CC BY
49___SOCIOLOGICAL SCIENCES / <<ЭД1ШадУМ-ДУГМ&1>>#М6Ш'ШЭ
УДК 327,7
Хлопов О.А.
кандидат политических наук, доцент кафедры американских исследований Российского государственного гуманитарного университета
(РГГУ), Москва DOI: 10.24411/2520-6990-2020-11746 ГЛОБАЛЬНОЕ ПОТЕПЛЕНИЕ И ИЗМЕНЕНИЕ КЛИМАТА КАК УГРОЗЫ УСТОЙЧИВОМУ
РАЗВИТИЮ
Khlopov O.A.
PhD in Political Science Associate Professor of the Department of American Studies Russian State University for the Humanities (RSUH), Moscow
GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE AS REAL THEATS TO SUSTANABLE
DEVELOPMENT
Abstract.
The article analyzes the problems that are coursed by global warming and climate change. The author argues that the transition from the use of fossil fuels to new types ofrenewable energy will be costly, but also gives e many benefits that could be achieved by changing economic growth strategies. The aim towards sustainable development is very urgent and will require radical shifts in understanding the consequences of the negative environmental charges and threats as well as the modern consumption patterns.
Keywords: global warming, climate change, gas emission, Paris agreement, USA. pandemic virus
Today, there are two competing approaches regarding the transition to a new energy sector. One of them is that the leading countries of the world should pave the way to an energy future with a neutral (zero) level of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in response to rapidly growing greenhouse gas emissions and climate change [1]. Another is that the transition to new energy sources can damage the competitiveness of a number of traditional industries [2]. Those who hold this view differ in the degree to which they accept the threat of climate change as real and urgent. Some argue that in general, we should refuse to switch to another type of energy, while others it should be done but slowly.
Political, economic and social decisions are tending to follow dominant views, and ideas that influence behavior and shape cultures, and are also embedded in governance institutions. Common perceptions affect what we see and what we think about, how we see things and how we behave. They create cultural, institutional, and infrastructural dependencies.
In 2017 US President Donald Trump formally announced his intention to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement, which will leave America as the only country on Earth outside the accord, which aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions enough to keep temperatures from rising to dangerous levels. If this really happens, the United States would cease participating in the 2015 Paris Agreement, saying that the country was "open for negotiations" [3]. During the presidential campaign, Trump promised to abandon the agreement, saying that the exit would help American companies and workers, especially in mining [4] Trump also noted that the withdrawal from the agreement is consistent with the chosen policy "America First".
In accordance with Article 28 of the Paris Agreement, the US's early withdrawal from the climate agreement cannot be made earlier than November 4, 2020, that is, four years after the agreement enters into force in the United States (by a strange coincidence the day after the November 3 presidential election 2020). Prior to withdrawing from the treaty, the United States was obliged to fulfill its obligations, including the transmission of emission reports to the United Nations [5].
Despite the support of some members of the Republican Party of the United States, the US withdrawal from the climate agreement has been criticized by the international community, religious organizations, American business, politicians, environmentalists, scientists and citizens of the United States both domestically and abroad [6].
The official formal notice of the U.S. withdrawal comes just as global emissions keep rising, climate ambitions keep falling short, and climate scientists warn of increasingly dire consequences including drought, extreme weather, and rising sea levels.
The United States is the world's second-biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, behind only China, and is by far the largest cumulative greenhouse gas emitter in history. With the United States outside the Paris agreement, the pact will now cover only about 80 % of global gas emissions, down from 97% previously. Now that global emissions are at record levels and rising fast, after several years of apparent success in stabilizing the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases pumped into the atmosphere [7]. With the United States abdicating any responsibility for curbing emissions, it will be that much tougher to convince China, India, and
other growing sources of greenhouse gases that they have to do more.
U.S. isolation could have other second-order effects. U.S. firms may be at a competitive disadvantage in the future, if the European Union dusts off nascent plans for some sort of carbon border tax, which would slap tariffs on all goods coming from countries that don't tackle climate change. And being outside the Paris agreement could end up making it harder to secure a new trade pact with the EU; France opposes doing a trade deal with any country outside the agreement.
