Global warming refers to the current rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans and its

projected continuation. In the last 100 years, Earth's average surface temperature increased by about 0.8 C (1.4 F) with about two thirds of the increase occurring over just the last three decades.[2] Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain most of it is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.[3][4][5][6] These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries.[7][A] Climate model projections are summarized in the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They indicate that during the 21st century the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.1 to 2.9 C (2 to 5.2 F) for their lowest emissions scenario and 2.4 to 6.4 C (4.3 to 11.5 F) for their highest.[8] The ranges of these estimates arise from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations.[9][10] An increase in global temperature will cause sea levels to rise and will change the amount and pattern of precipitation, and a probable expansion of subtropical deserts.[11] Warming is expected to be strongest in the Arctic and would be associated with continuing retreat of glaciers, permafrost and sea ice. Other likely effects of the warming include more frequent occurrence of extreme weather events including heat waves, droughts and heavy rainfall events, species extinctions due to shifting temperature regimes, and changes in crop yields. Warming and related changes will vary from region to region around the globe, with projections being more robust in some areas than others.[12] In a 4 C world[clarification needed], the limits for human adaptation are likely to be exceeded in many parts of the world, while the limits for adaptation for natural systems would largely be exceeded throughout the world. Hence, the ecosystem services upon which human livelihoods depend would not be preserved.[13] Most countries are parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),[14] whose ultimate objective is to prevent "dangerous" anthropogenic (i.e., humaninduced) climate change.[15] Parties to the UNFCCC have adopted a range of policies designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions[16]:10[17][18][19]:9 and to assist in adaptation to global warming. Parties to the UNFCCC have agreed that deep cuts in emissions are required,[22] and that future global warming should be limited to below 2.0 C (3.6 F) relative to the pre-industrial level.[22][B] 2011 analyses by the United Nations Environment Programme[23] and International Energy Agency[24] suggest that current efforts to reduce emissions may be inadequately stringent to meet the UNFCCC's 2 C target.

Observed temperature changes

Evidence for warming of the climate system includes observed increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[25][26][27] The Earth's average surface temperature, expressed as a linear trend, rose by 0.740.18 C over the period 19062005. The rate of warming over the last half of that period

was almost double that for the period as a whole (0.130.03 C per decade, versus 0.070.02 C per decade). The urban heat island effect is very small, estimated to account for less than 0.002 C of warming per decade since 1900.[28] Temperatures in the lower troposphere have increased between 0.13 and 0.22 C (0.22 and 0.4 F) per decade since 1979, according to satellite temperature measurements. Climate proxies show the temperature to have been relatively stable over the one or two thousand years before 1850, with regionally varying fluctuations such as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.[29] The thermal inertia of the oceans and slow responses of other indirect effects mean that climate can take centuries or longer to adjust to changes in forcing. Climate commitment studies indicate that even if greenhouse gases were stabilized at 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.5 C (0.9 F) would still occur.[42]

Initial causes of temperature changes (external forcings)

Greenhouse effect schematic showing energy flows between space, the atmosphere, and earth's surface. Energy exchanges are expressed in watts per square meter (W/m2). External forcing refers to processes external to the climate system (though not necessarily external to Earth) that influence climate. Climate responds to several types of external forcing, such as radiative forcing due to changes in atmospheric composition (mainly greenhouse gas concentrations), changes in solar luminosity, volcanic eruptions, and variations in Earth's orbit around the Sun.*[43]:0 Attribution of recent climate change focuses on the first three types of forcing. Orbital cycles vary slowly over tens of thousands of years and at present are in an overall cooling trend which would be expected to lead towards an ice age, but the 20th century instrumental temperature record shows a sudden rise in global temperatures.[44]

Greenhouse gases
The greenhouse effect is the process by which absorption and emission of infrared radiation by gases in the atmosphere warm a planet's lower atmosphere and surface. It was proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824 and was first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.[45] Naturally occurring amounts of greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of about 33 C (59 F).[46][C] The major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 3670% of the greenhouse effect; carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 926%; methane (CH4), which causes 4

9%; and ozone (O3), which causes 37%.[47][48][49] Clouds also affect the radiation balance through cloud forcings similar to greenhouse gases. Human activity since the Industrial Revolution has increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, leading to increased radiative forcing from CO2, methane, tropospheric ozone, CFCs and nitrous oxide. The concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36% and 148% respectively since 1750.[50] These levels are much higher than at any time during the last 800,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores.[51][52][53][54] Less direct geological evidence indicates that CO2 values higher than this were last seen about 20 million years ago.[55] Fossil fuel burning has produced about three-quarters of the increase in CO2 from human activity over the past 20 years. The rest of this increase is caused mostly by changes in land-use, particularly deforestation.[56] Emissions scenarios, estimates of changes in future emission levels of greenhouse gases, have been projected that depend upon uncertain economic, sociological, technological, and natural developments.[62] In most scenarios, emissions continue to rise over the century, while in a few, emissions are reduced.[63][64] Fossil fuel reserves are abundant, and will not limit carbon emissions in the 21st century.[65] Emission scenarios, combined with modelling of the carbon cycle, have been used to produce estimates of how atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases might change in the future. Using the six IPCC SRES "marker" scenarios, models suggest that by the year 2100, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 could range between 541 and 970 ppm.[66] This is an increase of 90250% above the concentration in the year 1750. The popular media and the public often confuse global warming with ozone depletion, i.e., the destruction of stratospheric ozone by chlorofluorocarbons.[67][68] Although there are a few areas of linkage, the relationship between the two is not strong. Reduced stratospheric ozone has had a slight cooling influence on surface temperatures, while increased tropospheric ozone has had a somewhat larger warming effect.[69]

Particulates and soot

Global dimming, a gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth's surface, has partially counteracted global warming from 1960 to the present.[70][dated info] The main cause of this dimming is particulates produced by volcanoes and human made pollutants, which exerts a cooling effect by increasing the reflection of incoming sunlight. The effects of the products of fossil fuel combustion CO2 and aerosols have largely offset one another in recent decades, so that net warming has been due to the increase in non-CO2 greenhouse gases such as methane.[71] Radiative forcing due to particulates is temporally limited due to wet deposition which causes them to have an atmospheric lifetime of one week. Carbon dioxide has a lifetime of a century or more, and as such, changes in particulate concentrations will only delay climate changes due to carbon dioxide.[72] In addition to their direct effect by scattering and absorbing solar radiation, particulates have indirect effects on the radiation budget.[73] Sulfates act as cloud condensation nuclei and thus lead to clouds that have more and smaller cloud droplets. These clouds reflect solar radiation more efficiently than clouds with fewer and larger droplets, known as the Twomey effect.[74]

This effect also causes droplets to be of more uniform size, which reduces growth of raindrops and makes the cloud more reflective to incoming sunlight, known as the Albrecht effect.[75] Indirect effects are most noticeable in marine stratiform clouds, and have very little radiative effect on convective clouds. Indirect effects of particulates represent the largest uncertainty in radiative forcing.[76] Soot may cool or warm the surface, depending on whether it is airborne or deposited. Atmospheric soot directly absorb solar radiation, which heats the atmosphere and cools the surface. In isolated areas with high soot production, such as rural India, as much as 50% of surface warming due to greenhouse gases may be masked by atmospheric brown clouds.[77] When deposited, especially on glaciers or on ice in arctic regions, the lower surface albedo can also directly heat the surface.[78] The influences of particulates, including black carbon, are most pronounced in the tropics and sub-tropics, particularly in Asia, while the effects of greenhouse gases are dominant in the extratropics and southern hemisphere.[79]

Solar activity
Variations in solar output have been the cause of past climate changes.[80] The effect of changes in solar forcing in recent decades is uncertain, but small, with some studies showing a slight cooling effect,[81] while others studies suggest a slight warming effect.*[43][82][83][84] Greenhouse gases and solar forcing affect temperatures in different ways. While both increased solar activity and increased greenhouse gases are expected to warm the troposphere, an increase in solar activity should warm the stratosphere while an increase in greenhouse gases should cool the stratosphere.*[43] Radiosonde (weather balloon) data show the stratosphere has cooled over the period since observations began (1958), though there is greater uncertainty in the early radiosonde record. Satellite observations, which have been available since 1979, also show cooling.[85] A related hypothesis, proposed by Henrik Svensmark, is that magnetic activity of the sun deflects cosmic rays that may influence the generation of cloud condensation nuclei and thereby affect the climate.[86] Other research has found no relation between warming in recent decades and cosmic rays.[87][88] The influence of cosmic rays on cloud cover is about a factor of 100 lower than needed to explain the observed changes in clouds or to be a significant contributor to present-day climate change.[89] Studies in 2011 have indicated that solar activity may be slowing, and that the next solar cycle could be delayed. To what extent is not yet clear; Solar Cycle 25 is due to start in 2020, but may be delayed to 2022 or even longer. It is even possible that Sol could be heading towards another Maunder Minimum. While there is not yet a definitive link between solar sunspot activity and global temperatures, the scientists conducting the solar activity study believe that global greenhouse gas emissions would prevent any possible cold snap.[90]

Feedback
Feedback is a process in which changing one quantity changes a second quantity, and the change in the second quantity in turn changes the first. Positive feedback increases the change in the first quantity while negative feedback reduces it. Feedback is important in the study of global warming because it may amplify or diminish the effect of a particular process. The main positive feedback in the climate system is the water vapor feedback. The main negative feedback is radiative cooling through the StefanBoltzmann law, which increases as the fourth power of temperature. Positive and negative feedbacks are not imposed as assumptions in the models, but are instead emergent properties that result from the interactions of basic dynamical and thermodynamic processes. A wide range of potential feedback processes exist, such as Arctic methane release and icealbedo feedback. Consequentially, potential tipping points may exist, which may have the potential to cause abrupt climate change.[91] For example, the "emission scenarios" used by IPCC in its 2007 report primarily examined greenhouse gas emissions from human sources. In 2011, a joint study by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration calculated the additional greenhouse gas emissions that would emanate from melted and decomposing permafrost, even if policymakers attempt to reduce human emissions from the currentlyunfolding A1FI scenario to the A1B scenario.[92] The team found that even at the much lower level of human emissions, permafrost thawing and decomposition would still result in 190 Gt C of permafrost carbon being added to the atmosphere on top of the human sources. Importantly, the team made three extremely conservative assumptions: (1) that policymakers will embrace the A1B scenario instead of the currently-unfolding A1FI scenario, (2) that all of the carbon would be released as carbon dioxide instead of methane, which is more likely and over a 20 year lifetime has 72x the greenhouse warming power of CO2, and (3) their model did not project additional temperature rise caused by the release of these additional gases.[92][93] These very conservative permafrost carbon dioxide emissions are equivalent to about 1/2 of all carbon released from fossil fuel burning since the dawn of the Industrial Age,[94] and is enough to raise atmospheric concentrations by an additional 8729 ppm, beyond human emissions. Once initiated, permafrost carbon forcing (PCF) is irreversible, is strong compared to other global sources and sinks of atmospheric CO2, and due to thermal inertia will continue for many years even if atmospheric warming stops.[92] A great deal of this permafrost carbon is actually being released as highly flammable methane instead of carbon dioxide.[95] IPCC 2007's temperature projections did not take any of the permafrost carbon emissions into account and therefore underestimate the degree of expected climate change.[92][93] Other research published in 2011 found that increased emissions of methane could instigate significant feedbacks that amplify the warming attributable to the methane alone. The researchers found that a 2.5-fold increase in methane emissions would cause indirect effects that increase the warming 250% above that of the methane alone. For a 5.2-fold increase, the indirect effects would be 400% of the warming from the methane alone.[96]

Climate models
A climate model is a computerized representation of the five components of the climate system: Atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, land surface, and biosphere.[97] Such models are based on physical principles including fluid dynamics, thermodynamics and radiative transfer. There can be components which represent air movement, temperature, clouds, and other atmospheric properties; ocean temperature, salt content, and circulation; ice cover on land and sea; the transfer of heat and moisture from soil and vegetation to the atmosphere; chemical and biological processes; and others.[98] Although researchers attempt to include as many processes as possible, simplifications of the actual climate system are inevitable because of the constraints of available computer power and limitations in knowledge of the climate system. Results from models can also vary due to different greenhouse gas inputs and the model's climate sensitivity. For example, the uncertainty in IPCC's 2007 projections is caused by (1) the use of multiple models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations, (2) the use of differing estimates of humanities' future greenhouse gas emissions, (3) any additional emissions from climate feedbacks that were not included in the models IPCC used to prepare its report, i.e., greenhouse gas releases from permafrost.[92] The models do not assume the climate will warm due to increasing levels of greenhouse gases. Instead the models predict how greenhouse gases will interact with radiative transfer and other physical processes. One of the mathematical results of these complex equations is a prediction whether warming or cooling will occur.[99] Recent research has called special attention to the need to refine models with respect to the effect of clouds[100] and the carbon cycle. Models are also used to help investigate the causes of recent climate change by comparing the observed changes to those that the models project from various natural and human-derived causes. Although these models do not unambiguously attribute the warming that occurred from approximately 1910 to 1945 to either natural variation or human effects, they do indicate that the warming since 1970 is dominated by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.*[43]

Expected effects
"Detection" is the process of demonstrating that climate has changed in some defined statistical sense, without providing a reason for that change. Detection does not imply attribution of the detected change to a particular cause. "Attribution" of causes of climate change is the process of establishing the most likely causes for the detected change with some defined level of confidence.[109] Detection and attribution may also be applied to observed changes in physical, ecological and social systems.[110]

Natural systems

Global warming has been detected in a number of systems. Some of these changes, e.g., based on the instrumental temperature record, have been described in the section on temperature changes. Rising sea levels and observed decreases in snow and ice extent are consistent with warming.[111] Most of the increase in global average temperature since the mid-20th century is, with high probability,[D] attributable to human-induced changes in greenhouse gas concentrations.[112] Even with current policies to reduce emissions, global emissions are still expected to continue to grow over the coming decades.[113] Over the course of the 21st century, increases in emissions at or above their current rate would very likely induce changes in the climate system larger than those observed in the 20th century. In the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, across a range of future emission scenarios, model-based estimates of sea level rise for the end of the 21st century (the year 20902099, relative to 1980 1999) range from 0.18 to 0.59 m. These estimates, however, were not given a likelihood due to a lack of scientific understanding, nor was an upper bound given for sea level rise. On the timescale of centuries to millennia, the melting of ice sheets could result in even higher sea level rise. Partial deglaciation of the Greenland ice sheet, and possibly the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, could contribute 46 metres (13 to 20 ft) or more to sea level rise.[114] Changes in regional climate are expected to include greater warming over land, with most warming at high northern latitudes, and least warming over the Southern Ocean and parts of the North Atlantic Ocean.[113] Snow cover area and sea ice extent are expected to decrease, with the Arctic expected to be largely ice-free in September by 2037.[115] The frequency of hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation will very likely increase.

Ecological systems
In terrestrial ecosystems, the earlier timing of spring events, and poleward and upward shifts in plant and animal ranges, have been linked with high confidence to recent warming.[111] Future climate change is expected to particularly affect certain ecosystems, including tundra, mangroves, and coral reefs.[113] It is expected that most ecosystems will be affected by higher atmospheric CO2 levels, combined with higher global temperatures.[116] Overall, it is expected that climate change will result in the extinction of many species and reduced diversity of ecosystems.[117]

Social systems
Vulnerability of human societies to climate change mainly lies in the effects of extreme weather events rather than gradual climate change.[118] Impacts of climate change so far include adverse effects on small islands,[119] adverse effects on indigenous populations in high-latitude areas,[120] and small but discernable effects on human health.[121] Over the 21st century, climate change is likely to adversely affect hundreds of millions of people through increased coastal flooding, reductions in water supplies, increased malnutrition and increased health impacts.[122] Future warming of around 3 C (by 2100, relative to 19902000) could result in increased crop yields in mid- and high-latitude areas, but in low-latitude areas, yields could decline, increasing

the risk of malnutrition.[119] A similar regional pattern of net benefits and costs could occur for economic (market-sector) effects.[121] Warming above 3 C could result in crop yields falling in temperate regions, leading to a reduction in global food production.[123] Most economic studies suggest losses of world gross domestic product (GDP) for this magnitude of warming.[124][125]

Responses to global warming

Mitigation
Reducing the amount of future climate change is called mitigation of climate change. The IPCC defines mitigation as activities that reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, or enhance the capacity of carbon sinks to absorb GHGs from the atmosphere.[126] Many countries, both developing and developed, are aiming to use cleaner, less polluting, technologies.[59]:192 Use of these technologies aids mitigation and could result in substantial reductions in CO2 emissions. Policies include targets for emissions reductions, increased use of renewable energy, and increased energy efficiency. Studies indicate substantial potential for future reductions in emissions.[127] To limit warming to the lower range in the overall IPCC's "Summary Report for Policymakers"[128] means adopting policies that will limit emissions to one of the significantly different scenarios described in the full report.[129] This will become more and more difficult, since each year of high emissions will require even more drastic measures in later years to stabilize at a desired atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases, and energy-related carbondioxide (CO2) emissions in 2010 were the highest in history, breaking the prior record set in 2008.[130] Since even in the most optimistic scenario, fossil fuels are going to be used for years to come, mitigation may also involve carbon capture and storage, a process that traps CO2 produced by factories and gas or coal power stations and then stores it, usually underground.[131]

Adaptation
Other policy responses include adaptation to climate change. Adaptation to climate change may be planned, e.g., by local or national government, or spontaneous, i.e., done privately without government intervention.[132] The ability to adapt is closely linked to social and economic development.[127] Even societies with high capacities to adapt are still vulnerable to climate change. Planned adaptation is already occurring on a limited basis. The barriers, limits, and costs of future adaptation are not fully understood.

Geoengineering
A body of the scientific literature has developed which considers alternative geoengineering techniques for climate change mitigation.[133] In the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (published in 2007) Working Group III (WG3) assessed some "apparently promising" geoengineering techniques, including ocean fertilization, capturing and sequestering CO2, and techniques for

reducing the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth's atmospheric system.[133] The IPCC's overall conclusion was that geoengineering options remained "largely speculative and unproven, (...) with the risk of unknown side-effects."[134] In the IPCC's judgement, reliable cost estimates for geoengineering options had not yet been published. As most geoengineering techniques would affect the entire globe, deployment would likely require global public acceptance and an adequate global legal and regulatory framework, as well as significant further scientific research.[135]

Views on global warming

There are different views over what the appropriate policy response to climate change should be.[136] These competing views weigh the benefits of limiting emissions of greenhouse gases against the costs. In general, it seems likely that climate change will impose greater damages and risks in poorer regions.[137]

Global warming controversy

The global warming controversy refers to a variety of disputes, significantly more pronounced in the popular media than in the scientific literature,[138][139] regarding the nature, causes, and consequences of global warming. The disputed issues include the causes of increased global average air temperature, especially since the mid-20th century, whether this warming trend is unprecedented or within normal climatic variations, whether humankind has contributed significantly to it, and whether the increase is wholly or partially an artifact of poor measurements. Additional disputes concern estimates of climate sensitivity, predictions of additional warming, and what the consequences of global warming will be. In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view,[140][141] though a few organisations hold non-committal positions. From 1990-1997 in the United States, conservative think tanks mobilized to undermine the legitimacy of global warming as a social problem. They challenged the scientific evidence; argued that global warming will have benefits; and asserted that proposed solutions would do more harm than good.[142]

