Mitigation of global warming

Mitigation of global warming involves taking actions aimed at reducing the extent of global warming. This is in contrast to adaptation to global warming which involves taking action to minimize the effects of global warming. Scientific consensus on global warming, together with the precautionary principle and the fear of non-linear climate transitions^[1] is leading to increased effort to develop new technologies and sciences and carefully manage others in an attempt to mitigate global warming.

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 0.5 °C is already committed. The 2 °C rise is typically associated in climate models with a carbon dioxide concentration of 400-500 ppm by volume; the current level as of January 2007 is 383 ppm by volume, and rising at 2 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.^[2] 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.^[3]

At the core of most proposals is the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions through reducing energy use 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 cleaner fuels such as hydrogen fuel cells, solar power, nuclear power, tidal and ocean energy, geothermal power, and wind power and the use of carbon sinks, carbon credits, and taxation are aimed more precisely at countering continued greenhouse gas emissions. More radical proposals include planetary engineering techniques ranging from relatively simple carbon sequestration to orbital solar shades and population control, to lessen demand for resources such as energy and land.

Benefits of early action on climate change outweighs the costs of delayed actions.

Additional recommended knowledge

Don't let static charges disrupt your weighing accuracy

Correct Test Weight Handling Guide: 12 Practical Tips

What is the Correct Way to Check Repeatability in Balances?

Quota on Fossil Fuel production

Most mitigation proposals imply - rather than directly state - an eventual reduction in global fossil fuel production. Also proposed is a direct quota on global fossil fuel production.^[4] This would work as there is a direct link between the amount of fossil fuel extracted and the amount of CO₂ emitted into the atmosphere.

Pacala and Socolow

Nobel Prize winning Pacala and Socolow of Princeton ^[5] 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. efficient vehicles − increase fuel economy from 30 to 60 mpg for 2 billion vehicles,
2. reduce use of vehicles − improve urban design to reduce miles driven from 10,000 to 5,000 miles 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 gigawatts of coal power plants with natural gas,
6. capture and store carbon emitted from 800 gigawatts of new coal plants,
7. capture and reuse hydrogen created by #6 above,
8. capture and store carbon from coal to syn fuels conversion at 30 million barrels per day,
9. displace 700 gigawatts of coal power with nuclear,
10. add 2 million 1 megawatt windmills (50 times current capacity),
11. displace 700 gigawatts of coal with 2,000 gigawatts (peak) solar power (700 times current capacity),
12. produce hydrogen fuel from 4 million 1 megawatt windmills,
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).

Further information: Stabilization Wedge Game and Global warming game

Energy efficiency and conservation

Main articles: Energy efficiency and Energy conservation

Energy which is saved by improvements in efficiency has, in practice, often provided good environmental benefit and provided a net cost saving to the energy user. Building insulation, fluorescent lighting, and public transportation are some of the most effective means of conserving energy, and by extension, the environment. However, Jevons paradox poses a challenge to the goal of reducing overall energy use (and thus environmental impact) by energy conservation methods.

Energy conservation is the practice of increasing the efficiency of use of energy in order to achieve higher useful output for the same energy consumption. This may result in increase of national security, personal security, financial capital, human comfort and environmental value. Individuals and organizations that are direct consumers of energy may want to conserve energy in order to reduce energy costs and promote environmental values. Industrial and commercial users may want to increase efficiency and maximize profit.

On a larger scale, energy conservation is an element of energy policy. The need to increase the available supply of energy (for example, through the creation of new power plants, or by the importation of more energy) is lessened if societal demand for energy can be reduced, or if growth in demand can be slowed. This makes energy conservation an important part of the debate over climate change and the replacement of non-renewable resources with renewable energy. Encouraging energy conservation among consumers is often advocated as a cheaper or more environmentally sensitive alternative to increased energy production.

