XI.1 Air

CO₂, and other greenhouse gases are causing the greenhouse effect. The goal of the Kyoto Protocol is to lower overall emissions from six greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride, HFCs, and PFCs.

On December 17, 2002, Canada ratified the treaty. This was however opposed by groups of businesses and energy concerns, using arguments similar to those being used in the US. Later, Canada, under a Conservative government, up out of the Protocol.This decision was mostly reflecting the push for the development of the dirty tar sands oil of Alberta. Prime Minister Stephen Harper was greatly influenced by the Alberta oil and gas industry. The PM spent billions of the taxpayers money to help the industry and promote his pet project: the dirty tar sands oil. The PM would rather see the world destroyed than stopping the production of the dirty tar sands oil. He is proposing to built pipelines going south of the border, and pipelines going to both the west and east coasts. From the coasting areas, he wants the dirty tar sands oil shipped to China.

( see enlargement )
Artwork by software developer Germain Dufour
August 2013

Losses of biomass through deforestation and the cutting down of tropical forests put our supply of oxygen (O2) gas in our air at risk. The Earth's forests did not use to play a dominant role in maintaining O2 reserves because they consume just as much of this gas as they produce. Today forests are being destroy at an astronomical rate. No O2 is created after a forest is put down, and more CO₂ is produced in the process. In the tropics, ants, termites, bacteria, and fungi eat nearly the entire photosynthetic O2 product. Only a tiny fraction of the organic matter they produce accumulates in swamps and soils or is carried down the rivers for burial on the sea floor. The O2 content of our atmosphere is slowly declining. The content of the atmosphere decreased at an average annual rate of 2 parts per million. The atmosphere contains 210,000 parts per million. Combustion of fossil fuels destroys O2. For each 100 atoms of fossil-fuel carbon burned, about 140 molecules of O2 are consumed.

Oxygen is a vital element of life. Oxygen is a chemical element in the periodic table that has the symbol O and atomic number 8. The element is common and ubiquitous, found not only on Earth but throughout the universe. Free oxygen, as on Earth, is thermodynamically unstable, but exists through the action of photosynthetic plants. Comprising 87 percent of the oceans, one fifth of the atmosphere and six out of ten atoms on the crust, oxygen is the most abundant element on the surface of the earth.

Oxygen is the most abundant element in the Earth's crust, estimated to comprise 46.7% of the crust. Oxygen comprises about 87% of the oceans (as H₂O, water) and 20% of the atmosphere of Earth (as O₂, molecular oxygen, or O₃, ozone). Oxygen compounds, particularly metal oxides, silicates (SiO₄^4-) and carbonates (CO₃^2-), are commonly found in rocks and soil. Frozen water is a common solid on the outer planets and comets. The ice caps of Mars are made of frozen carbon dioxide. Oxygen compounds are found throughout the universe and the spectrum of oxygen is often seen in stars. In fact stars wouldn't produce light without oxygen.

Estimated Crustal Abundance:		4.61×105 milligrams per kilogram

Estimated Oceanic Abundance:		8.57×105 milligrams per liter

Number of Stable Isotopes:		3

Ionization Energy:		13.618 eV

Oxidation State:		-2

Electron Shell Configuration:

1s2 2s2 2p4

Due to its electronegativity, oxygen forms chemical bonds with almost all other elements (which is the origin of the original definition of oxidation). The only elements to escape the possibility of oxidation are a few inert gases. The most famous of these oxides is of course hydrogen oxide, or water (H₂O). Other well known examples include compounds of carbon and oxygen, such as carbon dioxide (CO₂), alcohols (R-OH), aldehydes, (R-CHO), and carboxylic acids (R-COOH). Oxygenated radicals such aschlorates (ClO₃^-),perchlorates (ClO₄^-), chromates (CrO₄^2-),dichromates (Cr₂O₇^2-), permanganates (MnO₄^-), and nitrates (NO₃^-)are strong oxidizing agents in and of themselves. Many metals such as Iron bond with oxygen atoms, Ferric Oxide (Fe₂O₃). Ozone (O₃) is formed by electrostatic discharge in the presence of molecular oxygen. A double oxygen molecule (O₂)₂ is known, found as a minor component of liquid oxygen.

Oxygen has three stable isotopes and ten radioactive isotopes. The radioisotopes all have half lives of less than three minutes.

Prolonged exposure to pure oxygen at higher pressures can be toxic, having both pulmonary and neurological effects. Pulmonary effects include edema, loss of lung capacity and damage to lung tissues. Neurological effects can include loss of vision, convulsions and coma.

Compounds of oxygen, such as ozone (O₃), peroxide, and superoxide, are also highly toxic. Highly concentrated sources of oxygen promote rapid combustion and therefore are fire and explosion hazards in the presence of fuels. This is true as well of compounds of oxygen such as chlorates, perchlorates, dichromates, etc. Compounds with a high oxidative potential can often cause chemical burns.

The fire that killed the Apollo 1 crew on a test lauchpad spread so rapidly because the pure oxygen atmosphere was at normal atmospheric pressure instead of the one third pressure that would be used during an actual launch. (see partial pressure)

Oxygen, as a gaseous element, forms 21% of the atmosphere by volume from which it can be obtained by liquefaction and fractional distillation. The atmosphere of Mars contains about 0.15% oxygen. The element and its compounds make up 49.2%, by weight, of the earth's crust. About two thirds of the human body and nine tenths of water is oxygen. In the laboratory it can be prepared by the electrolysis of water or by heating potassium chlorate with manganese dioxide as a catalyst. The gas is colorless, odorless, and tasteless. The liquid and solid forms are a pale blue color and are strongly paramagnetic. Ozone (O3), a highly active compound, is formed by the action of an electrical discharge or ultraviolet light on oxygen. Ozone's presence in the atmosphere (amounting to the equivalent of a layer 3 mm thick at ordinary pressures and temperatures) is of vital importance in preventing harmful ultraviolet rays of the sun from reaching the earth's surface.

There has been recent concern that pollutants in the atmosphere may have a detrimental effect on this ozone layer. Ozone is toxic and exposure should not exceed 0.2 mg/m3 (8-hour time-weighted average - 40-hour work week). Undiluted ozone has a bluish color. Liquid ozone is bluish black and solid ozone is violet-black.

Oxygen is very reactive and capable of combining with most elements. It is a component of hundreds of thousands of organic compounds. It is essential for respiration of all plants and animals and for practically all combustion. In hospitals it is frequently used to aid respiration of patients. Its atomic weight was used as a standard of comparison for each of the other elements until 1961 when the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry adopted carbon 12 as the new basis. Oxygen has nine isotopes. Natural oxygen is a mixture of three isotopes. Oxygen 18 occurs naturally, is stable, and is available commercially. Water (H2O with 15% 18O) is also available. Commercial oxygen consumption in the U.S. is estimated to be 20 million short tons per year and the demand is expected to increase substantially in the next few years. Oxygen enrichment of steel blast furnaces accounts for the great use of the gas. Large quantities are also used in making synthesis gas for ammonia and methanol, ethylene oxide, and for oxy-acetylene welding. Air separation plants produce about 99% of the gas, electrolysis plants about 1%. The gas costs 5 cents / ft^3 in small quantities, and about $15/ton in large quantities.

Oxygen includes 21% of the atmosphere at all altitudes. The remaining atmosphere consists of 78% nitrogen and 1% traces of other gases. Oxygen under normal conditions is an odorless, colorless, tasteless, non-combustible gas. It is the most important single element on earth.

At each breath we fill our lungs with air. Millions of tiny air sacs (known as "alveoli") in our lungs inflate like tiny balloons. In the minutely thin walls enclosing each sac are microscopic capillaries through which blood is constantly transported, from the lungs to every cell in the body. The oxygen extracted from the air in the lungs is carried by the blood to every part of the body. Because the body has no way to store oxygen over a period of a long time, it leads a breath-to-breath existence.

The human body must have oxygen to convert fuel (the carbohydrates, fats, and proteins in our diet) into heat, energy, and life. The conversion of body fuels into life is similar to the process of combustion; fuel and oxygen is consumed, while heat and energy is generated. This process is known as "metabolism".

The rate of metabolism, which determines the need for and consumption of oxygen, depends on the degree of physical activity or mental stress of the individual. Not all people require the same amount of oxygen. A man walking at a brisk pace will consume about four times as much oxygen as he will while sitting quietly. Under severe exertion or stress, he could possibly be consuming eight times as much oxygen as resting.

There are four kinds of oxygen that are merchandised or sold to users; Aviation, Medical, Welding and Research. There is a ongoing controversy if there is any difference between the different types. Oxygen gas is produced from the boiling off of liquid oxygen. It would appear that the oxygen is therefore the same. Where we obtain oxygen, all the different types of oxygen are supplied from the same manifold system. Then someone says that medical oxygen has more moisture in it. That is partly true. The oxygen going to a hospital bed is plain oxygen that comes from liquid oxygen. At the bed location, there is a unit on the wall that adds moisture. At this moment we now have medical oxygen. If the oxygen is in a pressure vessel or in a manifold system (like inside a hospital) then it is regular oxygen. The cost of medical or welding oxygen is normally much less than the oxygen you get at an airport.

For how long will humanity be able to breathe the O₂ of the air before it is all burned by the combustion of crude oil, gasoline, natural gas and coal?

Losses of biomass through deforestation and the cutting down of tropical forests put our supply of oxygen (O2) gas at risk. The Earth's forests did not use to play a dominant role in maintaining O2 reserves because they consume just as much of this gas as they produce. Today forests are being destroy at an astronomical rate. No O2 is created after a forest is put down, and more CO₂ is produced in the process. In the tropics, ants, termites, bacteria, and fungi eat nearly the entire photosynthetic O2 product. Only a tiny fraction of the organic matter they produce accumulates in swamps and soils or is carried down the rivers for burial on the sea floor. The O2 content of our atmosphere is slowly declining. The content of the atmosphere decreased at an average annual rate of 2 parts per million. The atmosphere contains 210,000 parts per million.

Combustion of fossil fuels destroys O2. For each 100 atoms of fossil-fuel carbon burned, about 140 molecules of O2 are consumed.
The typical weight of gasoline at 72 degrees F is around 6.25lb per gallon.
For normal heptane C7H16 with a molecular weight = 100.204

C₇H₁₆ + 11O₂ → 7CO₂ + 8H₂O

thus 1.000 kg of C7H16 requires 3.513 kg of O2 = 15.179 kg of air.

Calculation of the total weight of O2 used to burn all the crude oil in the world if it was converted to gasoline.

Say 22 billion barels of oil per year worldwide produces 5 billion gallons of gasoline.
5 billion gallons of gasoline = 31.25 billion lb
1 lb = 0.45359 kilogram
31.25 billion lb = 14.17467 billion kilograms 14.17467 billion kg of CO2 emitted x 3.513 kg of O2 = 49.8 billion kg of O2 burned every year

In the Earth's Atmosphere, the volume % of O₂ in dry air is 20.98, in order words the abundance percent by volume is 20.98%, or again the abundance parts per million by volume is 209,800.

The weight % of O₂ at surface level is 23.139%.

We are concerned here with the troposphere. We can calculate the volume of the trosposphere.
The Biosphere, the equatorial diameter of the Earth is 12,756.3 km, the radius is therefore 6378.15 km.
The troposphere is the atmospheric layer closest to the planet and contains the largest percentage of the mass of the total atmosphere. It is characterized by the density of its air and an average temperature decrease with height. The troposphere starts at the Earth's surface extending at most 16 km high. The troposphere is this part of the atmosphere that is the most dense and which contains approximately 80% of the total air mass. As you climb higher in this layer, the temperature drops from about 17 to -52 degrees Celsius. The air pressure at the top of the troposphere is only 10% of that at sea level (0.1 atmospheres). The density of air at sea level is about 1.2 kilograms per cubic meter. This density decreases at higher altitudes at approximately the same rate that pressure decreases (but not quite as fast). The total mass of the atmosphere is about 5.1 × 10¹⁸ kg, a tiny fraction of the earth's total mass.

Volume of the Earth.
4x¶(6378.15)³/3        =       [4x¶/3]x 2.594682x10²⁰m³
Radius from the centre of the Earth to the top of the troposphere:
       =       6378.15 + 16       =       6394.15 km
Volume to the top of the troposphere.
4x¶(6394.15)³/3        =        [4x¶/3]x 2.614258x10²⁰m³
Volume of the troposphere.
[4x¶/3][2.614258 - 2.594682] x10²⁰m³        =        0.082 x10²⁰m³
Total mass of the troposphere.
Assuming the density of the air is constant throughout the volume(the density is not constant as it decreases rapidly with height):
[1.2 kg/m³] x 0.082 x10²⁰m³        =        9.8 x10¹⁸ kg of air in the atmosphere
Obviously this value is wrong. Half of the value would be a better approximation, so we use 4.9 x10¹⁸ kg
The mass of the O₂ is found knowing that the weight % of O₂ at surface level is 23.139% (but there again this value can hardly be used for the entire volume as the weight % changes with height).
[4.9 x10¹⁸ kg] x 23.139/100        =        1.1 x10¹⁸ kg
Mass of O₂ in the troposphere =        1.1 x10¹⁸ kg
Now it was obtained above here that there are 49.8 billion kg of O₂ burned every year.
Assuming that the combustion of gasoline could go on forever at 5 billion gallons per year, the number of years before we run out of O₂ can be calculated.
[1.1 x10¹⁸ kg]    /     49.8x10 ⁹ kg/year        =       23 million years
If the combustion rate of 5 billion gallons of gasoline per year was to go on forever, it would take 23 million years before we run out of O₂.

These calculations are obviously not right as they do not take into account several factors that change with height. When you have time figure out a model. In any way the total estimated resources of oil, coal, and natural gas will run out in less than a hundred years.

More importantly, these calculations do not reflect the impact of the combustion CO₂ on the atmosphere and impact on the climate. Certainly the losses of biomass through deforestation and the cutting down of tropical forests should be included. A rough estimate is more in the range of one hundred thousand years at the most. Even one hundred thousand years is wrong as life on Earth will hardly survive the kind of climate change humanity has already started with the burning of CO₂ and deforestation. It is wrong because the burning of fossil fuels is creating a global warming of the planet which in turn forces the climate to change. The climate change has already started and today we are having plenty of natural disasters caused by the warming of the atmosphere thus creating a climate change all over the world. This climate change will get much worst from now on.

Oxygen finds considerable use as an oxidizer, with only fluorine having a higher electronegativity. Liquid oxygen finds use as an oxidizer in rocket propulsion.

In about 2,000 years, the process of photosynthesis by Earth's plants have produced an amount of O2 equal to that of the atmosphere. Earth's ecosystems have over the eons achieved a balance between photosynthetic production and respiratory consumption of O2; and thus the tendency for the atmospheric O2 reserve to change is quite small.

The cloud of gas and dust from which our solar system formed was dominated by hydrogen gas. As hydrogen atoms eagerly donate electrons to any element capable of latching onto them, our Earth was constructed from highly reduced (electron-rich) material. O2 was created when water molecules that wandered to the outer edges of the atmosphere were knocked apart by ultraviolet rays from the Sun. The light hydrogen atoms were able to evaporate to space, while the much heavier oxygen atoms were bound to Earth by gravity and combined with the reduced sulfur and carbon exposed at the Earth's surface. Only when this conversion had been completed could O2 begin to accumulate in our atmosphere. Records kept in sediments tell us this task took at least 2.5 billion years (more than half of geologic time). The evolution of multicellular organisms, and hence of our ancestors, awaited this transition from an O2-free to an O2-bearing atmosphere. Fortunately, this buildup was large enough that the Earth became endowed with an adequate supply of this precious gas. The size of this inventory has surely varied, but once established it has never dipped low enough to threaten the existence of those who depend on it.

But that is changing rapidly. Human activities on the planet use too much of the O2 and produce too much CO₂.

XI.2 Water

( see enlargement )
Artwork by software developer Germain Dufour
August 2013

On the global level the Law of the Seas Covenant is an example of a global community lease payment basis for public needs as it has affirmed that ocean resources are the common heritage of all and a proper source of funding for global institutions. Water belongs to the Earth and all species and is sacred to life therefore, the world’s water must be conserved, reclaimed and protected for all future generations and its natural patterns respected.

Water is a fundamental human right and a public trust to be guarded by all levels of government; therefore, it should not be commodified, privatized or traded for commercial purposes. These rights must be enshrined at all levels of government. In particular, an international treaty must ensure these principles are noncontrovertable.

Water is best protected by local communities and citizens, who must be respected as equal partners with governments in the protection and regulation of water. Peoples of the Earth are the only vehicle to promote democracy and save water.

Similarly, all the Earth natural resources belong to the Global Community to be used, developed and protected for the maximum benefit of the people and of all life.

The world situation concerning freshwater is critical. Water tables are diminishing on every part of the world. Water quality and availability affect environmental quality for life support. Groundwater aquifers are more polluted. Water tables are falling on all continents, while human demand for water increases. Over 1 billion people lack safe driking water. Almost half of the world population does not have adequate sanitation. Most diseases in the developing world are water-related. If current trends continue, half the world could face water shortages by 2032. About 70% of freshwater withdrawals is for agriculture. The quality of the soil for agriculture is also decreasing worldwide.

