Question:
How to get my parents to recycle?
anonymous
2007-07-06 11:51:23 UTC
My parents do not care about global warming but i do and iam trying my best to get them to recycle a lot of things but they seem to not care at all. What should i do?
Nineteen answers:
Naomi A
2007-07-07 07:04:40 UTC
Here's what works for us:



1) Have a second trash can right next to the trash can for trash in your KITCHEN (where most things are probably thrown away). As they're moving to the trash can, it will be easy to just throw it in the recycling, because it's right there. (We actually have a third for compost--but go figure.)



2) Scold them when you're throwing something in the trash and find a recyclable in the trash can. But don't be too severe, just mention it.



3) Deal with the recycling yourself. They have less trash to take out, so it's a good deal for them.



4) If you're too young to drive, and recycling is not picked up in your neighborhood, you might want to consider keeping a big trash can or tub outside to accumulate recycling in, that way you only have to convince someone to take you to the recycling center once every couple of weeks and not every other day. A can crusher is also nice if you drink coke so that the cans take up much less space. Boxes should have the other end opened so that they can easily be flattened and take up less space. YOU can do that when moving from the small to big recycling cans. Also, other than newspaper, I'd say sort it at the center. (If you get the newspaper, I would say have a separate place to recycle it in the home. (Or maybe you could start with just newspaper, and once they have that down, add the other stuff.)



Also, it wouldn't hurt to bribe them when asking them to take you to a center. If it takes them 30 minutes, then that's 30 minutes of their time. You owe them a dish-washing session or a couple of loads of laundry or something to make up for their (perceived) wasted time.



Personally, I would say your goal is for them to have a change in habit, because that's really all it is. If you develop a system that makes their lives easier, they'll do it. But if your system makes their lives harder, they probably won't. Also, if it becomes enough of a habit, they'll keep it up after you're grown and gone. (Wouldn't that be nice!)
?
2016-04-01 04:42:48 UTC
People who don't care are rarely persuaded by facts. I personally believe we should recycle everything we can, but if you focus more on reduce then there is a lot less to recycle. The majority of our waste is food packaging. If you eat a diet that has more real foods like meats, vegetables and whole grains you can dramatically reduce the amount of packaging you bring home. About the only argument that may be effective is land use. Find out from you local landfill how many more years they are projected to accept trash and if they have located the next location for expansion or new landfill. Chances are very good if the landfill has been in use for a while you have less than 10 years and the chance of an ugly unusable piece of land being anywhere near is slim. So, the new landfill will either destroy something beautiful or your parents will be paying huge fees to have the waste taken a great distance. My favorite quote if from Helen Keller “I am only one, but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but still I can do something; and because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do something that I can do.”
3DM
2007-07-06 12:48:41 UTC
Maybe you should consider that citing Global Warming WEAKENS your case. Your parents have had environmentalists urging them to recycle for DECADES before GW became the new fad. If they weren't convinced before, then they are likely going to think that folks are just inventing a new excuse for getting them to do the same thing.



How about this:

Tell them that it means SO much to you that they make this small effort to help the environment, and that you PROMISE that if they give you the benefit of doubt and try this, that YOU will give them the benefit of doubt and comply with whatever they ask of you (schoolwork, chores, cellphone/internet/tv/car use, curfew, etc) no questions asked...even if they can't give you a reason or you don't agree with their reasons.



Follow through on that promise...



In the big picture, your parents must KNOW that recycling, energy conservation, etc is the RIGHT THING to do for the planet you all share. And you should know that trusting your parents to make the right decisions in your upbringing is also the right thing. They might grant you the benefit of doubt based on your mature understanding of this.



If you are already an independent adult, this advice won't help you as much. But you can still use it to illustrate all the times you trusted their advice even when you doubted them and things turned out well, OR the times that you went against their advice and things didn't turn out well. Being able to admit your own mistakes will make it easier for your parents to accept the possibility that they might be making one.



Overall, just remember that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar...
eileen/green
2007-07-06 23:31:15 UTC
Hi, How great it is you are trying to get your parents to recycle, i dont know how old you are but if you get the recycled things collected try to get some strong boxes and keep them tidy and ask your parents to just collect the tins and newspaper es daily and soon i think they will start to use the boxes. You have to make shure they get sorted every day as your parents wont have the excuse to bin them if you keep everything tidy. When you have trained them on these first 2 boxes add another for plastic and continue to add more boxes. Regards Eileen.
kmkey7
2007-07-06 12:03:02 UTC
you do the best you can to recycle...and hopefully they will see how easy it is and notice the benefits. buy another trashcan for the kitchen and label one "trash" and label the other "recycleable". that makes it very convenient for them so they can't give you any excuses! =) then maybe you can recycle some cans and plastic bottles and show them the profit you made. even though that's not your motive for recycling, the extra cash may appeal to them and get them in the spirit. and last, maybe you can try to find some articles on global warming that they could read to bring them awareness! i hope you find something that works, and i thank you for your concern and efforts! good luck!!!
anonymous
2007-07-06 16:03:56 UTC
I personally think I would give them a guilt trip by suggesting to them that you will be here long after them, and you and possible your children will have to suffer the affects of global warming later on in life.



Why people refuse to recycle is madness to me and just darn right lazyness.
anonymous
2007-07-07 09:41:49 UTC
Yes, you can start with it yourself!



I just read about this website on the Wall Street Journal: Carbon Diet Plan. It is an application that can put us on a 'carbon diet'. As an individual and friends, we can make an impact on global warming 1 lb at a time.



http://www.CarbonDietPlan.com
?
2007-07-06 12:28:52 UTC
Ask them to explain their ignorance and why they don't care. You take the initiative and recycle the things that can be recycled and maybe if they see how important it is to you then they will smarten up.
anonymous
2007-07-06 13:05:07 UTC
Trick them into reading a article about how dangerous Global warming can be
anonymous
2007-07-06 12:01:28 UTC
show them the money that can be saved by recycling plastic and aluminum(induce them by greed). have them spend a day in vegas this week(temperatures soaring to 117) or strike fear in them by showing them dried up lake beds. tell them gasoline will jump to $6 a gallon soon and make them buy a prius(toyota is trying to make the 2008 version do 100 miles to the gallon!) and let them know to write their local congress about alternative bio-fuels unless of course they want to continue supporting terrorism by consuming petroleum?
Nicole L
2007-07-06 12:01:01 UTC
try and come up with a system for them that makes it easy. Like line up 3 different colored bags and say one is for paper one for plastics and one for cans. Put it in a place where they will trip over it so that it reminds them to do it.
becca9892003
2007-07-06 11:59:32 UTC
take the task on yourself..the first step to making a change is to make it yourself....so ask them to just leave anything they think can be reclcled by the sink..that you will rinse it and seperate it and ask them to get a container and you will make sure it gets in there and out to the curb....you first and they may follow
RomeoMike
2007-07-06 13:27:18 UTC
Threaten to leave home if they don't go green. If they still don't green up then leave home. If you are too young or can't afford to live on your own, shut up and leave them alone.
Beatle fanatic
2007-07-06 11:55:29 UTC
If they won't recycle do it for them!
RichSTCharles
2007-07-06 12:48:13 UTC
Maybe purchase bins and explain that it is free and that they may get into trouble if they don't
chris f
2007-07-06 11:58:56 UTC
get a container and mark it "recycle" and maybe they will start!!!!
C-Angel
2007-07-06 18:56:58 UTC
talk to them and say this: This is important to me and it would really make me happy if you'd support me! That's wat parents do! Support their kids, isnt it? Please! I'd really appreciate it!(let me know if this works, if it doesn't, i have other ideas too)
booge
2007-07-06 13:16:34 UTC
try to explain to them ,how important it is
GameFreak
2007-07-06 12:47:59 UTC
tell them thiTerminology

The term "global warming" is a specific example of the broader term climate change, which can also refer to global cooling. In common usage the term refers to recent warming and implies a human influence.[8] The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) uses the term "climate change" for human-caused change, and "climate variability" for other changes.[9] The term "anthropogenic climate change" is sometimes used when focusing on human-induced changes.





