increasingly
unsure leaders everywhere do not bode well for the kind of strong leadership by a small group of
critical players necessary to overcome collective action problems.
Climate Change – can we do more? What more can we do to manage climate change?
Can we do more? It is clear that even if the international community manages to make further progress, it
has a long way to go before it has exhausted its current agenda of negotiated restrictions on carbon
emissions. It should also be clear that even with unimaginably successful negotiations, restrictions on carbon
emissions will not do the job.
To be blunt: there is too much carbon in the atmosphere and existing technology – cars, factories, airplanes,
ships, buildings – will continue to emit huge amounts more into the foreseeable future.
The only thing to do is to reduce the amount of atmospheric carbon.
There are many experiments underway to find ways to do this. So far, only a few processes show promise.
While different in many ways, these processes are similar in one critical way: they all remove carbon from
the atmosphere by converting it into an inert form that can be sequestered permanently, that is, returned to a
form where, like the fossil carbon forms, it is truly out of sight, out of mind and out of the atmosphere –
forever.
New techniques for doing this are remarkably simple chemically, but the innovations in business modeling
to make them work are complex. In Iceland, for example, scientists have demonstrated that CO2 pumped
underground into porous basalt formations will quickly turn to stone. (Ten percent of continental land and
the entire seabed are basalt; the technology already costs less than one half as much as current (and
unreliable) underground sequestration techniques.)
Another technology passes air across a huge surface of flowing alkali bath to capture CO2 so that it can then
be converted to pellets. (Unfortunately, because CO2 is just 0.04% of the air, meaningful systems will have
to be huge and much more efficient.) In each case, and in those of many other possible technologies, the
issues are not scientific, but how to scale production cost-effectively.
Can we do more?
The second method of sequestration is at least 4,000 years old: biochar production. The “pyrolysis” of
biomass, or heating it to high temperatures (450⁰-750⁰ C) in the absence of oxygen produces a pure form of
carbon known as “biochar.”
From a global climate change point of view, biochar production has great potential as it eliminates all of the
black carbon and long-term GHGs from biomass burning, and is carbon negative.
Estimates of sequestration rates vary, but by atomic weight, the production of 1 ton of biochar permanently
removes 3 tons of CO2 from the atmosphere, as well as 6 kilograms of particulates and large amounts of
NOx and SO2.
Widespread biochar production in the developing world where most agricultural waste is field burned would
annually remove millions of tons of CO2 from the atmosphere, and eliminate millions of tons of black
carbon and GHGs.
Climate change developing world – What impacts will climate change have in the developing world?
Climate change affects the entire globe; its impacts are more pronounced in the developing world than in the
developed world.
In fact, ironically, although most of the human activity that produces climate change occurs in the developed
world, many of climate changes‟ effects will actually be beneficial in the developed world. In the short- and
middle-term, for example, climate change will likely increase fish and agricultural yields where populations
are small and shrinking and productivity is highest.
Climate change‟s impacts in the developing world will be almost exclusively negative, often terribly so.
How can the developing world reduce its own impact on climate change?
Improve agriculture. Globally, agriculture accounts for approximately one third of total GHG and black
carbon emissions; the developing world, however, produces a disproportionate amount of this total – Asia
and Africa between them producing 59% of the total.
While developed country contributions have dropped as a result of reduced biomass burning and reduced
agrochemical use per unit, developing country contributions have risen. (In 1990, for example, Europe‟s
contribution was 21% and Asia‟s 38%; today, Europe contributes 12% and Asia 44%.)
Three immediate steps stand out.
First, rice production in the developing world, largely in Asia, which grows 90% of the world‟s rice, needs
to switch from flooded paddy propagation to SRI (system for rice intensification) techniques. This will
largely eliminate the tremendous amount of methane produced by anaerobic decomposition in flooded
paddies that alone contributes 10% of global GHGs annually.
Second, developing countries need to control the practice of the open field burning of agricultural wastes
(rice straw, corn stalks), which annually contributes millions of tons of eCO2 and black carbon to global
warming.
Third, developing countries need to develop aggressive national programs to promote the transformation of
field wastes into biochar, which will sequester millions of tons of CO2 annually and eliminate both
particulate and GHG emissions, while adsorbing NOx and other fertilizer derives emissions if added to soil.
What are the prospects that such policies will be adopted?
Low to middling. At issue are not scientific, technical or even cost considerations. The issues are, as
everywhere, political.
The international climate change regime sits very lightly on developing countries and with few exceptions
there is no domestic ground swell of support for environmental initiatives.
This allows rulers of any stripe to prioritize other, more pressing short-term concerns over abstract
environmental programs with long-term pay-offs.
Where tax systems rely heavily on customs duties and/or sales taxes, for example, governments often seize
the popular populist option of incentives to encourage car ownership.
Where elites are uncertain about their tenure in office, quick (and lucrative) deals with big utilities or mining
companies are understandably tempting, whatever their climate change consequences. (Does this sound
familiar? How long did it take Britain to close down coal mining? Why is coal mining still pushing
presidential candidates around in the US? Why does even China concede ground to coal operators?)
What does the likely failure of these efforts suggest about the global effort to stop climate change?
Here it is possible to see why countries free ride in the global effort to manage climate change causing the
collective action failures that have left us looking at climate disaster.
Leaders lack international incentives to act in politically costly ways and face powerful domestic incentives
to do other, more politically pressing things.
But do not leap to the conclusion that developing world leaders are the problem or are in some way special.
The crisis of our times is not the result of tin pot dictators misbehaving. Don‟t leave these final sections of
our primer thinking that the rulers of the developing world are merely ignorant or misinformed or corrupt or
the tools of malign outside actors.
Talk to them and you will find that they are generally very well informed. Talk to folks in the know and you
will find that, yes, they are corrupt by your standard and, yes, outside actors ply them with all sorts of
temptations.
But that said, you will also discover that their actions are seldom easily explained by the blandishments of
their almost always frustrated “corrupters”.
Think about what you learn when listening in on local politics and you will discern a very familiar political
logic, the stay-in-power logic.
These guys got to power by knowing how to mix-and-match, how to appease-and-pay. Every one of them
has his or her ideals and everyone has his or her agenda – but everyone knows that the quickest way to kill a
long-term goal is to blow a short-term necessity.
Is this really a developing world phenomena? Think of American presidents who have left a real legacy.
They were not nice guys. They were connivers. They played even their closest friends and allies. They were
tricky. But FDR left us Social Security. And Richard Nixon left us Medicare. And Barak Obama left us The
Affordable Care Act.
And Clinton, Bush, Obama – no American president to date has signed a global climate change accord.
