climate change aniqa moinuddin crystal rain melissa rice silviya vlahova
TRANSCRIPT
Climate Change
http://shipbright.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/climate-change-burning-globe1.jpg
Aniqa Moinuddin
Crystal Rain
Melissa Rice
Silviya Vlahova
Outline Part I: Introduction Part II
Sources of greenhouse gases and the economy International action timeline Controversy: Is climate change natural? Controversy: Economic analysis of climate change
Part III The Economic Problem The Political Problem Growth and Carbon Emissions
Part IV What is cap and trade? How does it work? What about a carbon tax? Which system works better? Political feasibility
Conclusion
What is global climate change? What is global warming? How are these terms connected?
Climate Change VS Global Warming
Climate change means….
“[M]ajor changes in temperature, rainfall, snow, wind patterns, or any other distinct climate phenomenon lasting for decades or longer,”
(Environmental Protection Agency).
Global warming is…
An average increase in temperatures near the Earth’s surface and in the lowest layer of the
atmosphere.
www.co.umatilla.or.us/planning/img/flood.jpg
http://vancityguy.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/0206-snowstorm_cars1.jpg
“Global warming” and “climate change”
are often used interchangeably. In
reality, global warming as a temperature
change is a mechanism that drives the
larger phenomenon of climate change.
Sources of Climate Change
Natural factors such as changes
in the Sun’s energy or slow
changes in the Earth’s orbit
around the sun
Natural processes such as
changes in ocean circulation
Human activities that change the
atmosphere’s makeup
(anthropogenic changes):
Include burning fossil fuels or
changing the land surface (such
as cutting down forests or
building developments in cities
and suburbs) http://geology.com/nasa/human-caused-climate-change/human-caused-climate-change-599.jpg
How do we know we are responsible?
The scientists for the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, IPCC, say that it is very
likely, (greater than 90 percent chance) that
most of the warming we have experienced
since the 1950s is due to the increase in
greenhouse gas emissions from human
activities.
For over the past 200 years, the burning of
fossil fuels and deforestation have caused the
concentrations of heat-trapping "greenhouse
gases" to increase significantly in our
atmosphere. These gases prevent heat from
escaping to space, somewhat like the glass
panels of a greenhouse.
http://www.purbeck-dc.gov.uk/environment/climate_change/what_causes_climate_change.aspx
What’s the big deal? It’s just a few degrees…
If humans continue to emit greenhouse gases at or above
the current pace, we will probably see an average global
temperature increase of 3 to 7°F by 2100, and greater
warming after that. Those few degrees are likely to have huge
consequences for the earth, and life, as we know it.
The impacts of global climate change are expected to be
vast and far-reaching. They will affect the environment, the economy and the equality of opportunity of people all over the world. Both the direct and
indirect consequences of climate change will effect
every sphere of sustainability.http://www.euromoodle.org/ash/file.php/131/The_three_spheres_of_sustainability.png
Usually we only hear about the environmental impacts that are expected to, and in some cases, already happening with
climate change around the world.
Decreasing global ice packs, is accelerating warming, and initiating the onset of other climate changes.
Top: http://s.ngeo.com/wpf/media-live/photologue/photos/2009/09/02/cache /1355_600x450.jpg
Climate Change Indicators
Additionally, this melting is slowly raising sea levels, changing coastlines across the globe, threatening existing marine and coastal ecosystems and economies, and even threatening entire nations…
Center: http://www.treehugger.com/year-in-climate.jpg
According to the IPCC, all regions of the world show an overall net negative impact of climate change on water resources and freshwater ecosystems.
Changes in yearly climate will impact agricultural productivity and food distribution in a number of ways. Warmer temperatures would increase growing seasons further north and possibly prevent certain crops from growing in the increasingly hot south.
Bottom: http://www.greenprophet.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/water-scarcity-middle-east.jpg
http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2007/09/15/GR2007091500124.gif
Based on the rapid rate of projected climate change,
strained ecosystems’
adaptive capacity is likely to be
exceeded, greatly threatening
species diversity. Furthermore, the
ability of ecosystems to
adapt to climate change is further
severely limited by the effects of urbanization,
barriers to migration paths,
and fragmentation of ecosystems.
Ecosystem Strain as Indicator
Adaptation
Changes in these resources are just the tip of the melting
ice burg when it comes to climate change impacts that we will
have to deal with. The question is whether we can adjust to these
changes by creating extensive adaptation plans. According to a
report cited by the EPA, “the literature indicates that U.S. society
can on the whole adapt with either net gains or some costs if
warming occurs at the lower end of the projected range of
magnitude, assuming no change in climate variability and
generally making optimistic assumptions about adaptation.
However, with a much larger magnitude of warming, even making
relatively optimistic assumptions about adaptation, many sectors
would experience net losses and higher costs.”
http://connect.bioneers.org/groups
Climate Induced Migration
If that were the case, many believe that climate change will cause a mass migration of people to escape effects. The most commonly cited prediction is that 200 million people will be forced to move as a result of climate change by 2050, although other projections range from 50 million to 1 billion people moving during this century.
How will climate migrants be viewed? As climate refugees or climate migrants? The term ‘climate refugee’ implies that some will literally need to seek refuge from the impacts of climate change, will find themselves in as desperate a situation as those of other refugees, and will deserve international assistance and protection. However, the current definition of a refugee in international law does not extend to people fleeing environmental pressures, and few states are willing to amend the law. Equally, the description ‘climate migrant’ underestimates the involuntariness of the movement, and opens up the possibility for such people to be labeled and dealt with as irregular migrants (Koser 2009).
Part II: Outline
Sources of greenhouse gases and the economy
Timeline of international action on climate change
Controversy: Is climate change natural?
Controversy: Economic Analysis of Climate Change
Outline
Sources of Greenhouse Gases and the Economy
As the pie chart shows, the majority of emissions
worldwide come from the combustion of fossil fuels, including
natural gas, petroleum, methane, and coal. Many people
who argue against aggressive action on claim that this level
of fossil fuel consumption is necessary for global economic
health and, according to neoclassical economics, therefore
necessary for human well-being. This politically-convenient
argument promotes the status quo of energy use and ignores
several facts.
First, not all emissions are economically productive. Fugitive
emissions (from leaks and faulty equipment) accounted for 9%
of global emissions in 2000. That is almost as much greenhouse gas
as were produced in all manufacturing and construction.
Furthermore, improvements in efficiency would allow companies to
generate more kilowatt hours of electricity from less fossil fuel. In addition, clean renewable energy
could, in many nations, replace much of the carbon-based economy.
Sources of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide (2000)
Graph source: Dow, Kristen and Thomas Downing. The Atlas of Climate Change. p 41
Sources of Greenhouse Gases: Survival versus Luxury
The intertwining of fossil fuel combustion and emissions raises an important issue: should we
distinguish between survival and luxury emissions of greenhouse gases? Indian economists Anil Agarwal
and Sunita Narain pioneered this idea in in their 1992 pamphlet, “Global Warming in an Unequal World.”
A family might be happier driving two cars, but these carbon emissions are not as essential for their
welfare as the carbon they burn heating their home in the winter. Adopting emissions standards that
distinguish between survival and luxury could make international climate treaties acceptable to
developing nations like India. However, it will be difficult to establish a universal method for
distinguishing between types of emissions. We will discuss issues of equity and responsibility for climate
change in future sections .
Heating oil delivered to house in MassachusettsA two-car garage in the US
vs
Left: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Two-Car_Garage.jpg Right: http://www.heatingoil.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/ma-heating-oil-truck.jpg
International Climate Action Timeline
1988: Creation of Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC)
1994: Creation of UN Framework Convention
on Climate Change
1997: Kyoto Protocol: each
country to reduce greenhouse gas emissions ~5%
below 1990 levels
2001: US rejects Kyoto
Protocol
2009: UN summit in Copenhagen
negotiation ends in disarray. No treaty
2005: Kyoto Protocol goes
into effect
International Climate Action Timeline
1988: Marked the explosion of climate change onto the political scene. In 1988, the 1st international
meeting on climate change and the IPCC was created.
1994: The founding of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which established a
process for international emissions cuts.
1997: The Kyoto Protocol: Each country supposed to gets its emissions 5% below 1990 levels. Not
legally binding.
2001: The Protocol was dealt a serious blow in 2001 when US rejected it. Too few countries had ratified
it; it didn’t go into effect.
