University of Toronto

School of Graduate Studies

Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering

MIE 514S Atmospheric Pollution: Environmental Effects Consequences

Assignment Report on Kyoto Protocol and Climate Change

 

 

Student Name: Mahmoud Karam

    Student Number: 992024876

Introduction

Global warming has been a topic of scientific research and debate for decades. In recent years there has been a significant increase in public and political concern over the issue. Many people wonder if global warming is nearly as bad as scientists’ claim it is. Some question its very existence, insisting that the world is wasting its time and money researching the effects of global warming. Some debate whether humans are really increasing the earth’s temperature at an alarming rate, or if this warmth is just nature taking its course. Others believe that global warming is not a myth but a present day reality due to certain human activities such as population growth, deforestation, and fossil fuel burning with the extreme amounts of greenhouse gases that industrialized countries emit daily.

Although many people believe that global warming is not a problem, it remains an important issue due to the sufficient evidence of its existence, and the potentially dangerous scenarios that it fosters.   Global warming has the potential to trigger catastrophic events in the form of melting ice caps, rise of sea levels with the danger of flooding and disappearance of costal cities, severe storms, powerful hurricanes and tsunamis. These events may occur to ecosystems if they are pushed beyond their capacity to adapt. The probability of catastrophic changes occurring is very low, however should the build up concentration of green house gases in the atmosphere trigger such changes the consequences could be very severe and perhaps irreversible. This scenario of low probability high risk should increase the level of effort the world makes to control emission of green house gases. It is sound to argue that such uncertainties make it better to err on the side of caution. 

 

A more common sight in future

 

 Therefore global warming is a highly controversial subject. While the basics of the greenhouse effect are quite well understood, predicting what might happen if greenhouse gases continue to be released in the atmosphere is unclear. The earth’s history also shows how the overall temperature of the earth’s surface has fluctuated throughout its existence. One problem that arises with the global warming debate is that weather patterns have only been traced back to about one hundred and fifty years; indicating the difficulty to precisely predict the outcome of the future with such a short past.

There are widely varying interpretations among reputable scientists, elected officials, policy makers and opinion makers over the causes and severity of climate change. Due to the fact that there is no consensus over global warming among experts and laymen alike it is of great importance to look at global warming from an objective point of view not from a biased position. Thus global warming has become a political matter, rather than a scientific issue. Mainly, it is a struggle between the economically powerful nations, for which substituting to more efficient fuels is less of an economic burden and the developing nations, who are less concerned with science and more with the welfare of their overpopulation.

The increased awareness about earth’s environment and global warming comes at a time when we have begun to realize that the environment is depleting and becoming unusable because of our overuse of its resources. The extinction of the human species if ever occurs will not be due to a stray asteroid hitting its core, but rather to the mismanagement of the earth’s resources. The Kyoto Protocol is a pioneer preventative measure of this horrific possibility.

 

Green House gases and the Cause of Global Warming

Greenhouse gases are naturally occurring and synthetic gaseous substances that form a  protective blanket around the Earth, keeping it warm enough to sustain life. They include water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) and synthetic substances, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Carbon Dioxide is by far the greatest contributor to climate change, accounting for about 64% of estimated current global warming. The primary source of carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere is the consumption of fossil fuels which accounts for over three quarters of today’s emission. The remaining one-quarter is the consequence of tropical deforestation and other biomass burning. Thus dealing with the global warming problem is largely equivalent to decarbonizing the world’s energy system.

                 The temperature and the climate of earth are the by-product of the planet’s energy balance. Incoming energy from the sun warms the earth which radiates energy back to space in the infrared part of the spectrum. As long as incoming and outgoing radiation are in balance, the Earth’s temperature stays constant. Green house gases absorb some of this outgoing infrared radiation and prevent it from escaping directly to space altering the Earth’s energy balance and causing the planet to warm. The global warming hypothesis proposes that anthropogenic emissions of green house gases will intensify this natural greenhouse effect and make the earth less hospitable for humans and nature. Thus the changes in earth’s energy balance will affect not only temperature but also many aspects of the climate such as rainfall patterns and rising sea levels.

