Climate Change

http://shipbright.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/climate-change-burning-globe1.jpg

Aniqa Moinuddin

Crystal Rain

Melissa Rice

Silviya Vlahova

Outline Part I: Introduction Part II

Sources of greenhouse gases and the economy International action timeline Controversy: Is climate change natural? Controversy: Economic analysis of climate change

Part III The Economic Problem The Political Problem Growth and Carbon Emissions

Part IV What is cap and trade? How does it work? What about a carbon tax? Which system works better? Political feasibility

Conclusion

What is global climate change? What is global warming? How are these terms connected?

Climate Change VS Global Warming

Climate change means….

“[M]ajor changes in temperature, rainfall, snow, wind patterns, or any other distinct climate phenomenon lasting for decades or longer,”

(Environmental Protection Agency).

Global warming is…

An average increase in temperatures near the Earth’s surface and in the lowest layer of the

atmosphere.

www.co.umatilla.or.us/planning/img/flood.jpg

http://vancityguy.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/0206-snowstorm_cars1.jpg

“Global warming” and “climate change”

are often used interchangeably. In

reality, global warming as a temperature

change is a mechanism that drives the

larger phenomenon of climate change.

Sources of Climate Change

Natural factors such as changes

in the Sun’s energy or slow

changes in the Earth’s orbit

around the sun

Natural processes such as

changes in ocean circulation

Human activities that change the

atmosphere’s makeup

(anthropogenic changes):

Include burning fossil fuels or

changing the land surface (such

as cutting down forests or

building developments in cities

and suburbs) http://geology.com/nasa/human-caused-climate-change/human-caused-climate-change-599.jpg

How do we know we are responsible?

The scientists for the Intergovernmental Panel

on Climate Change, IPCC, say that it is very

likely, (greater than 90 percent chance) that

most of the warming we have experienced

since the 1950s is due to the increase in

greenhouse gas emissions from human

activities.

For over the past 200 years, the burning of

fossil fuels and deforestation have caused the

concentrations of heat-trapping "greenhouse

gases" to increase significantly in our

atmosphere. These gases prevent heat from

escaping to space, somewhat like the glass

panels of a greenhouse.

http://www.purbeck-dc.gov.uk/environment/climate_change/what_causes_climate_change.aspx

What’s the big deal? It’s just a few degrees…

If humans continue to emit greenhouse gases at or above

the current pace, we will probably see an average global

temperature increase of 3 to 7°F by 2100, and greater

warming after that. Those few degrees are likely to have huge

consequences for the earth, and life, as we know it.

The impacts of global climate change are expected to be

vast and far-reaching. They will affect the environment, the economy and the equality of opportunity of people all over the world. Both the direct and

indirect consequences of climate change will effect

every sphere of sustainability.http://www.euromoodle.org/ash/file.php/131/The_three_spheres_of_sustainability.png

Usually we only hear about the environmental impacts that are expected to, and in some cases, already happening with

climate change around the world.

Decreasing global ice packs, is accelerating warming, and initiating the onset of other climate changes.

Top: http://s.ngeo.com/wpf/media-live/photologue/photos/2009/09/02/cache /1355_600x450.jpg

Climate Change Indicators

Additionally, this melting is slowly raising sea levels, changing coastlines across the globe, threatening existing marine and coastal ecosystems and economies, and even threatening entire nations…

Center: http://www.treehugger.com/year-in-climate.jpg

According to the IPCC, all regions of the world show an overall net negative impact of climate change on water resources and freshwater ecosystems.

Changes in yearly climate will impact agricultural productivity and food distribution in a number of ways. Warmer temperatures would increase growing seasons further north and possibly prevent certain crops from growing in the increasingly hot south.

Bottom: http://www.greenprophet.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/water-scarcity-middle-east.jpg

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2007/09/15/GR2007091500124.gif

Based on the rapid rate of projected climate change,

strained ecosystems’

adaptive capacity is likely to be

exceeded, greatly threatening

species diversity. Furthermore, the

ability of ecosystems to

adapt to climate change is further

severely limited by the effects of urbanization,

barriers to migration paths,

and fragmentation of ecosystems.

