April 9, 2012
William D. Nordhaus

A January 27 opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal by a group of 16 scientists, “No Need to Panic About Global Warming,” contained many of the standard criticisms of climate skeptics in a succinct statement. The essay argued that the globe is not warming and delaying policies to slow climate change for 50 years will have no serious consequences.

At a time when we need to clarify public confusion about the science and economics of climate change, the 16 scientists have muddied the waters. Here, I describe some of their mistakes.Their first claim is that the planet is not warming. More precisely, “Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now.”

It’s easy to get lost in the tiniest details here. Most people will benefit from stepping back and looking at the record of actual temperature measurements. Data from 1880 to 2011 on global mean temperature averaged from three sources. We don’t need complicated statistical analysis to see that temperatures are rising. Furthermore, they’re higher during the last decade than they were in earlier decades.

One of the reasons that drawing conclusions on temperature trends is tricky is that the historical temperature series is highly volatile. The presence of short-term volatility requires looking at long-term trends. A useful analogy is the stock market. Suppose an analyst says that because real stock prices have declined over the last decade, which is true, it follows that there’s no upward trend. Here again, an examination of the long-term data quickly shows this to be incorrect. The last decade of temperature and stock market data are not representative of longer-term trends. The finding that global temperatures are rising over the last century-plus is among the most robust findings of climate science and statistics.

The question here is whether emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases will cause net damages, now and in the future. This question has been studied extensively. The most recent thorough survey by the leading scholar in this field, Richard Tol, finds a wide range of damages, particularly if warming is greater than two degrees Centigrade. Major areas of concern are sea-level rise, more intense hurricanes, losses of species and ecosystems, acidification of the oceans, as well as threats to the natural and cultural heritage of the planet.

A final point concerns economic analysis. The 16 scientists argue, citing my research, that economics does not support policies to slow climate change in the next half-century:

A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls.

This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now.

The first problem is an elementary mistake in economic analysis. The authors cite the “benefit-to-cost ratio” to support their argument. Elementary economics teaches that this is an incorrect criterion for selecting investments or policies. The appropriate criterion for decisions in this context is net benefits – that is, the difference between, not the ratio of, benefits and costs.

My study is just one of many economic studies showing that economic efficiency points to the need to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions immediately. Waiting another 50 years is not only economically costly, but will also make transition more costly when it eventually takes place.

Current economic studies also suggest that the most efficient policy is to raise the cost of CO2 emissions substantially, either through cap-and-trade or carbon taxes, to provide appropriate incentives for businesses and households to move to low-carbon activities. Yes, there are many uncertainties. That does not imply that action should be delayed.

If anything, the uncertainties would point to a more forceful policy – one starting sooner rather than later – to slow climate change.

The 16 scientists urge avoiding alarm about climate change. I’m equally concerned by those who allege that we’ll incur economic catastrophes if we take steps to slow climate change. The claim that cap-and-trade legislation or carbon taxes would be ruinous to our societies does not stand up to serious economic analysis. We need to approach the issues with a cool head and respect for sound logic and good science.

William D. Nordhaus is Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale University. He has received support for research on the economics of climate change during the last decade from the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy and the Glaser Foundation

Courtesy: Yale Center for the Study of Globalisation

March 25, 2013 Zahrah Nasir 2



Rabid consumerism continues to wreak havoc on the planet as a whole. The results of this environmental rape and exploitation of natural assets is increasingly obvious right here at home in Pakistan where, unless you are extremely lucky indeed, it is next to impossible to walk anywhere without there being some kind of none-biodegradable garbage under foot, chocking gutters are blowing in the wind.

Members of the throw-away society, this is the vast majority of the population that has reached 180 million and is still expanding rapidly, think nothing at all of purchasing processed ‘gunk’ and throwing the wrapper on the ground wherever it is they happen to be at the time and, shamefully, one cannot simply blame an absence of rubbish bins - although this does not help one bit - as people automatically drop garbage on the ground even if a bin miraculously happens to be present.

Neither can one lay the blame purely on children as adults do this too and, as has always been the case, children follow the example of their elders. Littering, it appears, is an integral part of the national psyche and there is no difference between urban and rural areas, or even between the educated and uneducated sections of society.

This thoughtless poisoning of the earth, on which all life depends for its existence, is just once facet of how the human race is actively committing collective suicide via a multitude of methods: irreversible wastage of natural resources, increasing dependence on chemically processed food, widespread use of agrochemicals both above and below ground, deforestation to fuel the provision of consumer items across the board, atmospheric and water pollution from factories manufacturing consumer goods of an edible or otherwise nature, large-scale reliance of goods with built-in obsolescence and all of the aforementioned combined are just the very tiny tip of an extremely worrying - to the thinkers amongst us – iceberg; although ‘iceberg’ is, perhaps, the wrong term to use as, thanks to escalating climate change, these are rapidly disappearing along with the rest of the world’s natural resources too.