Freshwater is needed and is a human right. So is clean air! The Scale of Global Rights shows how and where these rights should be included with respect to all other human rights. Because of an ever-increasing global population and of human impacts on the natural environment, freshwater resources have become essentials to human life and to all life in Earth. There is an urgent need to protect these resources and for integrated understanding of lakes, wetlands and flowing waters. Fresh water or drinking water is vital to life on Earth. Only 2.5 per cent of all water on Earth is fresh water most of which  lies deep and frozen in Antarctica and Greenland. What we drink comes mostly from  groundwater, rivers and lakes. Precipitation, melt water from glaciers, dew and fog drip constantly replenish  our fresh water resources. They are also constantly depleted by evaporation and transpiration. These water resources are changing due to the the variations in the hydrological cycle from place to place and from day to day. They are all what we have got. Nothing else!  They are very precious to all humankind, and to all life as well.

More funding is needed for safe water supply projects. The world situation concerning freshwater is critical. Water tables are diminishing on every part of the world. Water quality and availability affect environmental quality for life support. Groundwater aquifers are more polluted. Water tables are falling on all continents, while human demand for water increases. Over 1 billion people lack safe driking water. Almost half of the world population does not have adequate sanitation. Most diseases in the developing world are water-related. If current trends continue, half the world could face water shortages by 2032. About 70% of freshwater withdrawals is for agriculture. The quality of the soil for agriculture is also decreasing worldwide.

Agricultural practices must be changed to get more crop per liter of water by:

*     developing plants that are drought-hearty and more tolerant to a lesser quality of the soil
*     practicing desalination and water efficiencies in agricultural and urban usage

The lack of potable water and availability of water for agriculture use will contribute to the cause of conflicts between nations. In order to avoid conflicts over water, other actions have to be taken:

*     investing in reforestation and in watershed management
*     promoting the healthy effects of vegetarianism
*     using animal stem cells to produce meat tissue without animals
*     securing treaties and cooperatives agreements on water rights
*     implementing integrated water management plans

Drinking water is primordial human right

For centuries we have found it necessary to control water so as to have it where we wanted it.

 Despite our efforts, some areas still suffer from drought, and some from flood, due partly to the nature variability of climate to change fast than it used to, and this is now impacting on the availability and distribution of water. Our fresh water sources are already being used and yet, the world population is increasing rapidly. This increase in population and the increase of pollutants in our drinking water sources have created conflicts which will only become more and more serious in the near future. In many places in the world drinking water sources are rare, sometimes non-existant, and sometimes were polluted by transnational corporations from our industrialized world and which companies became rich by mining or manufacturing products in those countries. Should anyone be allowed to control our freshwater resources? Is freshwater a 'human right' or is it a 'human need'? Should water resources be privatized and commodified for profit? Or should water be declared a 'human right' in the Scale of Global Rights of the Global Community? Is it no true that water is just as important to an individual as the air we breathe?

Freshwater is needed and is a human right. So is clean air! The Scale of Global Rights shows how and where these rights should be included with respect to all other human rights.

Because of an ever-increasing global population and of human impacts on the natural environment, freshwater resources have become essentials to human life and to all life in Earth. There is an urgent need to protect these resources and for integrated understanding of lakes, wetlands and flowing waters.

Fresh water or drinking water is vital to life on Earth. Only 2.5 per cent of all water on Earth is fresh water most of which  lies deep and frozen in Antarctica and Greenland. What we drink comes mostly from  groundwater, rivers and lakes. Precipitation, melt water from glaciers, dew and fog drip constantly replenish  our fresh water resources. They are also constantly depleted by evaporation and transpiration. These water resources are changing due to the the variations in the hydrological cycle from place to place and from day to day. They are all what we have got. Nothing else!  They are very precious to all humankind, and to all life as well. 

Drinking water sources

 Water in the home comes from either spring water, a deep well, a river or a city reservoir, and is never 'pure'. If water was untreated, it would contain man-made contaminants, minerals, gases, salts, and microorganisms, which would cause unacceptable taste or health risks. Hazardous compounds present in water are mercury, lead, agricultural chemicals, arsenic, organochlorine compounds formed by the chlorine added to municipal water to destroy microorganisms, industrial pollutants, solvents, pesticide, fertilizer, and other contaminants. Our body absorbs equally these contaminants through drinking water or while bathing. City water is regulated for health hazards and does not contain dangerous bacterial contamination. It may contain chemical contaminants from industrial discharge or hazardous waste disposal, vinyl chloride from P.V.C. plastic pipe.

 Most people take for granted the water we use to wash the car, to water the lawn, cook and flush our wastes away, to shower, do half-loads of laundry, run the water while brushing our teeth, and ignore a dripping tap, and dump down the drain motor oil, solvents, paints, cleaners. We treat oceans, rivers, lakes, and streams more like parts of our sewer system them our life-support system. We are being made use to this behavior from childhood while watching television. We often see commercials on TV showing a person washing an automobile or spraying a lawn wastefully and without care. There is also too much violence shown on television and in cinemas, and nothing in the movies is aimed at educating people on the proper respect for water. We think it is right, our right to be as we are. The entire television networks and film makers and producers over the world should be re-educated in what is right and what is not. They should be responsible and be made accountable for the counter-educating commercials and products they are advertising on their networks. What the school system is doing in educating children is being negated by the television networks and film making industry. It is counter-productive and, at the end, the costs hit the taxpayers at home, one way or the other. The Polluter-pays Principle should apply to television networks and film making industry. They may use Human Rights for their defence but they should pay all the costs of the impacts of their advertisings and mindless production. They create behavioral patterns in the general population from childhood and they should be billed big time.

School project

Here is a school project. Ask your students to write thousand of lines for their preferred actors. The idea is to write a line, say five seconds long, the actor could say during a movie or on TV. In a one hour show, the actor could say between five to ten different lines you have writen. These lines would be related to the protection and proper management of the Earth, its life-support system, the ecosystems and the environment. You could also try to send the lines to the actors.

 As individuals, we can make changes in our ways of using water and dispose of wastes, both inside our homes and outdoors, and find ways to conserve and protect our water supplies. Water conservation is a means to ensure that there will be enough water for future generations.

 Good quality of water supplies to satisfy our lifestyle carries a price tag defined here:

 P(water)    =   P(storing)    +   P(distributing)    +   P(treatment)    +

P(maintaining and operating)    +    P(e,h)

 where P(e,h) is the term representing the associated environmental and health price tags i.e. the impacts on the environment and our health.

 The costs of obtaining, storing, heating, distributing water are steadily increasing, and so are the environmental and health impacts associated with those costs. The costs for treating wastewater to make it suitable to return to river systems are equally increasing and many communities now charge residents an extra fee for treating wastewater. Consumption rates vary largely from one community to another, and between urban and rural areas. Some communities have been forced to restrict water consumption for short periods of time.

There should always be a responsibility by government for certain essentials such as protection over water. Management and ownership of water should never be handed over to private control. Deregulation and privatization of essentials must stop and never be included in international treaties such as the NAFTA, FTAA, GATS and WTO. Transnational companies would be considered as "investors" and the projects they operate would be an investment under these treaties. These companies would have the advantage in overwhelming the local authorities (all levels of government) and they would be allowed to request compensation of any action or decision that diminishes their profitability. Any action by a municipality or a local community to ensure safe drinking water standards, any remedial orders of health officials and any effort by a local community to provide local economic benefits are all subject to compensation awards in millions or even billions by a WTO Tribunal for loss of profit.

Water resources assessment

Fresh water resources and clean air are more important to every human being than any other human rights ever listed in any charter of any society. If there was a scale of values to be drawn where would you insert these two human rights?

Human rights are those that individuals have by virtue of their very existence as human beings: to live, eat, drink fresh water, breath fresh air, have shelter. Just as human beings have human rights, they also have moral, legal responsibilities and related obligations and accountabilities. Every person needs Oxygen to live so clean air is certainly a primordial human right by our very nature. A large part of our body is made of water and we could not live without water; therefore water is also a primordial human rights by our very nature.

Fresh water resources and clean air are therefore proposed to be categorized as human rights.

Human actions constantly modify the hydrological cycle and also constantly pollute available water. The hydrological balance is changed by:

*     Irrigation
*     Drainage
*     Land use change
*     Removal of trees
*     Removal of vegetative cover
*     Expansion of paved areas
*     Building of dams
*     Building of channels
*     Building of inter-basin transfers

A Water Resources Assessment  is a prerequisite for sustainable development and management of a country's water resources. It provides the basis for a vast range of activities:

*     Domestic and industrial water supply
*     Hydropower production
*     Irrigation and drainage
*     Maintenance of human health
*     Mitigation of flood losses
*     Navigation
*     Preservation of the aquatic ecosystem
*     Tourism
*     New legislation and regulations
*     Strategies and policies that deal with priority of uses and resolution of conflicts

Water pollution

The existing and future uses of water are constantly challenged; balancing supply and demand is made even harder by the amounts of pollution found in the air, land and waters. Pollution is widespread and people are dying because of it. As soon as more pollution is added into the fresh water systems than people and all life die. This is true even with the best system in the world. We live on the edge. Rainwater could carry pollution to the fresh water supply, and it is too late. 

Today there are a multitude of pollution sources and just to name a few:

*     Animal manure
*     Discharge from industrial processes
*     Drainage from mines and industrial wastes
*     Leaching of the residues of fertilisers and pesticides used in agriculture
*     Acid rain
*     Oil spills from ships, trains, pipelines and off-shore drilling platforms
*     Storm water systems from cities carry pollution
*     Gulf courses upstream or near a lake
*     Untreated sewage
*     Leakage from oil storage tanks
*     Many of the 100,000 or so commercial chemicals employed in the world today create difficulties as a lot of them are released into aquatic ecosystems
*     Wet and dry deposition of materials transported through the atmosphere and which originate from emissions made in industrial areas and from motor vehicles

Water pollution varies in severity from one region to the next depending of the density of urban development, agricultural and industrial practices and the presence or absence of systems for collecting and treating the waste waters.

It is necessary to measure the water's quality, quantity and biological characteristics in every country. A lot of the data in the global hydrological network dedicated to measuring these elements are missing. It is non-existent in most developing countries. Data on water use are also scarce.

Global demand for water is rising. The rise will accelerate into the future because the world population is expected to reach 8.2 billion by the year 2024. 

Despite the efforts of worldwide organizations to improve the water services of the developing countries, in 1995 some 20 per cent of the globe's population of 5.7 billion people still lacked a safe and reliable water supply, and 50 per cent were without adequate sanitation. Lack of these services is the basic reason why more than a billion people live in poverty.

Even though regulations have been imposed by governments in the industrialized countries to protect their nations' water resources, people are still dying. This is due to the fact that regulations are not enforced as well as they should, regulations are not tough enough, and people dont care and often challenge them their own ways. We basically live on the edge. No safety net! 

Human health is dependent on a wholesome and reliable supply of water and safe sanitation. It has been estimated that at any given time about half the people living in developing countries are suffering from water-related diseases caused directly by infection, or indirectly by disease-carrying organisms that breed in water. Diarrhoea. infections by parasitic worms, river blindness and malaria are among the most widespread of these diseases. More than five million people are estimated to die each year from diseases related to inadequate sanitation and hygiene practices, and drinking  polluted water. 

In the developed world there is concern about the health effects of exposure to various chemicals in drinking water. Pollutants can build up in shellfish to the point that they harm the people who eat them. 

The effects of pollution on wildlife are better observed: death, population decline, reduced success of hatching, birth defects for the birds, fish and other forms of life in rivers, lakes, wetlands and deltas.

Water Security Index

The Water Scarcity Index is the water use as a percentage of the available water resource.   It can be shown that the margin between the global available resource and the volume of water used is going to diminish in the future. Population growth is the major factor. By the year 2024, the regions of stress will include two thirds of the world's population. By 2050, they will cover most of the globe. As the crisis approaches and as water resources become scarcer, the risk of conflict over them will become greater. After 2024, climate change will make conditions worse if precipitation amounts decrease in the major food producing regions and evaporation rates increase. With 50 per cent more people to feed than in 1999, the volume of water needed for food production is expected to increase by 50 to 100 per cent. The bulk of the increase in food production will come from irrigation which, in turn, will require more money to be spent on long distance water transfers and dams. There will be greater competition for these waters. The cost of water will certainly rise. 

In order to avoid conflicts and wars over water, Global Community is proposing to make water at the top of its agenda. Better understanding and much more data are needed. All nations need to assess their water resources and make projections for the future. Water resources must be managed. We propose here to make fresh water a human right. We have also discussed the human need for clean air in the article on Climate Change, the Proceedings of the World Congress, and in previous Newsletters. There are more than enough facts that show solid proof for the nedd to make clean air a human right as well.

There is a need to add a sociological, political and anthropological dimension to current debates on the sustainable use of water in the world. More specifically, the impacts of human activities on the management of water supplies can have on local populations.

In order to continue living as a species and achieve sustainability we must re-establish our connections with Nature.

The Global Community should develop and implement a program for the restoration of the hydrological cycle on all continents and the cooling of the planet. The effect will be to stop the drying out of continents.

The Global Community stipulates that air and water are fundamental human and Earth rights. For centuries we have found it necessary to control water so as to have it where we wanted it. Because of an ever-increasing global population and of human impacts on the natural environment, freshwater resources have become essentials to human life and to all life in Earth. There is an urgent need to protect these resources and for integrated understanding of lakes, wetlands and flowing waters.

Every person needs Oxygen to live so clean air is certainly a primordial human right by our very nature.

Fresh water resources and clean air are therefore proposed to be categorized as human and Earth rights on the Scale of Global Rights.

As populations grow and demands on resources increase, an aspect of the problem that is often overlooked is the fact that there are major fluctuations in the ability of the environment to satisfy our needs. In the case of municipal water, if we build new subdivisions sufficient to consume the limiting maximum output of our of our municipal water supply in wet years, then in dry years we will be seriously short. When one is living at the limit of a renewable resource, small fluctuations in the annual yield of the resource can cause major dislocations. Prudence dictates that one should plan to consume no more water annually than the water supply can deliver during the dryest years. This problem is even more critical with world food supplies, which are very dependent on the vagaries of global weather patterns.

By the year 2025, between 2.6 billion and 3.1 billion people could be living in either water-scarce or water-stressed conditions, depending on future rates of population growth. This is compared to 434 million people living in these circumstances in the year 2000. While 25 countries currently experience either water stress or scarcity, between 36 and 40 countries are projected to face similar conditions by 2025. Water shortage is likely to grow especially acute in the Middle East and in much of Africa. Currently, 600 million people face water scarcity.Depending on future rates of population growth, between 2.7 billion and 3.2 billion people may be living in either water-scarce or water-stressed conditions by 2025. For tens of millions of people in the Middle East and in much of Africa today, the lack of available fresh water is a chronic concern that is growing more acute and more widespread.

The problem is worse than it often appears on the ground, because much of the fresh water now used in water-scarce regions comes from deep aquifers that are not being refreshed by the natural water cycle. In most of the countries where water shortage is severe and worsening, high rates of population growth exacerbate the declining availability of renewable fresh water. While 25 countries currently experience either water stress or scarcity, 39 to 41 countries are projected to face similar conditions by 2025.

Depending on future rates of population growth, between 2.6 billion and 3.1 billion people may be living in either water-scarce or water-stressed conditions by 2025. For tens of millions of people in the Middle East and in much of Africa today, the lack of available fresh water is a chronic concern that is growing more acute and more widespread. The problem is worse than it often appears on the ground, because much of the fresh water now used in water-scarce regions comes from deep aquifers that are not being refreshed by the natural water cycle. In most of the countries where water shortage is severe and worsening, high rates of population growth exacerbate the declining availability of renewable fresh water. While 25 countries currently experience either water stress or scarcity, between 36 and 40 countries are projected to face similar conditions by 2025.

XI.3 Mining

( see enlargement )
Artwork by software developer Germain Dufour
August 2013

Mines and mining the impacts

A study made by the Global Community of the ecological accounting and balance sheet for mining has shown that minerals are obtained in a way that:

*    uses too much energy
*    generates too much pollution and causes significant health and safety problems
*    degrades permanently the environment during extraction, refining, and smelting of minerals
*    encourages poor regions to yoke their futures

There is a multitude of diverse Earth resources being taken from the ground and water, carried away for processing, manufacturing, packaging, or used in some form or another by consumers, and by commercial and industrial facilities.

Because of the limited quantities of Earth resources to be made available for this generation and the next ones, and because of environmental, climate change, and world population concerns, there is a need to manage the entire process from beginning to end, from the exploration stage to the consumer.

A Global Ministry is needed to look after the management of Earth resources at all stages: exploration, production, transportation, manufacturing and distribution.

It would be much less costly to recycle discarded materials. It makes no sense to spend so much energy trying to find new mines when there is an enormous amount of useful metal in cities and landfills. For instance, why do we need to keep gold in safety deposit boxes, bank vaults, and jewelry boxes? There is more gold in boxes than in underground mines.