Ecosystem Strain as Indicator

Adaptation

Changes in these resources are just the tip of the melting

ice burg when it comes to climate change impacts that we will

have to deal with. The question is whether we can adjust to these

changes by creating extensive adaptation plans. According to a

report cited by the EPA, “the literature indicates that U.S. society

can on the whole adapt with either net gains or some costs if

warming occurs at the lower end of the projected range of

magnitude, assuming no change in climate variability and

generally making optimistic assumptions about adaptation.

However, with a much larger magnitude of warming, even making

relatively optimistic assumptions about adaptation, many sectors

would experience net losses and higher costs.”

http://connect.bioneers.org/groups

Climate Induced Migration

If that were the case, many believe that climate change will cause a mass migration of people to escape effects. The most commonly cited prediction is that 200 million people will be forced to move as a result of climate change by 2050, although other projections range from 50 million to 1 billion people moving during this century.

How will climate migrants be viewed? As climate refugees or climate migrants? The term ‘climate refugee’ implies that some will literally need to seek refuge from the impacts of climate change, will find themselves in as desperate a situation as those of other refugees, and will deserve international assistance and protection. However, the current definition of a refugee in international law does not extend to people fleeing environmental pressures, and few states are willing to amend the law. Equally, the description ‘climate migrant’ underestimates the involuntariness of the movement, and opens up the possibility for such people to be labeled and dealt with as irregular migrants (Koser 2009).

Part II: Outline

Sources of greenhouse gases and the economy

Timeline of international action on climate change

Controversy: Is climate change natural?

Controversy: Economic Analysis of Climate Change

Outline

Sources of Greenhouse Gases and the Economy

As the pie chart shows, the majority of emissions

worldwide come from the combustion of fossil fuels, including

natural gas, petroleum, methane, and coal. Many people

who argue against aggressive action on claim that this level

of fossil fuel consumption is necessary for global economic

health and, according to neoclassical economics, therefore

necessary for human well-being. This politically-convenient

argument promotes the status quo of energy use and ignores

several facts.

First, not all emissions are economically productive. Fugitive

emissions (from leaks and faulty equipment) accounted for 9%

of global emissions in 2000. That is almost as much greenhouse gas

as were produced in all manufacturing and construction.

Furthermore, improvements in efficiency would allow companies to

generate more kilowatt hours of electricity from less fossil fuel. In addition, clean renewable energy

could, in many nations, replace much of the carbon-based economy.

Sources of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide (2000)

Graph source: Dow, Kristen and Thomas Downing. The Atlas of Climate Change. p 41

Sources of Greenhouse Gases: Survival versus Luxury

The intertwining of fossil fuel combustion and emissions raises an important issue: should we

distinguish between survival and luxury emissions of greenhouse gases? Indian economists Anil Agarwal

and Sunita Narain pioneered this idea in in their 1992 pamphlet, “Global Warming in an Unequal World.”

A family might be happier driving two cars, but these carbon emissions are not as essential for their

welfare as the carbon they burn heating their home in the winter. Adopting emissions standards that

distinguish between survival and luxury could make international climate treaties acceptable to

developing nations like India. However, it will be difficult to establish a universal method for

distinguishing between types of emissions. We will discuss issues of equity and responsibility for climate

change in future sections .

Heating oil delivered to house in MassachusettsA two-car garage in the US

vs

Left: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Two-Car_Garage.jpg Right: http://www.heatingoil.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/ma-heating-oil-truck.jpg

International Climate Action Timeline

1988: Creation of Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change (IPCC)

1994: Creation of UN Framework Convention

on Climate Change

1997: Kyoto Protocol: each

country to reduce greenhouse gas emissions ~5%

below 1990 levels

2001: US rejects Kyoto

Protocol

2009: UN summit in Copenhagen

negotiation ends in disarray. No treaty

2005: Kyoto Protocol goes

into effect

International Climate Action Timeline

1988: Marked the explosion of climate change onto the political scene. In 1988, the 1st international

meeting on climate change and the IPCC was created.

1994: The founding of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which established a

process for international emissions cuts.

1997: The Kyoto Protocol: Each country supposed to gets its emissions 5% below 1990 levels. Not

legally binding.

2001: The Protocol was dealt a serious blow in 2001 when US rejected it. Too few countries had ratified

it; it didn’t go into effect.