At the same time, formal membership or not in the Paris agreement matters less in practical terms than concrete steps taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and there all Paris countries are falling short. The United Nations found recently that all the voluntary pledges that make up the Paris agreement will still fall well short of meeting the pact's goal of limiting the global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels (and that was when the United States was still formally part of the agreement). Unless all the signatories to the Paris agreement ramp up their ambition and take steps to cut emissions a lot faster, even the goal of limiting the temperature increase to 2 degrees may be out of reach.
The Trump administration in the past could point to slightly lower emissions as a sign that it was making environmental progress despite seeking to dismantle nearly every Obama administration program designed to fight climate change. Greenhouse gas emissions in the United States fell slightly during Trump's first year in office—largely because cheap natural gas pushed dirty coal out of a lot of power plants. But that trend went into reverse in 2018, with a growing economy and rising demand for energy translating into a jump in greenhouse gas emissions. This year, as the economy slows and the outlook for heavily polluting coal grows even dimmer, greenhouse gas emissions could fall once again—despite, not because of, the Trump administration's policies.
Pulling out of the Paris agreement scratches an itch among some sectors of Trump's base: While a strong majority of Americans overall want the government to do more to tackle climate change, that's not as true among Republicans. Even as concern about climate change has reached near-record levels overall, almost half of Republicans say they are not at all concerned, and only a fraction take the issue seriously [8].
Other conservatives view international accords like the Paris agreement as somehow eroding U.S. sovereignty and cheered Trump's withdrawal from the voluntary program. Still others, especially Republican lawmakers, argue that cutting dangerous emissions would be too expensive and would act as a brake on U.S. economic growth, even though climate change itself risks costing the United States 10 percent of its GDP by the end of the century.
Some of Trump's biggest donors and backers, like the coal baron Robert Murray, argued for pulling out of the Paris agreement as a way to help their beleaguered industries; Trump's announcement came too late for Murray, whose coal company declared bankruptcy last week.
Since Trump took office, the number of cities and states charting their own independent climate policy has skyrocketed; three more states, including fossil fuel-heavy Pennsylvania, just announced plans to join a regional initiative to curb emissions from power plants. Together, those so-called «subfederal climate efforts» include about two-thirds of the U.S. population and GDP, blunting much of the Trump administration's effort to hamstring the fight against climate change, the World Resources Institute notes. But without harmony between cities, states, and the federal government, these piecemeal efforts will be less effective at stimulating large-scale investment in clean energy and nationwide retirement of dirty fuels, making it that much harder—and take that much longer—to make the kind of deep emissions cuts the UN now says are necessary to avoid the worst harms of climate change.
The UN conference on climate change, which was to be held in 2020 from 9 to 19 November in Glasgow, Scotland, postponed until 2021 because of a pandemic coronavirus. According to Minister for business, energy and industrial strategy of the UK and conference Chairman ALok Sharma, the decision was made due to the fact that the world is faced with the unprecedented global challenge and now everyone is rightly focused on the fight against COVID-19 and a new event date will be agreed later.
Meanwhile, the upcoming conference should be the most important since the signing of the Paris agreement in December 2015. The previous one was a failure. In Madrid due to a serious dispute, the parties failed to submit the world community a clear message about the importance of the fight against climate change and commitment, to continue to coordinate work in this direction. In almost fruitless search for consensus on the set of rules in reducing greenhouse gases, they spent a record 14 days. 80 countries all made a promise to introduce a more ambitious national plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but at the next meeting. They also failed to determine the funding mechanism and transfer of the units of greenhouse gas reduction and compensation for damages from climate change. But included gender issues in climate policy and highlighted the importance of oceans to global climatic balance.
In this regard, the importance of the upcoming conference would have increased manifold. In addition to addressing pending tasks, the states will have to provide updated national plans to reduce emissions in the framework of the Paris agreement. Thus, according to the agreement, by no later than 2020 it is necessary to mobilize $ 100 billions for green finance in developing countries. But, apparently, due to coronavirus challenges all that will be postponed, along with the conference.