Mines have transformed landscapes and the lives of local people who live near mineral deposits. Entire communities have been uprooted in order to make way for mine projects. People had to forsake traditional occupations and suffer the effects of living beside a mine that poisons their water supplies or pollutes the air they breathe. Local people who got jobs in a mine had to trade health problems for an income. Prostitution and drug use are serious problems at mining sites.

In fact, mineral dependence reduces economic growth in developing countries. Extracting raw materials for export is far less lucrative than processing the materials or manufacturing finished goods. By extracting minerals, countries are essentially running down their stocks of nonrenewable resources.

Mineral exporting-countries become heavily indebted to international lenders and much of what they earn from minerals and other exports never enters the national economy but is used instead to service the external debt. These countries have typically invested little in social services, such as education and health care, and are beleaguered by conflicts over resources and political instabilities.

Even though social, economic and environmental costs of mining are high and mineral prices are low, mining operations are still expanding. Mining firms have profited from direct and indirect subsidies handed out to them by governments. Mining firms benefits a lot from the cheap fuel and from the roads and other infrastructure made available to them. Even more surprising, mining firms do not usually pay royalties or taxes on profits, and governments provide immunity to companies against compensation claims. The final hand-out of public money occurs when mines have to close down or are abandoned, and governments and taxpayers are stuck with cleanup after companies have gone bankrupt or just walked away from poor projects.

Green tax policy INCREASES taxes and fees on:

*     Land sites according to land value
*     Lands used for timber, grazing, mining
*     Emissions into air, water, or soil
*     Ocean and freshwater resources
*     Electromagnetic spectrum
*     Satellite orbital zones
*     Oil and minerals

Green tax policy seeks to ELIMINATE subsidies environmentally or socially harmful, unnecessary, or inequitable. Slated for drastic reduction or complete removal are subsidies for:

*     Energy production
*     Resource extraction
*     Commerce and industry
*     Agriculture and forestry
*     Weapons of mass destruction

XI.4 Electromagnetic waves

( see enlargement )
Artwork by software developer Germain Dufour
August 2013

As mentioned above, land here, by definition, covers all naturally occurring resources like surface land, minerals deposits (gold, oil and gas etc), water, electromagnetic spectrum (EM), the trees, fish in the seas and rivers. It is unjust to treat land as private property. Land is not a product of labor. Everyone should therefore be given equal access to such natural resources.

Global Community has many expert groups able to begin the necessary intergovernmental negotiations towards establishing alternative revenue sources, which could include fees for the commercial use of the oceans, fees for airplane use of the skies, fees for use of the electromagnetic spectrum, fees levied on foreign exchange transactions, and a tax on carbon content of fuels.

It is well known that the electromagnetic spectrum comprises the range of all possible frequencies of electromagnetic radiation. The electromagnetic spectrum extends from below the low frequencies used for modern radio communication to gamma radiation at the short-wavelength (high-frequency) end, thereby covering wavelengths from thousands of kilometers down to a fraction of the size of an atom. The limit for long wavelengths is the size of the universe itself, while it is thought that the short wavelength limit is in the vicinity of the Planck length, although in principle the spectrum is infinite and continuous.

Most parts of the electromagnetic spectrum are used in science for spectroscopic and other probing interactions, as ways to study and characterize matter. In addition, radiation from various parts of the spectrum has found many other uses for communications and manufacturing.

In general, EM radiation (the designation 'radiation' excludes static electric and magnetic and near fields) is classified by wavelength into radio, microwave, infrared, the visible spectrum we perceive as visible light, ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays.

XI.5 Fisheries

( see enlargement )
Artwork by software developer Germain Dufour
August 2013

Fisheries, like the other global resources listed in this section, are part of "global commons" or shared resources such as our atmosphere, oceans, rivers and lakes, fish stocks, national parks, fresh and drinkable water, non-renewable energy sources such as oil and coal (all fossil fuels), soils, forest, the electromagnetic spectrum, advertising, and even parking meters. It is becoming more and more obvious that global commons are being overused, depleted, wasted, or controlled by self interests. It is a tragedy when the depletion of a shared resource by individuals, acting independently and rationally according to each one's self-interest, despite their understanding that depleting the common resource is contrary to the group's long-term best interests.

Situations exemplifying the struggle of the global commons include the overfishing and destruction of the Grand Banks, the destruction of salmon runs on rivers that have been dammed such as on the Columbia River in the Northwest United States, and historically in North Atlantic rivers the devastation of the sturgeon fishery in modern Russia, but historically in the United States as well – and, in terms of water supply, the limited water available in arid regions (e.g., the area of the Aral Sea) and the Los Angeles water system supply, especially at Mono Lake and Owens Lake.

Other situations exemplifying the the struggle of the global commons include congestion caused by driving cars. There are many negative externalities of driving; these include pollution, carbon emissions, and traffic accidents.

Still other examples include:

1. The US Federal budget
2. Clearing rainforest for agriculture in southern Mexico.

More general examples include:

• Our planet ecology
  • Uncontrolled human population growth leading to overpopulation
  • Air, whether ambient air polluted by industrial emissions and cars among other sources of air pollution, or indoor air.
  • Water: water pollution, water crisis of over-extraction of groundwater and wasting water due to overirrigation
  • Forests: frontier logging of old growth forest and slash and burn
  • Energy resources and climate: environmental residue of mining and drilling, burning of fossil fuels and consequential global warming
  • Othe life forms: habitat destruction and poaching leading to the holocene mass extinction
  • Oceans: overfishing
• Publicly shared resources
  • Radio frequencies: unlicensed frequencies used for wireless communications, especially
  • Spam email degrades the usefulness of the email system and increases the cost for all users of the Internet while providing a benefit to only a tiny number of individuals.
  • Vandalism and littering in public spaces such as parks, recreation areas, and public restrooms.
    • Careless usage of public restrooms, such as urinating or defecating while squatting over the toilet, by people who would sit on their private toilet.
  • Knowledge commons encompass immaterial and collectively owned goods in the information age.
    • Including, for example, source code and software documentation in software projects that can get "polluted" with messy code or inaccurate information.
  • Freeways experience heavy traffic due to overuse

Some form of authority or federation, best even a Ministry of Global Resources, is needed to solve the collective action problem. In a typical example, governmental regulations can limit the amount of a common good available for use by any individual. Permit systems for extractive economic activities including mining, fishing, hunting, livestock raising and timber extraction are examples of this approach. Similarly, limits to pollution are examples of governmental intervention on behalf of the commons. Alternatively, resource users themselves can cooperate to conserve the resource in the name of mutual benefit.

Our fisheries are at risk, as climate change affects both the populations and ranges of species sensitive to changes in water temperature, and have impacts on habitat. The Pacific marine fishery is likely to see lower sustainable salmon harvests in the south, but higher and more consistent harvests in the north. The Atlantic marine fishery is likely to suffer negative impacts resulting from complex and unpredictable changes in the water currents that shape the offshore habitats.

Overfishing, including the taking of fish beyond sustainable levels, is reducing fish stocks and employment in many world regions. The world 's ocean fisheries are already being fished to their maximum capacities or are in decline. Global fish production climbed modestly in 1997, the last year for which global data are available, almost entirely because the farming of fish expanded in the world 's most populous country, China. Most fisheries worldwide are fully exploited or in decline. While the number of individual fishers continues to increase, the amount of fish each one catches is falling steadily. The poor have long depended on fish for complete protein, but population growth is helping to push this important food source out of their reach.

The average summer temperature of the Fraser River, British Columbia, Canada, has increased by 1.1°C over the past 50 years. A warmer climate may pose problems for salmon as they migrate upriver to spawn. Salmon are sensitive to temperature; warmer water can deplete their energy reserves, and make them more vulnerable to stress, infection, and disease. Salmon migration patterns and success in spawning are likely to change. If summer river temperatures continue to rise, fewer fish may make it successfully upriver to their spawning grounds, and some salmon populations may be at risk.

XI.6 Tourism

( see enlargement )
Artwork by software developer Germain Dufour
August 2013

People travel for recreational, leisure, or business purposes. TThey travel to and staying in places outside their usual environment for other purposes as well.

Tourism is important and vital for many countries because of its direct effects on the social, cultural, educational, and economic sectors of national societies and on their international relations. It creates opportunities for employment in the service sector of the economy, associated with tourism. These service industries include transportation services, such as airlines, cruise ships, and taxicabs; hospitality services, such as accommodations, including hotels and resorts; and entertainment venues, such as amusement parks, casinos, shopping malls, music venues, and theatres.

Global Community believes that promotion of peace and sustainable Earth governance can be achieved by community based Heritage Eco-cultural Tourism. There is an urgent growing need for local, regional, national, international peace and security for effective Earth governance. This may be broadly ascribed to the increasing conflicts arising out of social, economic, religious and political factors. Peace and sustainability, considered as the indicators of development are threatened due to a myriad of conflicts and they are more visible than ever before, globally. Tourism considered as a Global Peace Industry has greater potentials to reduce these conflicts.

Today, we are confronting the urgent need for local, regional, national, international peace and security more than in the past. This may be broadly ascribed to the increasing conflicts arising out of social, economic, religious and political factors. The widening gap between the haves and have-nots, have further accelerated these conflicts. Hence, we are seeking universal human rights and universal human progress and prosperity.

One powerful indicator of such a development is the fact that more people are traveling from more countries than ever before, making travel and tourism the worlds largest industry. Its growth is expected to continue with globalization as people everywhere seem determined to exercise their right to travel and make their world a more familiar place in the spirit of peace and friendship.

Tourism itself has always been a peace-based industry and may be considered as a Global Peace Industry. In the face of current human population increases and worldwide ecological degradation, intact and healthy ecosystems are becoming the world's most sought-after tourism destinations. Culture and Heritage besides peace and harmony in such areas attract special groups of tourists, who demand quality products.

Earth Ministry of Health
The Earth Ministry of Health is needed to reduce the threat of new and reemerging diseases and immune micro-organisms. SAR is certainly a new emerging global threat and must be managed before it becomes widespread. There are several factors indicating the need for new global changes in the area of health:

* larger populations of mal-nourished and undereducated people living in substandard housing, unhealthy environmental conditions and inadequate health services, and poor water supply and sanitation
* rapid increase in international air travel
* globalization of trade
* lowering of standards in the production, handling, and processing of food have heightened the risk of food-borne diseases
* environmental factors and activities such as deforestation, conflict, tourism and migration into remote habitats have increased exposure to disease

Global Community is asking nation governments to give their support for the network of collaborating laboratories managed by the World Health Organization (WHO). We are proposing to expand WHO's mandate to include:

* a global surveillance system
* an emergency section capable of responding to outbreaks of infectious disease anywhere in the world
* a more efficient vaccines program
* research into advanced-generations of antibiotics
* help governments put in place policies to improve the management of medical and public health resources, and to monitor these policies. Tele-medicine and tele-health can bring the best medical and health knowledge to all areas of the world. Public-private partnerships have been shown to reduce disease and health costs in developing countries. More research are needed to understand the relationship among disease, ecology and genetics.
* AIDS awareness programs have to become far more aggressive. AIDS is the leading cause of death in the sub-Saharan Africa and is now spreading rapidly in Central/Southern Asia and Eastern Europe. Local delivery of anti-retrovirus medicine to developing countries is very difficult.
* bioterrorism is a threat just as important as a nuclear war and a section of this global ministry must be prepared to respond quickly and efficiently.
* more research is needed to understand and respond to infectious diseases. Immunization rates are declining in low-income and middle-income countries. There are more than 30 new and highly infectious diseases that have been identified, such as Ebola and AIDS, and there are no treatment, cure, or vaccine.
* more research is needed in 20 known strains of diseases such as tuberculosis (TB) and malaria which have developed resistance to antibiotics due to the widespread use and misuse of these drugs.
* more research is needed in old diseases such as cholera, plague, meningitis, diphtheria, dengue fever, hemorrhagic fever, and yellow fever as they have reappeared as public health threats after years of decline.

XI.7 Environment

( see enlargement )
Artwork by software developer Germain Dufour
August 2013

Profit-based conservation strategies for natural ecosystems

The Global Community is promoting a methodological approach to an economic valuation as a framework incentive to enforce profit-based conservation strategies for natural ecosystems. Biodiversity and Protected Areas exist neither in isolation nor independent of human activities. For local communities, this may mean conservation represents a hindrance rather than an opportunity for sustainable development and thus lead to increasing avoidance of the regulatory framework in effect. Changes are needed to conservation practices in order to create a broader consensus around objectives and practices. One means of doing this is to ensure people adopt profit-based conservation practices.

The Earth Court of Justice has listed America as the first nation to be prosecuted for a global environmental crime. Because the leader of the USA was responsible for not signing the Kyoto Protocol, past Republican President George W. Bush will be first to appear in Court. He is an evil man. In comparison, he makes Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein look like kids in the block. The splitting of America into separate independent states living at peace for the good of all would certainly be a better solution to all Americans and the world.

The reality here is that every American is on trial here. A large majority of the consumers in USA are also responsible for producing the deadly gas causing global warming, and they are all on trial. The same goes for every person on Earth producing the deadly gas. The gas is just as deadly as the gas that murdered millions of Jews during World War II. It is even more deadly as it is destroying the global life-support systems of all life on Earth. We are killing billions of human beings and countless life species. Americans have closed their conscience to the reality of life on Earth. Justice must prevail to stop the "killing fields". And therefore they are guilty as charge.

It is a crime against humanity and all life on Earth not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. It is a terrible crime against the global life-support systems, against the very existence of the next generations. On the Scale of Global Rights the crime is of maximum importance. There is no need to wait for the election of the Global Community to create the Earth Court of Justice. The Court can be formed now and incorporated to the Global Community.

Prosecuting criminals on the basis of universal jurisdiction regardless of a territorial or nationality nexus required a solid commitment of political will from national governments and the Global Community.

Once in effect, the Earth Court of Justice will become the principal judicial organ of the Global Community. The Court will have a dual role: to settle in accordance with international law the legal disputes submitted to it by national governments, local communities, and in some special cases by corporations, non-government-organizations and citizens, and to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by duly authorized organs and agencies.

The Court will be composed of judges elected by the Elected Representatives Council and Earth Security Council. It may not include more than one judge of any nationality. The Members of the Court do not represent their governments but are independent magistrates. The judges must possess the qualifications required in their respective countries for appointment to the highest judicial offices, or by jurists of recognized competence in international law. The composition of the Court has also to reflect the main forms of civilization and the principal legal systems of the world.

The Earth Court of Justice will hear cases involving:

*     nation states
*     national political and military leaders accountable for violations of international humanitarian law
*     'core' crimes of genocide
*     crimes against humanity and human rights
*     war crimes
*     crimes with significant impacts perpetuated against the life-support system of the planet (for instance wars and use of weapons of widespread destruction are listed under this category)
*     crimes related to the relentless misuse of the Earth Resources
*     environmental crimes
*     social crimes as the Court may see apply
*     crimes stemming from the global ministries

The Earth Court of Justice will also rule on global problems and concerns such as the creation of a new nation in the world, and disputing territories or land between nations.

The procedure followed by the Court is defined in its Statute. The Court decides in accordance with:

*     the Constitution of the Global Community,
*     the Scale of Global Rights,
*     belief, values, principles and aspirations of the New Age,
*     international treaties and conventions in force,
*     international custom,
*     the general principles of law and,
*     as subsidiary means, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists.

The Earth Court of Justice will handle environmental damage cause by the U.S. military action. The Global Community has classified the damage as a criminal liability for military personnel and/or their contractors. The war industry has become a liability to humanity.

On reviewing a development projects, the Global Community investigate the development proposal. Some of the questions to be asked include:

Is the project one which affects, or is affected by the natural environments?

Is the projects one which has the potential to affect land, water, air?

Does the project affect commerce, employment, industry, lifestyles, etc.?

Is the project one which affects existing public facilities, public services, utilities, institutions?

Is the project one which affects the local tax base, property values, minority group, special interest groups, traffic?

Is the project one which affects the community character and stability?

Is there an anticipated organized opposition to the proposal?

Does the project significantly affect historic and conservation lands?

Will the project have impacts which have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment?

Will the environmental effects of the project cause substantial adverse effects on human beings?

Impacts on Land Use and Landscape

* Is the proposed development compatible with surrounding land uses?
* Will the proposed development substantially modify the landscape?
* Is the scale of development compatible with that of the local landscape?
* Are there any trees or buildings on the site worthy of preservation?
* Are the landscaping proposals submitted by the applicant satisfactory?
* Has consideration been given to a satisfactory scheme for site restoration should the proposed development cease operation?
Has an appropriate means of financing the implementation of the restoration scheme been agreed upon should the company cease to be a viable concern?
* Are the materials to be used in the permanent structure and buildings of the development in character with those of the local area?
* How far are existing land uses within the zone of visual influence compatible with the character of the proposed development?

Ecological Impacts

* Are the development and the existing habitats compatible? If "YES", what conservation methods will be necessary to protect the habitats?
* if the developer described conservation methods that will be used to protect sensitive habitats, are they likely to be successful?
* Are the claims of the developer with respect to these conservation methods realistic?
* If the development and habitats are not compatible, what communities will be at risk from:

1. physical destruction;
2. changes in groundwater level;
3. change in quality of standing or flowing water, Oxygen content, salinity, turbidity, flow rate and temperature;
4. chemical pollution change in sitting;
5. air pollution; dust depositing;
6. changes in nutrient status of habitats;

* In each of the above cases, what is the local, regional and national status of any habitats at risk?
* What dependent communities will be at risk?