2004-5: The Protocol finally entered into effect when Russia ratified it, meeting the required number of

signatories. Signing the Protocol did not mean much to those who did ratify. Canada, one of the first

signatories, continues to be one of the worst emitters.

2009:Last December, the most recent negotiations at Copenhagen ended in disarray, dashing hopes of

the Maldives and millions of people around the world for an aggressive treaty The week of

negotiation ended in a close-door session between the US, China, and India. The other participating

nations refused to “note” (recognize) the resulting agreement.

Controversy: Is Climate Change a Natural Cycle?One reason that nothing has been done on climate change is

the lingering confusion over the science. Some people dismiss

anthropogenic climate change as part of a natural cycle. The

recent changes in temperature cannot be accounted for by

natural causes.

The blue shading in the lower graph represents the change in

atmospheric temperature (radiative forcing) produced by natural

causes. If natural radiative forcing was only the driver of global

warming, the global temperature change line (heavy black line)

would fall mostly in the blue shaded area. It does not.

The yellow shading in the upper graph represents natural and

anthropogenic forcing. The global temperature line fits entirely in

this region.

Much of the recent controversy about climate science is

manufactured. Research by James Hoggan and Greenpeace has

revealed a network of scientists and think tanks dedicated

to discrediting climate science, largely funded and staffed

by oil and gas companies.For updates on the latest publications in climate science, visit the blogs Real Climate (www.realclimate.org) or Climate Progress (www.climateprogress.org)

For a map of the exchange of staff and resources between ExxonMobil, denier think-tanks, and denier politicians, visit www.exxonsecrets.org.

For a book about the denial machine, see Richard Littlemore’s The Climate Cover-Up (2007).

Figure source: Pratt, Marney. "Climate Change." Physiological Ecology. Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, MA. Lecture.

Natural & anthropogenic forcing

Natural forcing only

Controversy: Economic Analysis of Climate Change

The 2007 Stern Review is one of the most influential cost-benefit analyses of climate change. It

concluded that costs of inaction on climate change (5-20% of global GDP) far outweighed the

costs of acting to limit greenhouse gas emissions (under 1% of global GDP). Although widely-

cited and based on conventional neoclassical economic modeling, the Stern Review faced intense

criticism from many economics.

The economic study of climate change is controversial in and of itself. It is far from “objective.”

Economic analyses of climate change require an economist to make ethically-loaded decisions about

what she values. In calculating the damage of unabated climate change, economists must decide value

of future generations (discount rate), lives lost, and cultural practices disrupted. Economists

contested the Stern Review specifically because of the values its authors assigned to these

intangibles. In order to demonstrate a high valuation of future generations, the Stern Review applied a

discount rate of almost 0%. Other economists argued that this discount rate was far too low because

those economists operate on the assumption that future generations will be wealthier (and therefore

more able to deal with climate change) than our generation.

In our next sections, we will explore the role of the market system in driving climate change and,

potentially, mitigating it.

The Economic Problem

-External Costs

-External Costs of Carbon

-Market for Oil

-External Costs & Oil Market Failure

-Market Failure & Government

Intervention

The Political Problem

-USA-China

-Capability and Responsibility

Growth and Carbon Emissions

Part III: Outline

Outline

The Economic Problem-External Costs

Carbon dioxide is the greenhouse gas with the highest concentration (391 parts per million) and

hence has the greatest global warming potential. In dealing with the economic and political issues, we will

focus on specifically CO2. Since the industrial revolution there has been a 50% increase in the amount of

atmospheric carbon dioxide. We have already seen that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that these

emissions have an incredible impact on global temperature.

External costs are costs that are borne by third parties who are not directly involved in the production or consumption of goods or services that generate CO2.

The free market is a self-regulating mechanism which, in

theory, seeks to maximize the welfare of the society. Thus

in this capitalist free market system, why does the market

for carbon-producing activities continue to give positive

market signals for their continuation or even expansion,

while the damaging effects of those activities are well-

known?

Let’s just say that there are some costs that

Adam Smith’s invisible hand cannot get a hold, given its

narrow scope which extends only to the participants of the

market.

The Economic Problem-External Costs of Carbon

The third parties or the involuntary victims of impacts of carbon emissions can be grouped as follows:

Plant and animal life forms: The polar ice caps are becoming smaller than ever before in human history, at a rate faster than ever. The overall increase in average temperatures is causing thermal stress for various plant and animal life forms and rapidly changing their habitats and evening threatening their existence.