The experts say that we have only 10 years to break the trend of global warming and limit it to a half degree Celsius (above the level of the industrial revolution). For this purpose, the calculations of experts of the United Nations, greenhouse gas emissions should start to decrease on average by 7.6% each year.
The climate change phenomenon is uncertain. However, to predict it for the future is much easier than
SOCIOLOGICAL SCIENCES / <<€©LL@(MUM~J0U®MaL>>#]№61)),2©2©
weather. The atmosphere is highly chaotic in nature, therefore it is impossible to say exactly what will be the weather at a specific hour, especially after a week. And the climate is influenced by broader factors such as the intensity of solar radiation, atmospheric composition, distance from the ocean, the movement of currents in the ocean and other atmospheric processes such as El niño - southern oscillation Equatorial currents. It is changing very slowly and it is easy to trace. And, therefore, future climate can be assessed with greater confidence than the weather.
In many respects the climate change is a natural process, but it also affected. According to some scientists, we can confidently talk about the six trends:
1.The man likes to burn. In the atmosphere of greenhouse gases and in particular CO2. The concentration of these substances increases, and this trend is stable enough. The level of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere have risen to record levels at least for the last 800 thousand years. Specifically the content of CO2 by 40% more than the figure that was before the industrial revolution, mainly due to the active use of hydrocarbons and lands.
2.The acidity of the oceans is increasing . This is due to the fact that the Global ocean has absorbed about 30% of carbon dioxide of anthropogenic origin.
3.The global temperatures are rising. The past three decades were much hotter than all the previous since 1850, that is, from the beginning of observations.
4. The global sea level rises. We can say almost certainly that the speed of this process, since the mid XX century, exceeds the average values of the previous two millennia. Ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are losing mass, glaciers are melting almost everywhere in the world.
5. The weather is becoming more extreme. Droughts and floods occur more often;
6.The man is responsible for much of these changes.
Now it is possible to predict that the global temperature level, and ocean acidity will rise even further, and the weather conditions will become more extreme. Even if humanity takes some drastic action and stop the emissions, these processes will remain.
It's all in general, but how these factors will affect exactly the climate and weather is difficult to predict. The uncertainty arises because we do not fully understand the climate system and our scientific model is inaccurate, and besides, we cannot with 100% predict our own actions.
In this uncertainty lies the greatest danger. Climate change may lead to serious consequences, to determine the degree of probability which is almost impossible. We can name four possible results of the Apocalypse:
1. Drying of the Amazon rain forest. This will lead to the release of carbon from the soil and trees and, consequently, to a sharp increase in the greenhouse effect.
2. The cessation of thermohaline circulation, which is created in the oceans due to changes in water density, due to the inhomogeneity of the temperature distribution and the difference in the salt concentration. For example, without the Gulf stream to Europe is much colder.
3. The release of methane hydrates, a very strong greenhouse gas, followed by heating of the atmosphere.
4. The melting of the ice. Sometimes water penetrates into crevices in the glaciers and thus accelerates their movement and melting. Current forecast modeling this factor is not considering the speed reduction of the ice cover and rising global sea level.
5. The good news is that still, scientists believe such a development not very likely.
While assessing climate risks, it is necessary to consider not only the immediate threat, the vulnerability and susceptibility of the region associated impacts, but also how it will change society. And the uncertainty is only growing.
However, it is expected that climate change will reduce productivity. Global warming may impair the fertility of soil and working conditions. So, West Africa has significantly decreased the time during which people normally work.
Another threat is the reduction of biodiversity. All depends on how quickly certain species adapt to new conditions. Corals, for example, have virtually no chance to "escape" from global warming.
Extension of periods of heat, drought and flooding will affect the harvest. It will be less and it will get worse, including due to agricultural pests.
We may conclude that humanity is waiting for malnutrition and more active in diseases associated with extreme weather conditions. On the other hand, greater intensity of rains in Africa, for example, will be able to actively use ground water.
