On global warming and related serious economic, social and environmental problems . In recent years, a great deal of news and information has been published on this subject. But latest news, perhaps, turned out to be "cooler" of all. A group of scientists from the US, France and the UK said that we have already passed the point of no return and the catastrophic consequences of global warming on Earth can no longer be stopped.
Global warming- this is a process of gradual increase in the average annual temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and the World Ocean (definition from Wikipedia). There are several reasons for global warming and they are associated with cyclic fluctuations in solar activity (solar cycles) and human economic activity. It is impossible to determine today with absolute certainty which of them is dominant. Most scientists are inclined to the point of view that the main reason for this is human activity (burning hydrocarbon fuels). Some scientists categorically disagree and believe that the total human influence is small, and the main reason is the high solar activity. Moreover, they even argue that a new Little Ice Age will begin shortly after the current warming.
Personally, in this situation it is difficult for me to accept any one point of view, since none of them today has sufficiently complete scientific evidence. And yet, the problem is serious, it is necessary to respond to it somehow and you can’t stand aside. In my opinion, even if the supporters of the anthropogenic (human) factor, as main reason global warming will turn out to be wrong in the future, then the forces and means spent today to prevent this warming will not be in vain. They will more than pay off with new technologies and attentive attitude on the part of people to nature protection.
What is the essence of global warming? The bottom line is the so-called "greenhouse" effect. In the Earth's atmosphere, there is a certain balance of heat (solar rays) from the Sun and its return to space. The composition of the atmosphere has big influence to this balance. More precisely, the amount of so-called greenhouse gases (primarily carbon dioxide and methane, although water vapor also has a greenhouse value). These gases have the ability to trap the sun's rays (heat) in the atmosphere, preventing them from escaping back into outer space. Previously, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 0.02%. However, as industry grew and the extraction and burning of coal, oil and natural gas increased, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere constantly increased. Because of this, more heat is absorbed, which gradually warms up the atmosphere of the planet. Forest and steppe fires also contribute to this. This is about human activity. I will leave the mechanism of cosmic influence for the next material.
What are the consequences of global warming? Like any phenomenon, global warming has both negative and positive consequences. It is believed that it will become warmer in the northern countries, so it will be easier in winter, agricultural yields will increase, southern crops (plants) will be cultivated to the north. However, scientists are sure that the negative consequences of global warming will be much greater and the losses from them will significantly exceed the benefits. That is, in general, humanity will suffer from global warming.
What kind of troubles can be expected from global warming?
- An increase in the number and strength of destructive typhoons and hurricanes;
- Increase in the number and duration of droughts, exacerbation of the problem of water scarcity;
- From the melting of the glaciers of the Arctic and Antarctic, the rise in the level of the World Ocean and the flooding of coastal areas where many people live;
- The death of taiga forests due to the thawing of permafrost and the destruction of cities built on this permafrost;
- Distribution to the north and to the highlands of a number of species - pests of agriculture and forestry and disease vectors.
- Changes in the Arctic and Antarctic can lead to a change in the circulation of ocean currents, and hence the entire hydro- and atmosphere of the Earth.
This is in general terms. In any case, global warming is a problem that will affect all people, regardless of where they live and what they do. That is why it is today the most widely discussed in the world, not only among scientists, but also among the public.
There are many discussions and different points of view on this matter. Personally, I was most impressed by Al Gore's (former US presidential candidate in the campaign in which he ran with George W. Bush) "An Inconvenient Truth". It clearly and reasonably reveals the causes of global warming and shows its negative consequences for people. The main conclusion that is made in the film is that the momentary political interests of narrow ruling groups people must give way to the long-term interests of all human civilization.
In any case, a lot of things need to be done in order to, if not stop, then at least mitigate the negative effects of global warming. And the publication below - once again think about it.
(Continuation )
Georgy Kazulko
Bialowieza Forest
(Your feedback, thoughts, ideas, questions, comments or disagreements, write in the comments below (anonymous users sometimes need to send a comment in a separate window enter code english text from the picture) or send to my email address: [email protected])
Catastrophic climate change is unstoppable
The best scientists in the world believe that in the near future, humanity will face the expansion of deserts, declining crops, the growth of the strength of hurricanes, and the disappearance of mountain glaciers that provide water to hundreds of millions of people.
The concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere has already reached the point after which catastrophic climate change will begin, even if the amount of carbon dioxide can be reduced in the coming decades.
This is stated by a group of well-known scientists from the US, France and the UK in an article published in the Open Atmospheric Science Journal.
This study contradicts previous estimates, according to which a dangerous concentration of carbon dioxide will be reached this century, only later, RIA Novosti reports.
"There is a bright side to this conclusion - if we take steps to reduce carbon dioxide concentrations, we can reduce the number of problems that already seem inevitable," said James Hansen, lead author of the study, James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Research, part of Columbia University.
According to the scientist, humanity will face the expansion of deserts, declining crops, the growth of the strength of hurricanes, the reduction of coral reefs and the disappearance of mountain glaciers, which provide water to hundreds of millions of people.
To prevent dramatic warming in the coming years, the researchers write, carbon dioxide concentrations must be reduced to pre-industrial-age levels of 350 parts per million (0.035%). The current concentration of carbon dioxide is 385 parts per million and is increasing by 2 parts per million (0.0002%) per year, mainly due to fossil fuel burning and deforestation.
The authors of the article note that the latest data on the history of climate change on Earth support their conclusions. In particular, observations of the melting of glaciers that previously reflected solar radiation and the release of carbon dioxide from melting permafrost and the ocean show that these processes, which were previously thought to be rather slow, can occur over decades, not thousands. years.
Scientists note that reducing emissions from coal combustion can significantly improve the situation.
At the same time, they are skeptical about geoengineering methods for extracting carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, in particular, proposals to bury carbon dioxide in tectonic cracks or pump it into rocks on the ocean floor. In their opinion, the withdrawal of 50 millionths of gas using this technology will cost at least 20 trillion dollars, which is twice the US national debt.
“Humanity today faces the inconvenient fact that industrial civilization is becoming the main factor influencing the climate. The biggest danger in this situation is ignorance and denial, which can make tragic consequences inevitable,” the researchers wrote.
Throughout its history, mankind has freely used natural resources home planet. The blessings that nature placed at our disposal were taken for granted. In parallel with the development of human civilization, there was a merciless appropriation of earthly wealth. Even though our earthly home is huge, it is able to independently regulate the processes occurring in nature, but still, the human environment today does not look as ideal as it was during the last 1-2 thousand years ago. One of the most visible consequences of the development of human civilization is global climate change.
Over the past 150-200 years, when humanity has entered the active phase of its development, the climate on the planet has changed quite noticeably. The geography of the planet has changed, the living conditions in different parts of the Earth have changed dramatically. Where previously there were ideal weather conditions, the climate is changing, the habitat becomes harsher and less hospitable. Less and less remains the conditions necessary for the normal and prosperous existence of the human race.
What is the essence of the warming problem?
It should be recognized that the consequences of global warming are not entirely the result of thoughtless human activity. A number of factors influence climate change on the planet.