Low-lying and island states: Sea levels have risen by 2 inches over the past century as a result of anthropogenic climate change. Small island states face the risk of being submerged within a few decades and are bearing significant adaption costs.

Future generations: Much of the costs of global warming are yet to come: extreme climate patterns, reduced supply of fresh water, increased desertification and lost biodiversity.

The poor and vulnerable: The poor rely more heavily directly on nature for their subsistence through farming, fishing, forestry etc. and so, are disproportionately affected by climate change. They have relatively very little demand for manufactured goods or large quantities of fossil fuels.

The market system that is actually

responsible for generating the CO2 only takes into

consideration private costs: borne by producers

(wages of labors, rent or cost of land, cost of raw

materials etc) and weighs this against private

benefits to consumers from consuming the

commodity. The welfare of parties involved are

maximized where marginal private cost (MPC;

cost from additional unit of production) is equal to

marginal private benefit (MPB; benefit from the

additional unit consumed) and accordingly the

price and quantities are set.

If the market for oil is considered then

the graph demonstrates a price of $77.62 that

would be set for y number of barrels bought and

sold in the market.

Price/barrel of Oil

Barrels Bought and Sold

$77.62

y

MPC

MPB

The Economic Problem-Market for Oil

In this market the external costs have not been accounted for; the true cost of

using oil is not reflected in the price. Social cost is the cost to producers plus the external

cost to the rest of the society due to oil consumption/production. By reconstructing the

market system with the representation of the marginal social cost (MSC) we arrive at a

very different picture. (For this example, we can safely assume that the benefits of

consuming oil are borne only by the consumers; there are no external benefits)

Barrel of oil = $77.62

Carbon emitted per barrel (on average)= 317 kg

Social cost = $87.22 (estimate)

Price/barrel of Oil

Barrels Bought and Sold

MPB=MSB

MPC

$77.62

y

Marginal Social Cost = MPC + External Cost

$85.22

x

Socially optimum level

occurs at quantity x

barrels.

At this lower level the

social cost of burning oil

$85.22

The price reflects the full

cost to society and thus

reduces oil production

from y to x

The Economic Problem-External Costs & Oil Market Failure

Market failure occurs in case of various goods that have large external costs or benefits,

such as alcohol, cigarettes, and public goods. In all these instances, the market either engages in

overproduction (in cases of external costs) or underproduction (in cases of external benefits).

In these situations, governments employ various solutions that may be market based

(carbon tax), non-market based (carbon quotas) or combinations of both (cap and trade). All these

methods are aimed at bringing carbon emissions to a level that is sustainable and socially efficient. 

However, the following are usually the difficulties in faced by

all intervention plans:

 

Overall lack of political will due to the perceived

implications of carbon reductions on the economy

Identifying and quantifying external costs are

complicated

The market failure in carbon is a global issue and

consensus at the international political level

becomes very difficult

The Economic Problem-Market Failure & Government Intervention

The Kyoto Protocol bring together

countries who commit to participating in the

methods proposed like carbon trading, clean

development mechanism and joint

implementation to reduce their emissions about

5% below the 1990 levels.

In 2001, the US refused to ratify the

Kyoto Protocol. This is because China, despite

being one of the biggest polluters in the world

(Fig 1) was classified by the conditions of the

Protocol as a ‘developing nation’ which would

not have to reduce their emissions at that time.

This view fails to take into account

China’s population. When we consider per capita

emissions of carbon dioxide the picture changes

we see that China not really one of heaviest

polluters on the planet (Fig 2).

http://colli239.fts.educ.msu.edu/2000/12/31/co2-emissions-2000/

Figure 1: Total CO2 emissions 2000 (thousand tons)

Figure 2: Per capita CO2 emissions 2000 (tons)

The Political Problem-Capability and Responsibility

How are we to define to what extent

individual countries should take up the burden of the fight

against climate change? The UNFCCC states that all

countries should take up the fight in climate change…

“….on the basis of equality and in accordance with

their common but differentiated responsibilities

and respective capabilities.”