Politics
Most countries are Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).[145] The ultimate objective of the Convention is to prevent "dangerous" human interference of the climate system.[146] As is stated in the Convention, this requires that GHG concentrations are stabilized in the atmosphere at a level where ecosystems can adapt naturally to climate change, food production is not threatened, and economic development can proceed in a sustainable fashion.[147] The Framework Convention was agreed in 1992, but since then, global emissions have risen.[148] During negotiations, the G77 (a lobbying group in the United Nations

representing 133 developing nations)[149]:4 pushed for a mandate requiring developed countries to "[take] the lead" in reducing their emissions.[150] This was justified on the basis that: the developed world's emissions had contributed most to the stock of GHGs in the atmosphere; percapita emissions (i.e., emissions per head of population) were still relatively low in developing countries; and the emissions of developing countries would grow to meet their development needs.[61]:290 This mandate was sustained in the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention,[61]:290 which entered into legal effect in 2005.[151] In ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, most developed countries accepted legally binding commitments to limit their emissions. These first-round commitments expire in 2012.[151] US President George W. Bush rejected the treaty on the basis that "it exempts 80% of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the US economy."[149]:5 At the 15th UNFCCC Conference of the Parties, held in 2009 at Copenhagen, several UNFCCC Parties produced the Copenhagen Accord.[152] Parties associated with the Accord (140 countries, as of November 2010)[153]:9 aim to limit the future increase in global mean temperature to below 2 C.[154] A preliminary assessment published in November 2010 by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) suggests a possible "emissions gap" between the voluntary pledges made in the Accord and the emissions cuts necessary to have a "likely" (greater than 66% probability) chance of meeting the 2 C objective. The 16th Conference of the Parties (COP16) was held at Cancn in 2010. It produced an agreement, not a binding treaty, that the Parties should take urgent action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to meet a goal of limiting global warming to 2 C above pre-industrial temperatures. It also recognized the need to consider strengthening the goal to a global average rise of 1.5 C.[155] By 2010, with 111 countries surveyed, Gallup determined that there was a substantial decrease in the number of Americans and Europeans who viewed Global Warming as a serious threat. In the US, a little over half the population (53%) now viewed it as a serious concern for either themselves or their families; this was 10% below the 2008 poll (63%). Latin America had the biggest rise in concern, with 73% saying global warming was a serious threat to their families.[165] That global poll also found that people are more likely to attribute global warming to human activities than to natural causes, except in the USA where nearly half (47%) of the population attributed global warming to natural causes.[166] On the other hand, in May 2011 a joint poll by Yale and George Mason Universities found that nearly half the people in the USA (47%) attribute global warming to human activities, compared to 36% blaming it on natural causes. Only 5% of the 35% who were "disengaged", "doubtful", or "dismissive" of global warming were aware that 97% of publishing US climate scientists agree global warming is happening and is primarily caused by humans.[167] Researchers at the University of Michigan have found that the public's belief as to the causes of global warming depends on the wording choice used in the polls.[168]

In the United States, according to the Public Policy Institute of California's (PPIC) eleventh annual survey on environmental policy issues, 75% said they believe global warming is a very serious or somewhat serious threat to the economy and quality of life in California.[169] A July 2011 Rasmussen Reports poll found that 69% of adults in the USA believe it is at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified global warming research.[156] A September 2011 Angus Reid Public Opinion poll found that Britons (43%) are less likely than Americans (49%) or Canadians (52%) to say that "global warming is a fact and is mostly caused by emissions from vehicles and industrial facilities." The same poll found that 20% of Americans, 20% of Britons and 14% of Canadians think "global warming is a theory that has not yet been proven."[170]
.

Climate change mitigation is action to decrease the intensity of radiative forcing in order to reduce the potential effects of global warming.[1] Mitigation is distinguished from adaptation to global warming, which involves acting to tolerate the effects of global warming. Most often, climate change mitigation scenarios involve reductions in the concentrations of greenhouse gases, either by reducing their sources[2] or by increasing their sinks. The UN defines mitigation in the context of climate change, as a human intervention to reduce the sources or enhance the sinks of greenhouse gases. Examples include using fossil fuels more efficiently for industrial processes or electricity generation, switching to renewable energy (solar energy or wind power), improving the insulation of buildings, and expanding forests and other "sinks" to remove greater amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.[3] Scientific consensus on global warming, together with the precautionary principle and the fear of abrupt climate change[4] is leading to increased effort to develop new technologies and sciences and carefully manage others in an attempt to mitigate global warming. Most means of mitigation appear effective only for preventing further warming, not at reversing existing warming.[5] The Stern Review identifies several ways of mitigating climate change. These include reducing demand for emissions-intensive goods and services, increasing efficiency gains, increasing use and development of low-carbon technologies, and reducing fossil fuel emissions.[6] The energy policy of the European Union has set a target of limiting the global temperature rise to 2 C (3.6 F) compared to preindustrial levels, of which 0.8 C has already taken place and another 0.50.7 C is already committed.[7] The 2 C rise is typically associated in climate models with a carbon dioxide equivalent concentration of 400500 ppm by volume; the current (April 2011) level of carbon dioxide alone is 393 ppm by volume, and rising at 1-3 ppm annually. Hence, to avoid a very likely breach of the 2 C target, CO2 levels would have to be stabilised very soon; this is generally regarded as unlikely, based on current programs in place to date.[8][9] The importance of change is illustrated by the fact that world economic energy efficiency is presently improving at only half the rate of world economic growth.[10]

Greenhouse gas concentrations and stabilization

Stabilizing CO2 emissions at their present level would not stabilize its concentration in the atmosphere[11] Stabilizing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 at a constant level would require emissions to be effectively eliminated[11]

One of the issues often discussed in relation to climate change mitigation is the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has the ultimate objective of preventing "dangerous" anthropogenic (i.e., human) interference of the climate system. As is stated in Article 2 of the Convention, this requires that greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations are stabilized in the atmosphere at a level where ecosystems can adapt naturally to climate change, food production is not threatened, and economic development can proceed in a sustainable fashion.[12] A distinction needs to be made between stabilizing GHG emissions and GHG concentrations. [13] The two are not the same. The most important GHG emitted by human activities is carbon dioxide (chemical formula: CO2).[14] Stabilizing emissions of CO2 at current levels would not lead to a stabilization in the atmospheric concentration of CO2. In fact, stabilizing emissions at current levels would result in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 continuing to rise over the 21st century and beyond (see the graphs opposite). The reason for this is that human activities are adding CO2 to the atmosphere far faster than natural processes can remove it (see carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere for a more complete explanation).[11] This is analogous to a flow of water into a bathtub.[15] So long as the tap runs water (analogous to the emission of carbon dioxide) into the tub faster than water escapes through the plughole (the natural removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere), then the level of water in the tub (analogous to the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere) will continue to rise. Stabilizing the atmospheric concentration of the other greenhouse gases humans emit also depends on how fast their emissions are added to the atmosphere, and how fast the GHGs are removed. Stabilization for these gases is described in the later section on non-CO2 GHGs.

[edit] Methods and means

At the core of most proposals is the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions through reducing energy waste and switching to cleaner energy sources. Frequently discussed energy conservation methods include increasing the fuel efficiency of vehicles (often through hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and electric cars and improving conventional automobiles), individual-lifestyle changes and changing business practices. Newly developed technologies and currently available technologies including renewable energy (such as solar power, tidal and ocean energy, geothermal power, and wind power) and more controversially nuclear power and the use of carbon sinks, carbon credits, and taxation are aimed more precisely at countering continued greenhouse gas emissions. The

ever-increasing global population and the planned growth of national GDPs based on current technologies are counter-productive to most of these proposals.[16]

[edit] Alternative energy sources

[edit] Renewable energy

Climate change concerns[18][19][20] and the need to reduce carbon emissions are driving increasing growth in the renewable energy industries.[21][22][23] Some 85 countries now have targets for their own renewable energy futures, and have enacted wide-ranging public policies to promote renewables.[24][25] Low-carbon renewable energy replaces conventional fossil fuels in three main areas: power generation, hot water/ space heating, and transport fuels.[26] Scientists have advanced a plan to power 100% of the world's energy with wind, hydroelectric, and solar power by the year 2030.[27][28] In terms of power generation, renewable energy currently provides 18 percent of total electricity generation worldwide and this percentage is growing each year. Renewable power generators are spread across many countries, and wind power alone already provides a significant share of electricity in some areas: for example, 14 percent in the U.S. state of Iowa, 40 percent in the northern German state of Schleswig-Holstein, and 20 percent in Denmark. Some countries get most of their power from renewables, including Iceland (100 percent), Brazil (85 percent), Austria (62 percent), New Zealand (65 percent), and Sweden (54 percent).[29] Solar water heating makes an important and growing contribution in many countries, most notably in China, which now has 70 percent of the global total (180 GWth). Worldwide, total installed solar water heating systems meet a portion of the water heating needs of over 70 million households. The use of biomass for heating continues to grow as well. In Sweden, national use of biomass energy has surpassed that of oil. Direct geothermal heating is also growing rapidly.[29] Renewable biofuels for transportation, such as ethanol fuel and biodiesel, have contributed to a significant decline in oil consumption in the United States since 2006. The 93 billion liters of biofuels produced worldwide in 2009 displaced the equivalent of an estimated 68 billion liters of gasoline, equal to about 5 percent of world gasoline production.[29]
[edit] Nuclear power

Nuclear power plants produce electricity with about 66 g equivalent lifecycle carbon dioxide emissions per kWh, while renewable power generators produce electricity with 9.5-38 g carbon dioxide per kWh. Renewable electricity technologies are thus "two to seven times more effective than nuclear power plants on a per kWh basis at fighting climate change".[30]