On the scale of the universe, our civilization is a fleeting period. What is 200 thousand years of the existence of a reasonable person in comparison with 4.5 billion years of the life of our planet? Over the entire lifetime of the Earth, the climate on its surface has repeatedly changed. Dry and hot periods gave way to global cooling, which ended in ice ages. Huge glaciers covered most of the planet with their shells. Further consequences of global warming in prehistoric times became catastrophic. The melting of glaciers led to large-scale flooding. The rapidly rising ocean level on the planet led to the flooding of vast territories.
According to scientists, the process of global warming was launched long ago and without human intervention. This is facilitated by the natural course of geophysical and astrophysical processes occurring in our solar system, in our galaxy and in the universe. The theory that existed at the end of the 20th century that a person is to some extent involved in the deterioration of the climatic situation in the world has now been revised. An analysis of the catastrophes that have engulfed our planet in the last 20-30 years, the study of astrophysical and geophysical data have given scientists a reason to believe that the emerging climate changes are of a dynamic nature. To date, two factors have been established that influence changes in weather conditions on the planet and climate transformation:
- natural;
- anthropogenic.
The first factor is uncontrollable and is explained by the inevitable processes taking place in space. The growing expansion of the Universe affects the astrophysical parameters of the motion of all celestial bodies. In other words, the presence of climate change on our planet is a consequence of the cyclical nature of astronomical processes.
While one category of scientists is closely studying the influence of the Universe on earthly processes, another part began to study the scale of the negative impact of human civilization on the natural environment. The impact of anthropogenic factors began with the advent of the industrial revolution. New technologies and the subsequent globalization of the economy have led to a rapid deterioration of the environmental situation on the planet. As a result, anthropogenic factors from year to year began to influence the environment and influence the planetary climate.
The harm done is local in nature, so it is not so noticeable at the regional level. However, in the aggregate, the harmful influence of man on the Earth's biosphere is global. As a result of emissions of products of activity of petrochemical and metallurgical enterprises, the content of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is growing. The deforestation of equatorial forests in Brazil, in turn, leads to a decrease in oxygen in the atmosphere of our planet. All this and more leads to greenhouse effect. As a result, there is an increase in the average temperature on the planet, the polar ice is melting and, accordingly, the level of the world ocean is rising.
It becomes obvious that it is necessary to radically change your attitude towards your own planet. This can be achieved if we exclude or limit anthropogenic factors that have a harmful effect on our environment.
The problem is on a planetary scale, so it is necessary to study it and look for a solution through joint efforts. The individual activity of some separate international organizations and social movements will not solve the problem. But unfortunately, at present, there is a situation of a global scale of misunderstanding of what is happening, the absence of a real and objective assessment of the factors influencing climatic conditions.
New facts in the history of global warming
Studies of ice samples taken from a two-kilometer depth at the Vostok station in Antarctica showed a significant change in the chemical composition of the Earth's atmosphere over two hundred thousand years. As mentioned, the climate on Earth has not always been uniform and stable. However, now there is information in the scientific community that the main causes of global warming in the prehistoric era were associated not only with geophysical processes, but also with a high concentration of greenhouse gases - CO2 and CH4 (methane). Glaciers have always melted. Another thing is that today this process is happening more rapidly. Global warming on earth can come much earlier - not in a thousand, not in a hundred, but much faster - within a dozen years.
In terms of the amount of greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere, the 20th century looks like a record. We can say that this is due to the influence of cyclic natural factors, but today these processes are clearly not complete without human participation. Climate change is happening more dynamically than is determined by the natural cycle. The real confirmation of this is the rapidly increasing number of cataclysms on a planetary scale.
According to scientists from the meteorological department of the University of Washington in the 80s of the XX century, the planet experienced an average of 100-120 catastrophes and natural disasters per year. In the 2000s, the number of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and other natural disasters that occur annually on the planet increased by 5 times. Droughts have become much more frequent, and the duration of the monsoon rainy season has increased.
According to meteorologists, this is a direct consequence of the fact that fluctuations in atmospheric temperatures on the planet have become significant. Seasonality on Earth ceases to be the norm, the boundaries between the warm and cold periods become clearer and more expressive. Cold winter sharply replaced by hot summer and vice versa. After warm time cold weather sets in. In areas of the planet where a mild maritime climate prevailed, the number of hot and dry days is increasing. In cold regions, instead of severe frosts, a prolonged thaw is observed.
The intensive increase in the use of organic fuels in industry and in the process of human life leads to an increase in emissions of CO2, methane and nitrogen oxide into the atmosphere. The predominance of these gases in the composition of the earth's atmosphere prevents heat transfer between the air layers, creating a greenhouse effect. The earth's surface, heated by solar energy and "wrapped" in an air coat of greenhouse gases, gives off less heat, respectively, heats up faster.
Most of all, an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases is fraught with the following circumstances:
- an increase in the temperature of the air mass;
- change in the localization of precipitation formation zones in the earth's atmosphere;
- an increase in the intensity and expressiveness of climatic and weather phenomena;
- melting glaciers;
- reduction of fresh water reserves;
- rising sea levels;
- changing existing ecosystems on the planet.
A change in the average annual temperature by only 1-2 degrees leads to irreversible consequences that entail a chain reaction. The rising average temperature on the planet leads to the rapid melting of glaciers on the planet, the area of the ice shell of Greenland and Antarctica is decreasing. The average annual thickness of the snow cover is decreasing in Siberia and on the territory of the Canadian tundra. The ice sheet covering the Arctic Ocean is shrinking.
The glaciers of Greenland and Antarctica, the richest natural fresh water resource on the planet, are irrevocably dissolved in ocean salt water. The water level of the world's oceans is rising, but due to rising temperatures sea water and its desalination, the population of commercial fish decreases. Accordingly, fishing is also declining, and as a result of natural evaporation, vast areas of agricultural land are depleted. In place of fields and rice paddies, zones of semi-deserts and deserts are rapidly appearing, completely unsuitable for growing crops.
As a direct consequence of global temperature changes, famine and large-scale flooding of coastal areas are becoming an increasingly likely threat to humanity.
The amount of water received as a result of the rapid melting of the glaciers of Greenland and Antarctica will lead to a rise in the water level of the world's oceans by 11-15 meters. Huge areas will be flooded in the countries of Europe, Asia, Africa and the states located in the Western Hemisphere, where up to 60% of the world's population lives.
According to scientists, the flooding of coastal areas with sea water in the next 20-30 years will cause a natural migration of the population deep into the continents. An increase in temperature in the permafrost zone will lead to swamping of vast areas of Western and Eastern Siberia, which will eventually become unsuitable for development. A change in the intensity of precipitation and a decrease in fresh water will lead to the beginning of a new struggle for the redistribution of resources.
Finding a Solution to Global Warming
Climate change on the planet is not a private issue. This is a slow-moving disaster that will eventually affect everyone and everyone. In this regard, the ways to solve it are the task of the governments of all countries. It is not for nothing that the scale of the problem and its aspects are dominant and are discussed at the highest international level.