In the face of uncertainty of impacts of climate change, some scientist offer to observe the following rules when determining public policy: flexibility to adjust to the new information; the vitality to remain effective in various climate situations; economic feasibility; matching the interests of all segments of the population.
The Paris agreement is needed to limit the probability of coming climate Apocalypse. Uncertainty does not mean that we should sit idly by. To start a discussion on climate issues is extremely important.
The UN has approach in the framework of the program for the protection of the environment: "People do not want to buy the bulb. The idea is to push people to another way of thinking." It is necessary to open up a huge field for discussion, and the result depends on who will be treated the uncertainty. The hope is that the parties can settle their differences and come to consensus on action against climate change at the negotiating.
However, every coin has two sides. Because of quarantine measures worldwide emissions of carbon dioxide fell sharply. But this is a temporary phenomenon and will continue unless in the short term. But the global economic problems can stay with us for a long time.
According to experts, this year we will achieve the largest reduction in CO2 emissions since the Second world war - 5% or even more. The earlier sharp decrease was only during the financial crisis of 2008. Neither the collapse of the Soviet Union, nor oil or financial crises in the last 50 years are likely to affect the emissions as the current crisis.
In February, the emission rate in China has fallen by a quarter. Almost a full stop of passenger transport in Europe and warm weather brought Germany into such a desirable course to reduce emissions by more than 40% compared to 1990. But to keep this trend, we need structural changes, experts warn. Otherwise, the emissions will return to their previous values. So, after a brief lull in 2007-2008, they more than won it all, jerked up by 5.1%. And now China, for example, has gradually began to restore production, and with its greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.
To curb global warming, the global economy needs to move to a new track, but in present weakened position it will be difficult to make. According to the evaluation of the London Centre for Economic and Business Studies, global GDP this year may fall by 4%. If such a pessimistic forecast is confirmed, this will be the biggest fall since 1931. In conditions of severe shortage of funds the state is unlikely to send a multimillion-dollar investment in the protection of the environment and climate.
The International Energy Agency has warned that the coronavirus is likely to undermine investment programs in green technologies, and urged governments to actively promote this direction. Analysts from Bloom-bergNEF in turn, reduced the forecast on global demand for solar energy, as countries now prefer short-term measures to support the economy (including large companies - issuers of CO2 and producers of hydrocarbons), not long-term investments in innovation and alternative technologies. Moreover, participants of the market of renewable sources of energy talking about the slowdown in manufacturing and delays in projects Endangered supply chain integrity.
Climate action is already becoming less active. It is possible that states may even abandon a number of projects. And if the economy can still be restored, then governments may not return to a policy of sustainable development.
But nevertheless, thanks to the pandemic COVID 2019, we see that a person can fully improve the ecological situation locally. It is hoped that many countries will get a taste and want to continue to breathe clean air and drink clean water.
In 2020 the environmental agenda will continue to gain a new dimension, including the political one. Climate change and environmental issues are already falling into the category of global threats and risks. In resent years discussions about the environment literally came to the center of the political arena, and now we are close to some environmental despair, when the search for the optimal strategy was complemented by emotional protest. Greta Tunberg's speech actually nullified in some way all previous achievements in the sphere of trying to somehow regulate environmental policy.
The environmental challenges go beyond their original space and time, they receive a global dimension and at the same time have a timeless character. These threats and challenges cannot be compensated; no money can make up for irreversible climate change. Thus, we can say that the environmental challenge is one of the challenges of postmodern society. A recent
study by the Levada Center reveals amazing numbers -48% of Russian citizens consider environmental pollution the biggest threat, and 34% is global warming and climate change [9].
In the leading country in the world the important advances have been made in the understanding of the relationships between energy, economy and the environment. This is important because new approaches and ideas can change the perception of scientific information, the behavior of individuals and groups, as well as investment decisions of industries.
Thus, a new concept for the restructuring of our energy and economic systems are becoming more popular and entrenched. However, there are clear differences between the approaches used in North America, Europe and East Asia.
