|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 172
16
IMPACTS OF GLOBAL CHANGE
Jose Goldemberg
In reality global change in some areas is both a cause and a con-
sequence, particularly in agriculture and industry: 14 percent of the
greenhouse gases originate in agriculture, 3 percent in industry (plus
the 17 percent due to chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)), and 9 percent in
modifications of land use and deforestation. The remaining 57 percent
originate in the industry of energy production.
A discussion of impacts is important to determine priorities for
action: How real and important impacts are will make us move more rap-
idly or slowly. This was clearly the case with CFCs. As soon as the
dramatic impacts on the ozone layer in the Antarctic were clearly demon-
strated, governments and the diplomatic establishment--often described as
slow and inefficient--moved quickly and agreed on the Montreal Protocol.
The dilemma of most people facing impacts of any kind is whether to
take preventive measures to eliminate them or adaptive and corrective
measures to live with them. What one does depends frequently on relative
costs, on who pays for changes, and on the time frame of the changes.
Frequently one acts only when it is too late or too expensive to take
preventive measures.
A good example is the cost of afforestation as compared to the cost
of deforestation and the advantages one gets from deforestation.
Typically it costs U.S.$1000 to reforest 1 hectare, and it is very
dubious that one gets more than that by destroying the forest for short-
term gain. In the Amazon forest, a good part of the 25 million hectares
burned so far (at a rate of approximately 2 million hectares per year),
has proven to be unfit for sustained agriculture. This seems to be a
very unproductive way to go. It is therefore in the self-interest of
Brazilians to prevent that from happening at the risk of contributing
some 7 percent to the amount of carbon thrown into the atmosphere per
year.
The reason we are so keen on discussing global change these days is
that we want to prevent it before it is too late.
In dealing with such problems, externalities are what really count,
and one cannot rely on market forces. Government intervention is ac-
cepted naturally, and we see more and more of it happening all over the
world. The recent example of Los Angeles, where the local Environmental
Board decided to clean up the city at a cost of some $3 billion per year
(U.S.$250 per person per year), is very impressive.
172
OCR for page 173
173
Our responsibility therefore is to characterize clearly and convinc-
ingly the problems or impacts. When the problems are clear cut, govern-
ments move quickly.
Some impacts are not very clear, and the usual overcautious position
adopted by scientists is frequently used by governments as an excuse for
not acting. One example of an impact about which we could be more ag-
gressive than we are today is energy production. Fifty-seven percent of
the greenhouse effect is due to carbon dioxide and other gases emitted
in the burning of fossil fuels. One could, in principle, face the im-
pacts of this part of the greenhouse problem by spending a lot of money
to recapture the carbon dioxide in stacks, practice afforestation, or
simply cope with higher temperatures and rising sea levels. There are
estimates that this approach could be taken with a few hundred billion
dollars. This is called adaptive behavior.
The other approach is preventive: one reduces energy production and
thereby reduces carbon dioxide emissions. It has been exhaustively dem-
onstrated that this is the cheaper road to take and that it can be done
in industrialized countries through improved efficiency in the produc-
tion and use of energy.
It is not clear, however, that the same can be done in developing
countries, where energy is so essential for development and where eco-
nomic activities are bound to grow much more than in the industrialized
nations. Estimates indicate that by the year 2020, two-thirds of the
energy consumed in the world will be consumed in the less-developed
countries, up from the one-third presently being used.
Therefore the magnificent opportunity lies ahead to steer this evo-
lution in the right direction, introducing in the developing countries
energy systems that have built in the improved energy technologies
already available in the industrialized countries. In doing so, the
less-developed countries could leapfrog the painful adaptation going on
in the developed part of the world and make an important contribution to
reducing the impacts of energy use on the biosphere.
OCR for page 174
r
Representative terms from entire chapter:
million hectares