The efforts made so far in this direction are encouraging. For the first time at the state level, it was recognized that it is a person, his commercial activities that lead to an increase in the amount of greenhouse gases in the planet's atmosphere. Under pressure from the scientific community and public environmental organizations around the world, politicians from the most developed countries signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. This agreement is intended to regulate the amount of industrial emissions, which contain a high amount of greenhouse gases. The main goal of the Kyoto Protocol was the desire to reduce the amount of harmful emissions by 5.2% and bring the pollution parameters to the 1990 level. The atmosphere, as a result, should be cleared of harmful gaseous compounds, which will lead to a decrease in the greenhouse effect.
Within the framework of the Kyoto Document, quotas for harmful emissions were determined:
- for the EU countries, the amount of greenhouse gas emissions will need to be reduced by 8%;
- for the United States, emissions would have to be reduced by 7%;
- Canada and Japan have pledged to reduce this figure by 6%;
- for the Baltic States and Eastern Europe, the amount of greenhouse gases in emissions will have to decrease by 8%;
- for Russian Federation and Ukraine, a special, favorable regime has been created, as a result of which the economies of both countries must adhere to the parameters of emissions of harmful gases at the level of 1990.
Despite the global scale of the event, not all countries in whose territory there are massive sources of emissions have ratified this agreement at the state level. For example, the United States - the country with the largest economy on the planet - has not yet gone through the ratification process. Canada generally withdrew from the membership of the Kyoto Protocol, while China and India have only recently joined the countries participating in international agreements on climate conservation.
The latest achievement on the global climate front was the Paris International Climate Conference, held in December 2018. Within the framework of the conference, new quotas for greenhouse gas emissions were determined and new requirements were announced for the governments of countries whose economies are dependent on the use of mineral fuels in industrial facilities. The new agreement has determined the path of development alternative sources energy. The emphasis is on the development of hydropower, an increase in heat content in production technologies, and the use of solar panels.
Fighting global warming now
Unfortunately, today the industrial giants scattered around the world have concentrated in their hands more than 40% of the world economy. The noble desire to limit the amount of emissions of harmful components into the atmosphere by introducing restrictions in the field industrial production of a number of countries looks like an attempt to put artificial pressure on the economies of competitors.
Global warming in Russia is assessed as one of the limiting factors in the development of the domestic economy. Despite the country's active position on the world stage in matters of climate protection and conservation, the country's economy is highly dependent on the use of mineral fuels. The weak energy intensity of the domestic industry and the slow transition to modern energy-intensive technologies are becoming a serious obstacle to real achievements in this direction.
How much of this will turn out to be true, our near future will show. Whether global warming is a myth or a cruel reality, other generations of businessmen and politicians will already know.
If you have any questions - leave them in the comments below the article. We or our visitors will be happy to answer them.
Recently, many scientists say that global warming is taking place on Earth. This process is noticed by each of us. Indeed, in recent years, the weather has changed significantly: winters are dragging on, spring comes late, and summers are sometimes very hot.
But still, despite the fact that the effects of global warming have been recorded by many scientific observations, there are still endless discussions around this topic. Some scientists believe that in connection with the onset of an "ice age" is expected on Earth. Others make disappointing predictions, while still others believe that the catastrophic consequences of global warming for our planet are highly controversial. Which of them is right? Let's try to understand this issue.
The concept of global warming
What definition can be given to this term? Global warming on Earth is a process that is a gradual increase in the value of the average annual temperature in surface layer atmosphere. It occurs due to an increase in concentration and also in connection with a change in volcanic or solar activity.
The problem of global warming began to excite the world community especially at the end of the 20th century. Moreover, many scientists attribute the rise in temperature to the development of industry that emits methane, carbon dioxide and many other gases into the atmosphere, causing the greenhouse effect. What is this phenomenon?
The greenhouse effect is an increase in the average annual temperature of air masses due to an increase in the concentration of water vapor, methane, etc. in them. These gases are a kind of film that, like the glass of a greenhouse, easily passes the sun's rays through itself and retains heat. However, there is a lot of scientific evidence that the causes of global warming on Earth lie not only in the presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There are many hypotheses. However, none of them can be accepted with 100% certainty. Consider those statements of scientists that deserve the most attention.
Hypothesis #1
Many scientists believe that the causes of global warming on our planet lie in an increase in the activity of the Sun. On this star, meteorologists sometimes observe the so-called which are nothing more than powerful magnetic fields. This phenomenon causes changes in climatic conditions.
For centuries, meteorologists have been counting sunspots that appear on the Sun. Based on the data obtained, the Englishman E. Mondoro in 1983 made an interesting conclusion that during the 14-19 centuries, which is sometimes called the Little Ice Age, such a phenomenon was not recorded on the Celestial Sun. And in 1991, scientists from the Danish University of Meteorology studied the "sunspots" recorded throughout the 20th century. The conclusion was unambiguous. Scientists have confirmed the fact that there is a direct relationship between temperature changes on our planet and the activity of the Sun.
Hypothesis #2
The Yugoslav astronomer Milankovic suggested that global warming is largely caused by changes in the orbit in which the Earth revolves around the Sun. Affects climate change and the angle of rotation of our planet.
New characteristics in the position and motion of the Earth cause changes in radiation balance our planet, and, consequently, in its climate.
Influence of the World Ocean
There is an opinion that the culprit of global climate change on Earth is the oceans. Its water element is a large-scale inertial accumulator of solar energy. Scientists have established that there is an intense heat exchange between the thickness of the World Ocean and the lower layers of the atmosphere. This leads to significant climate change.
In addition, in ocean waters there are about one hundred and forty trillion tons of dissolved carbon dioxide. Under certain natural conditions, this element enters the layers of the atmosphere, also affecting the climate, creating a greenhouse effect.
Action of volcanoes
According to scientists, one of the causes of global warming is volcanic activity. Eruptions release huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This is what causes the increase in average annual temperatures.
This mysterious solar system
One of the reasons for the global warming of the climate on Earth, according to scientists, is the interactions that are not fully understood between the Sun and the planets that are part of its system. Temperature changes on Earth are caused by various distributions and many types of energy.
Nothing can be changed
Among scientists, there is an opinion that global warming occurs on its own, without human influence and any external influences. Such a hypothesis also has the right to exist, since our planet is large and very a complex system, which has a wide variety of structural elements. Adherents of this opinion even built various mathematical models confirming the fact that natural fluctuations in the surface air layer can range from 0 to 4 degrees.
Are we to blame for everything?
The most popular cause of global warming on our planet is the ever-increasing human activity, which significantly changes the chemical composition of the atmosphere. As a result of work industrial enterprises The air is becoming more and more saturated with greenhouse gases.
Concrete figures speak in favor of this hypothesis. The fact is that over the past 100 years, the average air temperature in the lower layers of the atmosphere has increased by 0.8 degrees. For natural processes, this speed is too high, because earlier such changes took place over more than one millennium. In addition, in recent decades, the rate of increase in air temperature has increased even more.
Manufacturers gimmick or real?
To date, the following question cannot be completely resolved: "Global warming - a myth or a reality?" There is an opinion that climate change is nothing more than a commercial project. The history of the consideration of this topic began in 1990. Before that, humanity was frightened by a horror story about ozone holes, which are formed due to the presence of freon in the atmosphere. The content of this gas in the air was negligible, but, nevertheless, American refrigerator manufacturers took advantage of this idea. They did not use freon in the manufacture of their products and waged a merciless war against competitors. As a result, European companies began to replace cheap freon expensive analogue, increasing the cost of refrigerators.
Today's idea of global warming plays into the hands of many political forces. After all, concern for the environment can bring many supporters into their ranks, which will allow them to gain the coveted power.
Scenarios for the development of events
The predictions of scientists about what consequences climate change will have for our planet are ambiguous. Due to the complexity of the processes taking place on Earth, the situation can develop according to various scenarios.
Thus, there is an opinion that global climate change will occur for centuries and even millennia. This is due to the complexity of the relationship between the oceans and the atmosphere. These most powerful accumulators of energy will not be able to rebuild in the shortest possible time.
But there is another scenario for the development of events, according to which global warming will occur relatively quickly on our planet. By the end of the 21st century, the air temperature will increase compared to 1990 by 1.1 to 6.4 degrees. At the same time, intensive melting of the ice of the Arctic and Antarctica will begin. As a result, the waters of the oceans will increase their level. This process is still observed today. So, from 1995 to 2005. The water column of the World Ocean has already risen by 4 cm. If this process does not slow down, flooding due to global warming will become inevitable for many coastal lands. This will especially affect the populous territories located in Asia.
Climate change processes in the western United States and in Northern Europe will cause an increase in the frequency of storms and the amount of precipitation. Hurricanes will rage on these lands twice as often as in the 20th century. What will be the results of global warming in such a scenario for Europe? In its central territories, the climate will become changeable with warmer winters and rainy summers. Eastern and Southern Europe (including the Mediterranean) will experience heat and drought.
There are also forecasts of scientists, according to which the global change in climatic conditions in some parts of our planet will lead to short-term cooling. This will be facilitated by the slowdown of warm currents caused by the melting of ice caps. Moreover, a complete stop of these huge carriers of solar energy is also possible, which will cause the onset of the next ice age.
The most unpleasant scenario for the development of events could be a greenhouse disaster. It will be caused by the transition into the atmosphere of carbon dioxide contained in the water column of the oceans. In addition, as a result, methane will begin to be released from the permafrost. At the same time, a monstrous film will form in the lower layers of the Earth's atmosphere, and the temperature increase will take on catastrophic proportions.
Consequences of global climate change
Scientists believe that the rejection of drastic measures to reduce greenhouse emissions will lead to an increase in the average annual temperature by 1.4-5.8 degrees by 2100. The effects of global warming will increase the periods of hot weather, which will become more extreme in their temperature regime and longer. Moreover, the development of the situation will be ambiguous in different regions of our planet.
What are the predicted effects of global warming on the animal world? Penguins, seals and polar bears, accustomed to living in polar ice. At the same time, many species of plants and animals will simply disappear if they cannot adapt to new living conditions.
Also, global warming will cause global climate change. According to scientists, this will cause an increase in the number of floods resulting from hurricanes. In addition, summer precipitation will decrease by 15-20%, which will cause desertification of many agricultural areas. And due to rising temperatures and water levels of the oceans, the boundaries natural areas will move north.
What are the consequences of global warming for humans? In the short term, climate change threatens people with problems with drinking water, with the cultivation of agricultural land. They will also lead to an increase in the number of infectious diseases. Moreover, the most serious blow will be dealt to the poorest countries, which, in principle, do not bear any responsibility for the upcoming climate change.
According to scientists, about six hundred million people will be put on the brink of starvation. By 2080, people in China and Asia may experience ecological crisis caused by changes in precipitation patterns and melting glaciers. The same process will lead to the flooding of many small islands and coastal areas. In the area prone to floods, there will be about a hundred million people, many of whom will be forced to migrate. Scientists predict the disappearance of even some states (for example, the Netherlands and Denmark). It is likely that part of Germany will also be under water.
As for the long-term perspective of global warming, it can become the next stage of human evolution. Our distant ancestors faced similar problems during those periods when the air temperature increased by ten degrees after the Ice Age. Such changes in living conditions led to the creation of today's civilization.
Consequences of climate change for Russia
Some of our fellow citizens believe that the problem of global warming will affect only residents of other states. After all, Russia is a country with a cold climate, and an increase in air temperature will only benefit it. The cost of heating housing and industrial facilities will decrease. They expect their benefits and Agriculture.
What, according to scientists' forecasts, is global warming and its consequences for Russia? Due to the length of the territory and the wide variety of natural and climatic zones available on it, the results of changes in weather conditions will manifest themselves in different ways. In some regions they will be positive, while in others they will be negative.
For example, on average, the heating period should be reduced by 3-4 days across the country. And this will provide tangible savings in energy resources. But at the same time, global warming and its consequences will have another effect. For Russia, this threatens to increase the number of days with high and even critical temperatures. In this regard, the cost of air conditioning industrial enterprises and buildings will increase. In addition, the growth of such heat waves will become an unfavorable factor that worsens the health of people, especially those who live in large cities.
Global warming is becoming a threat and is already creating problems with the melting of permafrost. in such areas is dangerous for transport and engineering structures and also for buildings. In addition, with the thawing of permafrost, the landscape will change with the formation of thermokarst lakes on it.
Conclusion
There is still no unequivocal answer to the following question: "What is global warming - a myth or a reality?". However, this problem is quite tangible and deserves close attention. According to scientists, it especially made itself felt in 1996-1997, when many weather surprises were presented to mankind in the form of about 600 different floods and hurricanes, snowfalls and heavy rains, droughts and earthquakes. During these years, the elements caused colossal material damage in the amount of sixty billion dollars and claimed eleven thousand human lives.
The solution to the problem of global warming should be at the international level, with the participation of the world community and with the assistance of the government of each of the states. To preserve the health of the planet, humanity needs to adopt a program of further action, providing for monitoring and accountability at each of its stages of implementation.
This is an increase in the average temperature on Earth due to greenhouse gas emissions: methane, carbon dioxide, water vapor. Some scientists believe that this is the fault of the industry: factories and cars generate emissions. They absorb part of the infrared radiation coming from the Earth. Due to the retained energy, the atmosphere layer and the surface of the planet are heated.
Global warming will lead to the melting of glaciers, and they, in turn, will raise the level of the oceans. Photo: depositphotos
However, there is another theory: global warming is a natural process. After all, nature itself also produces greenhouse gases: during volcanic eruptions, a colossal release of carbon dioxide occurs, permafrost, or rather, the soil in permafrost regions releases methane, and so on.
The issue of global warming has been discussed since the last century. In theory it leads to the flooding of many coastal cities, to severe storms, heavy rainfall and long droughts, which will result in problems with agriculture. Also, mammals will migrate, and some species may become extinct in the process.
Is there a warming in Russia?
Scientists are still arguing whether warming has begun. Meanwhile, Russia is warming up. According to the Roshydrometcenter data from 2014, the average temperature in the European territory is rising faster than others. And this happens in all seasons except winter.
The temperature rises most rapidly (0.052 °C/year) in the northern and European territories of Russia. This is followed by Eastern Siberia (0.050 °C/year), Central Siberia (0.043), Amur and Primorye (0.039), Baikal and Transbaikalia (0.032), Western Siberia (0.029 °C/year). Of the federal districts, the highest rates of temperature increase are in the Central, the lowest - in the Siberian (respectively 0.059 and 0.030 °C / year). Image: WWF
"Russia remains the part of the world where climate warming over the course of the 21st century will substantially exceed global average warming," the ministry's report says.
Many scientists believe that it is more correct to track global warming by the World Ocean. Judging by our seas, it has begun: the average temperature of the Black Sea is growing by 0.08°C per year, the Sea of Azov - by 0.07°C. In the White Sea, the temperature increases by 2.1°C per year.
Despite the fact that the temperature indicators of water and air are growing, experts are in no hurry to call this global warming.
“The fact of global warming has not yet been reliably established,” says Evgeny Zubko, associate professor at the School of Natural Sciences at Far Eastern Federal University. - The change in temperature is the result of the simultaneous action of several processes. Some lead to warming, others to cold.
One of these processes is the decline in solar activity, which leads to a significant cooling. Sunspots will be thousands of times less than usual, this happens once every 300-400 years. This phenomenon is called minimum solar activity. According to scientists from Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov, the decline will continue from 2030 to 2040.
Has the belt started to move?
Climatic zones - areas with stable weather, stretched horizontally. There are seven of them: equatorial, tropical, temperate, polar, subequatorial, subtropical and subpolar. Our country is large, it is surrounded by arctic, subarctic, temperate and subtropical regions.
Climatic zones of the Earth according to B.P. Alisov. Image: Kliimavootmed
“There is a possibility of movement of the belts, and, moreover, the shift is already underway,” says expert Yevgeny Zubko. What does it mean? Due to the offset, warm edges will become colder and vice versa.
Green grass will grow in Vorkuta (Arctic belt), winters will be warmer, summer periods - hotter. At the same time, it will get colder in the region of Sochi and Novorossiysk (subtropics). Winters won't be as mild as they are now, when snow falls and children are allowed to stay out of school. Summer won't be that long.
“The most striking example of a belt shift is the “offensive” of deserts,” says the climatologist. This is an increase in the area of deserts due to human activity - intensive plowing of land. Residents of such places have to move, cities disappear, as does the local fauna.
At the end of the last century, the Aral Sea, located in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, began to dry up. The fast-growing desert Aralkum is approaching it. The fact is that in Soviet times, a lot of water was drained from the two rivers that feed the sea for cotton plantations. This gradually dried up most of the sea, the fishermen lost their jobs - the fish disappeared.
Someone left their homes, some residents remained, and they have a hard time. The wind lifts salt and toxic substances from the bare bottom, which negatively affects people's health. Therefore, the Aral Sea is now trying to restore.
Every year 6 million hectares are subject to desertification. For comparison, this is like all the forests of the Republic of Bashkortostan. According to UN estimates, the damage from the onset of deserts is approximately 65 billion US dollars per year.
Why do the belts move?
“Climatic zones are shifting due to deforestation and changing riverbeds,” says climatologist Yevgeny Zubko.
The Water Code of the Russian Federation prohibits artificially changing the channels without appropriate permits. Sections of the river may become silty, and then it will die. But uncoordinated changes in the channels still occur, sometimes at the initiative of local residents, sometimes - to organize some kind of business near the reservoir.
What can we say about cutting. In Russia, 4.3 million hectares of forest are destroyed annually, the World Resources Institute has calculated. More than the entire land fund of the Kaluga region. Therefore, Russia is among the top 5 world leaders in deforestation.
For nature and man, this is a disaster: when forest cover is destroyed, animals and plants die, and rivers flowing nearby become shallow. Forests absorb harmful greenhouse gases, purifying the air. Without them, nearby cities will suffocate.
For more than a decade, the issue of the possibility of global warming has been at the center of attention of the world community. Judging by the news feeds of Internet sites and newspaper headlines, it may seem that this is the most relevant scientific, social and economic problem facing humanity today. Heavily funded rallies and summits are held regularly in various parts of the globe, bringing together a well-established cohort of fighters against the impending disaster. The ratification of the Kyoto Protocol was presented by the fighters against global warming as the highest goal of the world community, and to the United States and Russia as major countries Those who doubted the expediency of this step were subjected to unprecedented pressure (as a result, we really managed to “put pressure on us”).
Considering the huge price that not only Russia, but also other countries will have to pay in the practical implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, and the far from obvious global consequences, it is worth re-analyzing how big the threat is and how we can, if we can at all, influence the course of events .
The essence of life is forecasting: any living organism tries to guess future changes in the environment in order to adequately respond to them. It is not surprising that attempts to anticipate the future (today we call it futurology) became one of the first manifestations of conscious human activity. But either at all times pessimistic forecasts turned out to be more realistic, or the human psyche is more susceptible to them, one way or another, the topic of the coming global catastrophe has always been one of the most relevant. Legends about the global flood in the past and the imminent Apocalypse in the future can be found in almost all religions and teachings. As civilization developed, only the details and timing changed, but not the essence of the forecast.
The plot was well developed in antiquity, and modernity has not been able to add much: the prophecies of Nostradamus are as popular now as they were during the author's lifetime. And today, like thousands of years ago, the predicted period of the next universal catastrophe does not have time to pass, as a new one is already on the way. The atomic phobia of the 50s and 60s of the last century had hardly subsided, when the world learned about the impending "ozone" catastrophe, under the sword of Damocles almost the entire end of the 20th century passed. But the ink under the Montreal Protocol to ban the production of chlorofluorocarbons had not yet dried (skeptics still doubt the reality of the threat and the true motives of the initiators), as the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 heralded the world about an even more terrible threat of global warming.
Now this symbol of the coming retribution of mankind for the "excesses" and "sins" of industrialization successfully competes in the media with sensations from the life of pop stars and sports news. The apologists of "eco-religion" call on mankind to repent of their deeds and to devote all their strength and resources to atonement for sins, that is, to put a significant share of their current and future well-being on the altar of a new faith. But, as you know, when you are called to donate, you need to carefully monitor your wallet.
Although a political decision on the problem has already been made, it makes sense to discuss some fundamental issues. Still, before the serious economic consequences of warming, even under the most gloomy scenarios, there are still several decades. In addition, the Russian authorities have never been punctual in complying with laws and fulfilling their obligations. And as the wise Lao Tzu taught, it is often in the inaction of the rulers that good is for the subjects. Let's try to answer some of the most important questions:
How big is the actual observed climate change?
It is usually claimed that the temperature has risen by 0.6°C over the past century, although so far, apparently, there is not even a single method for determining this parameter. For example, satellite data give a lower value than ground-based measurements, only 0.2°C. At the same time, doubts remain about the adequacy of climatic observations made a hundred years ago, modern observations and the sufficient breadth of their geographical coverage. In addition, natural fluctuations of climate on a century scale, even with the constancy of all external parameters, are just about 0.4 ° C. So the threat is rather hypothetical.
Could the observed changes be due to natural causes?
This is one of the most painful questions for global warming fighters. There are quite a few natural causes, causing such and even more noticeable climatic fluctuations, and the global climate can experience strong fluctuations without any external influences. Even with a fixed level of solar radiation and a constant concentration of greenhouse gases over a century, the fluctuation in the average surface temperature can reach 0.4 ° C (an article was devoted to this problem in " Nature”, 1990, v. 346, p. 713). In particular, due to the enormous thermal inertia of the ocean, chaotic changes in the atmosphere can cause an aftereffect that affects decades later. And in order for our attempts to influence the atmosphere to give the desired effect, they must significantly exceed the natural fluctuation "noise" of the system.