Causes



Carbon dioxide during the last 400,000 years and (inset above) the rapid rise since the Industrial Revolution; changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun, known as Milankovitch cycles, are believed to be the pacemaker of the 100,000 year ice age cycle.Main articles: Attribution of recent climate change and scientific opinion on climate change

The climate system varies through natural, internal processes and in response to variations in external forcing factors including solar activity, volcanic emissions, variations in the earth's orbit (orbital forcing) and greenhouse gases. The detailed causes of the recent warming remain an active field of research, but the scientific consensus [10] identifies increased levels of greenhouse gases due to human activity as the main influence. This attribution is clearest for the most recent 50 years, for which the most detailed data are available. Contrasting with the scientific consensus, other hypotheses have been proposed to explain most of the observed increase in global temperatures. One such hypothesis is that the warming is caused by natural fluctuations in the climate or that warming is mainly a result of variations in solar radiation. [11]



None of the effects of forcing are instantaneous. Due to the thermal inertia of the Earth's oceans and slow responses of other indirect effects, the Earth's current climate is not in equilibrium with the forcing imposed. Climate commitment studies indicate that even if greenhouse gases were stabilized at present day levels, a further warming of about 0.5 °C (0.9 °F) would still occur. [12]





Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere

Main article: Greenhouse effect



Recent increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). The monthly CO2 measurements display small seasonal oscillations in an overall yearly uptrend; each year's maximum is reached during the northern hemisphere's late spring, and declines during the northern hemisphere growing season as plants remove some CO2 from the atmosphere.The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 and was first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. It is the process by which absorption and emission of infrared radiation by atmospheric gases warms a planet's atmosphere and surface.



Greenhouse gases create a natural greenhouse effect, without which mean temperatures on Earth would be an estimated 30 °C (54 °F) lower so that Earth would be uninhabitable.[13] Thus scientists do not "believe in" or "oppose" the greenhouse effect as such; rather, the debate concerns the net effect of the addition of greenhouse gases, while allowing for associated positive and negative feedback mechanisms.



On Earth, the major natural greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70% of the greenhouse effect (not including clouds); carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26%; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9%; and ozone, which causes 3–7%. [14][15] Some other naturally occurring gases contribute very small fractions of the greenhouse effect; one of these, nitrous oxide (N2O), is increasing in concentration owing to human activity such as agriculture. The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4 have increased by 31% and 149% respectively above pre-industrial levels since 1750. These levels are considerably higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores. From less direct geological evidence it is believed that CO2 values this high were last attained 20 million years ago.[16] "About three-quarters of the anthropogenic [man-made] emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere during the past 20 years are due to fossil fuel burning. The rest of the anthropogenic emissions are predominantly due to land-use change, especially deforestation."[17]



The present atmospheric concentration of CO2 is about 383 parts per million (ppm) by volume.[18] Future CO2 levels are expected to rise due to ongoing burning of fossil fuels and land-use change. The rate of rise will depend on uncertain economic, sociological, technological, natural developments, but may be ultimately limited by the availability of fossil fuels. The IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios gives a wide range of future CO2 scenarios, ranging from 541 to 970 ppm by the year 2100.[19] Fossil fuel reserves are sufficient to reach this level and continue emissions past 2100, if coal, tar sands or methane clathrates are extensively used.[20]



Positive feedback effects such as the expected release of CH4 from the melting of permafrost peat bogs in Siberia (possibly up to 70,000 million tonnes) may lead to significant additional sources of greenhouse gas emissions[21] not included in climate models cited by the IPCC.[1]





Feedbacks

Main article: Effects of global warming#Further global warming (positive feedback)

The effects of forcing agents on the climate are complicated by various feedback processes.



One of the most pronounced feedback effects relates to the evaporation of water. In the case of warming by the addition of long-lived greenhouse gases such as CO2, the initial warming by these gases will cause more water to be evaporated into the atmosphere. Since water vapor itself acts as a greenhouse gas, this causes still more warming; the warming causes more water vapor to be evaporated, and so forth until a new dynamic equilibrium concentration of water vapor is reached with a much larger greenhouse effect than that due to CO2 alone. (Although this feedback process involves an increase in the absolute moisture content of the air, the relative humidity stays nearly constant or even decreases slightly because the air is warmer.)[22] This feedback effect can only be reversed slowly as CO2 has a long average atmospheric lifetime.



Feedback effects due to clouds are an area of ongoing research and debate. Seen from below, clouds emit infrared radiation back to the surface, and so exert a warming effect. Seen from above, the same clouds reflect sunlight and emit infrared radiation to space, and so exert a cooling effect. Increased global water vapor concentration may or may not cause an increase in global average cloud cover. The net effect of clouds thus has not been well modeled, however, cloud feedback is second only to water vapor feedback and is positive in all the models that contributed to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.[22]



Another important feedback process is ice-albedo feedback.[23] When global temperatures increase, ice near the poles melt at an increasing rate. As the ice melts, land or open water takes its place. Both land and open water are on average less reflective than ice, and thus absorb more solar radiation. This causes more warming, which in turn causes more melting, and this cycle continues.



Positive feedback due to release of CO2 and CH4 from thawing permafrost is an additional mechanism contributing to warming. Possible positive feedback due to CH4 release from melting seabed ices is a further mechanism to be considered.



The ocean's ability to sequester carbon is expected to decline as it warms, because the resulting low nutrient levels of the mesopelagic zone limits the growth of diatoms in favour of smaller phytoplankton that are poorer biological pumps of carbon.[24]





Solar variation



Solar variation over the last 30 years.Main article: Solar variation

Variations in solar output, possibly amplified by cloud feedbacks, may have contributed to recent warming.[25] A difference between this mechanism and greenhouse warming is that an increase in solar activity should produce a warming of the stratosphere while greenhouse warming should produce a cooling of the stratosphere. Reduction of stratospheric ozone also has a cooling influence but substantial ozone depletion did not occur until the late 1970s. Cooling in the lower stratosphere has been observed since at least 1960.[26] Thus, solar activity alone is not the main contributor to recent warming.



Phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes have probably had a warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950, but a cooling effect since 1950.[1] However, some research has suggested that the Sun's contribution may have been underestimated. Two researchers at Duke University have estimated that the Sun may have contributed about 40–50% of the global surface temperature warming over the period 1900–2000, and about 25–35% between 1980 and 2000.[27] Stott and coauthors suggest that climate models overestimate the relative effect of greenhouse gases compared to solar forcing; they also suggest that the cooling effects of volcanic dust and sulfate aerosols have been underestimated.[28] Nevertheless, they conclude that even with an enhanced climate sensitivity to solar forcing, most of the warming during the latest decades is attributable to the increases in greenhouse gases.





History



Curves of reconstructed temperature at two locations in Antarctica and a global record of variations in glacial ice volume. Today's date is on the left side of the graph.Main article: Temperature record



From the present to the dawn of human settlement

Global temperatures on both land and sea have increased by 0.75 °C (1.4 °F) relative to the period 1860–1900, according to the instrumental temperature record. This measured temperature increase is not significantly affected by the urban heat island. Since 1979, land temperatures have increased about twice as fast as ocean temperatures (0.25 °C per decade against 0.13 °C per decade).[29] Temperatures in the lower troposphere have increased between 0.12 and 0.22 °C (0.22 and 0.4 °F) per decade since 1979, according to satellite temperature measurements. Temperature is believed to have been relatively stable over the one or two thousand years before 1850, with possibly regional fluctuations such as the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age.