2004-5: The Protocol finally entered into effect when Russia ratified it, meeting the required number of
signatories. Signing the Protocol did not mean much to those who did ratify. Canada, one of the first
signatories, continues to be one of the worst emitters.
2009:Last December, the most recent negotiations at Copenhagen ended in disarray, dashing hopes of
the Maldives and millions of people around the world for an aggressive treaty The week of
negotiation ended in a close-door session between the US, China, and India. The other participating
nations refused to “note” (recognize) the resulting agreement.
Controversy: Is Climate Change a Natural Cycle?One reason that nothing has been done on climate change is
the lingering confusion over the science. Some people dismiss
anthropogenic climate change as part of a natural cycle. The
recent changes in temperature cannot be accounted for by
natural causes.
The blue shading in the lower graph represents the change in
atmospheric temperature (radiative forcing) produced by natural
causes. If natural radiative forcing was only the driver of global
warming, the global temperature change line (heavy black line)
would fall mostly in the blue shaded area. It does not.
The yellow shading in the upper graph represents natural and
anthropogenic forcing. The global temperature line fits entirely in
this region.
Much of the recent controversy about climate science is
manufactured. Research by James Hoggan and Greenpeace has
revealed a network of scientists and think tanks dedicated
to discrediting climate science, largely funded and staffed
by oil and gas companies.For updates on the latest publications in climate science, visit the blogs Real Climate (www.realclimate.org) or Climate Progress (www.climateprogress.org)
For a map of the exchange of staff and resources between ExxonMobil, denier think-tanks, and denier politicians, visit www.exxonsecrets.org.
For a book about the denial machine, see Richard Littlemore’s The Climate Cover-Up (2007).
Figure source: Pratt, Marney. "Climate Change." Physiological Ecology. Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, MA. Lecture.
Natural & anthropogenic forcing
Natural forcing only
Controversy: Economic Analysis of Climate Change
The 2007 Stern Review is one of the most influential cost-benefit analyses of climate change. It
concluded that costs of inaction on climate change (5-20% of global GDP) far outweighed the
costs of acting to limit greenhouse gas emissions (under 1% of global GDP). Although widely-
cited and based on conventional neoclassical economic modeling, the Stern Review faced intense
criticism from many economics.
The economic study of climate change is controversial in and of itself. It is far from “objective.”
Economic analyses of climate change require an economist to make ethically-loaded decisions about
what she values. In calculating the damage of unabated climate change, economists must decide value
of future generations (discount rate), lives lost, and cultural practices disrupted. Economists
contested the Stern Review specifically because of the values its authors assigned to these
intangibles. In order to demonstrate a high valuation of future generations, the Stern Review applied a
discount rate of almost 0%. Other economists argued that this discount rate was far too low because
those economists operate on the assumption that future generations will be wealthier (and therefore
more able to deal with climate change) than our generation.
In our next sections, we will explore the role of the market system in driving climate change and,
potentially, mitigating it.
The Economic Problem
-External Costs
-External Costs of Carbon
-Market for Oil
-External Costs & Oil Market Failure
-Market Failure & Government
Intervention
The Political Problem
-USA-China
-Capability and Responsibility
Growth and Carbon Emissions
Part III: Outline
Outline
The Economic Problem-External Costs
Carbon dioxide is the greenhouse gas with the highest concentration (391 parts per million) and
hence has the greatest global warming potential. In dealing with the economic and political issues, we will
focus on specifically CO2. Since the industrial revolution there has been a 50% increase in the amount of
atmospheric carbon dioxide. We have already seen that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that these
emissions have an incredible impact on global temperature.
External costs are costs that are borne by third parties who are not directly involved in the production or consumption of goods or services that generate CO2.
The free market is a self-regulating mechanism which, in
theory, seeks to maximize the welfare of the society. Thus
in this capitalist free market system, why does the market
for carbon-producing activities continue to give positive
market signals for their continuation or even expansion,
while the damaging effects of those activities are well-
known?
Let’s just say that there are some costs that
Adam Smith’s invisible hand cannot get a hold, given its
narrow scope which extends only to the participants of the
market.
The Economic Problem-External Costs of Carbon
The third parties or the involuntary victims of impacts of carbon emissions can be grouped as follows:
Plant and animal life forms: The polar ice caps are becoming smaller than ever before in human history, at a rate faster than ever. The overall increase in average temperatures is causing thermal stress for various plant and animal life forms and rapidly changing their habitats and evening threatening their existence.
Low-lying and island states: Sea levels have risen by 2 inches over the past century as a result of anthropogenic climate change. Small island states face the risk of being submerged within a few decades and are bearing significant adaption costs.
Future generations: Much of the costs of global warming are yet to come: extreme climate patterns, reduced supply of fresh water, increased desertification and lost biodiversity.
The poor and vulnerable: The poor rely more heavily directly on nature for their subsistence through farming, fishing, forestry etc. and so, are disproportionately affected by climate change. They have relatively very little demand for manufactured goods or large quantities of fossil fuels.
The market system that is actually
responsible for generating the CO2 only takes into
consideration private costs: borne by producers
(wages of labors, rent or cost of land, cost of raw
materials etc) and weighs this against private
benefits to consumers from consuming the
commodity. The welfare of parties involved are
maximized where marginal private cost (MPC;
cost from additional unit of production) is equal to
marginal private benefit (MPB; benefit from the
additional unit consumed) and accordingly the
price and quantities are set.
If the market for oil is considered then
the graph demonstrates a price of $77.62 that
would be set for y number of barrels bought and
sold in the market.
Price/barrel of Oil
Barrels Bought and Sold
$77.62
y
MPC
MPB
The Economic Problem-Market for Oil
In this market the external costs have not been accounted for; the true cost of
using oil is not reflected in the price. Social cost is the cost to producers plus the external
cost to the rest of the society due to oil consumption/production. By reconstructing the
market system with the representation of the marginal social cost (MSC) we arrive at a
very different picture. (For this example, we can safely assume that the benefits of
consuming oil are borne only by the consumers; there are no external benefits)
Barrel of oil = $77.62
Carbon emitted per barrel (on average)= 317 kg
Social cost = $87.22 (estimate)
Price/barrel of Oil
Barrels Bought and Sold
MPB=MSB
MPC
$77.62
y
Marginal Social Cost = MPC + External Cost
$85.22
x
Socially optimum level
occurs at quantity x
barrels.
At this lower level the
social cost of burning oil
$85.22
The price reflects the full
cost to society and thus
reduces oil production
from y to x
The Economic Problem-External Costs & Oil Market Failure
Market failure occurs in case of various goods that have large external costs or benefits,
such as alcohol, cigarettes, and public goods. In all these instances, the market either engages in
overproduction (in cases of external costs) or underproduction (in cases of external benefits).
In these situations, governments employ various solutions that may be market based
(carbon tax), non-market based (carbon quotas) or combinations of both (cap and trade). All these
methods are aimed at bringing carbon emissions to a level that is sustainable and socially efficient.
However, the following are usually the difficulties in faced by
all intervention plans:
Overall lack of political will due to the perceived
implications of carbon reductions on the economy
Identifying and quantifying external costs are
complicated
The market failure in carbon is a global issue and
consensus at the international political level
becomes very difficult
The Economic Problem-Market Failure & Government Intervention
The Kyoto Protocol bring together
countries who commit to participating in the
methods proposed like carbon trading, clean
development mechanism and joint
implementation to reduce their emissions about
5% below the 1990 levels.
In 2001, the US refused to ratify the
Kyoto Protocol. This is because China, despite
being one of the biggest polluters in the world
(Fig 1) was classified by the conditions of the
Protocol as a ‘developing nation’ which would
not have to reduce their emissions at that time.
This view fails to take into account
China’s population. When we consider per capita
emissions of carbon dioxide the picture changes
we see that China not really one of heaviest
polluters on the planet (Fig 2).
http://colli239.fts.educ.msu.edu/2000/12/31/co2-emissions-2000/
Figure 1: Total CO2 emissions 2000 (thousand tons)
Figure 2: Per capita CO2 emissions 2000 (tons)
The Political Problem-Capability and Responsibility
How are we to define to what extent
individual countries should take up the burden of the fight
against climate change? The UNFCCC states that all
countries should take up the fight in climate change…
“….on the basis of equality and in accordance with
their common but differentiated responsibilities
and respective capabilities.”