Defenders of the status quo and those who prefer gradual rather than a deeper and more radical change, tend to slow the transition to greater sustainability. It is also the case in Germany. What is happening fast and large-scale energy transitions incite fear and promote populist policies. But the pace of transition will determine how quickly we will check the growth of greenhouse gas emissions, how much biodiversity will be lost, how much plastic is dumped in our oceans and how lives our cities.
Despite numerous initiatives, the pace and scale of change remains slow. We s need to do much more to change the course of the slowdown of global warming. The shock of coronavirus COVID-19 for the world economy will be huge, it will have an impact on many political decisions and the trajectory of growth, but it will mean the struggle between the various energy paths and points of view and may offer solutions to the problems associated with climate change.
The environment, including biodiversity and climate change, is one of the areas in which science researchers and economists have a long-standing common interest. To achieve many of the UN goals for sustainable development requires an understanding of how far we can continue to develop the economy within the planetary boundaries. On this account there are many points of view, including the various economic intellectual traditions. Some economists, for example, argue that the planet is under pressure of industrialization, cannot withstand the constant economic growth, others emphasize on that. The growth is necessary to reduce poverty. These approaches reflect the complex relationship between people and their environment [10]. To solve these problems, economists, sociologists and engineers must work more closely with each other, politicians and business to cooperate in tackling global problems.
The rate of change of the earth system is accelerating. If the significant actions are not taken, in the next decade we will be facing some significant changed environment and increasingly unstable climate regime that will lead to serious troubles.
Government policy is important to facilitate such a transformation and bring the global economy in line with sustainable development objectives. The urgency and complexity of this task is clear - we need to
SOCIOLOGICAL SCIENCES / «ШкШШ1иЮ-^ВДГНа1»ЗЩШ,2®2®
explore new opportunities for innovation and transformation. This approach provides a potential basis for transformational change and complement effective governmental regulation. Ultimately, the movement to more sustainable development is likely to require radical changes in deep-rooted values, education systems and social behavior which lie at the basis of modern economic paradigms, consumption patterns and relations between leading states.
Reference
1. Paris Agreement. Unites Nations 2015.- URL: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Trea-
ties/2016/02/20160215%2006-03%20PM/Ch_XXVII-7-d.pdf (accessed 27.03.2020).
2. Craig M. No Business Case for Lots of Wind and Solar // Energytransition Org. 15 Jul 2015.- URL: https://energytransition.org/2015/07/no-business-case-for-lots-of-wind-and-solar/ (accessed 07.04.2020).
3.Liptak K.. Trump on Paris accord: 'We're getting out' // CNN. 02.06.2017/ - URL: https://edi-tion.cnn.com/2017/06/01/politics/trump-paris-climate-decision/index.html (accessed 28.03.2020).
4.Cama T.,Hengy D. We are getting out of Paris climate deal // The Hill 01.06. 2017.- URL: https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environ-ment/335955-trump-pulls-us-out-of-paris-climate-deal (accessed 03.04.2020).
5. Kontorovich E. The U.S. can't quit the Paris climate agreement, because it never actually joined // The
Washington Post. 01.06. 2017.- URL: https://www.washingtonpost.com/ (accessed
14.04.2020).
6. Greenwood, Max. GE head fires back at Trump: 'Climate change is real' // The Hill.06.01.2019.- URL: https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/335988-ge-ceo-fires-back-at-trump-cli-mate-change-is-real (accessed 28.03.2020).
7. Chestne N. Global Carbon Rmissions Hit Record High in 2018: IEA. // Reuter .- URL: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iea-emissions/global-carbon-emissions-hit-record-high-in-2018-iea-idUSKCN1R7005
8.McCarthy J.Climate Change Concerns Higher in the Northeast, West U.S // Gallup, 22 April, 2019.-URL:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/248963/climate-change-concerns-higher-northeast-west.aspx (accessed 09.04.2020).
9.Проблемы окружающей среды // Левада центр. 23.01.2020. - URL: https://www.levada.ru/2020/01/23/problemy-okruzhayushhej -sredy/
10.Хлопов О.А. Глобальные проблемы экологической безопасности и изменения климата в контексте международного сотрудничества // Тенденции развития науки и образования». - 2019 - № 53.(2). - С. 68-74
