 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Election overshadows climate concerns
© St. Petersburg Times, published November 12, 2000 Given all the hubbub over the U.S. presidential election, it's understandable why most Americans have missed a big story in Britain: the truly awful weather. So much rain has fallen on England in the past few weeks that some areas have recorded their worst flooding in 400 years. Dried-up springs that had been forgotten for centuries have suddenly roared back to life. Getting around by road and rail has proved so hard that a pub in Norfolk is using a boat to ferry in customers. Prince Charles was quick to place the blame: humanity's "arrogant disregard" for the fragile balance of nature. "We have to find a way of ensuring that our remarkable and seemingly beneficial advances in technology do not become the agents of our own destruction," he warned. The prince has a point, many scientists think. As negotiators from 160 nations meet in The Hague this week to work out details of limiting greenhouse gases, there's sure to be some lively debate about the cause of all those severe storms that have recently socked Britain and other parts of Europe. "These events are ones which we would expect to occur more frequently as a result of increased carbon dioxide or greenhouse gases in the atmosphere," professor Martin Parry told me by phone, after he finished clearing out a clogged culvert on his own sodden property near Norwich, England. "Two swallows don't make a summer, as we say over here, and it's too early to say if these (storms) are in fact greenhouse-gas related or might be extreme events due to the variability of weather. But they fit with what we would expect to occur." Parry, an environmental expert at the University of East Anglia, is editor of a new report examining the effects of global warming on Europe. Part of a bigger United Nations study on global climate changes, the report predicts that a 1 to 10 degree increase in temperatures over the next 100 years will affect everything from agriculture to animal migration. Among the findings: Britain, France and other northern European countries will have milder winters, nicer summers and longer growing seasons. Ski resorts might suffer because of less snow in the Alps but tourism could increase elsewhere as summers become more pleasant. Spain, Greece and other parts of southern Europe will become hotter and drier, resulting in more desert conditions, water shortages and forest fires. Tourists are likely to shun the Mediterranean region in summer as heat and air pollution reach uncomfortable levels. As glaciers melt, a rise in sea level of 8 to 12 inches will destroy the inter-tidal habitat for wading birds in the Mediterranean, although they might simply move farther up the shore. Several species of fish, birds and plants could become locally extinct in certain parts of Europe. While the entire continent will be affected by global warming, Britain and other parts of northern Europe are apt to fare better than southern Europe, Parry says. "Milder winters will mean lower energy costs and fewer lost days for the construction industry. Warmer summers will mean greater productivity for agriculture and forestry and recreational potential as well. However, there are important downsides such as heavier rainfall and more flooding." Last June, U.S. scientists published a draft of their own part of the U.N. climate study, noting that this country too has experienced temperature changes that could have far-reaching effects. Over the past 100 years, the average temperature in the United States has risen about 1 degree. Some regions have warmed as much as 4 degrees. Total annual precipitation has also increased, with much of the change occuring in more extreme events like blizzards and tropical storms. "There is a very, very broad scientific consensus that average annual surface temperatures of earth have warmed up over the last century, and there is growing consensus that this is very likely due to human activities," says Dr. Anthony Janetos, a co-chairman of the U.S. climate study. "It's now prudent to think about two things: What kind of preparation do we need, and secondly, what actions are countries willing to take to reduce greenhouse gases?" In 1997, the United States joined more than 150 other countries in signing the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty that commits developed nations to reducing emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Negotiators meeting in The Hague this week will continue working out details of the treaty although it has yet to be ratified by a single industrialized nation. Many scientists say it is still too early to tell whether global warming is caused by greenhouse gases, produced mainly by the burning of coal and oil. But the 1990s were by far the hottest decade on record, and the U.N. climate report, to be published next year, says the gases have contributed substantially to global warming. Temperatures could go even higher than previously predicted if emissions are not reduced, the report warns. Like millions of others, Parry, the British professor, is eagerly awaiting the outcome of the U.S. presidential election. Whether the United States ever ratifies the Kyoto Protocol may depend on whether the winner is Vice President Al Gore, who supports the treaty, or Texas Gov. George W. Bush, who finds it seriously flawed. "The U.S. is responsible for 25 percent of greenhouse gas emissions," Parry says, "so obviously it has an immense leadership role to play." - Information from the Daily Telegraph was used in this report. Susan Martin can be contacted at susan@sptimes.com.
 © 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111 
|
From the Times wire desk
From the AP |
