BACK TO WEB VERSION

FALL 2005
Global Warming: What to do about the changing climate
by Daniel Bodansky

People may debate the causes of the last few years’ spate of weather disasters. But whether the recent hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the European heat wave two years ago that killed more than 30,000 people, or the drought this summer in the Southwest can be blamed on global warming or were simply naturally occurring events, it is becoming increasingly clear that the climate is changing. And a warmer world will mean warmer oceans, more violent storms, and more frequent droughts and heat waves.

 The signs of global warming are all around us:

Temperatures are rising. The decade just past was the warmest on record, with 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004 being the four hottest years since instrumental measurement began in the 1860s.

Sea levels are rising. Globally, sea levels have risen by about an inch over the past decade, with much greater increases in some areas.

Glaciers are shrinking. According to some scientists, not a single glacier will be left in Glacier National Park by 2030, prompting some wits to propose renaming it Non-Glacier National Park. Over the past century, the snowcap on Mt. Kilimanjaro has shrunk by more than four-fifths, and at this rate the fabled snows of Kilimanjaro will soon become history.

Arctic-ice cover is disappearing. Since the 1970s, its extent has been decreasing at a rate of 9 percent per decade. One indication has been the opening up of the Northwest Passage, which until recently had been traversable only by icebreakers. In 2002, a private yacht made the journey.

Do these changes derive from human activities? We know that we dump more than six billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year by burning fossil fuels. We know that, as a result, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have increased by more than a third since pre-Industrial times. And we know that carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere. But we can’t confidently predict how much warming will occur or what its exact effects will be on humans and the environment. The atmosphere is a complicated place, which we understand only imperfectly.

The problem is that, given the climate system’s inertia, by the time we know for sure that climate change is causing serious harm, it may be too late. And even if we were then to change course drastically, the carbon dioxide already put into the atmosphere would likely continue to warm the planet for a long time to come.

The problem is that, given the climate system’s inertia, by the time we know for sure that climate change is causing serious harm, it may be too late. And even if we were then to change course drastically, the carbon dioxide already put into the atmosphere would likely continue to warm the planet for a long time to come.

The problem is that, given the climate system’s inertia, by the time we know for sure that climate change is causing serious harm, it may be too late. And even if we were then to change course drastically, the carbon dioxide already put into the atmosphere would likely continue to warm the planet for a long time to come.

Generally, when we face uncertain risks, we take out an insurance policy, which is exactly what we need to do now for global warming. Such a policy should include research on breakthrough technologies that hold the promise of drastic emission reductions down the line — a focus of the Bush Administration. But it also should include modest requirements to begin reducing emissions now, as there is no guarantee of a technological silver bullet. And we need to begin the long process of changing business-as-usual by providing a signal to industry and encouraging investments in existing, climate-friendly technologies. Finally, the policy should include working with other countries; climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution.

The Kyoto Protocol was intended to be a first step along that path. But its effect will be limited, given the decision by the Bush Administration to reject it, and in any event Kyoto’s initial commitment period will end in 2012. What should we do then? Dozens of international efforts are currently underway to explore the options — including a dialogue among senior policymakers, sponsored by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, in which I have participated.

Although few things are certain in the climate-change debate, we may be confident of one thing: An international climate-change regime will not work without the involvement of the United States. Not only is this country the single biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, but also other major emitters, such as China and India, will be even less inclined to commit themselves so long as the United States stays apart. Even the European Union, which has aggressively sought stringent emission controls, will find it increasingly difficult to proceed while its major competitor, the United States, is not also subject to comparable constraints on carbon.

Given the Bush Administration’s opposition to binding emission cuts, engaging the United States will require action from the bottom up. Already, many states and localities have adopted their own climate policies, some based on Kyoto. And a growing number of businesses, including giants such as British Petroleum, DuPont and General Electric, have begun to act. But while these are steps in the right direction, national leadership will be needed in order to make a significant dent in the problem. Ultimately, the success of state and local efforts will be measured not so much in terms of their emission reductions but in terms of their success in stimulating the development of a national U.S. climate policy.

The long-term nature of the climate-change problem makes it a daunting public-policy challenge, especially because the political system’s focus tends to be short-term rather than long-term, and reactive rather than proactive. But the slow-moving nature of the climate system has a silver lining. It is probably not too late to act — at least, not yet.

Daniel Bodansky, the Woodruff Chair of International Law at the University of Georgia School of Law, serves on the board of editors of the American Journal of International Law and is co-editor-in-chief of Kluwer Law International’s book series on international environmental law and policy. Prior to joining the UGA faculty in 1992, he clerked for Judge Irving Goldberg of the 5th Circuit, served in the State Department as an attorney-adviser and as the climate-change coordinator, and was on the faculty of the University of Washington School of Law. He has been a consultant to the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat, the World Health Organization, the Pew Center on Global Change and the German Environment Agency.