What is the contribution of the anthropogenic factor to atmospheric processes?
Modern anthropogenic fluxes of the main greenhouse gases are almost two orders of magnitude lower than their natural fluxes and many times lower than the uncertainty in their assessment. In the IPCC draft report ( Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) of 1995 reported that "any claim of significant climate change is debatable until the number of uncertain variables responsible for the natural variability of the climate system is reduced." And in the same place: “There are no studies that state with certainty that all or part of the recorded climate changes are caused by anthropogenic causes.” These words were later replaced by others: "The balance of evidence suggests a clear human impact on climate", although no additional data was presented to substantiate this conclusion.
Moreover, the rate at which the climate impact of greenhouse gases is changing is by no means correlated with the consumption of hydrocarbon fuels, the main source of their anthropogenic emissions. For example, in the early 1940s, when the growth rate of fuel consumption fell, the global temperature rose especially rapidly, and in the 1960s and 1970s, when the consumption of hydrocarbons grew rapidly, the global temperature, on the contrary, decreased. Despite a 30% increase in carbon fuel production from the 1970s to the end of the 1990s, the rate of increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide over this period slowed down sharply, and methane even began to decline.
The entire depth of our misunderstanding of global natural processes is especially clearly demonstrated by the course of changes in the concentration of methane in the atmosphere. Having begun 700 years before the Industrial Revolution, back in the time of the Vikings, this process has now just as suddenly stopped with the continued growth in production and, accordingly, anthropogenic emissions of hydrocarbons. Atmospheric methane levels have remained constant over the past four years, according to two independent research teams from Australia, as well as from the US and the Netherlands.
And what are the natural climatic and atmospheric trends?
Supporters of emergency measures, for obvious reasons, do not like to discuss this issue either. Here we refer to the opinion of well-known domestic experts in this field (A.L. Yanshin, M.I. Budyko, Yu.A. Izrael. Global warming and its consequences: A strategy for measures taken. In: Global problems of the biosphere. - M .: Nauka, 2003).
“The study of changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere in the geological past has shown that over millions of years the trend towards a decrease in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has prevailed.<...>This process led to a decrease in the average temperature of the lower air layer due to the weakening of the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere, which, in turn, was accompanied by the development of glaciations, first at high and then at middle latitudes, as well as aridization (desertification. — Note. ed.) vast territories in lower latitudes.
Along with this, with a reduced amount of carbon dioxide, the intensity of photosynthesis decreased, which, apparently, reduced the total biomass on our planet. These processes manifested themselves especially sharply during the glacial epochs of the Pleistocene, when the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere repeatedly approached 200 ppm. This concentration slightly exceeds the critical concentration values, one of which corresponds to the glaciation of the entire planet, and the other to a decrease in photosynthesis to the limits that make the existence of autotrophic plants impossible.<...>Without touching on the details of the distant possibility of the death of the biosphere as a result of its natural development, we note that the probability of such death seems significant.
Thus, if a climate catastrophe threatens humanity in the future, it will not be due to an excessive increase, but, on the contrary, due to a decrease in temperature! Recall that, according to modern geological concepts, we live just at the peak of the interglacial era, and the beginning of the next ice age is expected in the near future. And here is the conclusion of the authors: “By burning an ever-increasing amount of coal, oil and other types of carbon fuel, man has embarked on the path of restoring the chemical composition of the atmosphere of the warm epochs of the geological past.<...>Man unintentionally stopped the process of carbon dioxide depletion, which is dangerous for wildlife, the main resource in the creation of organic matter by autotrophic plants, and made it possible to increase primary productivity, which is the basis for the existence of all heterotrophic organisms, including humans.
What is the scale of expected climate change?
Under various scenarios, the expected change in mean temperature by the end of the century ranges from a 10°C increase to a decrease relative to present-day levels. Usually operate as the "most likely" average value of 2-3 ° C, although this value does not become more reasonable from averaging. In fact, such a forecast should take into account not only the main processes in the most complex natural machine that determines the climate of our planet, but also the scientific, technological and sociological achievements of mankind for a century ahead.
Do we understand today how the Earth's climate is formed, and if not, will we understand in the near future? All experts in this field confidently give a negative answer to both questions. Can we predict the technogenic and social development of civilization for the next hundred years? And in general, what is the time horizon of a more or less realistic forecast? The answer is also quite obvious. The most conservative and at the same time determining branches of the modern economy are energy, raw materials, heavy and chemical industries. The capital costs in these industries are so high that the equipment is almost always used until the resource is fully depleted - about 30 years. Consequently, the industrial and energy plants that are now being put into operation will determine the technological potential of the world during the first third of the century. Considering that all other industries (for example, electronics and communications) are evolving much faster, it is better not to guess more than 30 years ahead. As a curious example showing the price of bolder forecasts, the fears of futurologists are often recalled. late XIX century, predicting that the streets of London would be littered with horse manure, although the first cars had already appeared on the roads of England.
In addition, according to alarmist scenarios, the main source of danger is hydrocarbon energy resources: oil, coal and gas. However, according to the forecasts of the same futurologists, even with the most economical spending, humanity will have enough of these resources for about a century, and a decrease in oil production is expected in the next ten years. Given the proximity of a new ice age, apparently, one can only regret the short duration of the "hydrocarbon era" in the history of world energy.
Has mankind faced such large-scale climate change before?
Oh yeah! And with what! After all, an increase in global temperature by 10 ° C after the end of the ice age caused not only an ecological, but also a real economic catastrophe, undermining the foundations of economic activity primitive man - a hunter of mammoths and large ungulates of the tundra fauna. However, humanity not only survived, but it was thanks to this event, having found a worthy response to the challenge of nature, that it rose to a new level, creating a civilization.
As the example of our ancestors shows, real threat The existence of mankind (and even more so life on Earth, as it is sometimes claimed) does not bear an increase in global temperature. The consequences of the large-scale restructuring of the climate expected today can be quite well imagined by considering the Pliocene epoch relatively close to us (the period from 5 to 1.8 million years ago), when the first direct human ancestors appeared. The average surface temperature then exceeded the modern one by more than 1°C. And if our primitive ancestors managed to survive both the ice age and the warming that followed it, then it is even inconvenient to estimate our own potential so low.
Significant climate changes also occurred during the historical period of the existence of civilization: this was shown by the data of paleoclimatic studies and historical chronicles. Climate change caused the rise and fall of many great civilizations, but did not pose a threat to humanity as a whole. (Suffice it to recall the decline of pastoralism in the Sahara, the civilization of Mesopotamia, the Tangut kingdom in northern China; more details on the role of climate change in the history of culture can be found in L.N. Gumilyov's book "Ethnogenesis and the Biosphere of the Earth".)
What are the potential consequences of climate change, on the one hand, and the economic cost of our efforts to slow it down, on the other?