Nuclear power currently produces 13-14% of the world's electricity. Since about 2001 the term nuclear renaissance has been used to refer to a possible nuclear power industry revival, driven by rising fossil fuel prices and new concerns about meeting greenhouse gas emission limits. At the same time, various barriers to a nuclear renaissance have been identified. These barriers include unfavourable economics compared to other sources of energy and slowness in addressing climate change.[31][32][33][34] New reactors under construction in Finland and France, which were meant to lead a nuclear renaissance, have been delayed and are running over-budget.[35][36][37] China has 20 new reactors under construction,[38] and there are also a considerable number of new reactors being built in South Korea, India, and Russia. At least 100 older and smaller reactors will "most probably be closed over the next 10-15 years".[39] Nuclear power brings with it important waste disposal, safety, and security risks which are unique among low-carbon energy sources.[40] Public attitudes towards nuclear power remain ambiguous in many developed countries, with significant anti-nuclear opposition even when majority opinion is in favour.[41]
[edit] Carbon intensity of fossil fuels

Natural gas (predominantly methane) produces less greenhouses gases per energy unit gained than oil which in turn produces less than coal, principally because coal has a larger ratio of carbon to hydrogen.[citation needed] The combustion of natural gas emits almost 30 percent less carbon dioxide than oil, and just under 45 percent less carbon dioxide than coal. In addition, there are also other environmental benefits.[42] A study performed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Gas Research Institute (GRI) in 1997 sought to discover whether the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from increased natural gas (predominantly methane) use would be offset by a possible increased level of methane emissions from sources such as leaks and emissions. The study concluded that the reduction in emissions from increased natural gas use strongly outweighs the detrimental effects of increased methane emissions. Thus the increased use of natural gas in the place of other, dirtier fossil fuels can serve to lessen the emission of greenhouse gases in the United States.[43] Most mitigation proposals imply rather than directly state an eventual reduction in global fossil fuel production. Also proposed are direct quotas on global fossil fuel production.[44][45]

[edit] Energy efficiency and conservation

Efficient energy use, sometimes simply called "energy efficiency", is the goal of efforts to reduce the amount of energy required to provide products and services. For example, insulating a home allows a building to use less heating and cooling energy to achieve and maintain a comfortable temperature. Installing fluorescent lights or natural skylights reduces the amount of energy required to attain the same level of illumination compared to using traditional incandescent light bulbs. Compact fluorescent lights use two-thirds less energy and may last 6 to 10 times longer than incandescent lights.[47] Energy efficiency has proved to be a cost-effective strategy for building economies without necessarily growing energy consumption. For example, the state of California began implementing energy-efficiency measures in the mid-1970s, including building code and appliance standards with strict efficiency requirements. During the following years, California's energy consumption has remained approximately flat on a per capita basis while national U.S. consumption doubled. As part of its strategy, California implemented a "loading order" for new energy resources that puts energy efficiency first, renewable electricity supplies second, and new fossil-fired power plants last.[48] Energy conservation is broader than energy efficiency in that it encompasses using less energy to achieve a lesser energy service, for example through behavioural change, as well as encompassing energy efficiency. Examples of conservation without efficiency improvements would be heating a room less in winter, driving less, or working in a less brightly lit room. As with other definitions, the boundary between efficient energy use and energy conservation can be fuzzy, but both are important in environmental and economic terms. This is especially the case when actions are directed at the saving of fossil fuels.[49] Reducing energy use is seen as a key solution to the problem of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. According to the International Energy Agency, improved energy efficiency in buildings, industrial processes and transportation could reduce the world's energy needs in 2050 by one third, and help control global emissions of greenhouse gases.[50]
[edit] Transport

Increased use of biofuels (such as ethanol fuel and biodiesel that can be used in today's diesel and gasoline engines) could also reduce emissions if produced environmentally efficiently, especially in conjunction with regular hybrids and plug-in hybrids. For electric vehicles, the reduction of carbon emissions will improve further if the way the required electricity is generated is low-carbon (from renewable energy sources). Effective urban planning to reduce sprawl would decrease Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT), lowering emissions from transportation. Increased use of public transport can also reduce greenhouse gas emissions per passenger kilometer.
[edit] Urban planning

Urban planning also has an effect on energy use. Between 1982 and 1997, the amount of land consumed for urban development in the United States increased by 47 percent while the nation's

population grew by only 17 percent.[53] Inefficient land use development practices have increased infrastructure costs as well as the amount of energy needed for transportation, community services, and buildings. At the same time, a growing number of citizens and government officials have begun advocating a smarter approach to land use planning. These smart growth practices include compact community development, multiple transportation choices, mixed land uses, and practices to conserve green space. These programs offer environmental, economic, and quality-of-life benefits; and they also serve to reduce energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions. Approaches such as New Urbanism and Transit-oriented development seek to reduce distances travelled, especially by private vehicles, encourage public transit and make walking and cycling more attractive options. This is achieved through medium-density, mixed-use planning and the concentration of housing within walking distance of town centers and transport nodes. Smarter growth land use policies have both a direct and indirect effect on energy consuming behavior. For example, transportation energy usage, the number one user of petroleum fuels, could be significantly reduced through more compact and mixed use land development patterns, which in turn could be served by a greater variety of non-automotive based transportation choices.
[edit] Building design

For institutions of higher learning in the United States, greenhouse gas emissions depend primarily on total area of buildings and secondarily on climate.[56] If climate is not taken into account, annual greenhouse gas emissions due to energy consumed on campuses plus purchased electricity can be estimated with the formula, E=aSb, where a =0.001621 metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent/square foot or 0.0241 metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent/square meter and b = 1.1354.[57] New buildings can be constructed using passive solar building design, low-energy building, or zero-energy building techniques, using renewable heat sources. Existing buildings can be made more efficient through the use of insulation, high-efficiency appliances (particularly hot water heaters and furnaces), double- or triple-glazed gas-filled windows, external window shades, and building orientation and siting. Renewable heat sources such as shallow geothermal and passive solar energy reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses emitted. In addition to designing buildings which are more energy efficient to heat, it is possible to design buildings that are more energy efficient to cool by using lighter-coloured, more reflective materials in the development of urban areas (e.g. by painting roofs white) and planting trees.[58][59] This saves energy because it cools buildings and reduces the urban heat island effect thus reducing the use of air conditioning.
[edit] Reforestation and avoided deforestation Main articles: Deforestation, Reforestation, and Biosequestration

Almost 20% of total greenhouse-gas emissions were from deforestation in 2007. The Stern Review found that, based on the opportunity costs of the landuse that would no longer be

available for agriculture if deforestation were avoided, emission savings from avoided deforestation could potentially reduce CO2 emissions for under $5/tCO2, possiblly as little as $1/tCO2. Afforestation and reforestation could save at least another 1GtCO2/year, at an estimated cost of $5/tCO2 to $15/tCO2.[6] The Review determined these figures by assessing 8 countries responsible for 70% of global deforestation emissions. Pristine temperate forest has been shown to store three times more carbon than IPCC estimates took into account, and 60% more carbon than plantation forest.[60] Preventing these forests from being logged would have significant effects. Further significant savings from other non-energy-related-emissions could be gained through cuts to agricultural emissions, fugitive emissions, waste emissions, and emissions from various industrial processes.[6]
[edit] Eliminating waste methane

Methane is a significantly more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Burning one molecule of methane generates one molecule of carbon dioxide. Accordingly, burning methane which would otherwise be released into the atmosphere (such as at oil wells, landfills, coal mines, waste treatment plants, etc.) provides a net greenhouse gas emissions benefit.[43] However, reducing the amount of waste methane produced in the first place has an even greater beneficial impact, as might other approaches to productive use of otherwise-wasted methane. In terms of prevention, vaccines are in the works in Australia to reduce significant global warming contributions from methane released by livestock via flatulence and eructation.[61]

[edit] Geoengineering

Geoengineering is seen by some[who?] as an alternative to mitigation and adaptation, but by others[who?] as an entirely separate response to climate change. In a literature assessment, Barker et al. (2007) described geoengineering as a type of mitigation policy.[62] IPCC (2007) concluded that geoengineering options, such as ocean fertilization to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, remained largely unproven.[63] It was judged that reliable cost estimates for geoengineering had not yet been published. Chapter 28 of the National Academy of Sciences report Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base (1992) defined geoengineering as "options that would involve large-scale engineering of our environment in order to combat or counteract the effects of changes in atmospheric chemistry."[64] They evaluated a range of options to try to give preliminary answers to two questions: can these options work and could they be carried out with a reasonable cost. They also sought to encourage discussion of a third question what adverse side effects might there be. The following types of option were examined: reforestation, increasing ocean absorption of carbon dioxide (carbon sequestration) and screening out some sunlight. NAS also argued "Engineered countermeasures need to be

evaluated but should not be implemented without broad understanding of the direct effects and the potential side effects, the ethical issues, and the risks.".[64]
[edit] Greenhouse gas remediation

Carbon sequestration has been proposed as a method of reducing the amount of radiative forcing. Carbon sequestration is a term that describes processes that remove carbon from the atmosphere. A variety of means of artificially capturing and storing carbon, as well as of enhancing natural sequestration processes, are being explored. The main natural process is photosynthesis by plants and single-celled organisms (see biosequestration). Artificial processes vary, and concerns have been expressed about their long-term effects.[65] Although they require land, natural sinks can be enhanced by reforestation and afforestation carbon offsets, which fix carbon dioxide for as little as $0.11 per metric ton[citation needed].
Sulfate aerosols

The ability of stratospheric sulfate aerosols to create a global dimming effect has made them a possible candidate for use in geoengineering projects.[66]
Biomass Energy