 

The Kyoto Protocol

The Kyoto Protocol was adopted by negotiators representing 160 nations meeting in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997 that marked the result of a five-year United Nations campaign to persuade the nations of the world to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The protocol sets targets and timetables for 38 developed countries to control emission of greenhouse gases while exempting developing countries from any limits on their emissions. The Protocol will enter into force and become legally binding after it is ratified by at least 55% of the total developed countries' carbon dioxide producers. The treaty would commit the developed countries to reduce their emissions of six greenhouse gases an average of 5.2 percent below 1990 levels during a five-year period 2008-2012. For example the targets of emissions cut from countries in European Union must be 8% below the 1990 level. Canada’s required cut is 6% (fig.1), United States 7% (fig.2) and Japan 6%. The actual situation now revealed that time has run out for many countries to implement gradual changes to comply with the proposed cut because of continuing growth in emissions. For countries like Canada, Japan and United States emissions have steadily risen since 1990. The Kyoto agreement will require further cuts as great as 30% to 35% below where emissions would be by the year 2012 to achieve required 1990 levels. This would result in fairly large costs on their respected economies. The cost would be high because most greenhouse gases come from burning of fossil fuels for energy. There are huge investments in fossil fuel technology and the economic life time of energy equipment such as power plants and automobiles are relatively long. Fulfillment with a sharp 30% cut would require extraordinary efforts and may force the premature disposal of some of the capital stock of energy equipment which could slow down a great part of these nations’ economies and imply severe job cuts. The impact would include an increase in energy costs and discouraged investment in energy and energy intensive manufacturing sectors. The problem arises from the long time required to ratify Kyoto to bring it into legal force. The problem developed from the extended time duration that was required to ratify Kyoto to apply it as a legal force.  This entails that factors that were agreed upon are changing and countries whose emissions are far above their pledged commitment would seek reallocation or withdraw from the treaty completely. But new allocations will affect the cost of other countries and could disrupt the treaty. For example the United States says it won't ratify the Kyoto protocol indicating that the country energy sector and economy are more important than global warming. The U.S. is the biggest offender in the issue of greenhouse gases emissions. The U.S. produces more carbon dioxide than any other industrialized country, about 20 tones per capita per year. Thus one of the key players is withdrawing its support and interest in the treaty. Another similar case is Australia the also strongly rejects the protocol.

 

Figure 2

 

One proposed solution to comply with the strict targets is “emission trading” which allows countries to partially meet their obligations by trading emission credits and debits. For example U.S. could purchase unused emission credits from nations like Russia and the Ukraine (fig.3 and fig.4). That would be possible because in the post-communist world, those countries have slow economic growth and generated far lower emissions than had been expected. Without emission trading countries would be required to meet their Kyoto targets domestically within their borders which is difficult to accomplish. However the rules of the course for using such international mechanisms is still unresolved and was left to further future discussions. Trading would require distribution of carbon permits which worth hundreds of billions of dollars across borders to rest on international law which is an insubstantial force. Thus an important missing point is how set the basis for such international carbon emission trading system and to enforce Kyoto Protocol. A second scheme that would allow developed countries to earn credit is when they jointly implement specific projects to reduce emissions. It refers to the trading of emissions reduction units among generally industrialized countries. A third system that allows industrial countries to earn credit and offers a way to engage developing countries in emission cut is Clean Development Mechanism(CDM) by implementing projects to make their cuts in green house gases within developing countries. In other words CDM is an emissions trading scheme that allows industrialized nations to sell clean technologies to developing nations and receive greenhouse gas credits for such sales. But the rules that govern the CDM systems are not established yet and more time and further negotiations are required to set the basis for such system. Also the protocol allows countries to gain credits for sinks that remove CO₂ the most significant greenhouse gas, from the atmosphere. Forests are considered as large sinks that could bring large credit. Which means these sinks could compensate a large share of the required emission cut. The more credit assigned for CO₂ sinks by plants and trees, the easier for countries to comply with Kyoto targets without the need for large change in their behavior regarding emissions. Yet this strategy requires an accepted definitions and means for counting the credit given for sinks which need a great efforts to account for carbon content of various forests and soils and relatively long time to achieve. Thus these previous mechanisms that can ease the implementation of the Kyoto protocol have large technical difficulties that require further negotiations to be agreed upon before come into power.