One of the most threatening consequences of global warming is considered to be a rise in the level of the World Ocean by tens of meters, which will occur with the complete melting of the glaciers of Greenland and Antarctica. Alarmists usually forget to clarify that under the most unfavorable circumstances, this will take more than 1000 years! The real rise in the ocean level over the past century was 10-20 cm with a much greater amplitude of transgression and regression of the coastline as a result of tectonic processes. In the next hundred years, the ocean level is expected to rise by no more than 88 cm, which is unlikely to disrupt the world economy. Such a rise in sea levels can only cause the gradual migration of a small part of the world's population - a phenomenon much less tragic than the annual death from starvation of tens of millions of people. And we hardly need to worry about how our distant descendants will cope with the flood in a thousand years (remember the “horse manure problem”!). Who will undertake to predict how our civilization will change by that time, and whether this problem will be among the urgent ones?
So far, the expected annual damage to the global economy due to the projected increase in temperature by 2050 is estimated at only $300 billion. This is less than 1% of the current global GDP. And what will the fight against warming cost?
Institute "World Watch" ( World Watch Institute) in Washington believes that it is necessary to introduce a "carbon tax" in the amount of 50 dollars. per 1 ton of carbon in order to stimulate the reduction of fossil fuel consumption, improve technologies for its combustion and resource conservation. But according to the same institute, such a tax would increase the cost of 1 liter of gasoline by 4.5 cents, and the cost of 1 kWh of electricity by 2 cents (that is, almost twice!). And for the widespread introduction of solar and hydrogen energy sources, this tax should already be from 70 to 660 dollars. for 1 t.
The costs of fulfilling the conditions of the Kyoto Protocol are estimated at 1-2% of world GDP, while the assessment of the positive effect does not exceed 1.3%. In addition, climate models predict that a much larger reduction in emissions will be required to stabilize the climate than the return to 1990 levels envisaged by the protocol.
Here we come to another fundamental issue. Activists of the "green" movements often do not realize that absolutely all environmental protection measures require the consumption of resources and energy and, like any type of production activity, cause undesirable environmental consequences. From the point of view of global ecology, there is no harmless industrial activity. The same “alternative” energy, with full consideration of all emissions into the environment during the production, operation and disposal of the necessary raw materials and equipment, such as solar panels, agricultural machines, hydrocarbon fuels, hydrogen, etc., in most cases turns out to be more dangerous, than coal power.
“Until now, in the view of most people, the negative environmental consequences of economic activity are associated with smoking factory chimneys or the dead surface of abandoned quarries and industrial dumps. Indeed, the contribution to environmental poisoning of such industries as metallurgy, the chemical industry, and energy is great. But no less dangerous for the biosphere are idyllic agricultural lands, well-groomed forest parks and city lawns. The openness of the local circulation as a result of human economic activity means that the existence of a site artificially maintained in a stationary state is accompanied by a deterioration in the state of the environment in the rest of the biosphere. A blooming garden, a lake or a river, maintained in a stationary state on the basis of an open circulation of substances with productivity brought to a maximum, is much more dangerous for the biosphere as a whole than an abandoned land turned into a desert ”(from the book by V.G. Gorshkov“ Physical and biological basis sustainability of life." M.: VINITI, 1995).
Therefore, in the global ecology, the strategy of preventive measures is not applicable. It is necessary to quantify the optimal balance between the desired result and the cost of reducing environmental damage. The cost of preventing the emission of a ton of carbon dioxide reaches $300, while the cost of hydrocarbon raw materials that produce this ton when burned is less than $100 (recall that 1 ton of hydrocarbon produces 3 tons of CO 2), and this means that we increase our total energy costs by several times , the cost of energy received and the rate of depletion of scarce hydrocarbon resources. In addition, even in the US for 1 million dollars. of produced GDP, 240 tons of CO 2 are emitted (in other countries it is much more, for example, in Russia - five times!), and most of the GDP falls on non-productive, that is, non-emitting CO 2 industries. It turns out that the cost of 300 dollars. for the utilization of 1 ton of carbon dioxide will lead to an additional emission of at least several hundred kilograms of the same CO 2 . Thus, we run the risk of launching a giant machine, idly burning our already scarce energy resources. Apparently, such calculations prompted the United States to refuse to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.
But there is also a fundamentally different approach. Instead of wasting energy and resources on fighting the inevitable, we need to evaluate whether it would be cheaper to adapt to change, to try to benefit from it. And then it will turn out that the reduction of the land surface due to its partial flooding will more than pay off with an increase in the used territory in the same Siberia, and eventually in Greenland and Antarctica, as well as by increasing the overall productivity of the biosphere. Increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the air will be beneficial for most crops. This becomes clear if we remember that the genera, which include modern cultivated plants, appeared in the early Pliocene and late Miocene, when the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere reached 0.4%, that is, it was an order of magnitude higher than the modern one. It has been experimentally shown that doubling the concentration of CO 2 in the atmospheric air can lead to a 30% increase in the yield of some agricultural crops, and this is extremely important for the rapidly growing population of the planet.
Who and why is in favor of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol?
The most active position in the fight against global warming is occupied by Western European politicians and the public. To understand the reasons for such an emotional attitude of Europeans to this problem, it is enough to look at geographical map. Western Europe located in the same latitude as Siberia. But what a climate contrast! In Stockholm, on the same latitude as Magadan, grapes ripen steadily. A gift of fate in the form of a warm Gulf Stream became the economic basis of European civilization and culture.
Therefore, Europeans are not worried about global warming and the fate of the population of Bangladesh, which is at risk of being left without a territory, but a local cooling in Western Europe, which may be the result of a restructuring of oceanic and atmospheric flows with a significant increase in global temperature. Although now no one is able to even approximately determine the threshold temperature for the beginning of such a restructuring, its consequences for the historical centers of Western European civilization can be very serious.
European politicians take, as a rule, the toughest and most uncompromising position in the negotiations on these issues. But we also need to understand what their motives are. Do we really take the fate of Western Europeans so close to our hearts that we are ready to sacrifice our future for the sake of preserving their well-being? By the way, in warmer Siberia there will be enough room for all Europeans, and maybe the new settlers will finally equip it.
There is also a more prosaic reason forcing the Europeans to fight for the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol. It's no secret that Western Europe consumes about 16% of the world's energy resources. An acute shortage of energy is forcing Europeans to actively introduce expensive energy-saving technologies, and this undermines their competitiveness in the world market. From this point of view, the Kyoto Protocol is a brilliant move: to impose the same strict energy consumption standards on potential competitors, and at the same time create a market for the sale of their energy-saving technologies. The Americans refused to voluntarily impose restrictions on themselves that would undermine their economy and benefit Western European competitors. China, India and other developing countries, the main competitors of the industrial powers of the Old World, including Russia, are also. It seems that only we are not afraid that as a result of the signing of the protocol, our competitiveness will fall below the current, approximately 55th place in the world ranking...
What will Russia gain and what will it lose from participation or non-participation in the Kyoto Protocol?
The climate of Russia is the most severe in the globe. The weather in the northern countries of Europe is made by the warm Gulf Stream, and in Canada, almost the entire population lives along the border with the United States, that is, much south of Moscow. This is one of the main reasons why, per unit of GDP produced, Russia spends five times more energy (and produces more CO2!) than the US and European countries. For a country, more than 60% of whose territory is located in the permafrost zone, which reaches almost to our southern border in Transbaikalia, it is somehow ridiculous to fight the warming. According to economists, a one degree increase in the average annual temperature reduces the cost of maintaining each workplace by half. It turns out that we voluntarily agree to participate in the fight against the natural possibility of doubling our economic potential, although such a doubling has been officially proclaimed by the president as the goal of state policy!