During its growth, vegetation traps carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis. When this biomass decomposes or is combusted, the carbon is again released as carbon dioxide. This process is part of the global carbon cycle. Through the use of biomass for energy and materials, e.g. in biomass fuelled power plants, parts of this cycle is controlled by man. However, whether direct use of biomass for energy can be carbon neutral is case-specific and remains a matter of controversy.[67][68] Combining a biomass energy system with carbon capture and storage technology (a form of Geoengineering, is so-called bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Proponents of BECCS, a technology yet to be proven, hope that it will result in net-negative carbon dioxide emissions, i.e. net removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.[69] In comparison with other geoengineering options, BECCS has been suggested as a low-risk, near-term tool to effectively remove carbon from the atmosphere.[65][70][71] Even so, whether biomass can be sustainably obtained in significant quantities remains controversial.[72] In July 2011 a report by the United States Government Accountability Office on geoengineering found that "[c]limate engineering technologies do not now offer a viable response to global climate change."[73]

Carbon air capture

It is notable that the availability of cheap energy and appropriate sites for geological storage of carbon may make carbon dioxide air capture viable commercially. It is, however, generally expected that carbon dioxide air capture may be uneconomic when compared to carbon capture

and storage from major sources in particular, fossil fuel powered power stations, refineries, etc. In such cases, costs of energy produced will grow significantly.[citation needed] However, captured CO2 can be used to force more crude oil out of oil fields, as Statoil and Shell have made plans to do.[74] CO2 can also be used in commercial greenhouses, giving an opportunity to kickstart the technology. Some attempts have been made to use algae to capture smokestack emissions,[75] notably the GreenFuel Technologies Corporation, who have now shut down operations.[76]
Carbon capture and storage

Schematic showing both terrestrial and geological sequestration of carbon dioxide emissions from a coal-fired plant.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a plan to mitigate climate change by capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from large point sources such as power plants and subsequently storing it away safely instead of releasing it into the atmosphere. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says CCS could contribute between 10% and 55% of the cumulative worldwide carbonmitigation effort over the next 90 years. The Agency says CCS is "the most important single new technology for CO2 savings" in power generation and industry.[77] Though it requires up to 40% more energy to run a CCS coal power plant than a regular coal plant, CCS could potentially capture about 90% of all the carbon emitted by the plant.[77] Norway, which first began storing CO2, has cut its emissions by almost a million tons a year, or about 3% of the country's 1990 levels.[77] Please see also direct conversion of CO2 to fuels. As of late 2011, the total CO2 storage capacity of all 14 projects in operation or under construction is over 33 million tonnes a year. This is broadly equivalent to preventing the emissions from more than six million cars from entering the atmosphere each year. [78]

Pacala and Socolow: 15 programs

Further information: Stabilization Wedge Game and Global warming game

Pacala and Socolow of Princeton [79] have proposed a program to reduce CO2 emissions by 1 billion metric tons per year or 25 billion tons over the 50-year period. The proposed 15 different programs, any seven of which could achieve the goal, are:

1. more efficient vehicles increase fuel economy from 30 to 60 mpg (7.8 to 3.9 L/100 km) for 2 billion vehicles, 2. reduce use of vehicles improve urban design to reduce miles driven from 10,000 to 5,000 miles (16,000 to 8,000 km) per year for 2 billion vehicles, 3. efficient buildings reduce energy consumption by 25%, 4. improve efficiency of coal plants from today's 40% to 60%, 5. replace 1,400 GW (gigawatt) of coal power plants with natural gas, 6. capture and store carbon emitted from 800 GW of new coal plants, 7. capture and reuse hydrogen created by No. 6 above, 8. capture and store carbon from coal to syn fuels conversion at 30 million barrels per day (4,800,000 m3/d), 9. displace 700 GW of coal power with nuclear, 10. add 2 million 1 MW wind turbines (50 times current capacity), 11. displace 700 GW of coal with 2,000 GW (peak) solar power (700 times current capacity), 12. produce hydrogen fuel from 4 million 1 MW wind turbines, 13. use biomass to make fuel to displace oil (100 times current capacity), 14. stop de-forestation and re-establish 300 million hectares of new tree plantations, 15. conservation tillage apply to all crop land (10 times current usage).

Nature.com argued in June 2008 that "If we are to have confidence in our ability to stabilize carbon dioxide levels below 450 p.p.m. emissions must average less than 5 billion metric tons of carbon per year over the century. This means accelerating the deployment of the wedges so they begin to take effect in 2015 and are completely operational in much less time than originally modelled by Socolow and Pacala."[80]

Societal controls
Another method being examined is to make carbon a new currency by introducing tradeable "Personal Carbon Credits". The idea being it will encourage and motivate individuals to reduce their 'carbon footprint' by the way they live. Each citizen will receive a free annual quota of carbon that they can use to travel, buy food, and go about their business. It has been suggested that by using this concept it could actually solve two problems; pollution and poverty, old age pensioners will actually be better off because they fly less often, so they can cash in their quota at the end of the year to pay heating bills, etc.[citation needed]
Population

Population control efforts are impeded by there being somewhat of a taboo in some countries against considering any such efforts.[86] Also, various religions discourage or prohibit some or all forms of birth control. Population size has a different per capita effect on global warming in different countries, since the per capita production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases varies greatly by country.[87]

Non-CO2 greenhouse gases

CO2 is not the only GHG relevant to mitigation, and governments have acted to regulate the emissions of other GHGs emitted by human activities (anthropogenic GHGs). The emissions caps agreed to by most developed countries under the Kyoto Protocol regulate the emissions of almost all the anthropogenic GHGs.[88] These gases are CO2, methane (chemical formula: CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), the hydrofluorocarbons (abbreviated HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Stabilizing the atmospheric concentrations of the different anthropogenic GHGs requires an understanding of their different physical properties. Stabilization depends both on how quickly GHGs are added to the atmosphere and how fast they are removed. The rate of removal is measured by the atmospheric lifetime of the GHG in question (see the main GHG article for a list). Here, the lifetime is defined as the time required for a given perturbation of the GHG in the atmosphere to be reduced to 37% of its initial amount.[11] Methane has a relatively short atmospheric lifetime of about 12 years, while N2O's lifetime is about 110 years. For methane, a reduction of about 30% below current emission levels would lead to a stabilization in its atmospheric concentration, while for N2O, an emissions reduction of more than 50% would be required.[11] Another physical property of the anthropogenic GHGs relevant to mitigation is the different abilities of the gases to trap heat (in the form of infrared radiation). Some gases are more effective at trapping heat than others, e.g., SF6 is 22,200 times more effective a GHG than CO2 on a per-kilogram basis.[89] A measure for this physical property is the global warming potential (GWP), and is used in the Kyoto Protocol.[90] Although not designed for this purpose, the Montreal Protocol has probably benefitted climate change mitigation efforts.[91] The Montreal Protocol is an international treaty that has successfully reduced emissions of ozone-depleting substances (e.g., CFCs), which are also greenhouse gases.

Costs and benefits

Costs
The Stern Review proposes stabilising the concentration of greenhouse-gas emissions in the atmosphere at a maximum of 550ppm CO2e by 2050. The Review estimates that this would mean cutting total greenhouse-gas emissions to three quarters of 2007 levels. The Review further estimates that the cost of these cuts would be in the range 1.0 to +3.5% of World GDP, (i.e. GWP), with an average estimate of approximately 1%.[6] Stern has since revised his estimate to 2% of GWP.[92] For comparison, the Gross World Product (GWP) at PPP was estimated at $74.5 trillion in 2010,[93] thus 2% is approximately $1.5 trillion. The Review emphasises that these costs are contingent on steady reductions in the cost of low-carbon technologies. Mitigation costs will also vary according to how and when emissions are cut: early, well-planned action will minimise the costs.[6] One way of estimating the cost of reducing emissions is by considering the likely costs of potential technological and output changes. Policy makers can compare the marginal abatement

costs of different methods to assess the cost and amount of possible abatement over time. The marginal abatement costs of the various measures will differ by country, by sector, and over time.[6]

Benefits
Yohe et al. (2007) assessed the literature on sustainability and climate change.[94] With high confidence, they suggested that up to the year 2050, an effort to cap greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at 550 ppm would benefit developing countries significantly. This was judged to be especially the case when combined with enhanced adaptation. By 2100, however, it was still judged likely that there would be significant climate change impacts. This was judged to be the case even with aggressive mitigation and significantly enhanced adaptive capacity.

[edit] Sharing
One of the aspects of mitigation is how to share the costs and benefits of mitigation policies. There is no scientific consensus over how to share these costs and benefits (Toth et al., 2001).[95] In terms of the politics of mitigation, the UNFCCC's ultimate objective is to stabilize concentrations of GHG in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent "dangerous" climate change (Rogner et al., 2007).[96] There is, however, no widespread agreement on how to define "dangerous" climate change. GHG emissions are an important correlate of wealth, at least at present (Banuri et al., 1996, pp. 9192).[97] Wealth, as measured by per capita income (i.e., income per head of population), varies widely between different countries. Activities of the poor that involve emissions of GHGs are often associated with basic needs, such as heating to stay tolerably warm. In richer countries, emissions tend to be associated with things like cars, central heating, etc. The impacts of cutting emissions could therefore have different impacts on human welfare according wealth.
Distributing emissions abatement costs

There have been different proposals on how to allocate responsibility for cutting emissions (Banuri et al., 1996, pp. 103105):[97]

Egalitarianism: this system interprets the problem as one where each person has equal rights to a global resource, i.e., polluting the atmosphere. Basic needs and Rawlsian criteria: this system would have emissions allocated according to basic needs, as defined according to a minimum level of consumption. Consumption above basic needs would require countries to buy more emission rights. This can be related to Rawlsian philosophy. From this viewpoint, developing countries would need to be at least as well off under an emissions control regime as they would be outside the regime. Proportionality and polluter-pays principle: Proportionality reflects the ancient Aristotelian principle that people should receive in proportion to what they put in, and pay in proportion to the damages they cause. This has a potential relationship with the "polluter-pays principle", which can be interpreted in a number of ways:

Historical responsibilities: this asserts that allocation of emission rights should be based on patterns of past emissions. Two-thirds of the stock of GHGs in the atmosphere at present is due to the past actions of developed countries (Goldemberg et al., 1996, p. 29).[98] Comparable burdens and ability to pay: with this approach, countries would reduce emissions based on comparable burdens and their ability to take on the costs of reduction. Ways to assess burdens include monetary costs per head of population, as well as other, more complex measures, like the UNDP's Human Development Index. Willingness to pay: with this approach, countries take on emission reductions based on their ability to pay along with how much they benefit from reducing their emissions.

Specific proposals

Ad hoc: Lashof (1992) and Cline (1992) (referred to by Banuri et al., 1996, p. 106),[97] for example, suggested that allocations based partly on GNP could be a way of sharing the burdens of emission reductions. This is because GNP and economic activity are partially tied to carbon emissions. Equal per capita entitlements: this is the most widely cited method of distributing abatement costs, and is derived from egalitarianism (Banuri et al., 1996, pp. 106107). This approach can be divided into two categories. In the first category, emissions are allocated according to national population. In the second category, emissions are allocated in a way that attempts to account for historical (cumulative) emissions. Status quo: with this approach, historical emissions are ignored, and current emission levels are taken as a status quo right to emit (Banuri et al., 1996, p. 107). An analogy for this approach can be made with fisheries, which is a common, limited resource. The analogy would be with the atmosphere, which can be viewed as an exhaustible natural resource (Goldemberg et al., 1996, p. 27).[98] In international law, one state recognized the long-established use of another state's use of the fisheries resource. It was also recognized by the state that part of the other state's economy was dependent on that resource.

Governmental and intergovernmental action

Many countries, both developing and developed, are aiming to use cleaner technologies (World Bank, 2010, p. 192).[99] Use of these technologies aids mitigation and could result in substantial reductions in CO2 emissions. Policies include targets for emissions reductions, increased use of renewable energy, and increased energy efficiency. It is often argued that the results of climate change are more damaging in poor nations, where infrastructures are weak and few social services exist. The Commitment to Development Index is one attempt to analyze rich country policies taken to reduce their disproportionate use of the global commons. Countries do well if their greenhouse gas emissions are falling, if their gas taxes are high, if they do not subsidize the fishing industry, if they have a low fossil fuel rate per capita, and if they control imports of illegally cut tropical timber.

Kyoto Protocol

The main current international agreement on combating climate change is the Kyoto Protocol, which came into force on 16 February 2005. The Kyoto Protocol is an amendment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Countries that have ratified this protocol have committed to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases, or engage in emissions trading if they maintain or increase emissions of these gases.

Copenhagen 2009
The first phase of the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.[100] The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December 2009 was the next in an annual series of UN meetings that followed the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio. In 1997 the talks led to the Kyoto Protocol, Copenhagen was considered the world's chance to agree a successor to Kyoto that would bring about meaningful carbon cuts.[101]

Encouraging use changes

Subsidies

A program of subsidization balanced against expected flood costs could pay for conversion to 100% renewable power by 2030.[28] The proponents of such a plan expect the cost to generate and transmit power in 2020 will be less than 4 cents per kilowatt hour (in 2007 dollars) for wind, about 4 cents for wave and hydroelectric, from 4 to 7 cents for geothermal, and 8 cents per kwh for solar, fossil, and nuclear power.[27]
Carbon emissions trading

With the creation of a market for trading carbon dioxide emissions within the Kyoto Protocol, it is likely that London financial markets will be the centre for this potentially highly lucrative business; the New York and Chicago stock markets may have a lower trade volume than expected as long as the US maintains its rejection of the Kyoto.[102] However, emissions trading may delay the phase-out of fossil fuels.[103] The European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS)[104] is the largest multi-national, greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme in the world. It commenced operation on 1 January 2005, and all 25 member states of the European Union participate in the scheme which has created a new market in carbon dioxide allowances estimated at 35 billion Euros (US$43 billion) per year.[105] The Chicago Climate Exchange was the first (voluntary) emissions market, and is soon to be followed by Asia's first market (Asia Carbon Exchange). A total of 107 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent have been exchanged through projects in 2004, a 38% increase relative to 2003 (78 Mt CO2e).[106] Twenty three multinational corporations have come together in the G8 Climate Change Roundtable, a business group formed at the January 2005 World Economic Forum. The group includes Ford, Toyota, British Airways and BP. On 9 June 2005 the Group published a statement[107] stating that there was a need to act on climate change and claiming that market-

based solutions can help. It called on governments to establish "clear, transparent, and consistent price signals" through "creation of a long-term policy framework" that would include all major producers of greenhouse gases. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is a proposed carbon trading scheme being created by nine North-eastern and Mid-Atlantic American states; Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont. The scheme was due to be developed by April 2005 but has not yet been completed.
Emissions tax

An emissions tax on greenhouse gas emissions requires individual emitters to pay a fee, charge or tax for every tonne of greenhouse gas released into the atmosphere.[108] Most environmentally related taxes with implications for greenhouse gas emissions in OECD countries are levied on energy products and motor vehicles, rather than on CO2 emissions directly. Emission taxes can be both cost effective and environmentally effective. Difficulties with emission taxes include their potential unpopularity, and the fact that they cannot guarantee a particular level of emissions reduction. Emissions or energy taxes also often fall disproportionately on lower income classes. In developing countries, institutions may be insufficiently developed for the collection of emissions fees from a wide variety of sources.

Implementation
Implementation puts into effect climate change mitigation strategies and targets. These can be targets set by international bodies or voluntary action by individuals or institutions. This is the most important, expensive and least appealing aspect of environmental governance.[109]
Funding

Implementation requires funding sources but is often beset by disputes over who should provide funds and under what conditions.[109] A lack of funding can be a barrier to successful strategies as there are no formal arrangements to finance climate change development and implementation.[110] Funding is often provided by nations, groups of nations and increasingly NGO and private sources. These funds are often channelled through the Global Environmental Facility (GEF). This is an environmental funding mechanism in the World Bank which is designed to deal with global environmental issues.[109] The GEF was originally designed to tackle four main areas: biological diversity, climate change, international waters and ozone layer depletion, to which land degradation and persistent organic pollutant were added. The GEF funds projects that are agreed to achieve global environmental benefits that are endorsed by governments and screened by one of the GEFs implementing agencies.[111]
Problems

There are numerous issues which result in a current perceived lack of implementation.[109] It has been suggested that the main barriers to implementation are, Uncertainty, Fragmentation,

Institutional void, Short time horizon of policies and politicians and Missing motives and willingness to start adapting. The relationships between many climatic processes can cause large levels of uncertainty as they are not fully understood and can be a barrier to implementation. When information on climate change is held between the large numbers of actors involved it can be highly dispersed, context specific or difficult to access causing fragmentation to be a barrier. Institutional void is the lack of commonly accepted rules and norms for policy processes to take place, calling into question the legitimacy and efficacy of policy processes. The Short time horizon of policies and politicians often means that climate change policies are not implemented in favour of socially favoured societal issues. Statements are often posed to keep the illusion of political action to prevent or postpone decisions being made. Missing motives and willingness to start adapting is a large barrier as it prevents any implementation.[110]
Occurrence

Despite a perceived lack of occurrence, evidence of implementation is emerging internationally. Some examples of this are the initiation of NAPAs and of joint implementation. Many developing nations have made National Adaptation Programs of Action (NAPAs) which are frameworks to prioritize adaption needs.[112] The implementation of many of these is supported by GEF agencies.[113] Many developed countries are implementing first generation institutional adaption plans particularly at the state and local government scale.[112] There has also been a push towards joint implementation between countries by the UNFCC as this has been suggested as a cost effective way for objectives to be achieved.[114]
[edit] United States

Efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the United States include energy policies which encourage efficiency through programs like Energy Star, Commercial Building Integration, and the Industrial Technologies Program.[115] On 12 November 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the Kyoto Protocol, but he indicated participation by the developing nations was necessary prior its being submitted for ratification by the United States Senate.[116] In 2007, Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, with White House approval, urged governors and dozens of members of the House of Representatives to block Californias first-in-the-nation limits on greenhouse gases from cars and trucks, according to e-mails obtained by Congress.[117] The U.S. Climate Change Science Program is a group of about twenty federal agencies and US Cabinet Departments, all working together to address global warming. The Bush administration pressured American scientists to suppress discussion of global warming, according to the testimony of the Union of Concerned Scientists to the Oversight and Government Reform Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives.[118][119] "High-quality science" was "struggling to get out," as the Bush administration pressured scientists to tailor their writings on global warming to fit the Bush administration's skepticism, in some cases at the behest of an ex-oil industry lobbyist. "Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change,' 'global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications." Similarly, according to the testimony of senior officers of the Government Accountability Project, the White House attempted to bury the report

"National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change," produced by U.S. scientists pursuant to U.S. law.[120] Some U.S. scientists resigned their jobs rather than give in to White House pressure to underreport global warming.[118] In the absence of substantial federal action, state governments have adopted emissions-control laws such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in the Northeast and the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 in California.
[edit] Developing countries

In order to reconcile economic development with mitigating carbon emissions, developing countries need particular support, both financial and technical. One of the means of achieving this is the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). The World Bank's Prototype Carbon Fund[121] is a public private partnership that operates within the CDM. An important point of contention, however, is how overseas development assistance not directly related to climate change mitigation is affected by funds provided to climate change mitigation.[122] One of the outcomes of the UNFCC Copenhagen Climate Conference was the Copenhagen Accord, in which developed countries promised to provide US $30 million between 20102012 of new and additional resources.[122] Yet it remains unclear what exactly the definition of additional is and the European Commission has requested its member states to define what they understand to be additional, and researchers at the Overseas Development Institute have found 4 main understandings:[122]
1. Climate finance classified as aid, but additional to (over and above) the 0.7% ODA target; 2. Increase on previous year's Official Development Assistance (ODA) spent on climate change mitigation; 3. Rising ODA levels that include climate change finance but where it is limited to a specified percentage; and 4. Increase in climate finance not connected to ODA.

The main point being that there is a conflict between the OECD states budget deficit cuts, the need to help developing countries adapt to develop sustainably and the need to ensure that funding does not come from cutting aid to other important Millennium Development Goals.[122] In July 2005 the U.S., China, India, Australia, as well as Japan and South Korea, agreed to the Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate. The pact aims to encourage technological development that may mitigate global warming, without coordinated emissions targets. The highest goal of the pact is to find and promote new technology that aid both growth and a cleaner environment simultaneously. An example is the Methane to Markets initiative which reduces methane emissions into the atmosphere by capturing the gas and using it for growth enhancing clean energy generation.[123] Critics[who?] have raised concerns that the pact undermines the Kyoto Protocol.[124] However, none of these initiatives suggest a quantitative cap on the emissions from developing countries. This is considered as a particularly difficult policy proposal as the economic growth of

developing countries are proportionally reflected in the growth of greenhouse emissions. Critics[who?] of mitigation often argue that, the developing countries' drive to attain a comparable living standard to the developed countries would doom the attempt at mitigation of global warming. Critics[who?] also argue that holding down emissions would shift the human cost of global warming from a general one to one that was borne most heavily by the poorest populations on the planet. In an attempt to provide more opportunities for developing countries to adapt clean technologies, UNEP and WTO urged the international community to reduce trade barriers and to conclude the Doha trade round "which includes opening trade in environmental goods and services".[125]

Non-governmental approaches
While many of the proposed methods of mitigating global warming require governmental funding, legislation and regulatory action, individuals and businesses can also play a part in the mitigation effort.

[edit] Choices in personal actions and business operations

Environmental groups encourage individual action against global warming, often aimed at the consumer. Common recommendations include lowering home heating and cooling usage, burning less gasoline, supporting renewable energy sources, buying local products to reduce transportation, turning off unused devices, and various others. A geophysicist at Utrecht University has urged similar institutions to hold the vanguard in voluntary mitigation, suggesting the use of communications technologies such as videoconferencing to reduce their dependence on long-haul flights.[126]
[edit] Air travel and shipment

Climate scientist Kevin Anderson raised concern about the growing effect of rapidly increasing global air transport on the climate in a paper[127] and a presentation[128] in 2008, suggesting that reversing this trend is necessary. Part of the difficulty is that when aviation emissions are made at high altitude, the climate impacts are much greater than otherwise. Others have been raising the related concerns of the increasing hypermobility of individuals, whether traveling for business or pleasure, involving frequent and often long distance air travel, as well as air shipment of goods.[129]

[edit] Business opportunities and risks

Main article: Business action on climate change

On 9 May 2005 Jeff Immelt, the chief executive of General Electric (GE), announced plans to reduce GE's global warming related emissions by one percent by 2012. "GE said that given its projected growth, those emissions would have risen by 40 percent without such action."[130]

On 21 June 2005 a group of leading airlines, airports and aerospace manufacturers pledged to work together to reduce the negative environmental impact of aviation, including limiting the impact of air travel on climate change by improving fuel efficiency and reducing carbon dioxide emissions of new aircraft by fifty percent per seat kilometre by 2020 from 2000 levels. The group aims to develop a common reporting system for carbon dioxide emissions per aircraft by the end of 2005, and pressed for the early inclusion of aviation in the European Union's carbon emission trading scheme.[131]

Legal action
In some countries, those affected by climate change may be able to sue major producers, in a parallel to the lawsuits against tobacco companies.[132] Although proving that particular weather events are due specifically to global warming may never be possible,[133] methodologies have been developed to show the increased risk of such events caused by global warming.[134] For a legal action for negligence (or similar) to succeed, "Plaintiffs ... must show that, more probably than not, their individual injuries were caused by the risk factor in question, as opposed to any other cause. This has sometimes been translated to a requirement of a relative risk of at least two."[135] Another route (though with little legal bite) is the World Heritage Convention, if it can be shown that climate change is affecting World Heritage Sites like Mount Everest.[136][137] Legal action has also been taken to try to force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act,[138] and against the Export-Import Bank and OPIC for failing to assess environmental impacts (including global warming impacts) under NEPA.[citation needed] According to a 2004 study commissioned by Friends of the Earth, ExxonMobil and its predecessors caused 4.7 to 5.3 percent of the world's man-made carbon dioxide emissions between 1882 and 2002. The group suggested that such studies could form the basis for eventual legal action
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

The Kyoto Protocol is a protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC or FCCC), aimed at fighting global warming. The UNFCCC is an international environmental treaty with the goal of achieving the "stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."[5] The Protocol was initially adopted on 11 December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, and entered into force on 16 February 2005. As of September 2011, 191 states have signed and ratified the protocol.[6] The only remaining signatory not to have ratified the protocol is the United States. Other United Nations member states which did not ratify the protocol are Afghanistan, Andorra and South Sudan. In December 2011, Canada denounced the Protocol.[2]

Under the Protocol, 37 countries ("Annex I countries") commit themselves to a reduction of four greenhouse gases (GHG) (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride) and two groups of gases (hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons) produced by them, and all member countries give general commitments. At negotiations, Annex I countries (including the US) collectively agreed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2% on average for the period 2008-2012. This reduction is relative to their annual emissions in a base year, usually 1990. Since the US has not ratified the treaty, the collective emissions reduction of Annex I Kyoto countries falls from 5.2 % to 4.2% below base year.[7]:26 Emission limits do not include emissions by international aviation and shipping, but are in addition to the industrial gases, chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, which are dealt with under the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. The benchmark 1990 emission levels accepted by the Conference of the Parties of UNFCCC (decision 2/CP.3) were the values of "global warming potential" calculated for the IPCC Second Assessment Report.[8] These figures are used for converting the various greenhouse gas emissions into comparable CO2 equivalents (CO2-eq) when computing overall sources and sinks. The Protocol allows for several "flexible mechanisms", such as emissions trading, the clean development mechanism (CDM) and joint implementation to allow Annex I countries to meet their GHG emission limitations by purchasing GHG emission reductions credits from elsewhere, through financial exchanges, projects that reduce emissions in non-Annex I countries, from other Annex I countries, or from annex I countries with excess allowances. Each Annex I country is required to submit an annual report of inventories of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions from sources and removals from sinks under UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. These countries nominate a person (called a "designated national authority") to create and manage its greenhouse gas inventory. Virtually all of the non-Annex I countries have also established a designated national authority to manage its Kyoto obligations, specifically the "CDM process" that determines which GHG projects they wish to propose for accreditation by the CDM Executive Board.
The main aim of the Kyoto Protocol is to contain emissions of the main anthropogenic (i.e., humanemitted) greenhouse gases (GHGs) in ways that reflect underlying national differences in GHG emissions, wealth, and capacity to make the reductions.[17] The treaty follows the main principles agreed in the original 1992 UN Framework Convention.[17] According to the treaty, in 2012, Annex I Parties who have ratified the treaty must have fulfilled their obligations of greenhouse gas emissions limitations established for the Kyoto Protocol's first commitment period (20082012). These emissions limitation commitments are listed in Annex B of the Protocol.

The five principal concepts of the Kyoto Protocol are:[citation needed]

Commitments for the Annex I Parties. The main feature of the Protocol[23] lies in establishing commitments for the reduction of greenhouse gases that are legally binding for Annex I Parties. The Annex I Parties took on legally binding commitments based on

the Berlin Mandate, which was a part of UNFCCC negotiations leading up to the Protocol.[24][25]:290 Implementation. In order to meet the objectives of the Protocol, Annex I Parties are required to prepare policies and measures for the reduction of greenhouse gases in their respective countries. In addition, they are required to increase the absorption of these gases and utilize all mechanisms available, such as joint implementation, the clean development mechanism and emissions trading, in order to be rewarded with credits that would allow more greenhouse gas emissions at home. Minimizing Impacts on Developing Countries by establishing an adaptation fund for climate change. Accounting, Reporting and Review in order to ensure the integrity of the Protocol. Compliance. Establishing a Compliance Committee to enforce compliance with the commitments under the Protocol.

Top-ten emitters What follows is a ranking of the world's top ten emitters of GHGs for 2005 (MNP, 2007).[56] The first figure is the country's or region's emissions as a percentage of the global total. The second figure is the country's/region's per-capita emissions, in units of tons of GHG per-capita: 1. China1 17%, 5.8 2. United States3 16%, 24.1 3. European Union-273 11%, 10.6 4. Indonesia2 6%, 12.9 5. India 5%, 2.1 6. Russia3 5%, 14.9 7. Brazil 4%, 10.0 8. Japan3 3%, 10.6 9. Canada3 2%, 23.2 10. Mexico 2%, 6.4

The Kyoto Protocol Summary - A Quick Guide To Understanding It

The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement between countries, worldwide, to limit emissions of greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases are a major cause of global warming. And global warming affects everything. Colder climates in some parts. Hotter, drier climates in others. Rising sea levels, water shortages, loss of bio diversity, and so on. The Kyoto Protocol is an effort to curb these, and other, effects. Of course I cannot tell you more than this in a Kyoto Protocol Summary only.

What greenhouse gases does the Kyoto Prootcol aim to limit?

Carbon dioxide (CO2) Methane (CH4) Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Perfluorocarbons (PFCs, and Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6)

Which countries have signed up for the Kyoto Protocol?

At 18th April, 2006, 168 countries have signed the Kyoto Treaty At 3rd December, 2007, 175 countries have signed the Kyoto Treaty.

When was the Kyoto Protocol first open for signature?

The Kyoto Protocol was first open for signature to countries willing to participate, on 11th December, 1997, in Kyoto, Japan. Of course negotiations began long before that date but this is all that needs to be said in the Kyoto Protocol Summary I think.

