1Exercise 7: Synthesis Essay• Read instructions, ask TA’s, use this week recitations to verbalize ideas.• list of acceptable topics:– Environmental Attitudes and Behavior: If our attitudes are shifting toward an ecological paradigm, why are we still losing species and habitat and facing degradation of entire global systems like the oceans and climate?– Transformation, Natural Resources, and Sustainability: How might we measure human transformation of earth in comparison to some baselines and thresholds that reflect sustainability? Are we nearing some limits to the sustainability of human development? Can we tell the difference between sustainable and unsustainable development?– The Environment as Natural Resource: How do we judge the availability of stock and flow resources, and what problems make those assessments less accurate? How can a renewable (flow) resource be depleted, and what social mechanisms can be used to achieve efficient depletion of stock resources and sustainable use of flow resources? – Natural Hazards: Why are natural hazard losses increasing even as we work to make development more safe? How might our attitudes towards nature affect adjustment choices and policies in response to natural hazards? What public policies might reduce exposure and/or vulnerability to natural hazards?– Global Warming Sticking Points: How can we set targets for greenhouse gas and climate change reductions, and what treaty mechanisms would help us meet those targets? Should developing countries accept firm GHG emissions targets in a successor to the Kyoto Protocol? Why or Why not?Look ahead: Exercise 7: Synthesis Essay: starts next week• Answer question, provide diagnosis, problem assessment, prognosis.• Pay attention to your Writing!Substance, Clarity, Grammar, Citations (at least two cited works).• Avoid plagiarism, use at least 2 citations!• Cite class material? Yes for readings, no for lectures.As of last week the betting is that the UNFCCC’sConference of the parties (COP) 15th meeting in Copenhagen starting dec. 7 will not achieve a new treaty to pick up where the Kyoto treaty leaves off. Commentators like Will (left) throw all kinds of criticisms at UNFCCC, even arguing that the science is bad and there’s no problem with global warming. But their better argument is that the race to reduce GHG emissions is fraught with problems, and maybe unnecessary impacts. We’ll see how the discussion goes in Copenhagen.See: GEOG 2412 Further Reading/links pageTo set the target level, we need a process for Copenhagen decision-making.• Assess the science (again!)• More sophisticated approach to emission/ concentration targets• Choose instruments for getting there• Address inevitable impacts and cost of adaptation• Address equity issues in mitigation and impacts.To set the target level, we need a process for Copenhagen decision-making.• Assess the science (again!)• More sophisticated approach to emission/ concentration targets• Choose instruments for getting there• Address inevitable impacts and cost of adaptation• Address equity issues in mitigation and impacts.Let’s run through a rough approach to setting targets, like you did in Exercise 6, and maybe one way they’ll be discussing provisions in a Post-Kyoto treaty at Copenhagen next month. The next 7 slides are repeat from last week’s lecture:Let’s try this ourselves. For policy argument, let’s go back to Smith et al’s summary diagram, and choose 2.5 degrees as the threshold which we define as “dangerous” or tolerable ala Yamin et al.’s article.2So, if we choose 2.5 degrees as a target warming above which we define “dangerous” warming to be avoided, we can get a sense of how fast we’ll approach it, and what we need to do about greenhouse gases.65432102000 2020 2040ScenariosA1BA1TA1FIA2B1B2IS92a (TAR method)Temperature change (OC)Years2060 2080 2100AIIIS92Bars show the range in 2100produced byseveral modelsWe then plot 2.5 degrees on the greenhouse gas emission scenarios to see which scenario (path of human development and associated future GHG emissions) would keep us under the threshold—the best fit to my mind if the A1T scenario.Here’s that scenario in terms of annual carbon dioxide emissions---we’ll need to keep them below a maximum of about 12.6 giga tons, which allows us to increase them slightly over the next 10 years or so, but then really start to reduce them.Then we can think about targets in Copenhagen: maybe we want to keep eventual peak warming below certain amount (here as 50% percentile peak warming), or maybe we have to face reality of what we can do to change energy resource systems—when can we start reducing emissions, not just growth of emissions-right away (23015), later? 2025 or even 2035?Peak emissions = 2015 2025 2035Then we go to some look-up table of impacts (which right now are very fuzzy sets) and see what higher peaks mean for resources, impacts, etc. So, the whole process is starting to look like other environmental management and regulatory approaches, like for air pollution which used a human health impacts threshold, and then set concentration limits (starting with 1972 clean air act, the ozone provisions of which places like Denver still violate today!!!!)Eventually, of course, the nations gathered in Copenhagen have to set and allocated emission reductions. We’ll watch for this during the meeting, week of Dec. 8 and 10 classes.They’ll need to sort out reductions needed by different countries, perhaps dealing with issues such as per capita emissions today and reductions already made since the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) came into effect. Two ideas: countries with low per capita emissions might be allocated most of the allowable increase in the future to allow their development, and countries already having reduced GHG emissions should be given some credit in terms of future obligatory reductions.3But, policy actions on GHG/Global warming will be complicated!Accept that there is a range of dangerous climate change and allow stakeholders to work out a consensus level of GHG emissions/concentration: – Zero Tolerance(allow no further warming—sorry, too late!)– Most vulnerable should be protected – e.g., “island nations” that could be obliterated by even modest sea level rise (maybe 1.5 degrees?)– Set some ‘efficient” level of acceptable change e.g., some magic balance of: cost of