Figure 3

Figure 4

 

               The gap between actual emissions and Kyoto targets is due to fundamental flaws in the regulatory frame of the protocol that excessively based on setting inviolable targets and time tables for controlling emissions of greenhouse gases with no consensus on how to implement that scheme. Adjusting emission quantities is difficult because emissions are determined by aspects that are not under full control by policy makers such as technological changes and economic growth. Neither of these factors can be planned by government according to exact targets of Kyoto Protocol especially under the influence of free trade and open market economy. Therefore the strict limits on emissions of greenhouse gases will impose additional costs on industries and some products and services. Thus under free trade, much of carbon intensive industries will flow to areas where limits on greenhouse gases emissions are loose those will most likely be the developing countries, undermining the Kyoto aim with its high price tag. This will bring the fact that exempting developing countries from any commitments is another problem in the structure of the Kyoto protocol and hence the overall effect of the protocol will be marginal. Global warming does not recognize state or national borders and any serious effort to control global emissions in the long run must involve developing countries. Any progress in preventing climate change will not happen without emission reductions in both Developed and Developing Countries. The developing nations are in hot pursuit for further economic growth and development and by about 2020 they will account for half of the world emissions of greenhouse gases. The lack of targets for developing countries would put an excessive burden on industrialized countries economy and firms would have to unfairly bear emission reduction costs while their competitors in the developing world would not. Further practical problems within Kyoto structure are the monitoring of emissions, enforcement of commitments and penalize noncompliant countries. It is extremely difficult to monitor the sources and sinks of six greenhouse gases as in the protocol. It would be very obvious that restricting emissions targets to CO ₂ combustion of fossil fuel would ease the problem of monitoring but that would require renegotiating the protocol itself. Kyoto agreement requires strong and capable international institutions to track the compliance with the protocol and to set the basis and rules for different mechanisms those would help in applying the protocol smoothly such as emission trading. Thus while climate issues have a lot to do with science, Kyoto is more about economics and politics.

 

Skeptics about CO2 Emission and Climate Change

The global temperature record is tracked back to a century and a half. Beyond this period to identify the long term development of temperature through earth’s history another means of measuring temperature were used. Temperature development was estimate by studying how temperature has affected other objects that we can measure today. For example temperature had affected ice that accumulated in Polar Regions, tree rings, corals and ocean sediments. The study of the twentieth century’s temperature (fig.5) revealed that temperature increased abruptly within two periods, from 1910 to 1945 which is harder to be supported by the anthropogenic emission of green house gases since there was a slight increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases in early part of the last century. The increased can be correlated to natural phenomenon such as increase in sun spot activity. The second period from 1945 to 2000 fits with the greenhouse postulates as the cause behind the increase. The important point is what the temperature development would be in the future, which will depend on what are the additional CO₂ and greenhouse gases concentrations will be loaded into the atmosphere according to that assumption. Therefore a forecast of the future greenhouse gases emissions is required. The UN climate panel, the IPPC’s reports which include different computer models, scenarios and figures are the basis for most current and future public policies concerning climate change. The primary scenario assumed a future of with no actions to limit greenhouse gases emissions “business-as-usual scenario”. The other major emissions scenarios, according to the IPCC, fall into six equally sound alternative pathways and are distinguished based on whether the future will be focused on economic or environment. These paths span a doubling in carbon dioxide concentrations in 2100 up to more than tripling and well beyond tripling in the 22nd century. The estimated consequence of these emissions scenarios on global temperature show an increase in the range of 2-4.5 ^oC in 2100 where the business-as-usual scenario will give rise up to 2.38 ^oC in 2100, but the foremost inquiry is how reasonable these scenarios and their predictions are.    