Based on estimates by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2005 was the warmest year since reliable, widespread instrumental measurements became available in the late 1800s, exceeding the previous record set in 1998 by a few hundredths of a degree.[30] Estimates prepared by the World Meteorological Organization and the Climatic Research Unit concluded that 2005 was the second warmest year, behind 1998.[31][32]



Anthropogenic emissions of other pollutants—notably sulfate aerosols—can exert a cooling effect by increasing the reflection of incoming sunlight. This partially accounts for the cooling seen in the temperature record in the middle of the twentieth century,[33] though the cooling may also be due in part to natural variability.



Paleoclimatologist William Ruddiman has argued that human influence on the global climate began around 8,000 years ago with the start of forest clearing to provide land for agriculture and 5,000 years ago with the start of Asian rice irrigation.[34] Ruddiman's interpretation of the historical record, with respect to the methane data, has been disputed.[35]





Pre-human climate variations



Two millennia of mean surface temperatures according to different reconstructions, each smoothed on a decadal scale. The unsmoothed, annual value for 2004 is also plotted for reference.Further information: Paleoclimatology

See also: Snowball Earth

Earth has experienced warming and cooling many times in the past. The recent Antarctic EPICA ice core spans 800,000 years, including eight glacial cycles timed by orbital variations with interglacial warm periods comparable to present temperatures.[36]



A rapid buildup of greenhouse gases caused warming in the early Jurassic period (about 180 million years ago), with average temperatures rising by 5 °C (9.0 °F). Research by the Open University indicates that the warming caused the rate of rock weathering to increase by 400%. As such weathering locks away carbon in calcite and dolomite, CO2 levels dropped back to normal over roughly the next 150,000 years.[37][38]



Sudden releases of methane from clathrate compounds (the clathrate gun hypothesis) have been hypothesized as a cause for other warming events in the distant past, including the Permian-Triassic extinction event (about 251 million years ago) and the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (about 55 million years ago).





Climate models



The projected temperature increase for a range of stabilization scenarios (the coloured bands). The black line in middle of the shaded area indicates 'best estimates'; the red and the blue lines the likely limits. From the work of IPCC AR4, 2007.

Calculations of global warming prepared in or before 2001 from a range of climate models under the SRES A2 emissions scenario, which assumes no action is taken to reduce emissions.

The geographic distribution of surface warming during the 21st century calculated by the HadCM3 climate model if a business as usual scenario is assumed for economic growth and greenhouse gas emissions. In this figure, the globally averaged warming corresponds to 3.0 °C (5.4 °F).Main article: Global climate model

Scientists have studied global warming with computer models of the climate. These models are based on physical principles of fluid dynamics, radiative transfer, and other processes, with some simplifications being necessary because of limitations in computer power. These models predict that the net effect of adding greenhouse gases is to produce a warmer climate. However, even when the same assumptions of fossil fuel consumption and CO2 emission are used, the amount of projected warming varies between models and there still remains a considerable range of climate sensitivity.



Including uncertainties in future greenhouse gas concentrations and climate modelling, the IPCC anticipates a warming of 1.1 °C to 6.4 °C (2.0 °F to 11.5 °F) between 1990 and 2100.[1] Models have also been used to help investigate the causes of recent climate change by comparing the observed changes to those that the models project from various natural and human derived causes.



Climate models can produce a good match to observations of global temperature changes over the last century, but cannot yet simulate all aspects of climate.[39] These models do not unambiguously attribute the warming that occurred from approximately 1910 to 1945 to either natural variation or human effects; however, they suggest that the warming since 1975 is dominated by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.



Most global climate models, when run to project future climate, are forced by imposed greenhouse gas scenarios, generally one from the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES). Less commonly, models may be run by adding a simulation of the carbon cycle; this generally shows a positive feedback, though this response is uncertain (under the A2 SRES scenario, responses vary between an extra 20 and 200 ppm of CO2). Some observational studies also show a positive feedback.[40][41][42]



The representation of clouds is one of the main sources of uncertainty in present-generation models, though progress is being made on this problem.[43] There is also an ongoing discussion as to whether climate models are neglecting important indirect and feedback effects of solar variability.





Attributed and expected effects

Main article: Effects of global warming



Sparse records indicate that glaciers have been retreating since the early 1800s. In the 1950s measurements began that allow the monitoring of glacial mass balance, reported to the WGMS and the NSIDC.Some effects on both the natural environment and human life are, at least in part, already being attributed to global warming. A 2001 report by the IPCC suggests that glacier retreat, ice shelf disruption such as the Larsen Ice Shelf, sea level rise, changes in rainfall patterns, increased intensity and frequency of extreme weather events, are being attributed in part to global warming.[44] While changes are expected for overall patterns, intensity, and frequencies, it is difficult to attribute specific events to global warming. Other expected effects include water scarcity in some regions and increased precipitation in others, changes in mountain snowpack, adverse health effects from warmer temperatures.



Increasing deaths, displacements, and economic losses projected due to extreme weather attributed to global warming may be exacerbated by growing population densities in affected areas, although temperate regions are projected to experience some minor benefits, such as fewer deaths due to cold exposure.[45] A summary of probable effects and recent understanding can be found in the report made for the IPCC Third Assessment Report by Working Group II.[44] The newer IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summary reports that there is observational evidence for an increase in intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic Ocean since about 1970, in correlation with the increase in sea surface temperature, but that the detection of long-term trends is complicated by the quality of records prior to routine satellite observations. The summary also states that there is no clear trend in the annual worldwide number of tropical cyclones.[1]



Additional anticipated effects include sea level rise of 110 to 770 millimeters (0.36 to 2.5 ft) between 1990 and 2100,[46] repercussions to agriculture, possible slowing of the thermohaline circulation, reductions in the ozone layer, increased intensity and frequency of hurricanes and extreme weather events, lowering of ocean pH, and the spread of diseases such as malaria and dengue fever. One study predicts 18% to 35% of a sample of 1,103 animal and plant species would be extinct by 2050, based on future climate projections.[47] Two populations of Bay checkerspot butterfly are being threatened by changes in precipitation, though few mechanistic studies have documented extinctions due to recent climate change.[48]





Economics

Main article: Economics of global warming

Some economists have tried to estimate the aggregate net economic costs of damages from climate change across the globe. Such estimates have so far failed to reach conclusive findings; in a survey of 100 estimates, the values ran from US$-10 per tonne of carbon (tC) (US$-3 per tonne of carbon dioxide) up to US$350/tC (US$95 per tonne of carbon dioxide), with a mean of US$43 per tonne of carbon (US$12 per tonne of carbon dioxide).[45] One widely-publicized report on potential economic impact is the Stern Review; it suggests that extreme weather might reduce global gross domestic product by up to 1%, and that in a worst case scenario global per capita consumption could fall 20%.[49] The report's methodology, advocacy and conclusions has been criticized by many economists, primarily around the Review's assumptions of discounting and its choices of scenarios.[50] , while others have supported the general attempt to quantify economic risk, even if not the specific numbers[51] [52].



In a summary of economic cost associated with climate change, the United Nations Environment Programme emphasizes the risks to insurers, reinsurers, and banks of increasingly traumatic and costly weather events. Other economic sectors likely to face difficulties related to climate change include agriculture and transport. Developing countries, rather than the developed world, are at greatest economic risk.[53]





Mitigation and adaptation

Main articles: Mitigation of global warming, adaptation to global warming, and Kyoto Protocol

The broad agreement among climate scientists that global temperatures will continue to increase has led nations, states, corporations and individuals to implement actions to try to curtail global warming or adjust to it. Many environmental groups encourage action against global warming, often by the consumer, but also by community and regional organizations. There has been business action on climate change, including efforts at increased energy efficiency and (still limited) moves to alternative fuels. One important innovation has been the development of greenhouse gas emissions trading through which companies, in conjunction with government, agree to cap their emissions or to purchase credits from those below their allowances.



The world's primary international agreement on combating global warming is the Kyoto Protocol, an amendment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), negotiated in 1997. The Protocol now covers more than 160 countries globally and over 55% of global greenhouse gas emissions.[54] The United States (historically the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter), Australia, and Kazakhstan have not ratified the treaty. China and India, two other large emitters, have ratified the treaty but, as developing countries, are exempt from its provisions. This treaty expires in 2012, and international talks began in May 2007 on a future treaty to succeed the current one.[55]



The world's primary body for crafting a response is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a UN-sponsored activity which holds periodic meetings between national delegations on the problems of global warming, and issues working papers and assessments on the current status of the science of climate change, impacts, and mitigation. It convenes four different working groups examining various specific issues. For example, in May 2007, the IPCC held conferences in Bonn, Germany,[56] and in Bangkok, Thailand.[57]





Issue debate and political processes

Main articles: Global warming controversy and politics of global warming

Increased awareness of the scientific findings surrounding global warming has resulted in political and economic debate. Poor regions, particularly Africa, appear at greatest risk from the suggested effects of global warming, while their actual emissions have been negligible compared to the developed world[58]. At the same time, developing country exemptions from provisions of the Kyoto Protocol have been criticized by the United States and been used as part of its justification for continued non-ratification.[59] In the Western world, the idea of human influence on climate and efforts to combat it has gained wider acceptance in Europe than in the United States.[60][61]



Fossil fuel companies such as ExxonMobil and some think tanks such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute have campaigned to downplay the risks of climate change,[62][63] while environmental groups have launched campaigns emphasizing the risks. Recently, some fossil fuel companies have scaled back such efforts[64] or called for policies to reduce global warming.[65]



This issue has sparked debate in the U.S. about the benefits of limiting industrial emissions of greenhouse gases to reduce impacts to the climate, versus the effects on economic activity.[66][67] There has also been discussion in several countries about the cost of adopting alternate, cleaner energy sources in order to reduce emissions.[68]



Another point of debate is the degree to which newly-developed economies, like India and China, should be expected to constrain their emissions. China's CO2 emissions are expected to exceed those of the U.S. within the next few years (and according to one report may have already done so[69]).





Related climatic issues

Main articles: Ocean acidification, global dimming, and ozone depletion

A variety of issues are often raised in relation to global warming. One is ocean acidification. Increased atmospheric CO2 increases the amount of CO2 dissolved in the oceans.[70] CO2 dissolved in the ocean reacts with water to form carbonic acid resulting in acidification. Ocean surface pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14 since the beginning of the industrial era,[71] and it is estimated that it will drop by a further 0.14 to 0.5 units by 2100 as the ocean absorbs more CO2.[1][72] Since organisms and ecosystems are adapted to a narrow range of pH, this raises extinction concerns, directly driven by increased atmospheric CO2, that could disrupt food webs and impact human societies that depend on marine ecosystem services.[73]



Another related issue that may have partially mitigated global warming in the late twentieth century is global dimming, the gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth's surface. From 1960 to 1990 human-caused aerosols likely precipitated this effect. Scientists have stated with 66–90% confidence that the effects of human-caused aerosols, along with volcanic activity, have offset some of global warming, and that greenhouse gases would have resulted in more warming than observed if not for these dimming agents.[1]



Ozone depletion, the steady decline in the total amount of ozone in Earth's stratosphere, is frequently cited in relation to global warming. Although there are areas of linkage, the relationship between the two is not strong.



s


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...