As a nation, we are rushing, blindly, in mad haste towards disasters on many fronts at once. Greed for consumer goods, often not even needed, driving us towards a self-constricted precipice from which, once we fall, it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to climb back and yet very few people appear to give a damn and, a high percentage of this minuscule segment of society which does profess to care, do not, by any stretch of the imagination, practice what they preach as they still must have the very latest this and that or whatever gadget or designer outfit happens to be ‘in’ at the time and those who don’t are castigated for being ‘behind the times’.

This pathetic scenario is not just a Pakistani disease, but is global. And the result, unless societal mindset changes and changes fast, will be devastating as it will completely delete life as is currently lived by so many - not by all as there remain millions of ‘disadvantaged’ people, who have not yet managed to climb high enough up the financial ladder to join in this madness and they, agree or not, are the lucky ones as they still know how to survive on whatever little they happen to have.

Against this nightmarish picture, it is, however, good to know that there is a small - but growing - movement struggling to open the eyes of consumerists as wide as they can possibly open. But, unlike other such movements that have failed because they try to ‘force’ others to follow suit, this newer movement - which is actually based on ancient practices that are updated to meet modern needs - encourages by being a living, breathing and thriving example of how it is perfectly possible to live sustainable lives, in beautiful homes, in perfect harmony with the natural world or, at the very least, what remains of the natural world at present.

This is the world of ‘Permaculture’ or ‘Permanently sustainable culture’ to explain it in a broader sense. It is primarily based on living sustainable lifestyles that are totally compatible with the environment in which one lives and works.

Homes, beautifully and extremely practically designed in line with localised climatic requirements, are constructed from natural, locally sourced materials with solar, wind or biogas for power provision and incorporate as much ‘green technology’ as is possible.

These homes, many of them architectural gems in their own right, do not turn into ovens if, for some reason, the power disappears as they are designed to take full advantage of any breeze that blows and rooms, completely unlike modern ‘boxes’, are spacious and airy as, in hot climates, they need to be.
Outside the house is, of course, the garden - be this large or small or just a terrace of some kind - where every single square inch of available space is put to use in the production or organic food of all kinds, shapes and sizes. And, with knowledge and understanding of nature, in all its forms, food is produced throughout the year with as many permanent, in preference to annual or seasonal, crops as possible are grown with minimum use of water.
Food is healthy and primarily homemade. Recycling is the name of the game and consumerism for the sake of consumerism does not exist even, believe it or not, if the adults of the house are out there working hard in the competitive world of whatever their specialty happens to be as, it goes without saying, that cash money is still required.

This naturally balanced lifestyle is what we should all, if the human race is to survive, be moving towards and moving towards it now will help make the future a better, sustainable place, for all.

The writer is author of The Gun Tree: One Woman’s War (Oxford University Press, 2001) and lives in Bhurban. Email: zahrahnasir@hotmail.com

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...e-for-survival

March 29, 2013
Jeffrey D. Sachs 0



The surest bet on the future of energy is the need for low-carbon energy supplies. Around 80 percent of the world’s primary energy today is carbon based: coal, oil, and gas. We will need to shift to no- or low-carbon energy by the mid-century. The big questions are how and when.

Low-carbon primary energy means three options: renewable energy, including wind, solar, geothermal, hydropower, and biomass; nuclear energy; and carbon capture and sequestration, which means using fossil fuels to create energy, but trapping the CO2 emissions that result and storing the carbon safely underground.

There are three compelling reasons for the world to make the shift to low-carbon energy.

First, higher levels of CO2 are making the world’s oceans acidic. If we continue with business as usual, we will end up destroying a vast amount of marine life, severely damaging the food chains on which we rely.

Second, CO2 is dangerously changing the world’s climate, even if many ‘Big Oil’ interests would have us believe otherwise. (So, too, did the tobacco companies spend vast sums on political lobbying and bogus science to deny the links between smoking and lung cancer.)

Third, we face steeply rising prices for fossil fuels, as developing countries’ growth drives up demand and conventional supplies of coal, oil and gas are depleted. Sure, we can find more fossil fuels, but at much higher cost and at much greater environmental risk from industrial spills, waste products, leaks and other damage.

Even the much-heralded shale-gas revolution is a lot of hype - similar to the gold rushes and stock bubbles of the past. Shale-gas wells deplete far more rapidly than conventional fields do. And they are environmentally dirty to boot.

The United States has developed many new low-carbon energy technologies, but other countries are currently far more intent, far-sighted, and decisive than the US to put these technologies to large-scale use.

Politically, America is still the land of ‘Big Oil’. The Americans are bombarded by industry-funded media downplaying climate change, while countries that are much poorer in fossil fuels are already making the necessary transition to a low-carbon future.

Two neighbours in Europe, Germany and France, are showing the way forward - or, more precisely, the alternative ways forward - to a low-carbon future. They are going about it in ways that reflect their different resource endowments, industrial histories and political pressures.

Germany is undertaking the Energiewende, or transition to sustainable energy - a remarkable effort (indeed, unprecedented for a large advanced economy) to meet the country’s entire energy demand with renewable energy, especially solar and wind power.

Meanwhile, France relies heavily on low-carbon nuclear power, and is switching rapidly to electric vehicles.

Of the two approaches, Germany’s is the more unusual bet. After Japan’s nuclear disaster at Fukushima, Germany decided to shut down its entire nuclear power industry and shift entirely to a strategy based on greater energy efficiency (lower energy input per unit of national income) and renewables.

There really is no clear roadmap for such a huge energy transformation, and Germany almost surely will need to rely on a European-wide electricity grid to share clean energy, and eventually on imported solar power from North Africa and the Middle East.

France’s bet on nuclear power is a more proven option. After all, most of its electricity has come from nuclear power for many years. And, though anti-nuclear sentiment is very strong in Europe - and, increasingly, even in France - nuclear power will remain part of the global energy mix for decades to come, simply because much of Asia (including China, India, South Korea and Japan) will remain major users of it.

The key point is that France and Germany, and many other European countries - including the Scandinavian countries, with their considerable wind and hydropower potential - are all recognising that the world as a whole will have to move away from a fossil-fuel-based energy system. That is the right calculation.

Many will no doubt argue about which alternative – France’s bet on nuclear power or Germany’s solar pathway – is wiser. But both strategies are, probably, correct.

Most studies show that deep de-carbonisation of the world economy from now to mid-century, a time horizon mandated by environmental realities, will require that ‘all’ low-carbon options - including greater efficiency and renewables - be scaled up massively.

One of the highest priorities of the new Sustainable Development Solutions Network, which I direct on behalf of United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, will be to elaborate alternative pathways to a low-carbon economy, taking into account the specific conditions of countries around the world.
Different countries will choose different strategies, but we will all need to get to the same place: a new energy system built on low-carbon sources, electrification of vehicles and smart, energy-efficient buildings and cities.
Early movers may pay a slightly higher price today for these strategies, but they and the world will reap long-term economic and environmental benefits.
By embracing truly sustainable technologies, France, Germany and others are creating the energy system that will increasingly support the world economy throughout this century.

The writer is professor of economics and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. This article has been reproduced from Project Syndicate.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...inions/columns

Environmental sustainability took a serious kick in the teeth when, on the very last day before he was to leave office, former prime minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf sanctioned the uplift of timber, valued at eight billion rupees from an area of the country where, in an attempt at stopping rapid deforestation, movement of timber has been banned for the last 20 years.

According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, Pakistan lost 33.2 per cent of its forest cover between 1990 and 2010. This latest ‘official mistake’, however, is set to exacerbate the problem as even before the official announcement, the timber mafia in Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) had seemingly already gone into action because someone in informed political circles gave them a nod and a wink.

The people of Diamer District have reportedly expressed dire concern for illegal felling of precious forest reserves which is once more in full swing. It is claimed that local authorities can do absolutely nothing about this latest official bungle, but hang their heads in confusion and environmental shame as the notification, issued by the Gilgit-Baltistan Council Secretariat Islamabad clearly states that “the prime minster has approved the disposal of legally and illegally cut timber from Diamer to down country”.

Lying timber amounts to 2.07 million cubic feet of legally cut timber and 1.93 million cubic feet of illegally felled timber. After the payment of ridiculously low fines, this will be sold off mostly to the commercial timber trade outside GB with some — the dregs — allocated for sale as fuel wood in the region itself. All sales are to be completed within the next four months, which means that people are unlikely to spend much needed cash on fuel wood right now with spring already here. However, the main point remains that with the “traditional connivance” of nefarious rogues in “high places”, the well-supported timber mafia is set to enjoy a major field day and, as always, the environment will suffer badly as yet more precious forest cover is lost.

Pakistan currently has just 2.2 per cent forest cover remaining which, for a country of 770,880 square kilometres, is abysmal and if deforestation trends continue at the same rate as they have since 1990 — a loss of 1.66 per cent or 42,000 hectares per year — it doesn’t take an Einstein to calculate that it will not be very long at all before there is no forest cover left to speak of. This would be an absolute catastrophe on many different fronts at once.

It is not just the 1,027 recognised species of birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians or the 4,950 recorded species of vascular plants that are endangered by deforestation; this adversely impacts climate change, too, of course, and vastly increases landslide and associated hazards. Additionally, it results in an increase in river silt which, in turn, leads to a corresponding build-up of silt in reservoirs and dams, thus impacting both essential water supplies and the production of hydroelectricity.

The often farcical, government promoted, tree planting campaigns, which are nothing more than publicity stunts, do absolutely nothing to alleviate the problem of rampant deforestation. The problem is that the timber mafia, along with the corrupt politicians and officials working hand in hand with these criminal gangs, must be brought to book while there are still forest trees standing.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 10th, 2013.

Some experts from Pakistan Meteorological Department suggest that glaciers in Hindukush-Karakorum-Himalayas (HKH) range, which is home to nearly 5300 glaciers and serves as snow accumulation blow for River Indus and its several adjoining tributaries, are melting. The temperatures in the northern areas of the country have increased by 0.8 and 1.5 degrees centigrade between 1990 and 2010. So, the global rise in Earth’s atmospheric and oceanic temperatures has, like rest of the world, threatened this part of the world too.

Global warming is a gradual increase in the overall temperature of the earth’s atmosphere generally attributed to the greenhouse effect caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide, CFCs, and other pollutants. “Global warming is one of the most controversial science issues of the 21st century, challenging the very structure of our global society”, says Professor Mark Maslin of University College London. There is an ongoing debate over whether global warming a fact or a fiction. But we have an increasing body of evidence to suggest that it is a fact. The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggests that the 20th century saw an increase in global average surface temperature of approximately 0.6 °C (1.1 °F). It also reported that the global average sea level rose by some 17 cm (6.7 inches) during the 20th century and it could rise by another 18 to 59 cm (7 to 23 inches) by the end of the 21st century. Furthermore, the IPCC reported that average snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere declined by 4 percent, or 1.5 million square km (580,000 square miles), between 1920 and 2005.

Both natural and anthropogenic activities contribute in the genesis of global warming. But humans are largely responsible for it. The main cause of it is a natural process known as the greenhouse effect. The earth’s atmosphere contains many greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, water vapour, ozone, etc. These gases trap Sun’s heat and send it towards earth’s surface. Consequently it warms the earth and its atmosphere. The greenhouse effect maintains Earth’s specific temperature which is necessary for sustaining life on it. Without it, the Earth would be too cold to live on it. Certain human activities, such as burning of fossil fuels, increase the concentration of greenhouse gases in atmosphere which means more warming of the earth and its atmosphere.

Global warming is not only a science issue, it has grave economic, political, social,and health-related repercussions Raised temperatures might allow some infectious diseases to spread. Higher temperature could cause strokes, cramps etc. the 2003 heat wave in Europe caused some 50,000 deaths. Some disease such as Malaria could get alarming proportions. It can destroy the habitats of many land and sea plants and animals, for example coral reefs. Some animal and plant species that are unable to adapt themselves to changes in environment, could become extinct It could badly affect agriculture and our energy resources. The weather will become very extreme. Due to rise in sea level, coastal countries would be highly on stake. Bangladesh and the Maldives are some example in this regard which are already on the list of most vulnerable countries.

Over the last couple of years, monsoons in Pakistan have become very severe. According to a research carried out by a task force set up by the Friends of Democratic Pakistan (FoDP) the monsoonal zone in Pakistan has shifted 80-100km from northeast (upper Punjab and Kashmir region) to northwest (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and northwest Punjab regions). This zone receives 65% of total monsoon rains in the country. On the basis of this reasrch, Pakistan has been warned of frequent floods of disastrous nature. The glacier retreat in Northern areas is another cause of future floods in country. We have witnessed 3 consecutive floods in last 3 consecutive years. The 2010 flood, alone, had caused damage of about $43 billion and affected 20 million people. Besides, weathers in the country have become very extreme, frequency of rainfall has changed, and the hurricanes in Arabian sea have become more frequent. All these are the outcome of global warming.

Global warming is a fact. It has already began showing its signs in Pakistan. Much is needed to tackle this menace and we all have to work together to avoid further damage and to undo its adverse effects which we have seen in the form of 2010, 2011, and 2012 floods.

http://www.thefrontierpost.com/category/40/