 

 

                         Figure 5Global temperature changes from 1860-1999

 

However all IPPC’s predictions are based on climatic computer model simulations and the results of such a simulations depends totally on the parameters and information those fed into computer. Some of the parameters and their feed back into the model will greatly affect the out come of the model. For instance it is difficult to account for cooling effects of aerosols, water vapor and clouds and their feed back into the modeling process. The climate models may overestimate the actual warming of CO₂ because the cooling effect of other anthropogenic aerosols may balance the warming from carbon. Also clouds represent the highest uncertainty in future projections of climate and the sign of the net cloud feed back is a significance source of error in climate simulation. So what extent of CO₂ will influence the temperature increase depend on the climate model and the precision of incorporating the feedback of aerosols and clouds. For example the prediction of temperature increase by the IPPC’s models is due to a noticeable reduction in aerosols emissions and their cooling effect not due to more effect of CO₂. In addition the projections must extend out decades and beyond into the future. Over such long time periods many factors that are key sources of CO₂ emissions  particularly energy technologies and transportation means could change dramatically and such changes would bring an enormous impact on the projected emissions. Thus there will be uncertainty in the projections and the results of the models are over estimating the actual warming. Beside that there is another crucial astronomical factor that can help explaining the increase in global temperatures. Sunspot cycle duration is able to affect the earth’s temperature. Recent research observed that the increased solar activity has occurred in parallel with an increase in carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere. It suggests that the Sun's increased activity caused the Earth's global temperature to rise and that in turn warmed the oceans. Warmer oceans absorb less carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. So a warmer Earth has more of the so-called greenhouse gases. Hence global warming could be attributed to both greenhouse gases and solar variation. Consequently including the influences of solar activity on global temperature increase will reduce the estimates of CO₂ warming effect. Thus more research must be made about the Sun's role in global warming before drastic misguided plans for global action is taken on Earth. Another problem with the prediction of the scenarios is that the IPPC assume a higher concentration grow for CO₂ than the actual observed growth. For business-as-usual scenario the IPPC assumed that CO₂ will grow by 0.64% by year from 1990 to 2100 while the actual figures were 0.47% in 1980s and 0.43% in 1990s. Thus the outcome of such higher cumulative concentration growth will be doubling of CO₂ concentration in a shorter time (109 years according to IPPC) than the real expected time. Despite that most computer simulations use a higher cumulative value for CO₂ increase namely 1%., which result in a shorter doubling time for CO₂ concentration below 70 years. Moreover transforming the impact from other greenhouse gases into CO₂ equivalent so that to only consider one greenhouse gas is not reasonable since all green housegases contribute to global warming. This will give rise to the concentration growth of CO₂ over the existing measured rate. Therefore the models prediction of increased warming is overestimated and warming coming faster than the real measured one.

The fundamental drivers of warming predictions in the scenarios are the future energy patterns since they are closely connected with CO₂ emission. The two factors that profile CO₂ emissions are total energy consumptions and the contribution to produced energy from fossil fuels. Future technology innovations would shape both factors in favors of reduction of CO₂ emissions. Energy efficiency is progressively increasing in the course of years and this will reduce the consumption of fossil fuels and decrease the expected emissions. The second factor is the percentage contribution of fossil fuels in the total energy production. This share will diminish in the future as the role of renewable energy sources increase. As the energy price of renewable energy decline their contributions will increase with the consequence of curbing CO₂ emissions. Thus the fundamental cause that can make renewable energies substitute fossil fuels in energy production systems is an economical reason. The more cheaply renewable energy the less will be the use of fossil fuels with their accompanying CO₂ emissions. Some scenarios predict that in few decades solar energy would be competitive with fossil fuels and it will obtain an increasing part in energy production. Thus a more realistic scenario is that carbon emissions will not reach the previous expected levels as there will be a progress toward cheaper renewable sources. Hence the increase in global temperature will be less than the estimation of IPPC.

