oreskes taiwan lecture who is responsible

Who is Responsible for Climate Change?Who is Responsible for Climate Change?Naomi Oreskes, University of California, San DiegoNaomi Oreskes, University of California, San Diego

University system of Taiwan International Workshop “Crises and Opportunities in Environmental Study” February 2013

Focuses on who is responsible for preventing action on climate change in the USA

But who is responsible for climate change?

Can we use the concept of responsibility to help move forward action?

1992: United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change

Commits signatories to prevent “dangerous anthropogenic

interference”… in climate system

http://unfccc.int/key_documents/the_convention/items/2853.php

http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1353.php

Currently 195 signatories.

Including USA, Russian Federation, EU, Saudi Arabia (but not Taiwan)

UNFCCC invokes a science-driven framework

Article 2 commits signatories to

http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1353.php

“…stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a

level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the

climate system.…

http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1353.php

“…dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.…

Defined as interference that threatens:

BiodiversityFood production

Sustainable economic development

http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1353.php

.

ARTICLE 2:OBJECTIVE

The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.

A science drive-framework

Presumption was that scientists would determine that level and the world would

act accordingly.

For most of past 50 years, climate change has been framed and interpreted primarily

as a scientific problem:

Is climate change happening?

Is it caused by human activities?

What will the effects be in the future?

What, if any thing, can be done (technically) to stop or slow DAI?

http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1353.php

Scientists have largely answered the scientific questions.

Is climate change happening?

Yes: about 1 C warming over past century

Is it caused by human activities?

Isotope data show the CO2 comes from organic sources—i.e., wood, fossil fuels—

and not volcanoes…

What will the effects be in the future?

Future is less certain than the past, but broad agreement that unmitigated

warming will lead to significant disruptions:

Sea level rise and associated storm surge, coastal erosion

Extreme weather events (tropical storm intensification)

Droughts, wild fires, heat waves crop failures

Loss of biodiversity (esp. in Arctic regions, high elevations)

Loss of Arctic sea ice cultural losses, ocean circulation

What, if any thing, can be done to stop or slow DAI?

Greatly reduce, ultimately eliminate, the greenhouse gas emissions that are the

primary drivers of DAI

Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC:

Specific targets for GHG reductions among Annex I nations.

Targets ranged from -20% (Germany) to +25 (Greece) compared to 1990 baseline

Reducing GHG emissions is not primarily a scientific problem.

It is a political problem agreement(treaties, conventions, protocols, trade

It is a technological problem Conversion of energy system

It is a social problem:Political and cultural support for (1) and

(2)

So responsibility shifts, from scientists, who have identified, articulated, and explained

the problem to…?

Whom?

Who is Responsible for Climate Change?

1) Governments?

2) Those who have delayed action?

3) Producers of fossil fuels?

4) Business community (to develop alternatives)?

5) All of us? (but some more than others?)

1) Governments?

UNFCCC focuses on nation-states“State-actors.”

Not surprisingly, because nation-state governments negotiated it.

“Common but differentiated responsibility”

All countries share responsibility, but the degree of responsibility varies according to

how much those countries have contributed to the problem.

“Common but differentiated responsibility”

Annex I Nations

Industrialized and “EIT”—economies in transition—wealthy countries that largely became wealthy

by tapping energy in fossil fuels.

Large historic (cumulative) emissions

Therefore the countries most responsible for the GHG in atmosphere that are driving DAI

In 1992: Big three: U.K., USA, and Germany (and then the rest of Europe):

Wealthy, highly industrialized, industrialized first. Rest of world played almost no role till past 30 years

Annex I Nations:

Cumulative Per Capita Emissions: Same Result, + Canada, Russia, and Japan

USA refused to sign onto Kyoto ProtocolCanada withdrew in 2011

USA emissions overall since 1990up 10%

Canada: up 30%(v. promise of -6%)

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions usinventoryreport.html

In Contrast, UK: 18% cut

Germany: 26%

EU on track to cut 20% by 2020

USA and Canada are most responsible for continued increase in GHG emissions among

Annex I countries.

It is clearly possible for wealthy countries to cut their emissions, without serious economic harm.

Economic and energy policies affect total GHG emissions.

What about (mainland) China?

USA: President George W. Bush said he was unwilling to support any international agreement

that did not include India and China

How much has China contributed to climate change?

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1800-2010 355.04 26.6% 96,895,773 43,373,862 36,001,807 16,587,634 657,416 275,065 4.90 1,335,852 USSR + RUSSIAN FEDERATION 1830-2010 144.44 10.8% 39,420,652 17,453,716 12,072,592 9,059,188 615,232 219,929 3.43 83,957

CHINA 1901-2010 116.50 8.7% 31,793,584 24,506,552 4,795,942 449,678 2,495,532 8,355 1.43 43,692 GERMANY + EAST + WEST 1792-2010 83.94 6.3% 22,907,756 16,462,869 4,652,392 1,462,399 316,726 13,370 2.61 271,935 UNITED KINGDOM 1751-2010 74.36 5.6% 20,295,047 15,260,754 3,403,913 1,447,366 130,394 52,623 2.32 366,089 JAPAN + JAPAN 1868-2010 53.55 4.0% 14,613,648 5,199,679 7,820,925 1,092,940 499,742 364 2.59 453,838 INDIA 1858-2010 37.60 2.8% 10,262,521 7,331,234 2,206,318 286,386

398,045 40,550 0.40 50,998 FRANCE1802-2010 34.72 2.6% 9,474,341 5,007,702 3,532,330 733,905

187,244 13,162 1.66 198,683 CANADA 1785-2010 27.08 2.0% 7,390,738 2,404,062 3,222,766 1,623,291 79,395 61,216 4.46 101,526 POLAND 1800-2010 24.32 1.8% 6,637,012 5,702,594 591,165 238,292 104,802 154 2.26 15,047

Cumulative Emissions by Nation:

Dramatic increase in Chinese emissions in last three decades: Now about 9-10%

(surpassing UK and Germany)

Per capita cumulative emissions, picture is different

The average Chinese citizen has contributed only about 1/10th the average U.S. citizen , still well behind UK, Germany, Russia, Canada and Japan

If we just look at present (2009):

World average: 4.5 metric tons per capita:

USA 17.3France: 5.6China: 5.7

Taiwan: 3.0 (2008)(up from 1.7 in 1989)

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC/countries?display=graph

China is catching up with Europe in per capita GHG production, and with USA in total annual emissions, but still lags far behind USA both in

cumulative and per capita emissions.

One more consideration:

How much of China’s GHG production is in manufacture of goods for export markets,

mostly in USA and Europe?

1) Governments?

2) Those who have delayed action?

3) Producers of fossil fuels?

4) Business community (to develop alternatives)?

5) All of us? (but some more than others?)

What about those who have contributed to the delay in action

in the United States?

Yale/ Gallup Poll, Summer of 2007: 40% think scientists are still arguing

facts of climate change.

Studies consistently show that if people think scientists are

uncertain about reality of

climate change, they

will be uncertain as

well.

“Uncertainty”—the idea that we don’t really know”—was the primary message promoted by the “Merchants of Doubt.”

30-40% of Americans still think that observed changes in climate can be

mostly or entirely explained by natural variability

http://environment.yale.edu/news/Research/5310/american-opinions-on-global-warming-summary/

These Americans

include John McCain’s

running mate

Palin Not Convinced on Global Warming Washington Post,

8/31/08“…Sarah Palin told voters she wasn’t sure

climate change wasn’t simply part of a natural warming cycle… Her spokesman clarified: “She’s not totally convinced one way or the other. Science will tell us… She thinks the jury’s still out.”

Merchants of Doubt focused on one particular think tank:

Today: large network of think-tanks and organizations who perpetuate doubt about climate science

Alexis De Tocqueville InstituteCato Institute

American Enterprise InstituteCompetitive Enterprise Institute

Heartland InstituteActon Institute Hudson Institute

Heritage FoundationAtlas Economic FoundationAmericans for Prosperity

Frontiers of FreedomCommittee for a Constructive Tomorrow

Institute for Public Affairs (Australia)Let Freedom Ring

Who funds these groups?

Regulated Industries

Petroleum Industry (Global Climate Coalition)

Tobacco Industry

Mining Industry (US and Australian Coal Companies)

Chemical Industry

Pharmaceutical Industry

Cell Phone Industry

Tobacco industry was prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice for its role in

spreading disinformation about the harms of tobacco.

Could fossil fuel industry be prosecuted for its role in spreading disinformation about the harms of anthropogenic climate change?

Tobacco industry was prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice for its role in

spreading disinformation about the harms of tobacco.

Could the fossil fuel industry be prosecuted for its role in spreading

disinformation about the harms of climate change?

1) Governments?

2) Those who have delayed action?

3) Producers of fossil fuels?

4) Business community (to develop alternatives)?

5) All of us? (but some more than others?)

3) Producers of fossil fuels?

Disinformation in USA partly funded and promoted by “Global Climate Coalition”

Global Climate Coalition

Members included major petroleum producers

Exxon –MobilBritish Petroleum

Shell OilChevron (formerly Standard Oil of California)

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

Global Climate Coalition

Also manufacturers of products that rely on fossils fuels:

Ford Motor CompanyGeneral Motors Company

Daimler/ ChryslerThe American Highway Users Alliance (founded by GM)

The Aluminum Association

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

Global Climate Coalition

What is their responsibility?

Should shareholders object to this (mis)-use of corporate funds?

Should investors divest?

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

1) Governments?

2) Those who have delayed action?

3) Producers of fossil fuels?

4) Business community (to develop alternatives)?

5) All of us? (but some more than others?)

6) Governments other than nation-states (i.e. US state governments, provinces, cities)

“This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through…a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.”

--Lyndon JohnsonSpecial Message to Congress, 1965