Global Warming

GLOBAL WARMING 1

Institution Affiliation:

Global warming

In the present times, global warming is assuredly occurring. This hascaused a variety of unusual changes to earth. It has been proven thatin excess of 90% of the cause of global warming is due to the releaseof greenhouse airs, mainly carbon dioxide. If there are not enoughaction that are taken by the global community, the rate of release ofcarbon dioxide and extra greenhouse gases is set to increase toalarming levels. There have been a number of researches andinter-governmental collaborations to formulate policies andrecommendations for reducing the rate of carbon emission, andsubsequently, global warming. There have been economic formulas andscientific formulas, which have been used to reduce the global carbonfootprint. This paper looks at one of the economic model, theintegrated Assessment Models, and a scientific formula, the Kayaequation, in relations to efforts to mitigate global warming. TheKaya equation is used in a futuristic perspective.

Essay 2: Integrated Assessment Models

Integrated Assessment Models are used to evaluate the variouspolicies, which have been implemented to reduce future emissions. Inthe contemporary climate-change economics discipline, these modelshave become a tool for assessing the strategies that are adopted bynations to address climate change. Their objectives are to describethe complex relations existing between environmental, social andeconomic factors, which determine the direction taken by futureclimate change. They also aim to integrate various disciplines, andas for this. They run the risk of becoming extremely complex.

While using this model, the Benefit Area (BA) can be evaluatedexplicitly by use of the intersection of the Marginal Damage (MD) andMarginal Abatement Cost (MAC) functions. The Marginal Abatement isused to determine the optimal level of pollution. The optimum levelof effluence occurs where the MD cost is equal to the MAC. The pointof intersection between the curves I=I (z0,k0)is the optimal level of pollution. In this equation, k0corresponds to the optimum cost, also known as the benefit, and z0corresponds to the optimum damage restriction. Below are some of thecalculations for MAC.

  1. Linear [MAC(z)=β0+β1z, β1≠0]

  2. Quadratic [MAC(z)=β0+β1z+β2z 2 , β2 &gt 0]

  3. Exponential [MAC(z) = z e 1 0 β β , β1 ≠ 0]

Thegraph below is a representation of the optimal pollution level, whichis the relationship between IAM and MD &amp MAC.

Figure1: Graphical representation of the relationship between IAM, MAC andMD.

Direct damages are those that are done to the structures, contentsand infrastructure. These ensue as a straight outcome of the hazard.They also include mortality and injury that is directly attributed tothe hazard. On the other hand, indirect damages are damages toeconomic activity, a loss that is recorded in the expected income,welfare losses and other losses that are due to the initial damagecaused by the experienced hazard. Direct and indirect damages includesuch like the decline in life quality, environmental destruction,damage to public recreational facilities, and others which arenon-market impacts.

While using IAM models, damage and external costs can be estimated byconducting an analysis of the chain pollution emissions, theirdispersion and subsequent transportation. Others evaluate theirimpact with a dose-response calculation and their final monetaryevaluation. The same applies to abatement costs. The mainphilosophical challenge for doing this is that it may be less certainas compared to the actual damage cost. Additionally, the impact maybe more severe than initially thought. The major practical challengeis related to the technological change, which may be hard to predictand characterize.

Essay 3: Kaya equation

For the better portion of the last half of the 22ndcentury, the global environmental conservation efforts were focusedon limiting the average global surface temperature increase. Bycontrolling the industrial averages of the 21st century,the globe was able to avoid dangerous climate change. The mainscenario was target levels for CO2. This is becausecontributions to climate change are characterized by radioactiveimbalance, and given that the anthropogenic CO2 was amajor component of the same, the global warming mitigation effortswere concentrated on bringing the levels down. There was also aperiod of stabilization wedge, which was used to reduce theemissions. The graph below is a representation of the stabilizationwedge from the 1950s to the 21st century and beyond.

Figure2: Graph showing carbon mitigation initiative from 1950s to the 22ndcentury and beyond

The rate at which carbon is emitted as carbon dioxide through the[process of energy production is given by the Kaya identity. Theformula below is a representation of the Kaya identity for theanalysis of Co2 emissions.

Figure3: Kaya equation

The Kaya identity expresses the product of population (N), per capitaGDP (GDP/N) primary energy intensity (/GDP) and carbon intensity(C/E). Back in the 1990s, the fossil fuel emissions were Mc =5.3109 persons per 400- per person. However, through theintervention of the global environmentalists and scientists, theearth was given time to adapt to these changes that were facilitatedby dangerous anthropogenic interference with the ecosystem.Currently, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has fallento less than 300 ppm CO2e.

A recommendation that was made in the 22nd century so toeffectively apply this equation was an agreement to set appropriatecarbon prices by doing away with subsidies and using emitters, andestablishing a carbon tax. This helped to minimize bureaucraticintervention and raised revenue for mitigation and adaptation.Secondly, there was an agreement to support the development anddissemination of carbon-saving technologies. Specifically, theleaders agreed on patent-buyouts and reduction of sale oftechnologies, which would be used in implementing carbon reduction atcommercial and domestic levels. There was also the creation of aglobal clean energy venture capital fund. In order to implement theagreements and policies, there were negotiations at the UN by majorstakeholders such as the IMF and the World Bank. These were ordealagencies for reviewing carbon emission policies and carbon taxation,both at the national and international levels. This helped fulfil thepost-Kaya agreement to reduce the carbon emissions to less than300ppm by the current century.

Conclusion

The Integrated Assessment Models have proven to be a vital tool ininforming the discussion about the future global and nationalemissions of greenhouse gases, and the economic costs that areassociated with the same. Various components of the IAMs have beenused by scientists and economists to evaluate the differences inclimate outcomes, and thus, have proven to be crucial for globalconservation efforts. On the other hand, the Kaya equation has beenused to project the future emissions. In spite of the datum thatthere are a number of limitations as regards to using the kayaequation to predict the future carbon emissions, the equation provesto be a useful projecting tool. This is since it has a comprehensiverange of realistic applications and is an efficient tool formeasuring carbon emissions, both from the scientific and economicperspectives.