The energy landscape

Residential buildings, commercial buildings, and the transportation of people and freight use the majority of the energy consumed by the United States each year. Specifically, the industrial sector uses 38 percent of total energy, closely followed by the transportation sector at 28 percent, the residential sector at 19 percent, and the commercial sector at 16 percent. On a community level, transportation can account for 40 to 50 percent of total energy use, and residential buildings use another 20 to 30 percent.^[6]

In developed nations, the way of life today is completely dependent on abundant supplies of energy. Energy is needed to heat, cool, and light homes, fuel cars, and power offices. Energy is also critical for manufacturing the products used every day, including the cement, concrete and bricks that shape our communities.^[7]

While the U.S represents only five percent of the world's population, it consumes 25 percent of its energy and generates about 25 percent of its total greenhouse gas emissions. U.S. citizens, for example, use more energy per capita for transportation than do citizens of any other industrialized nation--which in part, reflects the greater distances traveled by Americans compared with citizens of other nations.^[8]

One alarming problem with the close connection between energy and land use is the relative inflexibility of the built environment in relation to energy shifts. Energy availability and pricing are volatile and dependent on changing political and economic factors. While energy shifts can be quick and capricious, land development patterns can be difficult and expensive to alter.

Urban Planning

Main article: 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.^[9] 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.

See also: Smart Growth

Building Design

Main articles: Sustainable architecture and Green building

  Emissions from housing are substantial,^[10] and government-supported energy efficiency programmes can make a difference.^[11]

New buildings can be constructed using passive solar building design, low-energy building, or zero-energy building techniques. 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. Alternative energy sources such as geothermal power and passive solar energy reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses emitted. In addition to designing buildings which are more energy efficient, there is the possibility of using lighter-coloured, more reflective materials in the development of urban areas (e.g. by painting roofs white) and planting trees.^[12][13] This saves energy because it cools buildings and reduces the urban heat island effect thus reducing the use of air conditioning.

Transport

Main article: Sustainable transport

Nowadays energy efficient technologies, such as plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and development of new technologies, such as hydrogen cars, may reduce the consumption of petroleum and emissions of carbon dioxide.

A shift from air transport and truck transport to electric rail transport would reduce emissions significantly.^[14][15]

Increased use of biofuels (such as biodiesel and biobutanol, that can be used in 100% concentration in nowadays diesel and gasoline engines) also reduce emissions, 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.

Alternative energy sources

Main article: Energy development

Nuclear energy

In some countries there are discussions about the future role of nuclear power as a possible alternative to fossil fuels.

A number of comparisons of life cycle analysis (LCA) of carbon dioxide emissions show nuclear power as equal or better than renewable energy sources^[16][17] However, in one study^[18], carbon dioxide emissions from nuclear power per kilowatt hour are around 20-40% of those for natural gas-fired power stations and about 4 or 5 times greater than that produced by some renewable energy sources. This study has been criticized by the World Nuclear Association.^[19]

An important fact to keep in mind is that the bulk of CO₂ emission from nuclear power plants is generated by burning coal, which is by far the most polluting form of electricity generation from the global warming point of view^[20], for the generation of electricity during the uranium enrichment process. This problem can be eliminated if nuclear power plants generate the electricity required during the uranium enrichment process (already being done in France.) If the same principle is applied to renewable energy sources, then the fossil fuels used for the mining and refining of raw materials and power plant construction in order to utilize them then these sources could no longer regarded as carbon-neutral. In addition, Gas centrifuge technology has greatly reduced the energy required for enrichment, thus reducing the LCA carbon emissions per kilowatt-hour.