When did the Kyoto Protocol come into force?

It came into force on 16th February, 2005.

What are the Kyoto Protocol conditions for it to come into force?
In summary, the Kyoto Protocol knows three categories.

Annex I countries industrialised countries Annex II countries developed countries Developing countries

The Kyoto Protocol requires 55 industrialised countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to target levels 5.2% below that of 1990. If unable to, they must buy emission credits from countries that are under these levels. Further, it provides that developed countries pay for costs of developing countries. Developing countries have no requirements under the Protocol. They may sell emission credits and receive funds and technology from Annex II countries for climate-related studies and projects. Many Annex I and Annex II countries overlap.

Are the Kyoto Protocol targets across the board?

No. Some targets for some countries are higher than for others, depending on their emission status. For instance, the emission cut target for the European Union is set at 8% and 7% for the

USA. Australia and Iceland are permitted to increase their emission by respectively 8% and 10%. Russia has a 0% target, due to its declined industrial output since the collapse of the USSR.

Have all countries signed the Kyoto Protocol?

No. Notable exceptions remains the USA as a major emitter of greenhouse gases. Australia signed the Treaty on the 3rd December 2007, hours after the swearing in of the new Rudd Labor government, as its first governing act.

Is the Kyoto Protocol a success?

Well, not having the USA ratify the Kyoto Protocol is a big problem as the USA also roughly contributes a quarter of the worlds greenhouse gases. A number of countries have not so far met the Kyoto Protocol emission targets. Even if it did, current projections call for the need of much bigger cuts in emissions than the Kyoto Protocol requires. The United Nations now predict a rise of 10% in greenhouse emissions since 1990.

Is there hope that the Kyoto Protocol can do something about global warming?
The Kyoto Protocol is a unique international initiative that recognises the dire environmental straits that we are in. Its processes seem painfully slow and its results small against daily reports of serious global warming effects. However its symbolic value may be its greatest asset. Any effort is better than none and if governments are slow, people everywhere are doing what they can do. Recycling, green power, wearing a jumper rather than turning up the heater, and so on. Some local governments are not waiting for their national governments to come to the party and introduce their own individual carbon trading schemes or offer incentives for solar heating.
Greenhouse effect On Planet Earth, we can identify many factors that make life possible. One of these is the heat radiated from the sun which is the Earth's primary energy source, a burning star so hot that we can feel its heat from over 150 million kilometers away. Its rays enter our atmosphere and shower upon on our planet. About one third of this solar energy is reflected back into the universe by shimmering glaciers, water and other bright surfaces. Two thirds, however, are absorbed by the Earth, warming land. oceans and atmosphere. Our atmosphere is known to be a combination of natural gases such as nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor and few other gases including carbon dioxide. However, in the last decades, the level of concentration of greenhouse gases, whose purpose is to keep the lower atmosphere warm, has been increasing. This has caused a global warming which could upset

most of the ecosystems of the globe, leading to their destruction. The most recent assessment report complied by the IPCC observed that changes in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, land cover and solar radiation alter the energy balance of the climate system . Indeed, the element of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere nowadays is 30% reater than in the 18th century. The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier, a French physicist and mathematician in 1824. The greenhouse effect refers to circumstances where the visible light of the sun passes through the layers of the atmosphere. In that case, some are absorbed and transformed into a warming instrument to the earth's surface. Contributing to the equivalent exchange of the incoming energy, the lands and oceans release heat into the atmosphere. Some of the gases mentioned above, such as the water vapor and carbon dioxide, absorb a fraction of that heat helping to a warm atmosphere. What's left of that heat is then released into space. This absorption of heat leads to more heating and a higher resultant temperature, aiding to provide a suitable temperature warm enough to our sustainability. Without this radiation heat-trapping caused by the so-called greenhouse gases, the surface would have an average temperature of -18C rather than our presently quite warm 15C. The latter temperature is necessary to preserve life on earth. Carbon dioxide and water vapour are probably the main human produced gases contributing to the greenhouse effect and global warming. The earth reflects about 30% of the incoming solar radiations. The remaining 70% warms the earth after being absorbed. Thus, the more solar radiations are absorbed, the more the earth releases infrared radiation to balance the flux of radiations. Lately, the Earth has faced a warming of the litosphere which is known as anthropogenic global warming. It is due to the increasing concentration of greenhouse effect gases in the atmosphere caused by the overuse of cars, planes, factories, etc. despite the Kyoto Protocol signed on the 11th December 1997 by mostly developped countries except the USA. These accords are about decreasing the member countries greenhouse gases emissions. The increase of greenhouse gases cause a reduction in outgoing infrared radiation, which means that, to restore the balance between incomming and outgoing radiation, Earth's climate must change. Global Warming is the simplest way for the climate to get rid of excess energy. But a rise in temperature could cause many other events, such as the consequences that follow .... Sea level rise One serious consequence raised by the Greenhouse effect is the rate of sea level rise. For the past century, the sea level has risen at an average rate of 1.8mm per year. However between 1993 and 2003 there was a mean increase rate of 31mm per year in the sea level change. This rate is estimated to increase in the next one hundred years due to the increases of gases in the atmosphere and global warming. In the next century the sea level is estimated to rise anywhere between 90 and 880mm. The two main causes of sea level rise are thermal expansion and the addition of water due to the melting of ice sheets. Both these are linked to to climate change and the Greenhouse effect. Thermal expansion can be described as the tendency of matter to change in volume to change in response to a change in temperature. It is the decrease in water density that results from global

warming. This leads to the expansion of the ocean and an increase in the sea levels. The ice sheets in a Antarctica and Greenland melt, due to the increases in temperature and contribute to the rise of the sea levels. An increase in the sea level could cause major disasters all over the world. These include eroding shorelines, coastal flooding, storm damage and saltwater contamination of freshwater supplies. The rise in sea lever also puts beaches, freshwater, coral reefs, fisheries and wildlife habitats at risk. Some of these consequences endanger human and animal life such as flooding. The increase in sea levels could also cause the submerging of islands and could cause massive economic damage with billons spent on adaptation. Pacific Islands called Kiribati, located between Australia and Hawaii, and the Maldives are both in danger of being submerged. Their tides are rising and their freshwater is becoming to salty to drink. This shows a situation were many lives are at risk and peole will have to rellocate to continue with their lives. Indonesia is also threatened by rising sea levels and if indonesia is submerged millions of people will need to be accepted in other countries. However if we act rapidly to reduce emissions we can still prevent the worst effects of climate change but to do this we must switch to renewable energy sources. POLAR BEARS Although it is difficult to connect specific weather events to Global warming, an increase in global temperatures may in turn cause broader changes, including glacial retreat, arctic shrinkage and worldwide sea level rise. These natural disasters affect many animals too. The Polar bear is one among many of the affected animals. The Polar Bear also known as the great white bear is the largest bear species in the world, it lives in the Arctic. This great animal is completely dependent of on a sea of ice for survival however the shrinkage of 15 to 20% of sea-ice in the Arctic is slowly killing its prey, causing the species to die of starvation. The melting ice-caps also mean the polar bear has to travel greater distances without any rest. The number of bears found dead in the water due to drowning has therefore increased. As a result of the melting, solar radiations that are supposed to bounce back on the ice are being absorbed in the water. Consequently, the water's temperature around the polar caps are getting higher and melting more ice; it is a circular phenomenon. According to experts, a rapid, dramatic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is necessary to prevent the extinction of the species. A 15% drop in birth rate has been detected by scientists. This is due to the lack of freezing which causes Polar Bears to lose critical fat reserves necessary for females to produce enough milk for their cubs. The polar bear could be extinct in 100 years. The Polar Bear is in danger of extinction due to Global warming. These animals are faced with the threat of Global warming everyday, due to dangerous levels of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by our use of planes, cars and other carbon producing equipment. 65% of greenhouse gases are due to public transport like those listed above. With the Arctic getting smaller and smaller the Polar bear will be the first mammal in the world to lose 100% of its habitat through Global warming

Global Warming Effects Will Drastically Change Your Life

A shocking rise in sea levels around the world will occur from the melting ice. If all the polar and glacial ice melts, the water level will increase by 230 feet worldwide. [1] Your hometown could be underwater by the end of the century. Major cities including New York, Miami, Tokyo, Mumbai, Venice, Shanghai, and many others will be among those affected. [2] Great migrations will disrupt your city and life as people relocating from coastal areas will have to move more inland. Your local roads and bridges will be overloaded from the strain. Youll be affected by wars over land, water, and food; the worlds population, estimated to be 9 billion by 2050, will have less land to live on and many fewer resources per person. [3] Youll experience water and food shortages as droughts affect the water supply and prevent farmers from growing crops. Agriculture all over the world will be affected, meaning that many people will starve. [4] Intense, more frequent weather events will strike your home; rising ocean temperatures will lead to more hurricanes and typhoons; droughts, heat waves, flooding, and tornadoes will be more common, too.

You may not be able to get help during a natural disaster from over-worked relief organizations; with the increase in extreme weather events, there simply may not be enough help. Your family may not have enough food as the intricate food chain gets disrupted. Many species wont be able to cope with the increasing temperatures and will die off, throwing the food chain off-balance. The oceans fragile ecosystem will be disrupted as coral reefs, an integral part of the ocean, bleach and die from the increase in water temperatures. You could get deadly diseases as heavy rains may contaminate water supplies, and more disease-carrying bugs thrive off the warming temperatures. Human health will suffer because milder winters allow the vectors of malaria, dengue fever and Lyme disease to expand their range. A mini-Ice Age could strike Europe. The oceans important currents will be changed as more ice melts. The increase in freshwater from melting glaciers in the Arctic and Greenland could cause the Atlantics powerful Gulf Stream current to shut down, sending Europe into a mini-Ice Age.