The Kyoto Protocol classifications of which

countries are required to cut emissions are quite arbitrary

and invite dispute. However, a fairly recent document,

The Right to Development in a Climate Constrained World

, attempts to actually identify and quantify the factors

that determine the ‘responsibility and capability’ of

individual nations to fight climate change. These factors

are used to calculate each nation’s equitable share of

emissions reductions.

The Political Problem-Capability and Responsibility

The Development Threshold is the minimum per capita income needed to have sustained access to food, water, shelter, health and education. Capability Index is calculated on the basis of income in excess of the Development Threshold. Responsibility Index is based on a country’s historical emissions level which has contributed to the existing amount of carbon in the atmosphere. The combined capability-responsibility index (CRI) demonstrates the equitable proportion of the cost of any climate change prevention plan that should be borne by each countries. The concept of CRI on the UNFCCC principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities”

How to read the table: If global carbon emissions are to be reduced by any amount, 33.1% of that reduction should come from the US while China is liable for only 5.5%.  

The Political Problem- ….Capability and Responsibility

Much of opposition to and debate about abating climate change arise from the notion that

protecting the environment means limiting economic growth and jobs and hence, hurting people’s

livelihoods. This notion is deeply flawed. First, while a structural change in the economies of nations will

be costly in the short term, the long term benefits will eventually pay off. More importantly, such a

change is likely to create employment in new sectors.

Empirically it can be

shown from the map that

economic growth and carbon

emissions are not necessarily

correlated. The map shows the

carbon intensity for nations for

every $1000 of GDP. The yellow,

orange and red areas mark

countries that have increased

carbon intensity while the greens

mark those that have decreased

carbon intensity, meaning they

decreased emissions while

achieving the same level of

economic growth.

Economic Growth and Carbon Emissions

CAP AND TRADE

What is it?

How does it work?

What about a carbon tax?

Which system works better?

Political feasibility

http://www.popartuk.com/g/l/lg01466+save-our-world-carbon-footprint-reduction-poster.jpgOutlin

e

What is cap and trade?

Government caps the total allowable amount of carbon dioxide emissions over a

period of time

It divides the total allowable emissions into separate allowances (carbon credits)

It gives away or auctions these carbon credits to companies

If a company emits less carbon than it has credits for, it can sell the remaining credits

Companies can thus buy and sell credits among themselves; the market

determines price per credit

Cap and trade system thus allows market forces to fix an externality

The system-wide cap eventually goes down over time in order to reach socially

optimal level of carbon dioxide

Basic notion: Market Incentives

In a cap and trade system, the

limited number of licenses to emit a

specified quantity of pollutant gives

everyone an incentive to reduce pollution.

Buyers would not have to acquire as many

licenses if they can cut back on their

emissions, and sellers can unload more

licenses and sell them if they cut back on

their emissions.

Carbon tax Carbon tax is a per-unit tax on carbon emissions. The tax is applied where carbon enters the environment. The rate of taxation is based on the marginal external cost of carbon and this aims to

ensure that production occurs at the socially optimal level. As a result, the higher prices reflect the true social costs of carbon.

Pros

• it would be simpler because

the institutions already exist

• countries have an incentive to

enforce taxes

• it requires less than perfect

harmonization on an

international level in

comparison to cap and trade

• it puts an explicit cost on

carbon

Cons• harmonized tax structure

across countries may be

hard (if not impossible to)

achieve- this reverses the

simplicity argument

• carbon taxes do not offer

an incentive for others to

join

• a carbon tax ignores the

macroeconomic reality of a

possible

recession/stagflation

Uncertainty…Cap and trade

price per unit carbon is

determined by the market

amount of pollution is known in

advance

The two systems therefore produce different types of uncertainty.

Carbon tax

price per unit carbon is set and

known

the amount of pollution does not

have an upper limit

Another important difference has to do with government

revenue. A pollution tax imposes costs on the private

sector while generating revenue for the government. Cap

and trade is a bit more complicated in the sense that if

the government simply auctions off licenses and collects

the revenue, then it is just like a tax. Cap and trade,

however, often involves handing out licenses to existing

players, so the potential revenue goes to industry instead

of the government.

Possible assessment criteria for pros and cons

environmental effectiveness

the relative risks of bad design

costs

simplicity

political feasibility

implications for an international regime

In terms of political feasibility, the assessment may depend

on how far one looks beneath the surface. Tax is a politically toxic word,

but with a more prolonged debate, do cap and trade programs look

much more feasible?