Earth Environmental Governance can only be achieved successfully within the larger context of Sustainable Developent and Earth Management. All aspects are inter-related and affect one another. When there is a need to find a solution to a problem or a concern, a sound solution would be to choose a measure or conduct an action, if possible, which causes reversible damage as oppose to a measure or an action causing an irreversible loss.

The environmental movement now has encompasses global aspects under the umbrella of the Earth Ministry of the Environment. Earth Environmental Governance is the most importance and urgent challenge of the Global Community.

Earth Environmental Governance can only be achieved successfully within the larger context of Sustainable Developent and Earth Management. All aspects are inter-related and affect one another.

A healthy environment is essential to long term prosperity and well-being, and citizens in the Global Community demand a high level of ecological protection. This is the 'raison d'etre' of the Scale of Global Rights.

In this way the Scale of Global Rights gives us a 'sense of direction' for future planning and managing of the Earth. Earth management is now well defined and becomes a goal to achieve. We no longer waste energy and resources in things that are absolutely unimportant.

The Global Community found evident that the ecological base is the essential prerequisite for the effectiveness and exercise of all rights recognized for human beings. The stewardship of the ecological base has to be given priority before the fulfilment of various economic and social wishes. Demands resulting from the socio-economic system of a particular country have to find their limits in the protection of the global ecosystem.

Vital interests of future generations have to be considered as having priority before less vital interests of the present generation. Supply chains have to be designed in a way, that the goods can enter after usage or consumption into natural or industrial recycling processes.

If serious damages to persons, animals, plants and the ecosystem cannot be excluded, an action or pattern of behaviour should be refrained from. A measure for supplying goods or services should choose a path which entails the least possible impact on the ecological and social system concerned. This way functioning proven systems will not be disturbed, and unnecessary risks will not be taken.

Supply strategies consuming less resources should have preference before those enhancing more resource consumption. The Global Community has also extended the idea of sustainability to be a moral and ethical state, as well as an economic and environmental state, wherein sustainable consumption patterns respect the universal values of peace, security, justice and equity within the human relationships that exist in the Global Community.

When there is a need to find a solution to a problem or a concern, a sound solution would be to choose a measure or conduct an action, if possible, which causes reversible damage as oppose to a measure or an action causing an irreversible loss.

XI.8 Forests

( see enlargement )
Artwork by software developer Germain Dufour
August 2013

The world's forests provide goods and services essential to human and planetary well-being. But forests are disappearing faster today than ever before. Due both to deforestation and human population growth, the current ratio of forests to human beings is less than half what it was in 1960. Yet we not only need more forests, we need forests more than ever before to protect the world's remaining plant and animal life, to prevent flooding, to slow human-induced climate change, and to provide the paper on which education and communication still depend. More efficient consumption of forest products and eventual stabilization of human population–a prospect that appears more promising today as birthrates decline–will be needed to conserve the world's forests in the coming millennium.

Half of the world's original forest cover is gone, a loss that reflects humanity's intensive use of land since the invention of farming. The vast primeval forests of Europe and Asia survive today only as patchwork remnants of secondary growth, much of it vulnerable to logging, encroachment by development, pollution, fire and disease.

Forests are currently expanding in much of the industrialized world, while shrinking in most of the developing world. In just the first five years of the 1990s, 65 million hectares of forest–an area the size of Afghanistan– were converted to other uses in developing countries. The pattern of forest loss in developing countries today differs from past losses in Europe and elsewhere in two key respects: human populations are much larger than before, and the pace of deforestation is more rapid. In the last four decades, an area half the size of the United States has been cleared of tropical forests, while population in developing countries has doubled to more than 5.0 billion. Among the most encouraging trends for the future of forests is the fact that fertility and birthrates are now declining in developing countries, leading demographers to revise downward their projections of future population growth.

Population dynamics are among the primary underlying causes of forest decline. Poverty, corruption, inequitable access to land and wasteful consumption practices also influence the decisions of governments, corporations and individuals to cut and clear forests. The interaction of these forces is most evident in areas such as South Asia, Central America and sub-Saharan Africa, where poverty, rapid population growth and weak institutions contribute to forest loss and severe environmental degradation.

The dominant force in forest loss is growth in the demand for farmland. Subsistence agriculture is the principal cause of forest loss in Africa, Asia and much of Latin America. Slash-and-burn farming and other traditional techniques were sustainable for centuries when population densities were lower. Today they are a major factor, along with the expansion of commercial farms and livestock grazing areas, in the permanent conversion of wooded land to agriculture. The need to increase food production is expected to accelerate the forest-to-farmland cycle, especially in countries where alternatives for meeting this demand are limited.

Total wood consumption has tripled during the 20th century. Per capita consumption has changed little on a global basis–actually decreasing slightly–but consumption patterns vary widely between countries. A typical American uses 15 times as much lumber and paper as a resident of a developing country. Reducing wood consumption in the industrialized world is unlikely to stop forest loss in developing countries however, since most of the wood consumed comes from trees in the industrialized countries themselves. Nevertheless, the consumption model offered to the rest of the world threatens accelerated forest loss as both populations and economies grow in developing countries.

Commercial logging of tropical forests has more than doubled since 1960, accounts for 5 million to 6 million hectares of forest loss each year. This is about one third the forest area lost each year in the developing world. Illegal logging causes a significant, though unquantified, amount of additional forest loss. Logging's biggest role in deforestation, however, is more indirect. Logging roads provide pathways deep into forests that farmers and other settlers then follow, permanently clearing the land for crops and pasture.

Nearly 3 billion people depend on wood as their main source of energy. The production of fuelwood and charcoal accounts for over 90 percent of the wood harvested in Africa, 80 percent in Asia and 70 percent in Latin America. Population growth is closely linked to rising woodfuel demand. The effects of woodfuel scarcity are most severe in impoverished areas, where more modern fuels are inaccessible or unaffordable.

Women and children are the victims of woodfuel scarcity. The search for fuel consumes the time, energy and health of women and their children. As local wood supplies grow scarce, women risk spinal column damage and uterine prolapse from carrying heavier loads over longer distances. Girls are often kept home from school to help their mothers gather wood, depriving them of educational opportunities. Where wood is unavailable, women cook with inefficient fuels such as animal dung or crop wastes, depriving livestock of fodder and soils of natural fertilizer. This endangers both the nutritional and respiratory health of women and their families.

Forest scarcity threatens the use of paper for education, the activity most likely to improve health and economic well-being. 80 percent of the world's population lack access to enough affordable paper and reading materials to meet basic standards for literacy and communication. Reducing paper consumption could help ensure enough paper for all. These efforts are undermined, however, by broader inequalities in access to education and economic opportunity. Closing the "paper gap" between rich and poor nations ultimately depends on government action to increase spending on education, health and social services in developing countries. Future population growth and forest loss will largely determine whether and when this gap can be closed.

Population policies based on human development and the Scale of Global Rights offer the greatest hope for the future of forests. This is not an argument for population "control" but for the social investments that allow couples to choose when to have children and how many to have. Programs linking conservation activities with family planning services show promise for achieving both the sustainable use of forests and greater acceptance of reproductive health services.

Sustainable wood consumption is essential for the future of forests. Individuals and institutions alike should promote the ecologically sound and socially responsible use of forest products. Eco-labeling, or the environmental certification of wood products, could speed the adoption of more sustainable forestry practices. Consumer demand for green-certified paper and other wood products is an important complement to recycling and other efforts to reduce wood consumption.

The well-being of the world's forests is closely linked to the health and well-being of women. Investing in education for girls helps them to contribute to their national economies–and to postpone childbearing until they are ready for a family. Providing credit and other economic opportunities for women creates alternatives to early and frequent childbearing. Finally, better access to quality reproductive health services directly benefits women and their families. These approaches increase human capacity, providing the greatest long-term return to societies, individuals and the environment. Moreover, they are likely to lead to an early peak in world population in the coming century, quite possibly at levels that can co-exist with forests that teem with human and non-human life for centuries to come.

Deforestation

The earth's atmosphere contains about 0.037% or 370 ppm CO₂ by volume. Due to the greater land area, and therefore greater plant life, in the northern hemisphere as compared to the southern hemisphere, there is an annual fluctuation of about 5 ppm, peaking in May and reaching a minimum in October at the end of the northern hemisphere growing season, when the quantity of biomass on the planet is greatest.

Despite its small concentration, CO₂ is a very important component of Earth's atmosphere, because it traps infrared radiation and enhances the greenhouse effect of water vapor, thus keeping the Earth from cooling down. The initial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the young Earth was produced by volcanic activity; this was necessary for a warm and stable climate conducive to life. Volcanic activity now releases about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of carbon dioxide each year. Volcanic releases are about 1% the amount which is released by human activities.

Atmospheric CO₂ has increased about 30 percent since the early 1800s, with an estimated increase of 17 percent since 1958 (burning fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum is the leading cause of increased man-made CO₂, deforestation the second major cause).

The CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere is being affected by deforestation and, as a consequence, this human activity:

*        removes a large sink for CO₂, and it
*        adds a large source of CO₂ to the atmosphere (via burning after logging, or and decomposition)

Deforestation is the removal of trees, often as a result of human activities. It is often cited as one of the major causes of the enhanced greenhouse effect. Trees remove carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere during the process of photosynthesis. Both the rotting and burning of wood releases this stored carbon carbon dioxide back in to the atmosphere.

Locally, deforestation results in:

a decrease in	an increase in
evapotranspiration atmospheric humidity local rainfall effective soil depth water table height surface roughness (and so atmospheric turbulence and heat transfer)	seasonality of rainfall soil erosion soil temperatures surface albedo

It is also estimated that rainforests provide up to 40% of the oxygen currently found in the atmosphere.

Forests store large amounts of CO₂, buffering the CO₂ in the atmosphere. The carbon retained in the Amazon basin is equivalent to at least 20% of the entire atmospheric CO₂. Destruction of the forests would release about four fifths of the CO₂ to the atmosphere. Half of the CO₂ would dissolve in the oceans but the other half would be added to the 16% increase already observed this century, accelerating world temperature increases.

XI.9 Soils

( see enlargement )
Artwork by software developer Germain Dufour
August 2013

The number of people living in countries where cultivated land is critically scarce is projected to increase to between 600 million and 986 million in 2025. Despite the Green Revolution and other technological advances, agriculture experts continue to debate how long crop yields will keep up with population growth. The food that feeds the future will be raised mostly on today's cropland. The soil on this land must remain fertile to keep food production secure. The minimum amount of land needed to supply a vegetarian diet for one person without any use of artificial chemical inputs or loss of soil and soil nutrients is .07 hectares, or slightly less than a quarter of an acre. An estimated 415 million people already live today in countries that have less than that per person. Easing world hunger could become unimaginably difficult if population growth resembles demographers' higher projections.

Soils represent an important component of the terrestrial compartment (see Fossil Fuels for details). In fact, more carbon is stored in soils (including peat) than in all of the vegetation of the world! Note, however, that carbon storage in soils has also shrunk since preindustrial times. Respiration and decomposition increase with ALC, and under most kinds of agricultural systems, such that carbon storage in soils is decreasing.

Global warming and agriculture

The weather conditions - temperature, radiation and water - determine the carrying capacity of the biosphere to produce enough food for the human population and domesticated animals. Any short-term fluctuations of the climate can have dramatic effects on the agricultural productivity. Thus, the climate has a direct incidence on food supply.

Demographic studies indicate that world population growth is expected to slow markedly in the next century, increasing of nearly 3 billion people by 2050. Hence, in the coming years, unless population size is stabilized, agriculture will have to face an increasing challenge in feeding the growing population of the world.

World population will also have to face the perspective of global climate changes.

Assessment of the impacts of global climatic changes on agriculture might help to properly anticipate and adapt farming to limit potential food shortage.

Many scientists position is that agricultural shifts are likely.

Several types of changing parameters can have an impact on agriculture

• a direct effect is the composition of the earth atmosphere:CO₂ and Ozone.
• some indirect effects are climate parameters resulting from climate change: temperature, insolation, rainfall, humidity
• other indirect effects are the side effects due to the climatic changes: increase of the sea level, changes in ocean currents, tornadoes...

The assessment of these effects is different whether one considers annuals crops (cereals, leguminous) or herbaceous perennial cultures (fodder, meadows) or other cultures such as vine or fruit trees... The effects are also different depending on the latitude: in temperate countries, effects are found less negative or even rather beneficial, while in tropical and desertic countries they tend to be adverse. Finally, effects depend on altitude, mid and high altitude places rather benefiting from a warmer temperature. Climate change induced by increasing greenhouse gases is likely to affect crops differently from region to region.

However, the more favourable effects on yield depend to a large extent on realization of the potentially benefiting effects of CO₂ on crop growth and increase of efficiency in water use. Decrease in potential yields is likely to be caused by shortening of the growing period, decrease in water availability and poor vernalization.

Temperature potential impact on growing period

Duration of crop growth cycles are above all related to temperature. An increase in temperature will speed up development. In the case of an annual crop, the duration between sowing and harvesting will shorten (for example, corn duration cycle could shorten between 1 to 4 weeks). The shortening of the cycle would rather has adverse effect on productivity because of senescence occuring sooner. Temperature changes could also have serious implications for crops and trees that need vernalisation(to shorten the growth period before the blossoming and fruit or seed bearing of a plant by chilling its seed or bulb).

Atmospheric CO₂ potential impact on yield

Carbon dioxide is a perfect example of a change that could have both positive and negative consequences.

• CO₂ is expected to have positive physiological effects through photosynthesis increase (in the unlikely scenario of assuming no deforestation). This impact should be higher on C3 crops (such as wheat) than on C4 crops (such as corn). Under optimum conditions of temperature and humidity, the yield increase could reach 36 % (for a doubling of CO₂).
• Higher amounts in CO₂ will also reduce the loss of water through transpiration, hence decreasing the plants need in water.
• On the other hand, other studies also show a change in harvest quality. The growth improvment in C3 plants could favor vegetative biomass on grain biomass; thus leading to a decrease in grain production yield.

CO₂ is believed by many scientists to be potentially responsible of productivity increase: 10-15 % for wheat and soybean, 8% for corn and rice for a +2°C scenario on average. However, these results mask great differences among countries.

Water availability impact on productivity

Water is a major limiting factor in the growth and production of crops worldwide. In spite of better water efficiency use, higher summer temperature and lower summer rainfall is likely to have adverse impact. The intensification of the hydrological global cycle will have consequences such as more frequent drought in northern sub-tropical areas or desertification extension in arid areas.

Erosion and fertility

Soil degradation is more likely to occur, and soil fertility would probably be modified.

• A soil constant is its carbon/nitrogen ratio. A doubling of carbon is likely to imply a higher storage of nitrogen in soils, thus providing higher fertilizing elements for plants, hence better yields. The average needs for nitrogen could decrease, and give the opportunity of changing the fertilisation strategies.
• The increase in precipitations would probably result in greater risks of erosion, according to the intensity of the rain.
• The possible evolution of the soil organic matter is a very debated point though: while the increase in the temperature would induce a greater mineralisation (hence lessen the soil organic matter content), the atmospheric CO₂ concentration would tend to increase it.

Global climate change potential impact on pests, diseases and weeds

A very important point to consider is that weeds would undergo the same acceleration of cycle than cultivated crops, and would also benefit of carbonaceous fertilization. Most weeds being C3 plants, they are likely to compete even more than now against crops such as corn. However some results make it possible to think that weedkillers could gain in effectiveness with the temperature increase.

The increase in rainfall is likely to lead to an increase of atmospheric humidity and maybe to the duration of moisturing. Combined with higher temperatures, these could favor the development of fungal diseases. Similarly, because of higher temperatures and humidity, there could be an increased pressure from insects and disease vectors.

Aricultural surfaces and climate changes

Climate change is likely to increase agricultural land surface near the poles by reduction of frozen lands. Sea levels are expected to get up to one meter higher by 2100, though this projection is disputed. Rise in sea level should result in agricultural land loss in particular in South East Asia. Erosion, submergence of shorelines, salinity of water table, could mainly affect agriculture through inundation of low-lying lands.

Ozone and UV-B

Some scientists think agriculture could be affected by any decrease in stratospheric ozone, which could increase biologically dangerous ultraviolet radiation.

Temporal variability and forecasting of the climate

Many believe the general foreseeability of the climate will decrease, making it more difficult to plan agricultural practices. They also think likely that extrem climatic conditions become more frequent, particularly in terms of intense rainfall, droughts and heat spells.

Conclusion to global warming and agriculture

In the long run, the climatic change could affect agriculture in several ways :

• productivity, in terms of quantity and quality
• agricultural practices, through changes of water use (irrigation), agricultural inputs (herbicides,pesticides, fertilizers)
• environmental level, in particular in relation of frequency and intensity of soil drainage (leading to nitrogen leaching), soil erosion, reduction of crop diversity
• rural space, through the loss of previously cultivated lands, land speculation, land renunciation, hydraulic amenities.

They are large uncertainties to uncover, particularly the lack of information on the local scale, the uncertainties on magnitude of climate change, the effects of technological changes on productivity, global food demands, and the numerous possibilities of adaptation.

Most agronomists believe that agricultural production will be mostly affected by the severity and pace of climate change, not so much by gradual trends in climate. If change is gradual, there will be enough time forbiota adjustement. Rapid climate change, however, could harm agriculture in many countries, especially those that are already suffering from rather poor soil and climate conditions. The adoption of efficient new techiques (varieties, planting date, irrigation...) is far from obvious. Some believe developed nations are too well-adapted to nowadays climate. As for developing nations, there may be social or technical constraints that could prevent them from achieving sustainable production.

XI.10 Fossil fuels

( see enlargement )
Artwork by software developer Germain Dufour
August 2013

Concern about the potential effects of human (anthropogenic) activities on the atmosphere is growing. The two major results of human activity resulting in global changes in the Earth's climate are:

• Fossil fuel burning
• Mass deforestation

Human activities that add CO₂ to the atmosphere

(1)       Burning of fossil fuels, contributing about 5 billion metric tons C/year. The combustion of fossil fuels oxidizes organic carbon, with carbon and oxygen combining to yield CO₂.

(2)       Anthropogenic land conversion (ALC)

Historically, CO₂ taken up in the biological carbon was approximately equal to the CO₂ released in the biological cycle. The global production of carbon fixed by plants was then equal to the global ecosystem respiration that comprised respiration by plants plus respiration by all other living things on land. On a global basis, there was no net flux of carbon to or from the atmosphere, and there was no net change in carbon storage in terrestrial ecosystems (globally). Unfortunately, humans have recently been converting forested landscapes to grazed, cultivated, or urban landscapes. The impacts of such activities have been to:

(1)       Remove a large sink for atmospheric carbon (because forests take up and store larger amounts of carbon than do other terrestrial ecosystems). Tropical and temperate rainforests have been subjected to heavy logging during the 20th century, and the area covered by rainforest around the world is shrinking rapidly. Estimates range from 1 1/2 acres to 2 acres of rainforest disappear each second. Rainforests used to cover 14% of the Earth's surface. This percentage is now down to 6% and it is estimated that the remaining rainforests could disappear within 40 years at this present rate of logging. Further estimates suggest that large numbers of species are being driven extinct, possibly 50,000 species a year due to the removal of their habitat. The largest rainforests can be found today in the Amazon basin (the Amazon Rainforest), the inner parts of Democratic Republic of Congo and on Borneo.

(2)       Add a large source for atmospheric carbon (when the trees decay or are burned, releasing carbon). About 80% of the wood removed during tropical deforestation is destroyed (burned or decayed) or used as fuel wood, so the carbon stored in it is released rapidly as CO₂, as opposed to the delayed slow release that occurs when used for lumber.

A mature forest stores a large amount of carbon. When cut, it is often replaced by an ecosystem that stores less carbon, (pasture or crops) with the difference in carbon content of the ecosystems being balanced by a flux of CO₂ to the atmosphere.

Thus, there is an increased flux of carbon from terrestrial ecosystems to the atmosphere, resulting from this land conversion. It was estimated that the net input of CO₂ to the atmosphere from ALC was about 1/4 as much as from fossil fuel burning (1.3 billion metric tons of carbon per year compared to 5 billion metric tons of carbon per year from fossil fuel combustion). Most of this increased flux now comes from tropical Africa and Asia, but until about 1920, North America actually provided the largest ALC flux to the atmosphere. There is much uncertainty concerning the magnitude of fluxes associated with tropical deforestation, and whether it does in fact represent a net flux. The current range of estimates for fluxes from tropical deforestation is from 1.1 - 3.6 billion metric tons of C/year, which would be between 20-65% as much as from fossil fuel emissions. Quite a huge spread in estimates! Most estimates agree that between 1/5 -1/3 of the increased flux of CO₂ to the atmosphere results from deforestation.

Why is there so much variation in estimates of the size of fluxes resulting from deforestation in the tropics? Several reasons, all relating to uncertainty in estimating the factors that contribute to the fluxes:

(1)       What are actual rates of deforestation (and what counts as deforestation -- e.g., does selective logging count, or must it be clearcutting?)

(2)       What is the fate of deforested land? Is it cleared permanently or temporarily, and what proportion is treated in each way?

(3)       How big are the stocks of carbon stored in these forests? Estimates of the standing stock differ by a factor of two!

In terms of sources and sinks, then, tropical deforestation does constitute a source of carbon to the atmosphere. Why might biomass (and carbon storage) of some areas be increasing? There are several potential reasons, including changing land use (e.g., afforestation of areas that were formerly fields, pastures; drainage and conversion to forest of wetlands; and fire suppression, which allows woody vegetation to encroach on areas that weren't formerly occupied by woody vegetation), and possible effects of CO₂ fertilization and/or nitrogen fertilization from atmospheric deposition. Currently, changes in land use are believed to be the dominant force behind increased carbon storage in forests, with contributions from CO₂ fertilization or nitrogen fertilization believed to be relatively minor.

Oceans as sinks for CO₂ and their impact on the atmosphere

Oceans represent a major sink for carbon. Oceans take CO₂ up through chemical and biological means.

Chemically, ocean waters absorb CO₂ by the formation of carbonic acid:

CO₂ + H₂O <-----> H₂CO₃

The double-headed arrow on this equation indicates that this is an equilibrium reaction. Hence, as CO₂ in the atmosphere increases, more is taken up by the oceans, "pushing" the reaction towards formation of H₂CO₃ (carbonic acid).

Oceans also take up CO₂ biologically, largely through photosynthesis of plankton and other algae. This "fixed" carbon is eventually removed from the water by biochemical processes (for example, the algae are eaten by shell fish, which die and sink to the ocean floor, eventually forming carbonates and entering the long term geochemical cycle.

Oceans hold 50-60 time more carbon in various forms than does the atmosphere, which holds it mostly as CO₂. Some parts of the ocean are major sinks; such as the North Atlantic during the spring planton bloom (population explosion). On the other hand, some areas of the oceans are net sources, such as the equatorial Pacific. On balance, however, oceans are net sinks for carbon.

The oceans are currently taking up more carbon than they are releasing, but we don't know how rapidly they can take it up in response to increases in atmospheric CO₂ concentration. Obviously, it is more likely oceans take less CO₂ than they used too.

There is much uncertainty in estimates of what fraction of extra CO₂ emissions the oceans are really taking up. Oceans were estimated to be taking up about half of the excess CO₂ put into the atmosphere by human activities. That is:

6.3 billion tons C/year input to the atmosphere from ALC + fossil fuel burning

2.4 billion tons C/year as net ocean net uptake

That is, the oceans were estimated to be taking up about 38% of the human-influenced flux into the atmosphere.

More recent estimates put the net input to the atmosphere at 7 billion tons (from ALC and fossil fuel burning). Of that, about half (3.4 billion tons) are estimated to stay in the atmosphere, with a net influx into the oceans of 2 billion tons. (Net influx means ocean uptake in excess of its giving off of CO₂ back to the atmosphere).

Notice anything wrong here? Seven billion tons into the atmosphere and only a total of 5.4 billion of those tons accounted for! The remaining 1.6 billion tons represents the "missing carbon mystery!" If 40-50% of the carbon emissions stay in the atmosphere and 15-30 % go into the oceans, what happens to the remaining 20 - 35%?

Fossil fuel combustion

Fossil fuel burning contributes about 5 billion metric tons C/year to the atmosphere. It is important now to describe the human activities that are involved in combustion.

Combustion or burning is a chemical reaction in which a fuel combines with Oxygen, releasing heat and producing an oxide. The commonest types of fuel are organic materials containing carbon and hydrogen, from which the waste products are typically carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide, water and sometimes smoke.

The process of destroying unwanted materials by burning is known as incineration. Incineration is done on a small scale by individuals, and on a large scale by industry.

Examples:

• internal combustion engine
• spontaneous combustion
• fire
• deflagration
• detonation

These uncertainties aside, it is clear that humans are putting tremendous quantities of CO₂ into the atmosphere, and that fossil fuel combustion is currently the most important contributor to that flux. While this is true at present, over the period 1860-1980, the global emission of CO₂ from landscape changes has about equaled that from fossil fuel burning. At present, however, fossil fuel burning is a more important source of CO₂ to the atmosphere than is anthropogenic land conversion (ALC). Let us evaluate the impact of burning fossil fuels. Crude oil is certainly a major fossil fuel in use today.

What are the actual world reserves of crude oil and what will be the impact of burning it all on the amount of Oxygen in the air?

It has been estimated that the planet contains over 6.4 x 10^15 tonnes of organic carbon that is cycled through two major cycles, but only about 18% of that contributes to petroleum production. The primary cycle ( turnover of 2.7-3.0 x 10^12 tonnes of organic carbon ) has a half-life of days to decades, whereas the large secondary cycle ( turnover 6.4 x 10^15 tonnes of organic carbon ) has a half-life of several million years. Much of this organic carbon is too dilute or inaccessible for current technology to recover, however the estimates represent centuries to millennia of fossil fuels, even with continued consumption at current or increased rates.

The concern about "running out of oil" arises from misunderstanding the significance of a petroleum industry measure called the Reserves/Production ratio (R/P). This monitors the production and exploration interactions. The R/P is based on the concept of "proved" reserves of fossil fuels. Proved reserves are those quantities of fossil fuels that geological and engineering information indicate with reasonable certainty can be recovered in the future from known reservoirs under existing economic and operating conditions. The Reserves/Production ratio is the proved reserves quantity divided by the production in the last year, and the result will be the length of time that those remaining proved reserves would last if production were to continue at the current level. It is important to note the economic and technology component of the definitions, as the price of oil increases ( or new technology becomes available ), marginal fields become "proved reserves". We are unlikely to "run out" of oil, as more fields become economic. Note that investment in exploration is also linked to the R/P ratio, and the world crude oil R/P ratio typically moves between 20-40 years, however specific national incentives to discover oil can extend that range upward.

Concerned people often refer to the " Hubbert curves" that predict fossil fuel discovery rates would peak and decline rapidly. M. King Hubbert calculated in 1982 that the ultimate resource base of the lower 48 states of the USA was 163+-2 billion barrels of oil, and the ultimate production of natural gas to be 24.6+-0.8 trillion cubic metres, with some additional qualifiers. As production and proved resources were 147 billion barrels of oil and 22.5 trillion cubic metres of gas, Hubbert was implying that volumes yet to be developed could only be 16-49 billion barrels of oil and 2.1-4.5 trillion cubic metres of gas. Technology has confounded those predictions for natural gas.

The US Geological Survey has also just increased their assessment of US ( not just the lower 48 states ), inferred reserves crude oil by 60 billion barrels, and doubled the size of gas reserves to 9.1 trillion cubic metres. When combined with the estimate of undiscovered oil and gas, the totals reach 110 billion barrels of oil and 30 trillion cubic metres of gas. When the 1995 USGS estimates of undiscovered and inferred crude oil are calculated for just the lower 48 states, they totalled ( in 1995 ) 68.9 billion barrels of oil, well above Hubbert's highest estimate made in 1982.

The world R/P ratio has increased from 27 years (1979) to 43.1 years (1993). The 1995 BP Statistical Review of World Energy provides the following data.

Crude oil	Proved reserves	R/P ratio
Middle East	89.4 billion tonnes	93.4 years
USA	3.8	9.8
USA - 1995 USGS data	10.9	33.0
Total world	137.3	43.0
Coal	Proven reserves	R/P ratio
USA	240.56 billion tonnes	247 years
Total world	1,043.864	235 years
Natural gas	Proven reserves	R/P ratio
USA	4.6 trillion cubic meters	8.6 years
USA - 1995 USGS data	9.1	17.0
Total world	141.0	66.4

Crude oil is a limited resource. It is estimated that there is a total of 2390 billion barels of crude oil on Earth. Estimates of undiscovered reserves range from 275 to 1469 billion barels.

About 77% of crude oil has already been discovered, and 30% of it has been used so far. From 1859-1968 200 billion barels of oil have been used, and since then oil production has stabilized to 22 billion barels per year. It is estimated that oil reserves will become scarce by 2050s.

Most of oil is concentrated in the Near East - around 41%. North America, Russia, and Antartic are also rich in crude oil.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration (U.S. DOE/EIA) and the American Petroleum Institute (API) oil production will increase far into the future. These organizations project a significant expansion of world oil production in the future due to the application of advanced oil production technology. The North Sea has been a major oil production province since its first significant production in the middle 1970s. In 1998, North Sea oil production represented nearly 9% of world oil production. Norway and the United Kingdom (U.K.) are the main oil producing countries in the North Sea and major oil fields within these two countries will be analyzed. In this paper, a major field is considered one with an estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) of greater than 100 million barrels oil (mbo). There are approximately 35 major Norwegian oil fields and 55 major U.K. oil fields in the North Sea. Masters et al. (1994) assessed the total EUR (all fields) for Norway at approximately 30 billion barrels oil (bbo) and the U. K. at approximately 36 bbo. U.K. field data from 1976 through 1997 were obtained from Oil & Gas Journal. Field data for Norway from 1978 through 1997 are from Oil & Gas Journal and 1998 field data from the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD).

What energy is released when gasoline is burned and how much Oxygen is needed to burn all of the world crude oil and all of its by-products?

It is important to note that the theoretical energy content of gasoline when burned in air is only related to the hydrogen and carbon contents. The energy is released when the hydrogen and carbon are oxidised (burnt), to form water and carbon dioxide. Octane rating is not fundamentally related to the energy content, and the actual hydrocarbon and oxygenate components used in the gasoline will determine both the energy release and the antiknock rating.

Two important reactions are:

C + O₂ → CO₂

H + O₂ → H₂O

The mass or volume of air required to provide sufficient oxygen to achieve this complete combustion is the "stoichiometric" mass or volume of air. Insufficient air = "rich", and excess air = "lean", and the stoichiometric mass of air is related to the carbon:hydrogen ratio of the fuel. The procedures for calculation of stoichiometric air-fuel ratios are fully documented in an SAE standard.

Atomic masses used are:
Hydrogen = 1.00794, Carbon = 12.011, Oxygen = 15.994, Nitrogen = 14.0067, and Sulfur = 32.066.

  The composition of sea level air ( 1976 data, hence low CO2 value ) is

  Gas            Fractional      Molecular Weight         Relative 
  Species          Volume            kg/mole                Mass
  N2              0.78084             28.0134             21.873983
  O2              0.209476            31.9988              6.702981
  Ar              0.00934             39.948               0.373114
  CO2             0.000314            44.0098              0.013919
  Ne              0.00001818          20.179               0.000365
  He              0.00000524           4.002602            0.000021
  Kr              0.00000114          83.80                0.000092
  Xe              0.000000087        131.29                0.000011
  CH4             0.000002            16.04276             0.000032
  H2              0.0000005            2.01588             0.000001
                                                          ---------
  Air                                                 28.964419		
  

---

For normal heptane C7H16 with a molecular weight = 100.204

C₇H₁₆ + 11O₂ → 7CO₂ + 8H₂O

thus 1.000 kg of C7H16 requires 3.513 kg of O2 = 15.179 kg of air.

The chemical stoichiometric combustion of hydrocarbons with oxygen can be written as:

C_xH_y + [x + (y/4)]O₂ → xCO₂ + (y/2)H₂O

Often, for simplicity, the remainder of air is assumed to be nitrogen, which can be added to the equation when exhaust compositions are required. As a general rule, maximum power is achieved at slightly rich, whereas maximum fuel economy is achieved at slightly lean.

The energy content of the gasoline is measured by burning all the fuel inside a bomb calorimeter and measuring the temperature increase. The energy available depends on what happens to the water produced from the combustion of the hydrogen. If the water remains as a gas, then it cannot release the heat of vaporisation, thus producing the Nett Calorific Value. If the water were condensed back to the original fuel temperature, then Gross Calorific Value of the fuel, which will be larger, is obtained.

The calorific values are fairly constant for families of HCs, which is not surprising, given their fairly consistent carbon:hydrogen ratios. For liquid ( l ) or gaseous ( g ) fuel converted to gaseous products - except for the 2-methylbutene-2, where only gaseous is reported. * = Blending Octane Number as reported by API Project 45 using 60 octane base fuel, and the numbers in brackets are Blending Octane Numbers currently used for modern fuels. Typical Heats of Combustion are:

  Fuel     State  Heat of Combustion      Research        Motor
                      MJ/kg                Octane         Octane	
  n-heptane  l        44.592                  0              0
             g        44.955
  i-octane   l        44.374                100            100
             g        44.682
  toluene    l        40.554                124* (111)     112*  (94)
             g        40.967                
  2-methylbutene-2    44.720                176* (113)     141*  (81)
    

Along with the estimates of crude oil, these values tell us how much heat is added to the atmosphere. The industry and all vehicles on the roads are the largest contributors of CO₂ into the atmosphere. Human activities are causing the atmosphere to heat up and this amount of heat should be added to the heat created by the greenhouse effect.