Accordingly instead of focusing on cutting down carbon emissions with its higher cost and the huge awful implications on economic growth, it is more reasonable to invest in intensified renewable energies research in order to achieve a rapid decrease of their prices. Furthermore the cost of investment in renewable energy research is much more cheaper than the cost of cutting carbon emissions.

    

Renewable energy would replace older forms in near future

 

This would put us in front of two choices either the costly approach of cutting CO₂ or facing the suspicious consequences of global warming if we let things take their course. Perhaps a more reasonable solution is to gradually reduce CO₂ emissions and accept some greenhouse warming. So what is the most efficient way to handle this dilemma of global warming?  Is stabilizing CO₂ concentration in atmosphere is the solution? Is Applying Kyoto will bring an answer out of this maze? Some models calculated that the effect of extended Kyoto up to 2100 will only delay temperature increase six years over nothing had been done to cap greenhouse gases emissions. Accordingly from an absolute economic point of view global warming is all about costs and benefits over the course of the coming future. Thus based on this concept it would be improper to accept something like Kyoto with its heavily economical costs standing on a highly controversial causes with little solid accomplishments from implementing it. Rather a more realistic approach that has a reasonable cost would be better than Kyoto. Investment in renewable energy researches and the science of climate change. Investment in adaptation to global warming effects those are unavoidable such as flooding and higher sea levels. Increase aids to developing countries to improve their basic needs and living standards. All of these will not cost the same as what will Kyoto costs and would be much more helpful to the whole world.

 

The Other Side of the Dilemma: Defending the Needs for Kyoto Protocol to Contain Global Warming

                              When we talk about Kyoto protocol and the worth to go for although the cost to the economy from trying to constrain fossil-fuel emissions, we overlook to include in our anticipation range of the damage from climate change in various aspects including physical, health and social and how much it will cost us. Also ignoring the economic potential benefits for conversion to cleaner energy sources and adopting more energy efficiency systems from calculations exaggerate the cost of cutting greenhouse gases emissions. Kyoto would lead to major economic and job growth benefits in energy efficiency, conservation, renewable energy sources and technological advances. The speculations that the out come of Kyoto Protocol in 2100 would delay temperature increase just six years is not accurate because this extrapolates the Kyoto Protocol, which is applicable only up to 2012, as the world's only climate policy for another nine decades. Kyoto is just the first solid step and no one should think that the five-year targets it sets could in themselves solve the problem of greenhouse gases and global warming. The Kyoto protocol constitutes the only global instrument available to move the process of addressing climate change forward. Kyoto will initiate a framework for getting countries to cooperate on additional measures over time. Moreover Kyoto would not reduce greenhouse gas emissions only but also will help restore the balance of natural systems. Thus Kyoto should be followed by many future decisions to handle emissions targets beyond 2012.  Another source of conflict is the issue of including developing countries emissions in the protocol. The question is it fair that developing countries, that have already enough problems, should bear the economic brunt of emissions reductions if they aren't the major contributors. The facts indicate that developed countries are currently and historically responsible for more emissions than anyone else and they can afford to bear the associated costs of emissions reduction. Industrial countries must show their good faith in the Kyoto Protocol by meeting their emission reduction commitments to encourage developing countries in taking on additional commitments. Developing nations possibly will be considered in any future actions and would eventually need to reduce their emissions. Another unsound point the thoughts that politicians would abandon Kyoto due to its huge cost and spend the saved money to solve developing world problems would be naïve consideration because most of what politicians say are for public opinion consumption; instead investing in Kyoto could reduce the impacts of global warming specially on developing countries.

Developing countries contribute less to global warming, but suffer its consequences.