We do not undertake to discuss the political benefits of demonstrating unity with Europe on the issue of the Kyoto Protocol. There is also no point in seriously considering the possibility of making money on the "air trade" (that is, CO 2 emission quotas). First, we are already placed at the very end of a long line of potential sellers, after all the new members of the EU, the countries of North Africa and the Middle East. Secondly, at the appointed price of 5 euros for a quota of 1 ton of CO 2 (at a real price of 300 dollars!) the proceeds will not be comparable with our current oil and gas exports. And thirdly, with the predicted pace of development Russian economy Even before 2012, we will have to think not about selling, but about buying quotas. Unless, for the sake of demonstrating European unity, we do not voluntarily limit our economic development.
Such a possibility seems incredible, but let us recall that since 2000, in accordance with the Montreal Protocol, the production of substances that lead to the destruction of the ozone layer has been stopped in Russia. Since by this time Russia did not have time to develop and implement its own alternative technologies, this led to the almost complete elimination Russian production aerosols and refrigeration equipment. And the domestic market was captured by foreign, mainly Western European manufacturers. Unfortunately, now history is repeating itself: energy conservation is by no means the strongest side of the Russian energy sector, and we do not have our own energy-saving technologies...
The flagrant injustice of the Kyoto Protocol in relation to Russia also lies in the fact that the boreal forests of Russia with an area of 8.5 million km 2 (or 22% of the area of all the Earth's forests) accumulate 323 Gt of carbon per year. No other ecosystem on Earth can compare with them in this. According to modern ideas, moist forests The tropics, which are sometimes called the "lungs of the planet", absorb about the same amount of CO 2 as is released during the destruction of the organic matter they produce. But the forests of the temperate zone north of 30 ° N. sh. store 26% of the Earth's carbon (http://epa.gov/climatechange/). This alone allows Russia to demand a special approach - for example, the allocation of funds by the world community to compensate for the damage from the restriction of economic activity and the protection of nature in these regions.
Will warming be prevented by the measures envisaged by the Kyoto Protocol?
Alas, even supporters of the protocol are forced to give a negative answer to this most important question. According to climate models, if greenhouse gas emissions are not controlled, then by 2100 the concentration of carbon dioxide could increase by 30-150% compared to state of the art. This may lead to an increase in the average global temperature of the earth's surface by 1-3.5°C by 2100 (with significant regional variations in this value), which will certainly cause serious consequences for the ecosphere and economic activity. However, assuming that the conditions of the protocol are met by reducing CO 2 emissions, the reduction in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration compared to the scenario in which emissions are not regulated at all will be from 20 to 80 ppm by 2100. At the same time, to stabilize its concentration at a level of at least 550 ppm, a reduction of at least 170 ppm is necessary. In all scenarios considered, the resulting effect of this on temperature change is insignificant: only 0.08–0.28°C. Thus, the real expected effect of the Kyoto Protocol comes down to demonstrating fidelity to "environmental ideals". But isn't the price of a demonstration too high?
Is the problem of global warming the most important of those that humanity is currently facing?
Another unpleasant question for the advocates of "environmental ideals". The fact that the third world has long lost interest in this problem was clearly shown by the 2002 summit in Johannesburg, whose participants stated that the fight against poverty and hunger is more important for humanity than climate change, which is possible in the distant future. For their part, the Americans, who perfectly understand the whole background of what is happening, were rightly outraged by the attempt to solve European problems at their expense, especially since in the coming decades the main increase in anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases will come from the technologically backward energy sector of developing countries, which is not regulated by the Kyoto Protocol.
What does this problem look like in the context of the further development of civilization?
Man's conflict with Nature is by no means a consequence of our "environmental uncleanliness". Its essence lies in the violation of the biospheric balance by civilization, and from this point of view, both pastoral-patriarchal agriculture and the dream of the "greens" - "renewable" energy are no less a threat than the loudly cursed industrialization. According to the estimates given in the already mentioned book by V.G. Gorshkov, in order to maintain the stability of the biosphere, civilization should not consume more than 1% of the net primary production of the global biota. The current direct consumption of land biosphere products is already almost an order of magnitude greater, and the share of the developed and transformed part of the land has exceeded 60%.
Nature and Civilization are essentially antagonists. Civilization seeks to use the potential accumulated by Nature as a resource for its development. And for the system natural regulators, debugged over billions of years of existence of the biosphere, the activity of Civilization is a perturbing influence, which must be suppressed in order to return the system to equilibrium.
From the very birth of our planet, the essence of the evolution of matter taking place on it is in accelerating the processes of transformation of matter and energy. Only it is capable of supporting the stable development of such complex non-equilibrium systems as the Biosphere or Civilization. Throughout the existence of our planet and throughout human history, the processes of emergence of new, more and more complex biological, and then historical and technological forms of organization of matter have been continuously accelerated. This is the basic principle of evolution, which cannot be canceled or circumvented. Accordingly, our civilization will either stop in its development and die (and then something else will inevitably arise in its place, but similar in essence), or it will evolve, processing more and more volumes of matter and dissipating more and more energy into the surrounding space. Therefore, an attempt to fit into Nature is a strategically dead-end path, which sooner or later will still lead to the cessation of development, and then to degradation and death. The Eskimos of the North and the Papuans of New Guinea have traveled a long and difficult path, as a result of which they fit perfectly into the surrounding nature - but paid for this by stopping their development. Such a path can be regarded only as a time-out on the eve of a qualitative change in the nature of civilization.
Another way is to take over all management functions natural processes, replacing the biospheric mechanism of homeostasis with an artificial one, that is, creating a technosphere. It is on this path, perhaps not fully realizing it, that the supporters of climate regulation are pushing us. But the amount of information circulating in the technosphere is many orders of magnitude inferior to that circulating in the biosphere, so the reliability of such technosphere regulation is still too low to guarantee salvation from death for humanity. Having started with the artificial regulation of the “dying” ozone layer, we are already forced to think about negative consequences excess atmospheric ozone. And the attempt to regulate the concentration of greenhouse gases is only the beginning of an endless and hopeless search to replace natural biospheric regulators with artificial ones.
The third and most realistic way is the co-evolution (according to N.N. Moiseev) of Nature and Civilization, a mutual adaptive transformation. What the outcome will be, we do not know. But it can be assumed that the inevitable climate change and other natural conditions on the surface of the Earth will be the beginning of movement towards a new global balance, a new global unity of Nature and Civilization.
Against the backdrop of the turbulent social and economic processes taking place in modern world, and the real problems facing the multi-billion population of the planet, on the verge of a fundamental change in the nature of Civilization and its relationship with Nature, an attempt to regulate the climate is likely to come to naught in a natural way, as soon as it comes to real costs. On the example of the ozone history, Russia already has a sad experience of participating in solving global problems. And it would be good for us not to repeat the mistakes once made, because if the domestic energy sector suffers the fate of the domestic refrigeration industry, even the worst global warming will not save us.