Because all the data are available, the calorific value of fuels can be estimated quite accurately from hydrocarbon fuel properties such as the density, sulfur content, and aniline point ( which indicates the aromatics content ).

It should be noted that because oxygenates contain oxygen that can not provide energy, they will have significantly lower energy contents. They are added to provide octane, not energy. For an engine that can be optimised for oxygenates, more fuel is required to obtain the same power, but they can burn slightly more efficiently, thus the power ratio is not identical to the energy content ratio. They also require more energy to vaporise.

              Energy Content   Heat of Vaporisation   Oxygen Content    
                Nett MJ/kg          MJ/kg                   wt%
  Methanol        19.95             1.154                  49.9
  Ethanol         26.68             0.913                  34.7
  MTBE            35.18             0.322                  18.2
  ETBE            36.29             0.310                  15.7
  TAME            36.28             0.323                  15.7
  Gasoline       42 - 44            0.297                   0.0
  

Typical values for commercial fuels in megajoules/kilogram are:

                                  Gross        Nett      
  Hydrogen                        141.9       120.0
  Carbon to Carbon monoxide        10.2          -
  Carbon to Carbon dioxide         32.8          -
  Sulfur to sulfur dioxide          9.16         -
  Natural Gas                      53.1         48.0
  Liquified petroleum gas          49.8         46.1
  Aviation gasoline                46.0         44.0
  Automotive gasoline              45.8         43.8
  Kerosine                         46.3         43.3
  Diesel                           45.3         42.5
       

Obviously, for automobiles, the nett calorific value is appropriate, as the water is emitted as vapour. The engine can not utilise the additional energy available when the steam is condensed back to water. The calorific value is the maximum energy that can be obtained from the fuel by combustion, but the reality of modern SI engines is that thermal efficiencies of only 20-40% may be obtained, this limit being due to engineering and material constraints that prevent optimum thermal conditions being used. CI engines can achieve higher thermal efficiencies, usually over a wider operating range as well. Note that combustion efficiencies are high, it is the thermal efficiency of the engine that is low due to losses. For a water-cooled SI engine with 25% useful work at the crankshaft, the losses may consist of 35% (coolant), 33% (exhaust), and 12% (surroundings).

World CO₂ emissions from fossil fuel combustion far into the future

The US contributes about 23% of total world CO₂ emissions (and their emissions increased more than 8% between 1990 and 1996). China is second (14%; 1997 data) and their emissions are increasing fast (increased 27% between 1990-1995). Brazil, India and Indonesia all had large increases during the 1990 - 1995 period as well (20, 28, and 40% increases respectively). Per capita, the US is still the largest polluter as indicated by the following data for 1992 (tons of carbon per person per year):

US 5.4;       Canada 4.2;       Russia 4.0;       Germany 3.1;       Japan 2.4;       and China 0.6.

Multiply these numbers by the populations and you obtain the total amounts emitted by each nation.

Atmospheric CO₂ concentration

Now that we know who is adding CO₂ in the atmosphere and how much reserves of oil are still available in the world, what can we say about CO₂ concentration?

CO₂ concentrations have increased progressively since monitoring began in the 50s. Concentrations have increased approximately 17% since 1958. The average rate of increase since 1958 has been about 0.4%/year, which is an absolute increase of about 1.5 ppmv per year. (Note, gas concentrations in air are often measured in "ppmv" which is parts per million by volume.)

The increase since the mid-nineteenth century (or preindustrial time) has, of course, been greater than this and is over 30% (from about 280 ppmv to the current 368 ppmv).

CO₂ persists for quite a long time in the atmosphere; its atmospheric residence time is on the order of decades to a century or so.

This increase in atmospheric CO₂ concentration is predicted to cause an increase in global temperatures and in global precipitation; how much, how fast, and how distributed globally are the important questions. There are greenhouse gases other than CO₂ whose concentrations are also increasing.

Atmospheric concentration of CO₂ and temperature of the atmosphere

What evidence do we have that concentrations of CO₂ in the atmosphere are really related to global temperatures? Evidence comes from a variety of sources, and reflects relationships between gas concentrations and temperatures over a wide range of time scales.

Evidence from the ancient past links timing of plate tectonic activity (which is associated with abundant volcanic activity and degassing of CO₂) with climate changes, and evidence from the more recent past links atmospheric CO₂ with climatic fluctuations during the ice ages in the Pleistocene.

How do we know what CO₂ concentrations in the atmosphere were present thousands of years ago? One source of information is polar ice, which forms from snowfall accumulating over centuries. Annual layers are formed in this ice, and air bubbles in the ice trap gases from the time when the ice was formed. Concentrations of gases in these ancient air bubbles can be measured.

How about ancient temperatures? The ratio of various isotopes of oxygen (16 and 18, based on the number of neutrons per atom) and of various isotopes of hydrogen in the water comprising the ice is dependent on the temperatures prevailing at the time of its formation, hence analysis of these isotopic ratios gives insights into temperatures.

There were fluctuations in CO₂ and temperature over the past 160,000 years. This data set comes from a 2 km long (2000 m) ice cores from Antarctica (the Vostoc ice core). This 160,000 years encompasses our current interglacial period, the last 100,000 yr ice age, a previous interglacial, and an even earlier ice age. It shows clearly that atmospheric CO₂ varied in parallel with temperatures; when temperatures were up, so was CO₂. Concentrations of another trace gas, methane, also varied in parallel with CO₂. For example, temperatures fell in synch with CO₂ at the onset of the last glacial period and then these rose together as the ice retreated about 10,000 yr ago.

Globally, temperatures were about 5 °C cooler during glacials than during interglacials, while concentrations of CO₂ were about 25% lower during glacials than during interglacials. There was a post-glacial climate optimum about 6800 years ago, and a general cooling has been in place since then.

Temperature increases may have caused CO₂ concentrations to increase. This is because of effects of temperature increases on biological processes and changes in ocean circulation (or vice versa). Ocean uptake of gases such as CO₂ increases as cooling occurs (remember gases have higher solubility in colder water). This pulls CO₂ out of the atmosphere, and would serve to amplify the orbitally-induced cooling. As another example, the volume of oceans decreases with cooling (as more water is frozen), which results in nutrients in the water becoming more concentrated, and fostering algal blooms, which pull CO₂ out of solution, again amplifying cooling. These algal blooms also resulted in the production of sulfate. Changes in gas concentrations, as indicated above, are considered essential to cause changes of the magnitude actually observed.

Data of global temperatures and CO₂ concentrations over the past century

Data representing fluctuations in temperature and CO₂ concentrations over the past 100 years are derived from a variety of sources, including:

*       corals, which preserve the oxygen isotope ratio of the water (remember its temperature sensitivity)and can be dated
*       glacial ice, whose rate of retreat can be calibrated to temperature (incidentally, all measured glaciers in various parts of the world, including those in the Cascades, are retreating)
*       CO₂ trapped in layered lake sediments
*       carbon isotopes in tree rings, which can, of course, be dated

During the last 100 years, atmospheric CO₂ increased another 25% above its interglacial level. (Concentrations of methane doubled again too.)

Effect on global temperatures

Data on temperatures from a variety of recording stations and instruments give us reasonable surface air temperature data for the past 100 years or so. After applying corrections for urban heat, and other factors, we can see that recent decades have been unusually warm.


El Nino was parly responsible for some of the recent extra-warm years, such as 1998, but even after correcting for the influence of these events (El Nino's) the 90's remain the warmest decade since instrumental monitoring of temperatures began.

What is the EL NINO phenomena?
El Nino is a phenomena that occurs when a pool of warm water, usually centered in the western Pacific, expands to the East, usually by December. This tropical warmth displaces the jet streams that then steer unusual weather into various regions of the world, typically warming the northern US. Normally, tropical trade winds blow E to W across the equatorial Pacific, dragging water along and dumping evaporated water as monsoons over Indonesia. The surface water moves W as well, and near the equator, gets diverted poleward by Earth's rotation. The divergent flow (that is, net movement of water from E to W) causes upwelling of deeper cooler water, especially in the E Pacific (because surface water is being blown away from there) where the thermocline is shallower. As deeper cooler water comes up, it brings nutrients from beneath that feed productive food chains off Peru and Chile. During an El Nino, the trade winds weaken, warm water stays in the E Pacific, monsoons fall over the ocean instead of over SE Asia, the thermocline along the coast of Chile and Peru flattens and deepens, and marine life declines as nutrients that support it fail to be recharged by upwelling. El Nino's used to come every 7-8 years, but during the 1990's, there were several in a row. No one is sure if global warming is related to this increased frequency and duration of El Ninos or not, but global warming effects are likely to intensify the effects of weather extremes associated with El Ninos.

Years 1992 and 1993 were cooler than adjacent years (after correcting for 1992 being an El Nino year), probably because of Mt. Pinatubo's eruption in June of 1991. What should a volcano have to do with global temperatures?

A volcano injects large quantities of SO2 into the atmosphere, much of which is converted to SO4 (sulfate) in the stratosphere. Much of the sulfate is present as very small, aerosol-sized particles, which cause cooling by reflecting incoming radiation. The sulfate particles also serve as condensation nuclei for high thin clouds, which also increase the albedo (reflectance, essentially) of the stratosphere. The aerosol sizes are so small that they are more effective at reflecting shortwave solar radiation than they are at attenuating longer wavelengths of radiation emitted from Earth.

Climate modelers predicted that the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo would decrease global mean temperatures by about 0.5 degrees C -- enough to temporarily mask warming -- and this did occur between the summers of 1991 and 1992 (briefly impeded by an El Nino early in 1992). Most of the particles resulting from the eruption then precipitated out of the atmosphere, so by 1993, global temperatures were back on an upswing. Climate modelers were pleased that global temperatures responded as predicted to the eruption of this volcano, as the correspondence between model predictions and actual events serves to validate the models; they accurately predicted these climate consequences.

The warming over recent decades is uneven over the globe. It tends to be greatest over mid- latitude continents (40 - 70 degrees N). For example, summer temperatures in N Siberia have recently been hotter than any time in the past millenium. Antarctica has warmed at more than twice the global rate in the last 50 years, perhaps causing several of its ice shelves to disintegrate.

How much heat is added to the air by the burning of fossil fuels?

Per capita, the US is still the largest polluter as indicated by the following data for 1992 (tons of carbon per person per year):

US 5.4;       Canada 4.2;       Russia 4.0;       Germany 3.1;       Japan 2.4;       and China 0.6.

Multiply these numbers by the populations and you obtain the total amounts emitted by each nation.

Automobile exhausts, coal-burning power plants, factory smokestacks, and other waste vents of the industrial age now pump five billion metric tons of carbon dioxide greenhouse gases into the earth's atmosphere each year from fossil fuel combustion.

Units and calculations
One billion = 1 x 10^9. One trillion = 1 x 10^12.
One barrel of Arabian Light crude oil = 0.158987 m3 and 0.136 tonnes.
1 short ton = 2000 pounds avoirdupoids = 907.18 kilograms = 0.90718 metric ton
1 kilogram = 2.2046 pounds avoirdupoids
1 metric ton = 1.1023 short tons = 1000 kilograms
five billion metric tons of carbon dioxide = 25 trillion kilograms of carbon dioxide
From section B.8, gasoline contents about 43 megajoules/kilogram.
As a rough approximation, 1075 x 10¹⁸ joules are emitted into the air every year from fossil fuel combustion.

This amount of heat must be subtracted from the global warming due to the greenhouse effect.

Trace greenhouse gases other than CO₂

In addition to CO₂, there are other trace greenhouse gases that are causing the greenhouse effect.

These other greenhouses gases (not including CO₂ and water vapour) contribute collectively about the same amount of warming as does CO₂! Recently, the concentration of many of them has been increasing as rapidly or more rapidly than that of CO₂ (which has been increasing at about 0.4%/yr).

Water as a greenhouse gas

Water vapour is an important greenhouse gas whose contribution to global warming is the greatest -- actually greater than CO₂. Water vapor absorbs radiation of about the same wave length as CO₂. It is not clear if human activities are having any net global effect on the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere, hence controls on water vapor aren't being discussed at present in negotiations about controlling emissions of greenhouse gases. A significant warming would imply more evaporation and hence more water vapor in the atmosphere. Whether this will amplify or dampen warming is unclear, as the effects of water vapor in the atmosphere depend on the droplet sizes and their height in the atmosphere.

Tropospheric Ozone as a trace greenhouse gas

Tropospheric Ozone is another greenhouse gas. The Ozone absorbs radiation of different wavelengths than CO₂. Human activities are affecting its concentration in some areas of the world. Increases in its concentration contribute to warming. This is particularly so since one mole of Ozone contributes 2000 times as much warming potential as one mole of CO₂. It is difficult to assess its concentration globally, and it is different from hemisphere to hemisphere. Best estimates are that radiative forcing from it is about 15% of that contributed by the longer-lived radiative gases.

In contrast to most other greenhouse gases, Ozone has a short (60 hr) atmospheric residence time, which means that it doesn't accumulate in the atmosphere to the same extent than other greenhouse gases.

Methane as a trace greenhouse gas

Methane (CH₄) is another very important greenhouse gas. While it is present in lower concentrations in the atmosphere than CO₂ (about 1.7 ppmv vs about 368 ppmv for CO₂), it is very effective at causing warming because it absorbs radiation of a different wavelength than CO₂. Mole for mole, methane is about 25 - 30 times more effective at causing warming than is CO₂. Methane currently contributes about 1/4 the warming effect that CO₂ does.

The atmospheric concentration of methane has been increasing for about 300 years, and, over geological time, its concentration has changed in parallel with CO₂'s (and therefore with temperature). Its recent increase began before the recent rapid increase in CO₂, beginning about 300 years ago, as compared to about 100 years ago for CO₂. Its concentration has increased more than 100% in the last 100 years that is, has more than doubled. In contrast, concentrations of CO₂ "only" increased a bit more than 25% since preindustrial times. The average rate of increase in methane over the 1984-1994 decade has been about 0.6% per year or 10 ppbv.

About 80% of atmospheric methane has originated from biological sources. Biological doesn't necessarily mean "natural," as humans have affected many of the biological sources. In fact, anthropogenically-related sources contribute about twice as much as natural sources (340 vs 160 tg/yr). Methane is produced by:

• anaerobic bacterial fermentation where oxygen is scarce, as in swamps and landfills (smelly)
• rice paddies
• intestinal tracts of cattle and termites
• bacterial action following the melting of permafrost
• extraction and use of fossil fuels

The largest single source is wetlands; followed by mining, processing and use of coal; extraction and use of oil and natural gas; "enteric fermentation" (mainly cattle); and rice paddies (120, 100, 80, 50 tg/yr respectively)

Note that all of these sources are linked to the rising human population and to agriculture! How?

• More cattle (or ruminant livestock in general; cattle, sheep, goats, buffalo, and camels produce 15-20% of annual CH₄ world wide, through their "burping" and from animal wastes in lagoons).
• More land is under cultivation as rice paddies.
• There are more acres of municipal landfills with associated bacterial production of methane.
• More biomass burning is taking place (e.g., in the tropics), which also contributes methane.
  

Increases in methane are also related to production and use of fossil fuels. About 20% of total global methane emissions are related to fossil fuel production and use. It leaks from oil and gas exploration, recovery, and distribution (about 90% of natural gas is CH4), and it is also released in coal mining. Methane is formed as plant material turns into coal, and some of it is retained in the coal and nearby rock and then released when the coal is mined. Methane has direct warming effects on its own, and it also contributes to the production of CO₂, ozone, and water vapor in the atmosphere, which contribute about as much warming as the methane itself. Methane has approximately a 12 year atmospheric residence time, which is shorter than that of CO₂ (which is about 100 years) or halocarbons, which are also about 100 years. The increase in methane concentrations in the atmosphere began slowing in the 1980's and in mid-1992, the rate of increase dropped sharply in the Southern hemisphere and actually went to zero in the Northern hemisphere. By now, the rate of increase than held during most of the 1980's has been resumed. Why these changes in the rate at which its atmospheric concentration has been changing? Particularly, why did the increase slow or even stop for a while? Two possibilities:

(1)       Russia has major natural gas fields and pipe lines, and has plugged many leaks in them. This might be enough, actually, to account for a fair percentage of the decrease.

(2)       A cooler climate after the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in June, 1991 probably led to decreased rates of decomposition and may have decreased biological emissions from wetlands.

No one really knows, but in 1999, it was back to "normal" in terms of concentration increases.

Nitrous oxide, N₂O, as a trace greenhouse gas

Nitrous oxide originates mostly from "natural" sources, which contribute about twice the anthropogenic sources. It is produced by bacterial action as part of the nitrogen cycle. It is produced by aerobic nitrification, in which NH₄ is oxidized to NO₂, releasing N₂O along the way, and also by anaerobic denitrification, in which NO₃ and NO₂ are reduced to molecular nitrogen, and by other bacterial transformations.

However, anthropogenically related emissions are increasing, and, as for methane, many are connected to human population and agriculture:

• N₂O is volatilized from nitrogenous fertilizers, such as ammonia, urea, and ammonium nitrate. The conversion to N₂O is especially high for anhydrous ammonia, which is less expensive than many other fertilizers and so is used a lot. It is estimated that about 5% of nitrogen in fertilizer applied to fields in the vicinity of Ontario, Canada, is converted to N₂O (about 11% to NOx)
• N₂O is produced in coal combustion (from organic nitrogen) and biomass burning
• The production of N₂O may be accelerated from tropical soils following deforestation
  

Mole for mole, N₂O is about 200 times more effective than CO₂ at causing global warming, and it has a long (120 year) atmospheric residence time. It is hard to measure its concentration in the atmosphere, but concentrations appear to have increased about 0.25% per year over last decade. (Its increase, like that of methane, slowed temporarily in 1991-1992.) Its concentration in the atmosphere has increased about 12% since preindustrial times (275 up to 312 ppbv).

Halocarbons(chlorofluorocarbons and HCFC's) as trace greenhouse gases

The only source of these compounds is anthropogenic, as they are not naturally occurring. They are synthetic chemicals. They are halogenated carbon compounds, such as CFC11 (CFCl3 or Freon) They all contain carbon and halogens, such as Cl (chlorine), F (fluorine), or Br (bromine), and, in the case of the HCFC's, they also contain H (hydrogen). They are (or were until recently, in some cases) used in refrigeration, aerosols, for puffing foams, as solvents for cleaning in the electronics industry, and in automobile air conditioners.

In addition to their effects on stratospheric ozone, these are important greenhouse gases. They are tremendously effective at producing warming because, even though they are present in low concentrations in the atmosphere, they absorb heat radiation of different wavelength than CO₂. Mole for mole, Halocarbons are 12,000 - 15,000 times more effective at causing global warming than is CO₂.

Their concentrations in the atmosphere have been monitored since the late 1970's and they increased steadily and rapidly over most of that time at rates of 3-5% per year. Both production and emissions fell precipitously from 1989 on, as result of international treaties intended to halt destruction of stratospheric ozone, and now their concentrations in the atmosphere are actually beginning to decline as well. Because these compounds are very long-lived (atmospheric residence times on the order of 75 - 120 years), the decline in atmospheric concentrations lagged greatly behind the decline in emissions.

Replacements for CFC's (largely hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFC's) and hydrofluorocarbons – (HFC's)) are also greenhouse gases, but are expected to make a relatively small contribution to the global warming potential contributed by other greenhouse gases. Current models suggest that warming due to all halocarbons (CHC's , halons, and their replacements) will be at most 4-10% of the total expected greenhouse warming by 2100.

The depleting stratospheric O₃ has a negative radiative forcing e.g., tends towards cooling. The cooling results from indirect effects of Cl and Br, and also of reactions involving other constituents that are speeded in the presence of increased ultraviolet radiation (as results from loss of stratospheric ozone); constituents that have negative radiative forcing effects.

Summary of results on greenhouse gases other than CO₂ and water vapour

*       together they add about as much warming as CO₂
*       all are increasing under human influence
*       many are involved in more than one environmental problem (for example, tropospheric ozone causes problems in its own right and also contributes to excess warming; CFC's deplete stratospheric ozone and also contribute to warming)

Climate change models must take all greenhouse gases into account. This is a great challenge as they have complex atmospheric chemistry. It is challenging to predict trends in their production, and there are complex feedbacks and interactions among them. Policy decisions must also take this variety of gases into account. Therefore, it is a mistake to think that the prospect of global climate change is reducible to CO₂ alone.

Automobile exhausts, coal-burning power plants, factory smokestacks, and other waste vents of the industrial age now pump six billion tons of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the earth's atmosphere each year. Industrial greenhouse gases include the heavy halocarbons (chlorinated fluorocarbons), CFC, HCFC-22 molecules such as freon and perfluoromethane, and sulphur hexafluoride. They are called greenhouse gases because they trap radiant energy from the sun that would otherwise be re-radiated back into space. The fact that a natural greenhouse effect occurs is well-known and is not at issue in the debate over global warming. Without it, temperatures would drop by approximately 30°C, the oceans would freeze and life as we know it would be impossible. Rather, what we are concerned about is that increased levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere might cause more heat to be trapped. Concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are currently at approximately 25% above pre-industrial values. This is considerably higher than at any time during the last 420,000 years, the period for which reliable data exists from ice cores. From less direct geological evidence it is believed that values this high were last attained 40 million years ago. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution the concentrations of many of the greenhouse gases have increased.

• Carbon dioxide is up 30%, from 278,000 ppvb to 358,000 ppvb
• Methane is up from 700 ppvb to 1721 ppvb
• Nitrous oxide 15%, from 275 to 311 ppvb
• CFC-12 from 0 to 0.503 ppvb
• HCFC-22 from 0 to 0.105 ppvb
• Perfluoromethane from 0 to 0.070 ppvb
• Sulphur hexafluoride from 0 to 0.032 ppvb

Duration of stay and global warming potential

The greenhouse gases, once in the atmosphere, do not remain there forever. They can be withdrawn from the atmosphere as a consequence of a:

• physical phenomenon (rain, condensation, remove water vapor from the atmosphere)
• chemical phenomenon intervening within the atmosphere. This is the case for methane, which is partly eliminated by reaction with radicals OH naturally present in the atmosphere, to give CO₂ (this effect due to the production of CO₂ is not included in the methane GWP)
• chemical phenomenon intervening at the border between the atmosphere and the other compartments of the planet. This is the case for CO₂, which is reduced by photosynthesis of plants, and which is also dissolved in the ocean to end up giving bicarbonate and carbonate ions (CO₂ is chemically stable in the atmosphere)
• radiative phenomenon. For example the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the sun and cosmic rays break molecular bonds of species in the upper atmosphere. Some halocarbons disappear in this way (they are generally too stable to disappear by chemical reaction in the atmosphere).

The lifetime of an individual molecule of gas in the atmosphere is frequently much shorter than the lifetime of a concentration anomaly of that gas. Thus, because of large (balanced) natural fluxes to and from the biosphere and ocean surface layer, an individual CO₂ molecule may last only a few years in the air, on average; however, the calculated lifetime of an increase in atmospheric CO₂ level is hundreds of years.

Aside from water vapour near the surface, which has a residence time of few days, the other greenhouse gases take a very long time to leave the atmosphere. It is not easy to know with precision how long is necessary, because the atmosphere is a very complex system. However, there are estimates of the duration of stay, i.e. the time which is necessary so that the gas disappears from the atmosphere, for the principal ones.

Duration of stay and warming capability of the different greenhouse gases can be compared:

• CO₂ duration stay is variable (approx 200 years) and its global warming potential (GWP) is defined as 1.
• Methane duration stay is of 12.2 +/- 3 years and a GWP of of 22 (meaning that it has 22 times the warming ability of carbon dioxide),
• Nitrous oxide has a duration stay of 120 years and a GWP of 310
• CFC-12 has a duration stay of 102 years and a GWP between 6200 and 7100
• HCFC-22 has a duration stay of 12.1 years and a GWP between 1300 and 1400
• Perfluoromethane has a duration stay of 50,000 years and a GWP of 6500
• Sulphur hexafluoride has a duration stay of 3 200 years and a GWP of 23900.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Since global warming is such an important issue, governments need predictions of future trends in global change so they can take political decisions to avoid undesired impacts. Global warming is being studied by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC). In its last report, the IPCC made some predictions about future climate change. These predictions are the basis for current political and scientific discussion.

IPCC predictions are based on the same models used to establish the importance of the different factors in global warming. These models need data about anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols. These data are predicted from economic models based on 35 different scenarios. Scenarios go from pessimistic to optimistic, and predictions of global warming depend on the kind of scenario considered. None of these scenarios consider any kind of measures to avoid global warming.

In any case, proponents of the IPCC assessment say that the current climate models are good in predicting surface temperatures. They furthermore argue that it is surface temperatures that will have the greatest and most direct effect on the environment, agriculture and the stability of polar ice.

The IPCC says that it has corrected the land station data to account for the urban heat island effect.

In its last report, IPCC stated that average surface temperature is projected to increase by 1.4 to 5.8 °C over the period 1990 to 2100, and the sea level is projected to rise by 0.1 to 0.9 metres over the same period.

IPCC uses the best available predictions and their reports are under strong scientific scrutiny. The IPCC concedes that there is a need for better models and better scientific understanding of some climate phenomena, as well as the uncertainties involved. Critics point out that the available data is not sufficient to determine the real importance of greenhouse gases in climate change. Sensitivity of climate to greenhouse gases may be over-estimated or under-estimated estimated because of some flaws in the models and because the importance of some external factors may be misestimated. It is important to recognize that in each of its five year reports, the IPCC has increased its certainty that humans are now influencing the global climate. Its 1990 report was quite uncertain, concluding cautiously that, "Observed warming is broadly consistent with predictions of climate models, but it is also of the same magnitude as natural climate variability.....the observed increase could be largely due to this natural variability. Alternatively, this variability and other human factors could have offset a still larger human-induced greenhouse warming." This cautious message came in part because of the following problems:

(1)       We would expect a steady warming from the fairly steady increase in greenhouse gases, but have seen instead:

(a)       A period of rapid warming until the end of World War II (and why so much warming then -- before emissions of greenhouse gases had increased hugely -- is unknown, but, as of 2001, is largely believed to have resulted from natural causes, including higher solar output and many years with low amounts of volcanic activity)
(b)       slight cooling through the mid 1970's (maybe related to a lot of volcanic activity then, especially in the Northern Hemisphere, with much aerosol causing cooling, but weak evidence). Others say that Earth was in a natural cooling time, and that the cooling during this time would have been much greater without counteracting greenhouse gases.
(c)       A second period of rapid warming since the mid-1970's, which, in the opinion of most scientists, can't be accounted for by natural phenomena, as in "a," just above.

(2) Computer models suggest that there should have been warming, given the increases in atmospheric concentrations of CO₂ and other radiatively active trace gases. However, early models predicted more warming than we have had, given the increase in radiatively active gases.

However, as understanding of factors regulating climate has improved, so have models, and so has the correspondence between model predictions and reality. In particular, modelers:

(a) Realized that early models underestimated the ability of oceans to take up atmospheric warming (that is, they credited the oceans with more thermal inertia than they have).
(b) Recognized that early models didn't account well for the involvement of other pollutants (such as SO₄ aerosols), which slow warming basically by reflecting incident radiation away from Earth and by modifying the shortwave-reflective properties of clouds. For example, SO₄ in clouds increases their albedo (provides a greater abundance of very small droplets high in the atmosphere, which can mean reduced warming). Once these (and other) effects were included in the models, predictions of temperature change attributable to greenhouse gases match much more closely the observed changes

Thus, the general consensus in the scientific community has changed since 1990 to the view global warming is already being detected, and it is sure to increase in the future as emissions continue to increase.

The IPCC's 2001 report stated, " "There is stonger evidence" yet on human influences on climate; human-made greenhouse gases, "have contributed substantially to the observed warming over the last 50 years." No equivocation in that language!

Similarly, the American Geophysical Union (comprised of over 35,000 international earth and planetary scientists) issued a statement in 1999: "There is no known geologic precedent for the transfer of carbon from the Earth's crust to the atmoshpere in amounts comparable to fossil fuel burning withour simultaneous change in the climate system." "There is a compelling basis for legitimate public concern." and "The present level of scientific uncertainty does not justify inaction in the mitigation of human-induced climate change."

Even for those who are reluctant to agree that we are already experiencing the predicted warming, there is little doubt that eventually warming would occur. The open question is still how much and how fast, and how drastically will emissions of radiatively active trace gases need to be reduced to prevent further change.

Global warming can trigger a sudden change (a shut down, basically) in an ocean current that warms Northern latitudes. If that happened, we'd have sudden and dramatic cooling, as this ocean "conveyor belt" that warms Northern Europe stopped. This change has happened in the past in response to dramatic climate changes. There are records of as much as 10°C temperature swings in just a few years in regions affected by this ocean current. This shut down is apparently caused by pulses of fresh water coming into the N Atlantic from melting glaciers and ice caps, and from the increased precipitation associated with the previous warming. Whether this kind of abrupt change may be on the horizon is hotly debated at present. Nevertheless, phenomena such this serve to remind us that the global climate system is probably full of surprises!

Global warming

Global warming refers to a period of increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans. It is generally used to refer to the increase currently occurring, and to imply "as a result of human activity". The more neutral term climate change is used for periods of increase or decrease, or indeed change in non-temperature variables, with no particular implication of human cause. The Earth's climate system is inherently unstable and global warming can precipitate sudden climate shifts as have been discovered to have occurred within the Earth's recent past. Because climate change will likely continue in the coming decades, denying the likelihood or downplaying the relevance of past abrupt events could be costly.

Climate scientists generally agree that Earth has undergone several cycles of global warming and global cooling in the last 20,000 years. The IPCC estimates that surface temperatures have risen by around 0.6°C since the late 19th century.

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts 1.5 to 7 °C warming is likely within the 21st century, unless severe measures are taken.

Impacts on human health, agriculture, the economy and the environment

Many researchers predict disastrous consequences for a warming of 1.5 to 7 °C. Government officials are concerned that the current warming has the potential for harm to the environment and agriculture.

If warming continues at the present rate, it will cause changes in ocean circulation, catastrophic global climate change, loss of biodiversity and irreversible damage to agriculture in those ecoregions most affected. In some regions, e.g. Western Europe, Bangladesh, damage is projected to be extreme, due to loss of Gulf Stream warming and global sea level rise respectively. More frequent bouts of destructive weather are also anticipated, and risk experts in the insurance industry have expressed very strong concerns, advocating a proactive approach based on the precautionary principle. Estimates accepted by the IPCC and by some insurance industry bodies estimate up to 3.5 billion people could be affected by rising disease, loss of fresh water supply, and other impacts.

The Global Community has created a global ministry to help humanity be prepared to fight the harmful consequences of a global warming through anticipatory adaptation. The global ministries on climate change and emergencies have now been developed and are operating. The ministries have developed:

1. policy response to the consequences of the global warming, and
2. strategies to adapt to the consequences of the unavoidable climate change.

The examples of secondary evidence cited above (lessened snow cover, rising sea levels, weather changes) are examples of consequences of global warming that may influence not only human activities but also the ecosystems. Increasing global temperature means that ecosystems may change; many species will be forced out of their habitats and to extinction because of changing conditions, while others may spread. Few of the terrestrial ecoregions on Earth could expect to be unaffected.

Another cause of great concern is sea level rise. Sea levels are rising 1 to 2 centimetres per decade and some small countries in the Pacific Ocean are expressing concerns that if this rise in sea level continues they soon will be entirely under water. Global warming causes the sea level to rise mainly because sea water expands as it warms. Scientists are concerned that the polar ice caps and glaciers have started to melt. As a consequence, the sea level could rise by several metres.

As the climate gets hotter, evaporation will increase. This will cause heavier rainfall and more erosion. Many people are concerned that the climate change results in more extreme weather as global warming progresses.

Due to potential effects on human health, the economy and on the environment, global warming is a cause of great concern. Already some important environmental changes have been observed and linked to global warming.

Actions in response to Global Warming

In opposition to action stand the fossil fuel industry and skeptics, who oppose immediate action to mitigate Global Warming. They argue that crippling industry and infrastructure to prevent an unconfirmed ecological catastrophe does not make economic sense and that healthy economies are required to fund technologically innovative solutions, as required by the UNFCCC. President G. W. Bush, made this argument in rejecting the Kyoto Protocol. Bush did not reject the science outright, and argued that the greenhouse gas control was a matter of voluntary restraint by industry.

The Kyoto Protocol

The Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC proposes binding greenhouse gas limits for developed countries.
It is a protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) which was adopted in Rio de Janeiro in 1992). All parties to the UNFCCC can sign or ratify the Kyoto Protocol, while non-parties to the UNFCCC cannot. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted at the third session of the Conference of Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC in Kyoto, Japan.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) establishes a process for developing an international response to the perceived global warming problem. 181 countries have ratified the UNFCCC, including all industrial nations. The UNFCCC, however, does not provide any binding emission targets.

The Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC proposes binding greenhouse gas limits for developed countries. It has been ratified by 104 countries, representing 43.9% of emissions. Developed countries are required to limit their emissions to, on average, 5.2% below 1990 levels: 29% below pre-Kyoto estimates for 2010. The precise amounts vary from an 8% reduction for the European Union to a permitted increase of 10% for Iceland. Controversially, developing countries, including India and China, are exempted from reductions until they become sufficiently industrialised.

Because global warming is a " tragedy of the commons" problem, the Kyoto Protocol will not take effect until 90 days after countries responsible for over 55% of emissions ratify it. This will occur when Russia ratifies it. The United States, responsible for one-third of emissions of greenhouse, has signed the Kyoto Protocol, but never ratified it.

The Kyoto Protocol is a proposal to require countries to adhere to binding emissions targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, which are linked to global warming.

The formal name of the proposed agreement is the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It was negotiated in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, opened for signature on March 16, 1998, and closed on March 15, 1999. The treaty is expected to come into force when it is ratified by Russia.

U.N. and European backers of the Kyoto Protocol who had hoped Russia would commit to ratification were disappointed in September 2003 when Putin indicated his reluctance to sign at a Moscow conference.

