Re: [pf] more on global warming

At 08:13 3/10/2000 -0700, Priscilla wrote:
>Today's New York Times has an interesting article on global warming and 
>conflicting strategies on how to deal with it:
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/03/science/03GREE.html
>
>

**  I've just found a "free" copy, where you don't have to "sign away your
life and freedom"(!).

**  It's in the NYT's Learning Network, at:

http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/featured_articles/index.html
  and starts:

 October 3, 2000

 Debate Rises Over a Quick(er) Climate Fix

  By ANDREW C. REVKIN

   A sharp new debate has sprung up among atmospheric scientists over where
to aim efforts to stave off the prospect of global warming from the buildup
of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Some say the main
target should be carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas, while
others say the most practical solution is to focus first on less common,
but more powerful, substances possibly influencing climate, like methane,
ozone and soot.

http://graphics.nytimes.com/images/2000/10/03/science/03gree.2.jpg
     (photo by Jim Wilson/The New York Times)
caption: Cutting emissions of
      methane, a greenhouse
      gas that comes partly
      from wet rice paddies
      and belching cattle, may
      be easier than cutting
      carbon dioxide, emitted
      by power plants and cars.
      -------------------------

 The debate comes just as negotiators from more than 150 countries are
preparing to head to The Hague next month to put flesh on the bones of the
1997 Kyoto Protocol, a treaty outlining commitments by industrialized
countries to reduce their greenhouse emissions and help poor countries
avoid new emissions as their economies grow.

 The argument for attacking the less common greenhouse ingredients is
mainly based on the idea that these substances contribute to harmful air
pollution as well as climate change — and so an easier case can be made to
policy makers and the public to clean them up.

 They are also relatively easy to attack with existing or developing
technologies, whereas carbon dioxide can still generally be reduced only by
burning less fuel.

 Proponents of this strategy, most notably Dr. James E. Hansen, an
influential NASA climate expert, say that cutting carbon dioxide, at least
in the short term, is a far more daunting task because it is a basic
byproduct of burning coal and oil. In other words it is a basic byproduct
of almost every aspect of modern life.

 But there are problems with focusing on other heat-trapping substances, as
well, other scientists say. Soot and the other greenhouse gases, they
argue, constitute an extraordinarily complex brew whose influence on
climate and interactions with each other and with clouds and other
atmospheric ingredients are still poorly understood.

 "When you add in their chemical interactions, most scientists' eyes glaze
over, it's so complicated," said Dr. Michael Oppenheimer, an atmospheric
chemist who is chief scientist of Environmental Defense, a private
conservation group.

 The debate was spurred last August, when Dr. Hansen and a team of his
colleagues at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which is based in
Manhattan, published "Global Warming in the 21st Century: An Alternative
Scenario," in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

 In the paper, they said that deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions were
probably impossible in the short run, while the other gases and soot were
already targets because of their contribution to old-fashioned pollution.
In its conclusion, the team used a word rarely found in studies of global
warming: "optimistic."

 The analysis has since been criticized by some longtime colleagues of Dr.
Hansen and embraced by industry groups and elected officials who have long
voiced doubt about the science behind climate change and the need for big
cuts in fossil fuel use.

 Just last Thursday, for example, Dr. Hansen's findings were repeatedly
cited by Republican senators holding a hearing questioning the need for the
Kyoto Protocol, which has been signed by more than 100 countries but has
yet to be ratified by any industrial powers. Many of the treaty's
provisions focus on cutting carbon dioxide.

 Dr. Hansen's critics, including many influential experts on the atmosphere
and climate, say that emissions of all of the gases should be curtailed
wherever this is possible and not too expensive but that cutting carbon
dioxide must still be a top priority.

 For his part, Dr. Hansen said that both sides in the debate had largely
either misrepresented or misinterpreted his study. He said the fundamental
goal was simply to find the most efficient — and politically and
economically palatable — way to cleanse the atmosphere of human effluents
that have the biggest impact on climate.

 He said he still hoped that once the dust settled, policy makers from all
parts of the spectrum might find merit in the proposal.

 "I think it may be possible to get conservatives and liberals to agree on
common-sense steps that slow down the climate experiment," Dr. Hansen said.
 ...
        -----------------------------------------------------------
        Copyright 2000 The New York Times Company

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
David.
(David MacClement) davd@ihug.co.nz 
http://www.emucities.com.au/member/davd/index.html
**************************************************

___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A  The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics