Anti Global Warming Essay Pdf

Climate change mitigation consists of actions to limit the magnitude or rate of long-term climate change.[3] Climate change mitigation generally involves reductions in human (anthropogenic) emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs).[4] Mitigation may also be achieved by increasing the capacity of carbon sinks, e.g., through reforestation.[4] Mitigation policies can substantially reduce the risks associated with human-induced global warming.[5]

According to the IPCC's 2014 assessment report, "Mitigation is a public good; climate change is a case of the 'tragedy of the commons'. Effective climate change mitigation will not be achieved if each agent (individual, institution or country) acts independently in its own selfish interest (see international cooperation and emissions trading), suggesting the need for collective action. Some adaptation actions, on the other hand, have characteristics of a private good as benefits of actions may accrue more directly to the individuals, regions, or countries that undertake them, at least in the short term. Nevertheless, financing such adaptive activities remains an issue, particularly for poor individuals and countries."[6]

Examples of mitigation include phasing out fossil fuels by switching to low-carbon energy sources, such as renewable and nuclear energy, and expanding forests and other "sinks" to remove greater amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.[4]Energy efficiency may also play a role,[7] for example, through improving the insulation of buildings.[8] Another approach to climate change mitigation is climate engineering.[9]

Most countries are parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).[10] The ultimate objective of the UNFCCC is to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of GHGs at a level that would prevent dangerous human interference of the climate system.[11] Scientific analysis can provide information on the impacts of climate change, but deciding which impacts are dangerous requires value judgments.[12]

In 2010, Parties to the UNFCCC agreed that future global warming should be limited to below 2.0 °C (3.6 °F) relative to the pre-industrial level.[13] With the Paris Agreement of 2015 this was confirmed, but was revised with a new target laying down "parties will do the best" to achieve warming below 1.5 °C.[14] The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions does not appear to be consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C.[15] Other mitigation policies have been proposed, some of which are more stringent[16] or modest[17][18] than the 2 °C limit.

Greenhouse gas concentrations and stabilization[edit]

See also: Greenhouse gas § Removal from the atmosphere and global warming potential

One of the issues often discussed in relation to climate change mitigation is the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has the ultimate objective of preventing "dangerous" anthropogenic (i.e., human) interference of the climate system. As is stated in Article 2 of the Convention, this requires that greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations are stabilized in the atmosphere at a level where ecosystems can adapt naturally to climate change, food production is not threatened, and economic development can proceed in a sustainable fashion.[20]

There are a number of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. These include carbon dioxide (chemical formula: CO2), methane (CH
4), nitrous oxide (N
2O), and a group of gases referred to as halocarbons.[21] The emissions reductions necessary to stabilize the atmospheric concentrations of these gases varies.[19] CO2 is the most important of the anthropogenic greenhouse gases (see radiative forcing).[22]

There is a difference between stabilizing CO2 emissions and stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of CO2.[23] Stabilizing emissions of CO2 at current levels would not lead to a stabilization in the atmospheric concentration of CO2. In fact, stabilizing emissions at current levels would result in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 continuing to rise over the 21st century and beyond (see the graphs opposite).

The reason for this is that human activities are adding CO2 to the atmosphere faster than natural processes can remove it (see carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere for a complete explanation).[19] This is analogous to a flow of water into a bathtub.[24] So long as the tap runs water (analogous to the emission of carbon dioxide) into the tub faster than water escapes through the plughole (the natural removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere), then the level of water in the tub (analogous to the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere) will continue to rise.

According to some studies, stabilizing atmospheric CO2 concentrations would require anthropogenic CO2 emissions to be reduced by 80% relative to the peak emissions level.[25] An 80% reduction in emissions would stabilize CO2 concentrations for around a century, but even greater reductions would be required beyond this.[19][25] Other research has found that, after leaving room for emissions for food production for 9 billion people and to keep the global temperature rise below 2 °C, emissions from energy production and transport will have to peak almost immediately in the developed world and decline at ca. 10% per annum until zero emissions are reached around 2030. In developing countries energy and transport emissions would have to peak by 2025 and then decline similarly.[26][27][28][29]

Stabilizing the atmospheric concentration of the other greenhouse gasses humans emit also depends on how fast their emissions are added to the atmosphere, and how fast the GHGs are removed. Stabilization for these gases is described in the later section on non-CO2 GHGs.


Projections of future greenhouse gas emissions are highly uncertain.[30] In the absence of policies to mitigate climate change, GHG emissions could rise significantly over the 21st century.[31]

Numerous assessments have considered how atmospheric GHG concentrations could be stabilized.[32] The lower the desired stabilization level, the sooner global GHG emissions must peak and decline.[33] GHG concentrations are unlikely to stabilize this century without major policy changes.[31]

Projected carbon dioxide emissions and atmospheric concentrations over the 21st century for reference and mitigation scenarios
Rate of world energy usage per day, from 1970 to 2010. Every fossil fuel source has increased in large amounts between 1970 and 2010, dominating all other energy sources. Hydroelectricity has increased at a slow steady rate over this same period, nuclear entered a period of rapid growth between 1970 and 1990 before leveling off. Other renewables, between 2000 and 2010 have, having started from a low usage rate, began to enter into a period of rapid growth. 1000 TWh=1 PWh.[34]

Energy consumption by power source[edit]

To create lasting climate change mitigation, the replacement of high carbon emission intensity power sources, such as conventional fossil fuels—oil, coal and natural gas—with low-carbon power sources is required. Fossil fuels supply humanity with the vast majority of our energy demands, and at a growing rate. In 2012 the IEA noted that coal accounted for half the increased energy use of the prior decade, growing faster than all renewable energy sources.[35] Both hydroelectricity and nuclear power together provide the majority of the generated low-carbon power fraction of global total power consumption.

Change and use of energy, by source, in units of (PWh) in that year.[37]
FossilNuclearAll renewablesTotal
Change 2000–200822.5830.4263.15526.164

Methods and means[edit]

See also: Emission intensity

Assessments often suggest that GHG emissions can be reduced using a portfolio of low-carbon technologies.[39] At the core of most proposals is the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through reducing energy waste and switching to low-carbon power sources of energy. As the cost of reducing GHG emissions in the electricity sector appears to be lower than in other sectors, such as in the transportation sector, the electricity sector may deliver the largest proportional carbon reductions under an economically efficient climate policy.[40]

"Economic tools can be useful in designing climate change mitigation policies." "While the limitations of economics and social welfare analysis, including cost–benefit analysis, are widely documented, economics nevertheless provides useful tools for assessing the pros and cons of taking, or not taking, action on climate change mitigation, as well as of adaptation measures, in achieving competing societal goals. Understanding these pros and cons can help in making policy decisions on climate change mitigation and can influence the actions taken by countries, institutions and individuals."[6]

Other frequently discussed means include energy conservation, increasing fuel economy in automobiles (which includes the use of electric hybrids), charging plug-in hybrids and electric cars by low-carbon electricity, making individual-lifestyle changes[41] (e.g., cycling instead of driving),[42] and changing business practices. Many fossil fuel driven vehicles can be converted to use electricity, the US has the potential to supply electricity for 73% of light duty vehicles (LDV), using overnight charging. The US average CO2 emissions for a battery-electric car is 180 grams per mile vs 430 grams per mile for a gasoline car.[43] The emissions would be displaced away from street level, where they have "high human-health implications. Increased use of electricity "generation for meeting the future transportation load is primarily fossil-fuel based", mostly natural gas, followed by coal,[44] but could also be met through nuclear, tidal, hydroelectric and other sources.

A range of energy technologies may contribute to climate change mitigation.[45] These include nuclear power and renewable energy sources such as biomass, hydroelectricity, wind power, solar power, geothermal power, ocean energy, and; the use of carbon sinks, and carbon capture and storage. For example, Pacala and Socolow of Princeton[46] have proposed a 15 part program to reduce CO2 emissions by 1 billion metric tons per year − or 25 billion tons over the 50-year period using today's technologies as a type of Global warming game.[47]

Another consideration is how future socio-economic development proceeds. Development choices (or "pathways") can lead differences in GHG emissions.[48] Political and social attitudes may affect how easy or difficult it is to implement effective policies to reduce emissions.[49]

Demand side management[edit]

Lifestyle and behavior[edit]

The IPCCFifth Assessment Report emphasises that behaviour, lifestyle and cultural change have a high mitigation potential in some sectors, particularly when complementing technological and structural change.[50]:20 In general, higher consumption lifestyles have a greater environmental impact. Several scientific studies have shown that when people, especially those living in developed countries but more generally including all countries, wish to reduce their carbon footprint, there are four key "high-impact" actions they can take:[51][52][53]

1. Not having an additional child (58.6 tonnes CO2-equivalent emission reductions per year)
2. Living car-free (2.4 tonnes CO2)
3. Avoiding one round-trip transatlantic flight (1.6 tonnes)
4. Eating a plant-based diet (0.8 tonnes)

These appear to differ significantly from the popular advice for “greening” one’s lifestyle, which seem to fall mostly into the “low-impact” category: Replacing a typical car with a hybrid (0.52 tonnes); Washing clothes in cold water (0.25 tonnes); Recycling (0.21 tonnes); Upgrading light bulbs (0.10 tonnes); etc. The researchers found that public discourse on reducing one’s carbon footprint overwhelmingly focuses on low-impact behaviors, and that mention of the high-impact behaviors is almost non-existent in the mainstream media, government publications, K-12 school textbooks, etc.[51][52][53]

The researchers added that “Our recommended high-impact actions are more effective than many more commonly discussed options (e.g. eating a plant-based diet saves eight times more emissions than upgrading light bulbs). More significantly, a US family who chooses to have one fewer child would provide the same level of emissions reductions as 684 teenagers who choose to adopt comprehensive recycling for the rest of their lives.”[51][52][53]

Dietary change[edit]

See also: Low carbon diet

Overall, food accounts for the largest share of consumption-based GHG emissions with nearly 20% of the global carbon footprint, followed by housing, mobility, services, manufactured products, and construction. Food and services are more significant in poor countries, while mobility and manufactured goods are more significant in rich countries.[54]:327 A 2014 study into the real-life diets of British people estimates their greenhouse gas contributions (CO2eq) to be: 7.19 kg/day for high meat-eaters through to 3.81 kg/day for vegetarians and 2.89 kg/day for vegans.[55] The widespread adoption of a vegetarian diet could cut food-related greenhouse gas emissions by 63% by 2050.[56] China introduced new dietary guidelines in 2016 which aim to cut meat consumption by 50% and thereby reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 1 billion tonnes by 2030.[57] A 2016 study concluded that taxes on meat and milk could simultaneously result in reduced greenhouse gas emissions and healthier diets. The study analyzed surcharges of 40% on beef and 20% on milk and suggests that an optimum plan would reduce emissions by 1 billion tonnes per year.[58][59]

Energy efficiency and conservation[edit]

Main articles: Efficient energy use and Energy conservation

Efficient energy use, sometimes simply called "energy efficiency", is the goal of efforts to reduce the amount of energy required to provide products and services. For example, insulating a home allows a building to use less heating and cooling energy to achieve and maintain a comfortable temperature. Installing fluorescent lights or natural skylights reduces the amount of energy required to attain the same level of illumination compared to using traditional incandescent light bulbs. Compact fluorescent lights use two-thirds less energy and may last 6 to 10 times longer than incandescent lights.[61]

Energy efficiency has proved to be a cost-effective strategy for building economies without necessarily growing energy consumption. For example, the state of California began implementing energy-efficiency measures in the mid-1970s, including building code and appliance standards with strict efficiency requirements. During the following years, California's energy consumption has remained approximately flat on a per capita basis while national US consumption doubled. As part of its strategy, California implemented a "loading order" for new energy resources that puts energy efficiency first, renewable electricity supplies second, and new fossil-fired power plants last.[62]

Energy conservation is broader than energy efficiency in that it encompasses using less energy to achieve a lesser energy demanding service, for example through behavioral change, as well as encompassing energy efficiency. Examples of conservation without efficiency improvements would be heating a room less in winter, driving less, or working in a less brightly lit room. As with other definitions, the boundary between efficient energy use and energy conservation can be fuzzy, but both are important in environmental and economic terms. This is especially the case when actions are directed at the saving of fossil fuels.[63]

Reducing energy use is seen as a key solution to the problem of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. According to the International Energy Agency, improved energy efficiency in buildings, industrial processes and transportation could reduce the world's energy needs in 2050 by one third, and help control global emissions of greenhouse gases.[64]

Demand side switching sources[edit]

Fuel switching on the demand side refers to changing the type of fuel used to satisfy a need for an energy service. To meet deep decarbonization goals, like the 80% reduction by 2050 goal being discussed in California and the European Union, many primary energy changes are needed.[65][66] Energy efficiency alone may not be sufficient to meet these goals, switching fuels used on the demand side will help lower carbon emissions.[67][68] Progressively coal, oil and eventually natural gas for space and water heating in buildings will need to be reduced. For an equivalent amount of heat, burning natural gas produces about 45 per cent less carbon dioxide than burning coal.[69] There are various ways in which this could happen, and different strategies will likely make sense in different locations. While the system efficiency of a gas furnace may be higher than the combination of natural gas power plant and electric heat, the combination of the same natural gas power plant and an electric heat pump has lower emissions per unit of heat delivered in all but the coldest climates. This is possible because of the very efficient coefficient of performance of heat pumps.

At the beginning of this century 70% of all electricity was generated by fossil fuels, and as carbon free sources eventually make up half of the generation mix, replacing gas or oil furnaces and water heaters with electric ones will have a climate benefit. In areas like Norway, Brazil and Quebec that have abundant hydroelectricity, electric heat and hot water is common.

The economics of switching the demand side from fossil fuels to electricity for heating, will depend on the price of fuels vs electricity and the relative prices of the equipment. The EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2014 suggests that domestic gas prices will rise faster than electricity prices which will encourage electrification in the coming decades.[70] Electrifying heating loads may also provide a flexible resource that can participate in demand response. Since thermostatically controlled loads have inherent energy storage, electrification of heating could provide a valuable resource to integrate variable renewable resources into the grid.

Alternatives to electrification, include decarbonizing pipeline gas through power to gas, biogas, or other carbon neutral fuels. A 2015 study by Energy+Environmental Economics shows that a hybrid approach of decarbonizing pipeline gas, electrification, and energy efficiency can meet carbon reduction goals at a similar cost as only electrification and energy efficiency in Southern California.[71]

Demand side grid management[edit]

Expanding intermittent electrical sources such as wind power, creates a growing problem balancing grid fluctuations. Some of the plans include building pumped storage or continental super grids costing billions of dollars. However instead of building for more power, there are a variety of ways to affect the size and timing of electricity demand on the consumer side. Designing for reduced demands on a smaller power grid is more efficient and economic than having extra generation and transmission for intermittentcy, power failures and peak demands. Having these abilities is one of the chief aims of a smart grid.

Time of use metering is a common way to motivate electricity users to reduce their peak load consumption. For instance, running dishwashers and laundry at night after the peak has passed, reduces electricity costs.

Dynamic demand plans have devices passively shut off when stress is sensed on the electrical grid. This method may work very well with thermostats, when power on the grid sags a small amount, a low power temperature setting is automatically selected reducing the load on the grid. For instance millions of refrigerators reduce their consumption when clouds pass over solar installations. Consumers would need to have a smart meter in order for the utility to calculate credits.

Demand response devices could receive all sorts of messages from the grid. The message could be a request to use a low power mode similar to dynamic demand, to shut off entirely during a sudden failure on the grid, or notifications about the current and expected prices for power. This would allow electric cars to recharge at the least expensive rates independent of the time of day. The vehicle-to-grid suggestion would use a car's battery or fuel cell to supply the grid temporarily.

Alternative energy sources[edit]

Renewable energy[edit]

Main articles: Renewable energy, Renewable energy commercialization, and Renewable energy debate

Renewable energy flows involve natural phenomena such as sunlight, wind, rain, tides, plant growth, and geothermal heat, as the International Energy Agency explains:[74]

Renewable energy is derived from natural processes that are replenished constantly. In its various forms, it derives directly from the sun, or from heat generated deep within the earth. Included in the definition is electricity and heat generated from solar, wind, ocean, hydropower, biomass, geothermal resources, and biofuels and hydrogen derived from renewable resources.

Climate change concerns[75][76][77] and the need to reduce carbon emissions are driving increasing growth in the renewable energy industries.[78][79][80] Low-carbon renewable energy replaces conventional fossil fuels in three main areas: power generation, hot water/ space heating, and transport fuels.[81] In 2011, the share of renewables in electricity generation worldwide grew for the fourth year in a row to 20.2%.[82] Based on REN21's 2014 report, renewables contributed 19% to supply global energy consumption. This energy consumption is divided as 9% coming from burning biomass, 4.2% as heat energy (non-biomass), 3.8% hydro electricity and 2% as electricity from wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass thermal power plants.[83]

Renewable energy use has grown much faster than anyone anticipated.[84] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has said that there are few fundamental technological limits to integrating a portfolio of renewable energy technologies to meet most of total global energy demand.[85] At the national level, at least 30 nations around the world already have renewable energy contributing more than 20% of energy supply.

As of 2012, renewable energy accounts for almost half of new electricity capacity installed and costs are continuing to fall.[86]Public policy and political leadership helps to "level the playing field" and drive the wider acceptance of renewable energy technologies.[87] As of 2011[update], 118 countries have targets for their own renewable energy futures, and have enacted wide-ranging public policies to promote renewables.[88][89] Leading renewable energy companies include BrightSource Energy, First Solar, Gamesa, GE Energy, Goldwind, Sinovel, Suntech, Trina Solar, Vestas and Yingli.[90][91]

The incentive to use 100% renewable energy has been created by global warming and other ecological as well as economic concerns.[84]Mark Z. Jacobson says producing all new energy with wind power, solar power, and hydropower by 2030 is feasible and existing energy supply arrangements could be replaced by 2050. Barriers to implementing the renewable energy plan are seen to be "primarily social and political, not technological or economic". Jacobson says that energy costs with a wind, solar, water system should be similar to today's energy costs.[92] According to a 2011 projection by the (IEA)International Energy Agency, solar power generators may produce most of the world's electricity within 50 years, dramatically reducing harmful greenhouse gas emissions.[93] Critics of the "100% renewable energy" approach include Vaclav Smil and James E. Hansen. Smil and Hansen are concerned about the variable output of solar and wind power, NIMBYism, and a lack of infrastructure.[94]

Economic analysts expect market gains for renewable energy (and efficient energy use) following the 2011 Japanese nuclear accidents.[95][96] In his 2012 State of the Union address, President Barack Obama restated his commitment to renewable energy and mentioned the long-standing Interior Department commitment to permit 10,000 MW of renewable energy projects on public land in 2012.[97] Globally, there are an estimated 3 million direct jobs in renewable energy industries, with about half of them in the biofuels industry.[98]

Some countries, with favorable geography, geology and weather well suited to an economical exploitation of renewable energy sources, already get most of their electricity from renewables, including from geothermal energy in Iceland (100 percent), and Hydroelectric power in Brazil (85 percent), Austria (62 percent), New Zealand (65 percent), and Sweden (54 percent).[99] Renewable power generators are spread across many countries, with wind power providing a significant share of electricity in some regional areas: for example, 14 percent in the US state of Iowa, 40 percent in the northern German state of Schleswig-Holstein, and 20 percent in Denmark. Solar water heating makes an important and growing contribution in many countries, most notably in China, which now has 70 percent of the global total (180 GWth). Worldwide, total installed solar water heating systems meet a portion of the water heating needs of over 70 million households. The use of biomass for heating continues to grow as well. In Sweden, national use of biomass energy has surpassed that of oil. Direct geothermal heating is also growing rapidly.[99] Renewable biofuels for transportation, such as ethanol fuel and biodiesel, have contributed to a significant decline in oil consumption in the United States since 2006. The 93 billion liters of biofuels produced worldwide in 2009 displaced the equivalent of an estimated 68 billion liters of gasoline, equal to about 5 percent of world gasoline production.[99]

Nuclear power[edit]

See also: Nuclear renaissance

Since about 2001 the term "nuclear renaissance" has been used to refer to a possible nuclear power industry revival, driven by rising fossil fuel prices and new concerns about meeting greenhouse gas emission limits.[100] However, in March 2011 the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan and associated shutdowns at other nuclear facilities raised questions among some commentators over the future of nuclear power.[101][102][103]Platts has reported that "the crisis at Japan's Fukushima nuclear plants has prompted leading energy-consuming countries to review the safety of their existing reactors and cast doubt on the speed and scale of planned expansions around the world".[104]

The World Nuclear Association has reported that nuclear electricity generation in 2012 was at its lowest level since 1999.[105] Several previous international studies and assessments,[106][107][108] suggested that as part of the portfolio of other low-carbon energy technologies, nuclear power will continue to play a role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Historically, nuclear power usage is estimated to have prevented the atmospheric emission of 64 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent as of 2013.[109] Public concerns about nuclear power include the fate of spent nuclear fuel, nuclear accidents, security risks, nuclear proliferation, and a concern that nuclear power plants are very expensive.[110][111][112] Of these concerns, nuclear accidents and disposal of long-lived radioactive fuel/"waste" have probably had the greatest public impact worldwide.[110] Although generally unaware of it, both of these glaring public concerns are greatly diminished by present passive safety designs, the experimentally proven, "melt-down proof" EBR-II, future molten salt reactors, and the use of conventional and more advanced fuel/"waste" pyroprocessing,[113] with the latter recycling or reprocessing not presently being commonplace as it is often considered to be cheaper to use a once-through nuclear fuel cycle in many countries, depending on the varying levels of intrinsic value given by a society in reducing the long-lived waste in their country, with France doing a considerable amount of reprocessing when compared to the US.[114][115]

Nuclear power, with a 10.6% share of world electricity production as of 2013, is second only to hydroelectricity as the largest source of low-carbon power.[116] Over 400 reactors generate electricity in 31 countries.[117]

A Yale University review published in the Journal of Industrial Ecology analyzing CO2life cycle assessment(LCA) emissions from nuclear power(Light water reactors) determined that: "The collective LCA literature indicates that life cycle GHG emissions from nuclear power are only a fraction of traditional fossil sources and comparable to renewable technologies."[118] While some have raised uncertainty surrounding the future GHG emissions of nuclear power as a result of an extreme potential decline in uranium ore grade without a corresponding increase in the efficiency of enrichment methods. In a scenario analysis of future global nuclear development, as it could be effected by a decreasing global uranium market of average ore grade, the analysis determined that depending on conditions, median life cycle nuclear power GHG emissions could be between 9 and 110 g CO2-eq/kWh by 2050, with the latter high figure being derived from a "worst-case scenario" that is not "considered very robust" by the authors of the paper, as the "ore grade" in the scenario is lower than the uranium concentration in many lignite coal ashes.[118]

Global mean surface temperature change from 1880 to 2016, relative to the 1951–1980 mean. The black line is the global annual mean and the red line is the five-year lowess smooth. The blue uncertainty bars show a 95% confidence limit. Source: NASA GISS. Global dimming, from sulfate aerosol air pollution, between 1950 and 1980 is believed to have mitigated global warming somewhat.
Global carbon dioxide emissions from human activities 1800–2007.[1]
Global public support for energy sources, based on a survey by Ipsos (2011).[2]

Stabilizing CO2 emissions at their present level would not stabilize its concentration in the atmosphere.[19]

Stabilizing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 at a constant level would require emissions to be effectively eliminated.[19]

"Hydropower-Internalised Costs and Externalised Benefits"; Frans H. Koch; International Energy Agency (IEA)-Implementing Agreement for Hydropower Technologies and Programmes; 2000.
This graph shows the projected contribution of various energy sources to world primary electricity consumption (PEC).[38] It is based on a climate change mitigation scenario, in which GHG emissions are substantially reduced over the 21st century. In the scenario, emission reductions are achieved using a portfolio of energy sources, as well as reductions in energy demand. Also available in greyscale.
A spiral-type integrated compact fluorescent lamp, use has grown among North American consumers since its introduction in the mid-1990s.[60]
The worldwide growth of renewable energy is shown by the green line[72]

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is what its name suggests: an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. Because we are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, we are able to look at evidence the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ignores. Because we do not work for any governments, we are not biased toward the assumption that greater government activity is necessary.


NIPCC traces its roots to a meeting in Milan in 2003 organized by the

Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), a nonprofit research and education organization based in Arlington, Virginia. SEPP, in turn, was founded in 1990 by Dr. S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist, and incorporated in 1992 following Dr. Singer’s retirement from the University of Virginia. NIPCC is currently a joint project of SEPP, The Heartland Institute, and the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.


NIPCC has produced 13 reports to date:

  • Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate
  • Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)
  • Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report
  • Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science
  • Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts
  • Scientific Critique of IPCC’s 2013 ‘Summary for Policymakers’
  • Commentary and Analysis on the Whitehead & Associates 2014 NSW Sea-Level Report
  • Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming
  • Written Evidence Submitted to the Commons Select Committee of the United Kingdom Parliament
  • NIPCC vs. IPCC
  • Chinese Translation of Climate Change Reconsidered
  • Global Warming Surprises: Temperature data in dispute can reverse conclusions about human influence on climate
  • Data versus Hype: How Ten Cities Show
    Sea-level Rise Is a False Crisis
Categories: 1

0 Replies to “Anti Global Warming Essay Pdf”

Leave a comment

L'indirizzo email non verrà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *