Home

Global warming (GW) is the increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation.

The conclusion of human impact on global warming is based on positive correlation between the temperature and carbon concentration and the theory of climate dynamics. According to the opinion of scientists whose focus is GW the theory proves the conclusion that human activity has changed the climate.

The public acceptance of human impact on the climate is related to the proposals of the scientists and politicians to regulate available carbon emissions. But some scientists became skeptical on climate issues, arguing that scientists who warned of GW were misattributing nature's processes of climate formation. They believe that it is more difficult to accept the point of view that GW is caused by natural mechanisms.

The 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change states as an objective the "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." The unprecedented increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, together with other human influences on climate over the past century and those anticipated for the future, constitute a real basis for concern.

Scientific research provides a basis for mitigating the harmful effects of global climate change through decreased human influences (e.g., slowing greenhouse gas emissions, improving land management practices), technological advancement (e.g., removing carbon from the atmosphere), and finding ways for communities to adapt and become resilient to extreme events.

The deal prepared before the 2009 conference in Copenhagen included a collective agreement among nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent by 2050 -- with developed nations pledging as a bloc to reduce emissions by 80 percent over the same period. The draft was a framework for verification of emissions commitments by developing countries and for establishing a "high-level panel" to assess financial contributions by rich nations to help poor countries adapt to climate change and limit their emissions.

It was language calling for a binding accord "as soon as possible," and no later than at the next meeting of the parties, in Mexico City next November. The agreement addresses many of the issues that leaders came to settle on at the Copenhagen conference. World leaders are aiming to produce a political agreement on global climate cooperation and a set of voluntary best practices that can promote coherence among individual countries' environmental measures. The deal allows countries the flexibility to shape policy to meet national needs. It would be a positive outcome of Copenhagen.

But the momentum behind the race to Copenhagen 2009 slowed dramatically as a consequence of the worldwide economic downturn, uncertain U.S. climate policy, significant gaps between developed and developing countries' global climate priorities, and prominent skepticism some scientists on climate issues.

Representatives of the 193 countries who have negotiated for nearly two weeks had not yet approved the deal and there were signs they might not. They believe that promises of short-term carbon cuts haven't worked because implementing them is extremely expensive and ineffective.

The process has become unworkable, many said, because it has proved virtually impossible to forge consensus among the disparate blocs of countries fighting over environmental guilt, future costs, and who should referee the results.

The climate treaty process isn't going to die, but the real work of coordinating international efforts to reduce emissions will primarily occur elsewhere. That elsewhere will likely be a much smaller group of nations, roughly 30 countries responsible for 90 percent of global warming emissions. It was these nations that President Obama rallied in a series of dramatic encounters to finally ink a deal that starts a flow of financing for poor countries to adapt to climate change and sets up a system for major economies to monitor and report their greenhouse gas emissions. He noted that the agreement was merely a political statement and not a legally binding treaty and might not need ratification by the entire conference.

The negotiations between the United States, China, India, Brazil, and South Africa completed with the three-page accord. The proposed text is presented to a group of European nations and then to the conference.

The deal worked out in Copenhagen is a political agreement forged by major emitters to curb greenhouse gases, to help developing nations build clean-energy economies and to send money flowing to cushion the effects of climate change on vulnerable states.

But even if countries live up to their commitments on emissions, a stark gap remains -- measured in tens of billions of tons of projected flows of carbon dioxide -- between nations' combined pledges and what would be required to reliably avert the risks of disruptive changes in rainfall and drought, ecosystems, and polar ice cover from global warming, scientists say.

The final accord, a 12-paragraph document, was a statement of intention, not a binding pledge to begin taking action on global warming -- a compromise seen to represent a flawed but essential step forward.

Reaching the tenuous accord in Copenhagen was a tortuous path, culminating in an impassioned debate on the floor of the plenary meeting. Speaker after speaker from the developing world denounced the deal as a sham process fashioned behind closed doors by a club of rich countries and large emerging powers. Many of the smallest and most vulnerable nations went along with the decision to accept the document.

We don't need action that makes us feel good. We need action that actually does good.

The actions that actually do good will be based on the topic that some degree of future climate change will occur regardless of future greenhouse gas emissions. Adapting to or coping with climate change will therefore become necessary in certain regions and for certain socioeconomic and environmental systems. The need for adaptation may be increased by growing populations in areas vulnerable to extreme events. Effective adaptation strategies can be achieved regardless of how climate changes. The integrated assessments within the framework of vulnerability, with an emphasis on risk assessment and disaster prevention, offer a complementary approach.

Many problems that may be exacerbated by climate change can be effectively prevented by promoting shore protection techniques in coastal areas, breeding new plant species and crops that are more tolerant to changed climate conditions, protecting and enhancing migration corridors to allow species to migrate as the climate changes, identifying management practices that will ensure the successful attainment of conservation and management goals, and adequate financial and human public health resources.

Volf Shnaydman is a visiting professor at Rutgers University.