The Kyoto Protocol classifications of which
countries are required to cut emissions are quite arbitrary
and invite dispute. However, a fairly recent document,
The Right to Development in a Climate Constrained World
, attempts to actually identify and quantify the factors
that determine the ‘responsibility and capability’ of
individual nations to fight climate change. These factors
are used to calculate each nation’s equitable share of
emissions reductions.
The Political Problem-Capability and Responsibility
The Development Threshold is the minimum per capita income needed to have sustained access to food, water, shelter, health and education. Capability Index is calculated on the basis of income in excess of the Development Threshold. Responsibility Index is based on a country’s historical emissions level which has contributed to the existing amount of carbon in the atmosphere. The combined capability-responsibility index (CRI) demonstrates the equitable proportion of the cost of any climate change prevention plan that should be borne by each countries. The concept of CRI on the UNFCCC principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities”
How to read the table: If global carbon emissions are to be reduced by any amount, 33.1% of that reduction should come from the US while China is liable for only 5.5%.
The Political Problem- ….Capability and Responsibility
Much of opposition to and debate about abating climate change arise from the notion that
protecting the environment means limiting economic growth and jobs and hence, hurting people’s
livelihoods. This notion is deeply flawed. First, while a structural change in the economies of nations will
be costly in the short term, the long term benefits will eventually pay off. More importantly, such a
change is likely to create employment in new sectors.
Empirically it can be
shown from the map that
economic growth and carbon
emissions are not necessarily
correlated. The map shows the
carbon intensity for nations for
every $1000 of GDP. The yellow,
orange and red areas mark
countries that have increased
carbon intensity while the greens
mark those that have decreased
carbon intensity, meaning they
decreased emissions while
achieving the same level of
economic growth.
Economic Growth and Carbon Emissions
CAP AND TRADE
What is it?
How does it work?
What about a carbon tax?
Which system works better?
Political feasibility
http://www.popartuk.com/g/l/lg01466+save-our-world-carbon-footprint-reduction-poster.jpgOutlin
e
What is cap and trade?
Government caps the total allowable amount of carbon dioxide emissions over a
period of time
It divides the total allowable emissions into separate allowances (carbon credits)
It gives away or auctions these carbon credits to companies
If a company emits less carbon than it has credits for, it can sell the remaining credits
Companies can thus buy and sell credits among themselves; the market
determines price per credit
Cap and trade system thus allows market forces to fix an externality
The system-wide cap eventually goes down over time in order to reach socially
optimal level of carbon dioxide
Basic notion: Market Incentives
In a cap and trade system, the
limited number of licenses to emit a
specified quantity of pollutant gives
everyone an incentive to reduce pollution.
Buyers would not have to acquire as many
licenses if they can cut back on their
emissions, and sellers can unload more
licenses and sell them if they cut back on
their emissions.
Carbon tax Carbon tax is a per-unit tax on carbon emissions. The tax is applied where carbon enters the environment. The rate of taxation is based on the marginal external cost of carbon and this aims to
ensure that production occurs at the socially optimal level. As a result, the higher prices reflect the true social costs of carbon.
Pros
• it would be simpler because
the institutions already exist
• countries have an incentive to
enforce taxes
• it requires less than perfect
harmonization on an
international level in
comparison to cap and trade
• it puts an explicit cost on
carbon
Cons• harmonized tax structure
across countries may be
hard (if not impossible to)
achieve- this reverses the
simplicity argument
• carbon taxes do not offer
an incentive for others to
join
• a carbon tax ignores the
macroeconomic reality of a
possible
recession/stagflation
Uncertainty…Cap and trade
price per unit carbon is
determined by the market
amount of pollution is known in
advance
The two systems therefore produce different types of uncertainty.
Carbon tax
price per unit carbon is set and
known
the amount of pollution does not
have an upper limit
Another important difference has to do with government
revenue. A pollution tax imposes costs on the private
sector while generating revenue for the government. Cap
and trade is a bit more complicated in the sense that if
the government simply auctions off licenses and collects
the revenue, then it is just like a tax. Cap and trade,
however, often involves handing out licenses to existing
players, so the potential revenue goes to industry instead
of the government.
Possible assessment criteria for pros and cons
environmental effectiveness
the relative risks of bad design
costs
simplicity
political feasibility
implications for an international regime
In terms of political feasibility, the assessment may depend
on how far one looks beneath the surface. Tax is a politically toxic word,
but with a more prolonged debate, do cap and trade programs look
much more feasible?