 

 Additionally the claim that within short time period renewable energy sources will replace the conventional fossil fuels in energy production with the consequence that the IPPC scenarios will be over estimating the increase in CO₂ emissions is far from reality. The on going discoveries of oil and gas are more than the use and there are enormous reserves of cured fossil fuels that could run the energy business for decades or centuries still to come. Thus the highly abundant of fossil fuels would setback the use of renewable energy sources which have limited use in the current energy system. So the full transition to renewable energy system is still long way ahead to come and fossil fuels will maintain their current status as the major supply of energy with their associated CO₂ emissions. The assertion that the future temperature increase will be in the law end of the IPPC scenarios and thus only the mildest climate change impacts will happen is a pure theoretical hypothesize. The real state of the dynamic climate change is different and we could be lucky and see a mild effects or unlucky and get the catastrophic ones. Furthermore failing to consider the so many important categories of damages due to climate changes in the total cost-benefit analysis is illusion. For example social, health, environmental, species lost, and crucial ecosystem services degraded are among different factors that must be included in cost benefits analysis. Also inequity created by that developing countries are more vulnerable to the effects of global warming due to their limited capacity for adaptation to changes in climate and large fraction of their economic activities relies on climate, should be included in the big picture of cost-benefit analysis. Climate change will intensify the wealth gap between rich and poor that will bring a large scale social instability to the world. The usual measure of dollar value to things is not a correct mean that can give false indications when it come to a complicated subject like global warming that have many aspects rather than the conventional measure money versus benefits.

              

Unconventional way out of the Dilemma

The existing situation the world is experiences a result of our way of living and is a reflection of current lifestyle. Our present systems create first problems and then try to solve them in an “after the fact” approach. Energy concerns and energy policies which are inseparable and the main cause of CO₂ emissions have been driven by one inefficient concern: increasing the supply of energy. Societies met energy demand by producing more energy through the construction of larger power plants which require large capital investment with larger environmental effects. Much of the produced energy is wasted in distribution and inefficient use. The solutions which we are trying to implement to handle the problem of emissions associated with energy production deal with the symptoms not with the root of the problems. We are trying to curb emissions after they are generated not how we can generate energy without or with the minimum content of emissions. It becomes clear that energy policy-issues should no longer rely exclusively on the responsibility of the energy production and supply sector. It should be brought to the level of responsibility of the civil society. A society should not first make energy forecast and then generate the necessary policies to meet it. The reverse should happen; policies should affect the forecast by steering in a direction that matches society’s goals especially those concerning containment of global warming causes. Energy supply should be connected with the use, and the focus should be shifted toward the demand side instead of the supply side completely which would lead to a great reduction in the need for excessive energy production. There is no single best strategy or policy to eliminate greenhouse gases emissions and their associated global warming; policies should be combined with one another to benefit from their synergistic effects. Ensuring energy end-use efficiency should be a priority to reduce the unnecessary waste of energy. Save energy by negatively generating additional capacity through reduction in demand by improving end-use efficiency. Combined production of heat and power would greatly reduce energy consumption. Large consumers such as heavy industries should be encouraged to review and improve the efficiency of their operations to reduce energy consumption. Designing new buildings and homes with their heating, ventilation, lighting and air condition systems to maximize the use of the available form of energy from the surroundings such as solar or wind energies will lead to substantial drop in energy requirements. Renewable energy systems should be the basis for any future development. These approaches are essentially worth implementing regardless of global warming and they would have great positive impacts not only regarding reduction in CO₂ emissions but also improving various aspects of the current degraded environment. In addition these approaches could greatly reduce the percentage of the required cut in the greenhouse gases emissions. Thus a treaty like Kyoto protocol would be economically reasonable to apply without a huge burden cost to comply with the required targets cut.

