Climate change caused by humans: UN report

Nuclear power ‘only real solution,’ says Canadian contributor

STEVE CAREY THE MARTLET (UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA)

VICTORIA (CUP) — Flooding in low-lying areas, drought in others, an increase in hurricanes and tornadoes — everyone can feel that global warming is here.

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a summary report on Feb. 2 that identifies an increase in temperature, sea level, the loss of ice caps and a possible increase in extreme weather patterns. The full report, over 1,000 pages in length, comes out this spring.

“We’re seeing [climate change] initiatives in municipal and local levels now. There’s a certain heightened consciousness around global warming,” said Stephen Lonergan, a University of Victoria geography professor and one of many contributing authors of the report. “Hurricane Katrina, Al Gore’s film [An Inconvenient Truth] — it’s very much in the news now, and people are realizing this is going to cause major environmental problems.”

The IPCC summary states that the warming is from anthropogenic causes: pollution caused by people.

According to the summary, 11 of the last 12 years (1995-2006) rank among the 12 warmest years on record since 1850.

“It’s difficult for anyone to say they don’t agree with the IPCC report,” Lonergan said. “It’s been accepted by the various governments as the standard of climate science.”

The 0.1 C yearly increase means gradual climate change is inevitable. Lonergan believes that the changes will be more devastating to developing countries, which won’t be able to adapt as some of the more prosperous ones will.

“A drought in drinking water in Victoria may be a problem, but droughts in sub-Saharan Africa will be terrible,” said Lonergan.

Cornelis Van Kooten, a UVic professor, Canada Research Chair in Environmental Studies and Climate Change and IPCC contributing author, believes that a more pressing problem is a looming power crisis that could hinder our own ability to adapt.

On rising sea level simulations, the IPCC report predicts a 0.18-metre to 0.6-metre increase between 2090 and 2099. The temperature of the ocean is predicted to increase from 1.1 to 6.4 C.

“Those sea level rises, they’re not the 6.5- metre increase Al Gore predicted, but if you live on a low-lying island — the Maldives, Tuvalu — you’ll experience some impact. If you live on a delta — Bangladesh, certainly.”

The David Suzuki Foundation promotes going carbon-neutral — reducing your carbon footprint through offsets and life changes — as a part of sustainable living.

Lonergan’s son flies twice a week. He buys offsets for every trip equal to the amount of carbon he emits. Lonergan buys credits to offset his daily driving.

The theory behind carbon offsets is that every emission to the atmosphere can be reduced equally with another sustainable action, such as planting trees or installing solar panels that last for 25 years.

“We were driving in the HOV [highoccupancy vehicle] lane in L.A. — a five-lane freeway — doing 85 to 88 kilometres an hour, very little traffic, and those other four lanes were [packed full] in a dead stop,” Lonergan said. “Saying we should carpool and ride buses is one thing, but it’s very hard to get people to do it.”

Carbon offsets can be purchased through companies such as The Climate Trust, which runs carboncounter.org. With the Carbon Counter, you calculate the yearly tons of carbon dioxide you dump into the atmosphere through your car, apartment and air travel. Projects that help offset the tons of carbon dioxide will be funded with your one-time or monthly donations.

“A lot of that is smoke and mirrors,” said Van Kooten, who is skeptical about offsets.

His own research into the economics of forestry and climate have shown that other methods, such as having ethanol in gasoline, won’t be valuable until they become regulated.

“The people of B.C. might be [doing] something [positive] about climate change until they realize they’re not going to have electricity or pay $4 or $5 at the pump,” Van Kooten said.

Proposed power solutions such as wind power or natural gas aren’t good enough, Van Kooten said. Wind is inefficient because it requires a coal or gas backup on standby, which is cost-inefficient.

Even Lonergan, a user of carbon offsets, said they won’t get us out of the fire just yet.

“Even if we stabilize emissions at present levels, we’re going to see increasing impacts from climate change, in various levels,” Lonergan said. “Until we’re able to adopt [a sustainable] philosophy, we’re in for a tough time.”

Van Kooten agrees.

“There’s a direct relation between well-being and energy use,” he said. “The people hurt first are going to be the ones less well off in society.” Other solutions, such as hydroelectric dams, coal and biomass, would be inefficient and open up a political can of worms.

Van Kooten said there is only one climatefriendly power solution.

“We can go hog wild on nuclear power. That’s the only real solution out there. Everything else is a stopgap,” he said.

Van Kooten points out that the refinement process only uses three per cent of the material each time, and older Candu reactors can use the waste from American nuclear power plants, refine it and continue to make power.