It's all about design.
If we are to have a carbon pricing system, the critical issues are about
designing it to work well: broad coverage, flexibility, broad international
participation should be the central goals.
Theoretically, if designed well, both systems will have very similar
environmental benefits.
Taxes would be able to provide the same emission reductions and the same
carbon concentrations as permits. Just as the number of permits would
decline over time to reflect a particular target, tax rates would go up over
time to achieve it.
While changes on the macroeconomic level are up to a limited number of people, there are other opportunities for everyone to be the change s/he wants to see in the world. For example, becoming more energy efficient or recycling your waste.
Individuals can and should make a difference.
It is worth keeping in mind that the costs of inaction will be much higher than the costs of action. Don’t be taken in by the notion that this is all about people and jobs versus the environment. Focusing on sustainability rather than purely on economic growth in terms of GDP brings us one step closer to changing the system for the better.
Conclusion
References for Introduction
"About Phenology | USA National Phenology Network." USA National Phenology Network | USA National Phenology Network. Web. <http://www.usanpn.org/about/phenology>.
Easterling, William, Brian Hurd, and Joel Smith. Coping with Global Climate Change: The Role of Adaptation in the United States. Rep. Prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, June 2004. Web.
"Health | Climate Change - Health and Environmental Effects | U.S. EPA." US Environmental Protection Agency. Apr. 2010. Web. <http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/health.html>.
IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning (eds.)]
Koser, Khalid. "Why Migration Matters." Current History (2009): 152-53. Web.
"Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA." US Environmental Protection Agency. Apr. 2010. Web. <http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/index.html>.
“20% Wind Energy by 2030.” National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/1_overview-demeo.pdf Agarwal, Anil and Sunita Narain. “Global Warming in an Unequal World: A Case of Environmental Colonialism.” New Delhi: Centre for Science and the Environment, 1992. http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/GlobalWarming%20Book.pdf“Climate Change 101: International Action.” Pew Center on Global Climate Change and Pew Center on the States. 2007. http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/Climate%20Change%20101,%20International%20Action.pdfDow, Kristen and Thomas Downing. The Atlas of Climate Change. Berkley: University of California, 2007."Exxon Secrets." Exxon Secrets. Greenpeace USA. Accessed 5 May 2010. www.exxonsecrets.orgHoggan, James with Richard Littlemore. The Climate Cover-Up. Berkley: Graystone Books, 2009.Hulme, Mike. Why We Disagree about Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2009.Pratt, Marney. "Climate Change." Physiological Ecology. Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, MA. Lecture. “Summary of Conclusions.” Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change. HM Treasury of the United Kingdom. 2007. http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Summary_of_Conclusions.pdf“Summary for Policymakers: A Report of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf.
References for Part II
References for Part III Linden, P. V, Verbruggen, A. IPCC AR4 SYR Appendix. IPCC.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_appendix.pdf. n.d. Web. April 20th 2010
Painter , J. Americas on alert for sea level rise. BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7977263.stm. 8 April 2009. Web. April 20th 2010
Bliss, J. Carbon dioxide emissions per barrel of crude oil. http://numero57.net/2008/03/20/carbon-dioxide-emissions-per-barrel-of-crude/. March 20th, 2008. Web. April 20th 2010
Kyoto Protocol. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol. 2 May 2010 (last modified).Web. 3 May 3, 2010.
Baer, P., Athanasiou, T., Kartha, S. and Kemp-Benedict, E. The Right to Development in a Climate Constrained World. http://gdrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/gdrs_execsummary.pdf. September 2008. Web. April 20th 2010
References for Part IV Keohane, Nathaniel; Milne, Janet; Richards, Kenneth; Wagner, Gernot;
Weisbach, David. ”Carbon tax vs. cap-and-trade”. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/roundtables/carbon-tax-vs-cap-and-trade (November 24th 2008).
Krugman, Paul. ”Building a Green Economy”. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/magazine/11Economy-t.html?emc=eta1 (April 5th 2010).
Pascua, Juan Carlo. ”What is Carbon Cap and Trade? In Europe? In the US? Part 1”. Climate change. http://www.justmeans.com/What-is-Carbon-Cap-Trade-In-Europe-In-US-Part-1/9738.html (February 27th 2010).