 

Canadian Agenda and Kyoto Protocol

               To some Canadians warmer temperatures as a result of global warming may look appealing especially in the middle of the harsh winter. But Canadian scientists and around the globe have warned of the possible consequences some of which we are already experiencing in the past few years. For instance the longer and more intense heat waves those make air pollution in large urban areas worse. Air pollution is linked to local health of increased rate of asthma and other respiratory diseases. Also sea level rises could increase flooding and erosion along Canada’s coast. In Ontario the outcome of global warming would be southern Ontario will see shorter winters and an increase in hot humid days in summer with more smog. Water levels in the great lakes are projected to be lower with the result that ships have to reduce their cargoes. Reduced water availability would affect hydro-electricity generation. There are expected to be more pest, floods, droughts, and an increase in frequency of forest fires. These events become more frequent and they will have an increasingly profound effect on economy, health and quality of life. From this prospective and seeking to set the basis for future sustainable development the Canadian House of Commons voted in favor of ratifying the Kyoto accord recently. This opens the gate for government of Canada to go ahead in its plans to implement Kyoto and to reduce greenhouse gases emissions. Hence leading the transition to less carbon incentive economy Canada can obtain enormous benefits by becoming amore innovative economy and a leader in the field of environmental technology.  But still there are several oppositions to implement Kyoto protocol from political parties, some business groups and even provinces all arguing the economic impact from imposing industries to reduce greenhouse gases emissions will be remarkable. Mainly the major oppose is Alberta, the centre of Canada’s oil and gas industries which is considered the largest provincial greenhouse gases emitter. Applying Kyoto accord will affect Alberta industries harder than that elsewhere in the country.

Kyoto accord represents a great challenge to country like Canada with its growing population, cold climate, vast distance and an energy intensive industrial structure. Canada has a relatively small population compared to other industrialized countries, but considered as one of the largest greenhouse gas emitters. Canada ranks second per capita in CO₂ emissions among developed countries. Because Canada has a cold climate especially in the north, a lot of energy is used in domestic heating thus a large portion of Canada's CO₂ emissions come from the residential sector. The large area and

scattered population also means that Canada relies heavily on transportation to link its communities, so transportation is considered among big sources of CO₂ emissions. On average, each Canadian produces over five tones of greenhouse gases per year from personal uses only (fig.6) by driving vehicles, heating and cooling homes, washing and drying clothes and using other appliances. The government of Canada has taken measures to ease a smooth transition toward reducing greenhouse gases from various major sources such as transportation, energy, industry and within its own operations. The government discussed broad alternatives that would allow Canada to meet its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol without harming the economy. Among these options a creation of extensive cap on industrial emissions. Companies would get carbon permits. They could then buy and sell the permits to meet their limits. A second option  depend on government spending, to invest in public transit, tax incentives to encourage the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and other regulations to make Canadians burn less fossil fuel. A third option is to combine the previous two options with participation in the international emission trading system to reduce the actual required cuts. The main point is there must be a reasonable sharing of benefits and burdens among all the provinces. In addition the government is promoting energy efficiency while encouraging renewable energy by buying the generated power from local utilities. The government is supporting projects to lower the costs of renewable energy to make it more attractive option to consumer and industries.

 

Figure 6

 

 The government created the sustainable development technology fund and the Canadian foundation for climate and atmospheric sciences to support new technology and scientific research. Also the government is seeking to cut CO₂ emission from personal use. The Government plans to work with car manufacturers to improve new vehicle fuel efficiency and provide assistance and incentives to increase the use of public transit.

The main concern of the government is by acting now before it is too late; Canadian companies and individuals can get ahead of the curve to meet their targets and create a sustainable competitive advantage. Economic modeling suggests that their will be a slight increase in fuel price and the impact of taking actions on climate change on GDP is a 0.4% reduction by 2010.

 

Conclusion

               Applying Kyoto Protocol with its present form would bring a huge burden to developed countries economies. The strict targets and time tables should be considered again. At the same time following business as usual scenario or the more realistic scenario of accelerating the rate of increase of greenhouse gases emissions without any intervention is very risky. Assuming that the major environmental issues such as pollution, global warming and biodiversity are minor problems which were greatly exaggerated is a mistaken idea that will make any efforts to reform the current situation harder. The more time it takes from the world to act the more costly the required change and the more complicated the situation. Thus there is a need to modify Kyoto protocol to allow more gradual emissions cut and time table because the effort to offset global warming will be long and require persisting. Greenhouse gases problem was created over centuries and couldn’t be solved in a decade. The problem of global warming requires careful long-term planning and other strategies that can reduce the vulnerability to its impacts.

Climate change is becoming an issue where the relevance of morality and justice to the one world that all nations are sharing its resources is most clear. Acting only in view of narrow individual self-interest will not benefits any body in the long run. There is no doubt that the existing problems that the world facing reflect the heavily consumption life pattern prevailed all over the globe. Enjoying consumption for the sake of consumption is a hidden cause behind the present situation of depleted resources and degraded environment. Thus there is an urgent need to change our current lifestyle and move away from excessive consumption. There is no doubt that international cooperation can bridge the gap between the need to sustain a certain level of economic growth and protect the environment and could bring a resolution to climate change. The success story of international consensus on the treaty to ban production and use of depleted ozone layer chemicals can set a model for how world collaboration can place priorities in order and put environment before money. As science improves the uncertainties will be narrow and more options to mitigate global warming will emerge but the critical point is to be determined and focused on to act not stand idle.

 

 

References

1 David G. Victor, “The Collapse of the Kyoto Protocol and the Struggle to Slow Global Warming”, Princeton University Press, 2001

 

2 American Petroleum Institute, http://www.api.org/globalclimate/bigpicture.htm

                                                   , http://www.api.org/globalclimate/

 

3 Kevin Gurney, “Global Warming and the Greenhouse Effect”, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, http://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-5/globwarm.html

 

4 http://maps.grida.no/kyoto/

 

5 Owen Wood, “The Kyoto Protocol”, CBC News Online, March 2001, http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/background/kyoto_protocol.html

 

6 Rachel Massey, “Global Warming Opportunity”, Environmental Research Foundation, December 2000,

http://www.rachel.org/search/index.cfm?St=1

 

7 Caspar Henderson and Benito Müller, “Where justice and realism meet: a climate change solution?” , Open Democracy, 24-7-2002, http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article.jsp?id=6&debateId=32&articleId=252#

 

8 Bjorn Lomborg, “The Skeptical Environmentalist Measuring the Real State of the World”, Cambridge University Press, 2001

 

9 Misleading Math about the Earth, Science defends itself against The Skeptical Environmentalist, Scientific American, January 2002 issue, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?colID=1&articleID=000F3D47-C6D2-1CEB-93F6809EC5880000

 

10 “Atmospheric temperature”, CSIRO Atmospheric Research, http://www.dar.csiro.au/publications/greenhouse_2000a.htm

 

11 David Whitehouse, “Global warming - is the Sun to blame?”, BBC News Online, June3, 1999

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/358953.stm

 

12 “Clean Energy Target Scrapped”, BBC NEWS, 15 February, 2003, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2765239.stm

 

13Charles W. Schmidt, “The Kyoto Protocol: Just A Lot OF Hot Air”, Environmental Health Perspectives, August 2000, http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2000/108-8/spheres.html

 

14W.H. Vanderburg, “The Labyrinth of Technology”, University of Toronto Press, 2000

 

15 David M. Nemtzow, “More Power to You on Bjorn Lomborg and Energy” Grist Magazine, 12 December 2001, http://www.gristmagazine.com/books/nemtzow121201.asp

 

 

16 “Climate Change Plan for Canada”, http://www.climatechange.gc.ca/plan_for_canada/challenge/index.html

 

17 “Climate Change in Canada”, http://adaptation.nrcan.gc.ca/posters/articles/nu_10_en.asp?Region=nu&Language=en

 

18 “Public consultations coming for Kyoto ratification”, CBC News Online, 16 May 2002, http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/CBC/2002/05/15/kyoto_anderson020515

 

19 “Parliament votes to ratify Kyoto”, The Globe and Mail, December 2002, http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/front/RTGAM/20021210/wgass1210a/Front/homeBN/breakingnews