Certain gas cogeneration plants are 3-4 times more cost effective than nuclear power for abating CO₂ emissions, if all the heat produced were used on site or in a local heating system. (However, nuclear power also produces heat which could be used in similar ways.) Similar costs for windpower and nuclear power if not including external costs (such as back-up power).^[21]

If all fossil-fuel power stations were replaced by nuclear power stations, using current nuclear technologies, there would only be enough uranium to supply them only for a few years. All known low-cost ore bodies would run out very quickly. But the definition of an ore body is "an occurrence of mineralization from which the metal is economically recoverable". If the cost of uranium were to double, the amount of available uranium would increase many times.^[22] Such a cost increase would have only a small effect on the consumer, as the cost of fuel is a fraction of the other operating costs, but the lower-quality ores involved would contribute to higher CO₂ emissions.^[23] The earth has enough uranium to provide all of our energy needs until the sun blows up in 5 billion years.^[24]

There are a number of alternative nuclear fission technologies, such as breeder reactors, which could vastly extend fuel supplies if required, but they are not without their own issues. Lower-risk thorium cycles have been demonstrated in the past, but this technology has effectively been stalled by disinterest in all forms of fuel reprocessing.^[25][26][27]

The use of nuclear energy to combat global warming conflicts with some countries' decisions to phase out nuclear power for environmental, social, cost and political reasons.

In the past, nuclear energy was a source of other potent greenhouse gases such as chloro-hydrocarbons and fluoro-hydrocarbons^[28]. Most of these emissions were traditionally produced because of leaks in freon cooling systems. Those systems have since switched over to more environmentally friendly cooling gases.^[29]

Because the burning of coal to produce electricity is a primary cause of global warming, countries are trying to find alternatives to coal. According to the BBC in 2004, France shut down its last coal mine because it now gets almost all of its electricity from nuclear power.^[30] According to a 2007 story broadcast on 60 Minutes, nuclear power gives France the cleanest air of any industrialized country, and the cheapest electricity in all of Europe,^[31] but nuclear waste, nuclear danger and energy centralization in nuclear powerplants remain.

Renewable energy

Main articles: Renewable energy and Renewable energy development

One means of reducing carbon emissions is the development of new technologies such as renewable energy such as wind power. Most forms of renewable energy generate no appreciable amounts of greenhouse gases except for biofuels derived from biomass.

Generally, emissions are a fraction of fossil fuel-based electricity generation. In some cases, notably with hydro power--once thought to be one of the cleanest forms of energy--there are unexpected results. One study shows that a hydropower plant in the Amazon has 3.6 times larger greenhouse effect per kW·h than electricity production from oil, due to large scale emission of methane from decaying organic material.^[32] This effect applies in particular to dams created by simply flooding a large area, without first clearing it of vegetation.

Currently governments subsidise fossil fuels by an estimated $235 billion a year.^[33] However, in some countries, government action has boosted the development of renewable energy technologies—for example, a programme to put solar panels on the roofs of a million homes has made Japan a world leader in that technology, and Denmark's support for wind power ensured its former leadership of that sector. In 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger promised an initiative to install a million solar roofs in California.

In June 2005, the chief executive of BT allegedly became the first head of a British company to admit that climate change is already affecting his company, and affecting its business, and announced plans^[34] to source much of its substantial energy use from renewable sources. He noted that, "Since the beginning of the year, the media has been showing us images of Greenland glaciers crashing into the sea, Mount Kilimanjaro devoid of its ice cap and Scotland reeling from floods and gales. All down to natural weather cycles? I think not"^[35].

Burning 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.^[36] 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.

Use the fossil fuels that produce the least greenhouse gases

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. 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.

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.^[37]

Carbon capture and storage

Main article: Carbon capture and storage

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. Technology for capturing of CO₂ is already commercially available for large CO₂ emitters, such as power plants. Storage of CO₂, on the other hand is a relatively untried concept and as yet (2007) no powerplant operates with a full carbon capture and storage system.

CCS applied to a modern conventional power plant could reduce CO₂ emissions to the atmosphere by approximately 80-90% compared to a plant without CCS. Capturing and compressing CO₂ requires much energy and would increase the energy needs of a plant with CCS by about 10-40%. This and other system costs is estimated to increase the costs of energy from a power plant with CCS by 30-60% depending on the specific circumstances.

Storage of the CO₂ is envisaged either in deep geological formations, deep oceans, or in the form of mineral carbonates. Geological formations are currently considered the most promising, and these are estimated to have a storage capacity of at least 2000 Gt CO₂. IPCC estimates that the economic potential of CCS could be between 10% and 55% of the total carbon mitigation effort until year 2100.

In October 2007, the Bureau of Economic Geology at The University of Texas at Austin received a 10-year, $38 million subcontract to conduct the first intensively monitored, long-term project in the United States studying the feasibility of injecting a large volume of CO₂ for underground storage^[38]. The project is a research program of the Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (SECARB), funded by the National Energy Technology Laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The SECARB partnership will demonstrate CO₂ injection rate and storage capacity in the Tuscaloosa-Woodbine geologic system that stretches from Texas to Florida. The region has the potential to store more than 200 billion tons of CO2 from major point sources in the region, equal to about 33 years of U.S. emissions overall at present rates. Beginning in fall 2007, the project will inject CO2 at the rate of one million tons per year, for up to 1.5 years, into brine up to 10,000 feet below the land surface near the Cranfield oil field about 15 miles east of Natchez, Mississippi. Experimental equipment will measure the ability of the subsurface to accept and retain CO2.

Geoengineering

Main article: Planetary engineering

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." 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.".

Some conspiracy theorists use this report as an argument when discussing so-called chemical contrails, or chemtrails, as the chapter on mitigation specifically regards large scale spraying of the skies as a possible solution to solving global warming, among others.

Carbon sequestration

Main article: Carbon sequestration

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. Artificial processes vary, and concerns have been expressed about their long-term effects.

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]}.

In practice, artificial capture is likely to be uneconomic unless applied to major sources - in particular, fossil fuel powered power stations. In such cases, costs of energy could well grow by 50%. However, captured CO₂ can be used to force more crude oil out of oil fields, as Statoil and Shell have made plans to do.^[39] Some proposals have been made to use algae to capture smokestack emissions, but this has not reached commercial level yet.

Seeding oceans with iron

See also: Iron fertilization

The so-called Geritol solution to global warming, first proposed by oceanographer John Martin, is a carbon sequestration strategy whimsically named for a tonic advertised to treat the effects of iron-poor blood. It is motivated by evidence that seeding the oceans with iron will increase phytoplankton populations, and thereby draw more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. A report in Nature, 10 October 1996, by K. H. Coale et al, measured the effects of seeding equatorial Pacific waters with iron, finding that 700 grams of CO₂ were fixed by the resulting phytoplankton bloom per 1 gram of iron seeded.^[40]. Given the US EPA's current estimate of 1.2×10¹³ kg of annual atmospheric CO₂ surplus, and the current 2006 market asking price of US$ 35/tonne for 65% iron ore fines, less than US$ 800 million worth of iron ore distributed in the equatorial Pacific annually would suffice to entirely offset surplus carbon emissions.

Opponents of this approach argue that fertilizing the ocean is dangerous and lacks any guarantee of efficacy. The original researchers themselves assert that, far from being a panacea for global warming, iron seeding may be entirely ineffective. Among their concerns are that nobody knows where the carbon goes after it is absorbed by phytoplankton. Instead of being drawn down to the ocean floor and acting as a carbon sink, the carbon could be reabsorbed by the water, effectively negating any initial gain. They also express concern that any attempt at geoengineering could result in massive, unpredictable changes to the environment. They point out that, considering the immense damage caused by adding nutrients to lakes and ponds, it would be a logical conclusion that adding nutrients to the ocean would also cause environmental damage. Large-scale growth in phytoplankton could reduce oxygen levels, creating dead zones where the ocean cannot support marine-life. They suggest that there is even the possibility that blooms would release more carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gas in the form of methane than it would sequester.^{[41] [42]}

Solar shades

Main article: Solar shade

Some scientists have suggested using aerosols and/or sulfate dust to alter the Earth's albedo, or reflectivity, as an emergency measure to increase global dimming and thus stave off the effects of global warming. A 0.5% albedo increase would roughly halve the effect of CO₂ doubling. ^[43] To create a similar effect, others have proposed building a literal solar shade in space, perhaps at L1. In 1974, Russian expert Mikhail Budyko suggested that if global warming became a problem, we could cool down the planet by burning sulfur in the stratosphere, which would create a haze. Paul Crutzen suggests that this would cost 25 to 50 billion dollars/year. It would, however, increase the environmental problem of acid rain^[44][45][46] and drought.^[47]

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. ^[48]

Governmental and Intergovernmental Action

Main article: Politics of global warming

Kyoto Protocol

Main article: Kyoto Protocol

The primary 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.

Encouraging use changes

Carbon emissions trading

Main article: Carbon emissions trading

The European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS) ^[49] 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.^[50] 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).^[51]

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).^[52]

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^[53] 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.

Carbon tax

Main article: Carbon tax

In 1991, Sweden introduced the world's first carbon tax. The UK has had a Climate Change Levy on fossil-fuel-based electricity generation since 2001. Plans for a carbon tax in New Zealand were abandoned after the 2005 elections.

Non-governmental approaches

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.^[54] Although proving that particular weather events are due specifically to global warming may never be possible^[55], methodologies have been developed to show the increased risk of such events caused by global warming.^[56]

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."^[57] 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.^[58][59]

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,^[60] 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.^[61]

Personal choices

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. 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.^[62]

Business Opportunities and Risks

In addition to government action and the personal choices individuals can make, the threat posed by global warming provides business opportunities to be exploited and risks to be mitigated.

There has also been 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." ^[63]

On 21 June 2005 a group of leading airlines, airports and aerospace manufacturers pledged to work together to reduce the negative environmental impact of the aviation industry, 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.^[64]

National policies

See also: List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions

United States

Efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the United States include their energy policies which encourage efficiency through programs like Energy Star, Commercial Building Integration, and the Industrial Technologies Program.^[65] On November 12, 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.^[66] Similar, albeit more vociferous, concerns from the Bush Administration have blocked the treaty from consideration to this date.

US efforts to undermine global warming mitigation

The US government has worked to undermine state efforts to mitigate global warming. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, with White House approval, personally directed US efforts to urge governors and dozens of members of the House of Representatives to block California’s first-in-the-nation limits on greenhouse gases from cars and trucks, according to e-mails obtained by Congress.^[67].

The U.S. has also attempted to mislead the public about global warming. The United States government has implemented an industry-formulated disinformation campaign designed to actively mislead the American public on global warming and to forestall limits on climate polluters.^[68]."'They've got a political clientele that does not want to be regulated,' says Rick Piltz, a former Bush climate official who blew the whistle on White House censorship of global-warming documents in 2005. 'Any honest discussion of the science would stimulate public pressure for a stronger policy. They're not stupid.'

"Bush's do-nothing policy on global warming began almost as soon as he took office. By pursuing a carefully orchestrated policy of delay, the White House has blocked even the most modest reforms and replaced them with token investments in futuristic solutions like hydrogen cars. 'It's a charade,' says Jeremy Symons, who represented the EPA on Cheney's energy task force, the industry-studded group that met in secret to craft the administration's energy policy. 'They have a single-minded determination to do nothing -- while making it look like they are doing something.' . . . - - "The CEQ became Cheney's shadow EPA, with industry calling the shots. To head up the council, Cheney installed James Connaughton, a former lobbyist for industrial polluters, who once worked to help General Electric and ARCO skirt responsibility for their Superfund waste sites. - "two weeks after Bush took office - ExxonMobil's top lobbyist, Randy Randol, demanded a housecleaning of the scientists in charge of studying global warming. . . .Exxon's wish was the CEQ's command." ^[69]

US attempts to suppress science of global warming

The U.S. government has 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.^[70][71] "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 Variablity and Change," produced by U.S. scientists pursuant to U.S. law.^[72] Some U.S. scientists resigned their jobs rather than give in to White House pressure to underreport global warming.^[73]

Mitigation in developing countries=

Traditionally, economic growth tends to increase pollution as well as greenhouse gas emissions. 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^[74] is a public private partnership that operates within the CDM.

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.^[75] Critics have raised concerns that the pact undermines the Kyoto Protocol.^[76]

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 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 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.

Population Control

The population explosion is a fundamental factor that has led to global warming.^{[citation needed]} Because of this, various organizations promote population control as a means for mitigating global warming.^{[77][78][79][80]} Proposed measures include improving access to family planning and reproductive health care and information, eliminating incentives to have larger families, public education about the consequences of continued population growth, and improving access of women to education and economic opportunities.

Population control efforts are impeded by their being somewhat of a taboo in some countries against considering any such efforts.^[81] 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.^[82]

Nanotechnology

Further information: Nanotechnology and list of nanotechnology applications

Ray Kurzweil, on the Army Science Advisory Board, has testified before Congress that he sees considerable potential in the science of nanotechnology to solve significant global problems such as climate change.^[83][84]

See also

• Alternative propulsion
• Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change
• Climate change response
• Coalization
• Contraction and Convergence
• Economics of new nuclear power plants
• Forestalment
• Hell and High Water: Global Warming
• Oil phase-out
• Overpopulation
• Smart growth
• Zero-carbon economy
• Fusion power

References

USA

• U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement signed by 178 mayors representing nearly 40 million Americans
• California Climate Change Portal.

NGO/academic

• Climate Change Action Website
• List of ways for taking personal action on the Mitigation of Global Warming.
• Red Cross / Red Crescent Centre on Climate Change and Disaster Preparedness
• How to be more energy efficient in the home
• Working Group on Climate Change and Development (2004), "Up in Smoke? Threats from, and responses to, the impact of global warming on human development"
• Carbon Mitigation Initiative of Princeton University, BP, and Ford
• Climate Alliance of 1000 European cities
• Friends of the Earth Putting costs into perspective - economic benefits from fighting climate change
• "Meeting the climate challenge: Recommendations of the International Climate Change Taskforce", January 2005
• The buildings and factories that are the greatest contributors of Global Warming in the USA are Mapped on the Green Building public build Google Map.
• New Scientific American article, September 2006
• Global Warming Newswire - published scientific studies on global warming
• A Clean Energy Future for Australia - a study on how Australia can halve it's energy related greenhouse gas emissions by 2040
• LEAP - a popular software tool for climate change mitigation assessment.

Academic

• Christian Azar and Stephen H. Schneider (2002) "Are the economic costs of stabilising the atmosphere prohibitive?", Ecological Economics 42 (1-2)
• Rivington M, Matthews KB, Buchan K and Miller D (2005) "An integrated assessment approach to investigate options for mitigation and adaptation to climate change at the farm-scale", NJF Seminar 380, Odense, Denmark, 7-8 November 2005.

Business

• Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC)
• Investor Guide to Climate Risk: Action Plan and Resource for Plan Sponsors, Fund Managers and Corporations
• Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP)
• Carbon Project Guidance

Commentary

• Oliver James, The Guardian, June 30 2005, Face the facts: For many people climate change is too depressing to think about, and some prefer to simply pretend it doesn't exist
• Chris Mooney, June 7 2005, "Global warming and the categorical imperative"
• John Sterman & Linda Booth Sweeney, April 26 2005, "Why “wait-and-see” won’t do"
• Calvin Jones, Action on climate change, Political and Practical
• Climate blog of the Center for American Progress Action Fund edited by Joseph J. Romm