It's all about design.

If we are to have a carbon pricing system, the critical issues are about

designing it to work well: broad coverage, flexibility, broad international

participation should be the central goals.

Theoretically, if designed well, both systems will have very similar

environmental benefits.

Taxes would be able to provide the same emission reductions and the same

carbon concentrations as permits. Just as the number of permits would

decline over time to reflect a particular target, tax rates would go up over

time to achieve it.

While changes on the macroeconomic level are up to a limited number of people, there are other opportunities for everyone to be the change s/he wants to see in the world. For example, becoming more energy efficient or recycling your waste.

Individuals can and should make a difference.

It is worth keeping in mind that the costs of inaction will be much higher than the costs of action. Don’t be taken in by the notion that this is all about people and jobs versus the environment. Focusing on sustainability rather than purely on economic growth in terms of GDP brings us one step closer to changing the system for the better.

Conclusion

References for Introduction

"About Phenology | USA National Phenology Network." USA National Phenology Network | USA National Phenology Network. Web. <http://www.usanpn.org/about/phenology>.

Easterling, William, Brian Hurd, and Joel Smith. Coping with Global Climate Change: The Role of Adaptation in the United States. Rep. Prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, June 2004. Web.

"Health | Climate Change - Health and Environmental Effects | U.S. EPA." US Environmental Protection Agency. Apr. 2010. Web. <http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/health.html>.

IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning (eds.)]

Koser, Khalid. "Why Migration Matters." Current History (2009): 152-53. Web.

"Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA." US Environmental Protection Agency. Apr. 2010. Web. <http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/index.html>.

“20% Wind Energy by 2030.” National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/1_overview-demeo.pdf Agarwal, Anil and Sunita Narain. “Global Warming in an Unequal World: A Case of Environmental Colonialism.” New Delhi: Centre for Science and the Environment, 1992. http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/GlobalWarming%20Book.pdf“Climate Change 101: International Action.” Pew Center on Global Climate Change and Pew Center on the States. 2007. http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/Climate%20Change%20101,%20International%20Action.pdfDow, Kristen and Thomas Downing. The Atlas of Climate Change. Berkley: University of California, 2007."Exxon Secrets." Exxon Secrets. Greenpeace USA. Accessed 5 May 2010. www.exxonsecrets.orgHoggan, James with Richard Littlemore. The Climate Cover-Up. Berkley: Graystone Books, 2009.Hulme, Mike. Why We Disagree about Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2009.Pratt, Marney. "Climate Change." Physiological Ecology. Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, MA. Lecture. “Summary of Conclusions.” Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change. HM Treasury of the United Kingdom. 2007. http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Summary_of_Conclusions.pdf“Summary for Policymakers: A Report of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007.  http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf.

References for Part II

References for Part III Linden, P. V, Verbruggen, A. IPCC AR4 SYR Appendix. IPCC.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_appendix.pdf. n.d. Web. April 20th 2010

Painter , J. Americas on alert for sea level rise. BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7977263.stm. 8 April 2009. Web. April 20th 2010

Bliss, J. Carbon dioxide emissions per barrel of crude oil. http://numero57.net/2008/03/20/carbon-dioxide-emissions-per-barrel-of-crude/. March 20th, 2008. Web. April 20th 2010

Kyoto Protocol. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol. 2 May 2010 (last modified).Web. 3 May 3, 2010.

Baer, P., Athanasiou, T., Kartha, S. and Kemp-Benedict, E. The Right to Development in a Climate Constrained World. http://gdrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/gdrs_execsummary.pdf. September 2008. Web. April 20th 2010

References for Part IV Keohane, Nathaniel; Milne, Janet; Richards, Kenneth; Wagner, Gernot;

Weisbach, David. ”Carbon tax vs. cap-and-trade”. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/roundtables/carbon-tax-vs-cap-and-trade (November 24th 2008).

Krugman, Paul. ”Building a Green Economy”. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/magazine/11Economy-t.html?emc=eta1 (April 5th 2010).

Pascua, Juan Carlo. ”What is Carbon Cap and Trade? In Europe? In the US? Part 1”. Climate change. http://www.justmeans.com/What-is-Carbon-Cap-Trade-In-Europe-In-US-Part-1/9738.html (February 27th 2010).