Details of the treaty

According to a press release from the United Nations Environment Programme:

The Kyoto Protocol is a legally binding agreement under which industrialized countries will reduce their collective emissions of some greenhouse gases by 5.2% compared to the year 1990 (but note that, compared to the emissions levels that would be expected by 2010 without the Protocol, this target represents a 29% cut.) The goal is to lower overall emissions from six greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride, HFCs, and PFCs - calculated as an average over the five-year period of 2008 - 12. National targets range from 8% reductions for the European Union and some others to 7% for the US, 6% for Japan, 0% for Russia, and permitted increases of 8% for Australia and 10% for Iceland.

Emissions trading

Emissions trading is a proposed economic solution to air pollution. In such a plan, government agencies set limits or "caps" on each pollutant. Groups that intend to exceed the limits may buy emissions credits from entities that are likely not to exceed the limits. One variation of this scheme is called a cap and trade system.

The idea is that a central authority will grant an allowance to entities based upon a measure of their need. For example an allowance to a country might be based upon total population. An industrial facility might be granted a license for its current actual emissions. If a given facility does not need all of its allowance, it may offer it for sale to another organization that has insufficient allowances for its emission production.

Current trading systems

The United States began emissions trading after passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act, which authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to put a cap on how muchSulfur dioxide (which causes acid rain) the operator of a fossil-fueled plant was allowed to emit.

In New York State's proposed cap and trade program, the state would set an industry-wide "cap" on carbon dioxide emissions, lower than the current amount, and then give each power plant a target and a deadline. Companies that reduce emissions further than required could then "trade" emission credits with companies who cannot meet their goals. The concept, used with some success in the national Clean Air Act to reduce smog and acid rain emissions, is designed to reduce costs for the regulated businesses.

The Kyoto Protocol will bind ratifying nations to a similar system, with the UNFCCC setting caps for each nation. Under the proposed treaty, nations that emit less than their quota of greenhouse gases will be able to sell emissions credits to polluting nations. Critics of the Kyoto Protocol see it as a means of forcibly redistributing wealth from the United States to the Third World. This is because the U.S., which produces 25% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, would likely exceed its quota and would have to buy emissions credits from nations such as China, India, and Russia. Critics also argue that emissions trading does little to solve pollution problems as groups that do not pollute are granted emissions credits which they then sell. Some environmental groups are attempting to solve this problem by buying credits and refusing to use or sell them.

Effects on society and enterprise

In private enterprise, emissions trading is very attractive because it does not harm industrial concerns, or require government subsidies. When the price per ton of emissions becomes high-enough, well-managed polluting enterprises can make a rational decision to invest in pollution control equipment, and sell part of their emissions licenses.

In some proposed systems, the government grants tax credits to enterprises. However, these are more expensive for governments, and far less popular for that reason.

Emissions trading is attractive to public-interest environmental organizations, because in an open market, they can purchase, and retire emissions licenses. This permanently reduces the total amount of pollution produced.

Effects on the environment

The effect on the environment is that if the total permitted amounts are fixed or decreasing, public interest groups can decrease them further by purchasing licenses. The net effect is to drive total emissions toward zero with no economic harm to industry.

Stable totals are critical to a stable market

A critical part of emissions trading is that the amount of emissions must be fixed, or controlled in some socially-agreed fashion. Many people favor starting at the current level of emissions. It clearly can form no emergency for existing industrial concerns, and at the same time promises no new pollution. The total of all allowances issued may be adjusted to an agreed reduction rate for the particular emission or pollutant. Thus, the central authority may control the emissions, and allow market forces to encourage countries to produce less of the emissions. For example, less developed countries with relatively high populations, and lower pollution per head than western countries may sell their allowances to the industrialised west. However, as the supply is finite, the more that the west produces, the more that the additional allowances will cost them, until it becomes uneconomic to pollute, and more economic to convert to less environmentally harmful technologies.

Enforcement is critical to a stable market

Another critical part of the bargain is enforcement. Without effective enforcement, the licenses have no value. Two basic scheme exist.

In one, the regulators measure facilities, and fine or sanctions those that lack the licenses for their emissions. This scheme is quite expensive to enforce, and the burden falls on the agency, which then may need to collect special taxes. Another risk is that facilities may find it far less expensive to corrupt the inspectors than purchase emissions licenses. The net effect of a poorly financed or corrupt regulatory agency is a discount on the emissions licenses, and greater pollution.

In another, some other agency, usually a commercial agency licensed by the government, verifies that polluting facilities have licenses equal or greater than their emissions. Inspection of the certificates is performed in some automated fashion by the regulators, perhaps over the internet, or as part of tax collection. The regulators then audit licensed facilities chosen at random to verify that certifying agencies are acting correctly. This scheme is far less expensive, placing most regulation in the private sector. In addition, auditing can be performed on well-paid contracts by persons (such as university professors or antipollution activists) whose reputation is more valuable to them than any practical amount of graft.

The protocol operates in an interesting fashion. Each Annex I country has agreed to limit emissions to the levels described in the protocol, but many countries have limits that are set above their current production. These "extra amounts" can be purchased by other countries on the open market. So, for instance, Russia currently easily meets its targets, and can sell off its credits for millions of dollars to countries that don't yet meet their targets, Canada for instance. This rewards countries that meet their targets, and provides financial incentives to others to do so as soon as possible.

Countries also receive credits through various shared "clean energy" programs and " carbon sinks in the form of forests and other systems that remove carbon from the atmosphere.

Status of the treaty

As of February 2002, the agreement had been ratified by 104 countries, representing 43.9% of emissions. Countries do not need to sign the treaty in order to ratify it—signing is a symbolic act only. A total of 19 countries had signed the protocol but not ratified it. The remaining 58 parties to the UNFCCC had neither signed nor ratified the protocol.

According to the terms of the protocol, it enters into force "on the ninetieth day after the date on which not less than 55 Parties to the Convention, incorporating Parties included in Annex I which accounted in total for at least 55 per cent of the total carbon dioxide emissions for 1990 of the Parties included in Annex I, have deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession."

Revisions

The protocol left several issues open, to be decided later by the COP. COP6 attempted to resolve these issues at its meeting in the Hague in late 2000, but was unable to reach an agreement due to disputes between the European Union on the one hand (which favoured a tougher agreement) and the United States, Canada, Japan and Australia on the other (which wanted the agreement to be less demanding and more flexible).

In 2001, a continuation of the previous meeting was held in Bonn where the required decisions were adopted. After some concessions, the supporters of the protocol (led by the European Union) managed to get Japan and Russia in as well by allowing more use of carbon dioxide sinks.

Current Positions of Governments

As of 2002, 104 countries have ratified the protocol, including Canada, People's Republic of China, India, Japan, New Zealand, and the fifteen countries of the European Union.

19 countries have signed the protocol but not ratified it. Of those eight are Annex I countries:

• Australia (not intending to ratify)
• Croatia
• Liechtenstein
• Monaco
• Russia -- Because of the collapse in the Russian economy, Russia should have no problem meeting its commitments under Kyoto, and may be able to benefit from selling emissions credits to other countries. Russia is expected to ratify the treaty, which will be sufficient to bring the treaty into force.
• Switzerland -- Switzerland passed the CO₂ law on October 8, 1999 which should allow it to achieve its target of 8% below 1990 levels by 2010. The Kyoto Protocol has been ratified by the Senate but not yet by the House of Representatives. [5] [6]
• Ukraine -- The Ukrainian economy, like the Russian economy, is such that meeting Kyoto commitments should initially be easy, and Ukraine is expected to ratify the treaty.
• United States -- The US, the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, does not intend to ratify the treaty. (see below)

The eleven Annex II countries that have signed but not yet ratified are: Egypt, Indonesia, Israel, Kazakhstan, Marshall Islands, Niger, Philippines, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and the Solomon Islands.

Position of the United States

Summary: The United States, although a signatory to the protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the protocol. The protocol is non-binding over the United States until such time that the United States ratifies it.

On June 25,1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was to be negotiated, the U.S. Senate passed by a 95-0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". Disregarding the Senate Resolution, on November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Aware of the Senate's view of the protocol, the Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol for ratification.

President George W. Bush, another Conservative or Republican fellow, has indicated that he did not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he did support the general idea, but because he was not happy with the details of the treaty.

China is an Annex II country under the protocol, and emits 2,893 million metric tons of CO₂ per year (2.3 tons per capita). This compares to 5,410 million from the USA (20.1 tons per capita), and 3,171 million from the EU (8.5 million per capita). China has ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and is expected to become an Annex I country within the next decade. The US Natural Resources Defense Council, stated in June 2001 that: "By switching from coal to cleaner energy sources, initiating energy efficiency programs, and restructuring its economy, China has reduced its carbon dioxide emissions 17 percent since 1997".

In June 2002, the American Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the "Climate Action Report 2002". Some observers have interpreted this report as being supportive of the protocol, although the report itself does not explicitly endorse the protocol.

The prospect of the US staying outside the agreement influenced a number of other countries including Australia, Japan, and Canada to discuss whether they should ratify the agreement, putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage with the USA. While Japan and Canada ultimately decided to ratify the protocol, Australia's current government has said it will not ratify. This may change at the next change of government, as the major opposition parties have committed to ratification if in a position to do so.

Position of Canada

On December 17, 2002, Canada ratified the treaty. This was however opposed by groups of businesses and energy concerns, using arguments similar to those being used in the US. Later, Canada, under a Conservative government, up out of the Protocol.This decision was mostly reflecting the push for the development of the dirty tar sands oil of Alberta. Prime Minister Stephen Harper was greatly influenced by the Alberta oil and gas industry. The PM spent billions of the taxpayers money to help the industry and promote his pet project: the dirty tar sands oil. The PM would rather see the world destroyed than stopping the production of the dirty tar sands oil.

This is not OK because the Conservative PM is using taxpayer money to give to oil and gas companies that are already making a large profit. They are using the cash to upgrade their facilities. But their facilities are producing the products, fossil fuels, that actually destroy the global life-support systems. So where is the logic here?! We are rewarding the criminals?!

Money is also given to the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) to give away contracts to their professional engineers. Often the contracts are coming from a U.S. company requesting upgrading to Canadian standards. Now how much money is given away towards paying for these contracts and are therefore subsidized by the Government of Canada? In the past professional engineers never help fighting for the environment and the global life-support systems. The reason why professional training in now offered at the university level is because environmentalists exerted pressure on all governments and universities to have those training programs in place.

So now engineers are trained to do simple tests for specific standards, and they are getting large amount of money to do so. And again they are receiving the money from taxpayers to do their contract work. Why is it that a large group of professionals (not just engineers) in our society actually get high salaries to do work they never truly care about? These same people would use the money to buy cars (SUVs), trucks and what not, that are more polluting than the facilities they are paid to test for pollution. Why are they not made responsible and accountable just like the environmentalists who have spent their own money to fight for the environment and the global life-support systems. Why are we rewarding the criminals? Do we reward terrorists for killing innocent people? So why is the Government of Canada subsidizing the polluters? The Government is actually giving them money to become better polluters. They become more efficient at being a polluter. Dont you know oil and gas are products that create global warming and burn the Oxygen of the air? Where is the logic here? Do we have to explain to all these 'professionals' that is what they are doing?

Overview of results from this report

Currently, the biological carbon cycle in the broadest sense may not be balanced because of human influences on it. CO₂ released via respiration, decomposition, and burning may not all be taken up by plants. That is, we may be experiencing a net loss of biomass on Earth at present. However, this is not certain. A few years ago, scientists believed that anthropogenic land conversion (basically, deforestation, and largely in the tropics) constituted a large net input of CO₂ to the atmosphere.

The concentrations of several greenhouse gases have increased over time due to human activities, such as:

• burning of fossil fuels and deforestation leading to higher carbon dioxide concentrations,
• cattle farming and pipeline losses leading to higher methane concentrations,
• the use of CFCs in refrigeration and fire suppression systems.

When we drive our cars, and light, heat, and cool our homes, we generate greenhouse gases. And we also burn the Oxygen of the air. Drivers affect three global life-support systems by:

*       creating the global warming of the planet
*       changing the global climate, and
*       burning the Oxygen of the atmosphere

Forests contribute to absorbing carbon dioxide and act as CO₂ sinks. Conversely, deforestation largely in tropical countries is a source of CO₂ to the atmosphere. CO₂ releases from deforestation are about 1/6 of sources from fossil fuel combustion. Not all the CO₂ is absorbed by the atmosphere; part of the CO₂ is absorbed by oceans, and part by forests through the process of photosynthesis.

Water vapour and clouds are some the most important atmospheric constituents of climatic significance that cause about two-thirds of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect.

Concerning these other greenhouse gases it was observed (World Meteorological Organization) that:

*       Detailed analysis of fossilized air in polar ice cores indicate that, during the pre-industrial period of the last millennium, concentrations of carbon dioxide within the atmosphere have varied by less than 5% around a mean value of 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv). Furthermore, this background value represents the upper range of concentrations throughout at least the last 220 000 years of earth's history. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution some 200 years ago, concentrations have increased by about 27% above this upper value, and now average almost 360 ppmv.

*       Similar measurements of atmospheric methane concentrations show that pre-industrial levels have been more than doubled during the past two centuries.

*       Concentrations of other greenhouse gases are also increasing. Nitrous oxide concentrations are rising slowly but steadily, and now exceed pre-industrial levels by about 13%. Clorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other halogen gases, most of which have no significant natural sources, have been accumulating rapidly. Meanwhile, in some parts of the world, the concentrations of tropospheric ozone has increased dramatically, with levels in the Northern Hemisphere today estimated to be about twice that of pre-industrial levels.

*       Scientific studies have conclusively linked the above changes in greenhouse gases to emissions from anthropogenic sources. While incremental emissions of some greenhouse gases, such as methane, remain in the atmosphere on average for slightly more than a decade, others such as CO₂, N2O, CFCs and some fully fluorinated compounds (FFCs) remain for centuries and even millennia. Hence, in many respects these changes in atmospheric composition are irreversible on human time scales.

*       While natural fluxes of carbon dioxide between the atmosphere and the ocean and terrestrial ecosystems are estimated to be some 20-25 times larger than current humans emissions, ice cores confirm that these natural fluxes have on average been remarkably well balanced during the past 10,000 years. Anthropogenic emissions, while comparatively small, have incrementally caused a significant imbalance in this natural cycle, resulting in an accumulation of excess carbon dioxide in the atmospheric reservoir of the carbon cycle. On the other hand, human emissions of many of the other lesser greenhouse gases, as well as aerosols, today already significantly exceed those from natural sources.

*       Various scenarios of future human emissions of greenhouse gases suggest that increased atmospheric concentrations equivalent to a doubling of CO₂ by 2100 is almost unavoidable, while a tripling or greater by that time is a distinct possibility.

*       Although atmospheric aerosols from coal combustion and biomass burning have an average residence time in the atmosphere of days and weeks, sustained emissions have resulted in average global concentrations estimated to be about triple that of background levels. Local concentrations in some industrial regions of the northern hemisphere have increased by a factor of 20 to 30.

There are important results obtain from research done so far:

*       the model equilibrium responses of average surface temperatures to a doubling of CO₂ consistently lies between 1.5 and 4.5°C, and clearly exclude zero change;
*       the rate of average global warming due to increasing greenhouse concentrations anticipated over the century is in the range of 0.2 to 0.5°C per decade. Inclusion of effects of increases in aerosols may reduce this by 0.1°C/decade;
*       land areas warm more than oceans, and high northern latitudes more than equatorial regions. Greatest warming is in high northern latitudes in winter.
*       precipitation and soil moisture increases in high latitudes in winter. Most models also project dryer summer soil conditions in interior continental regions of northern mid-latitudes;
*       global sea levels are expected to rise about 2 to 8 cm/decade for the next several centuries, in response to melting land ice and increasing ocean temperatures. Such rises threaten many island states and low lying coastal areas around the world with inundation. For example, a one-meter sea level rise would displace millions of people in countries such as Bangladesh, and would affect 15% of agricultural lands in Egypt.
*       margins of many terrestrial ecosystems will experience increasing stress as ambient regional climates become mismatched with those required for healthy growth of species within. While most species can migrate in response to slow climate change, paleo studies suggest than rates of change in excess of 0.1°C/decade are almost certainly too rapid to avoid disruption. Species in mountainous terrain also have absolute limits in vertical migration potential, with high elevation species threatened with extinction as climate warming eliminates their climatic ecozones. Increased vulnerability to insect and disease infestation adds to such stresses.
*       forest dieback and increased forest fires in stressed ecosystems and the gradual decay of Arctic permafrost will cause large increases in greenhouse gas emissions from natural ecosystems, thus causing a strong positive climate change feedback;
*       changes in ocean temperatures and circulation patterns will alter fish habitats, causing collapse of some species and migration of others. Some of the recent collapses in certain fish stock, such as that of the North atlantic cod, are already believed to be linked to regional changes in ocean temperatures.
*       changes in global distribution of rainfall will cause droughts and increased aridity in some agricultural regions, wetter conditions and increased flooding in others. Fish populations will migrate with changes in ocean currents and be affected by changes in ocean temperatures. While impacts on total global food supply are uncertain, the distribution of food will change. Poor nations will have little capacity to adapt to such changes;
*       frequency and severity of extreme regional weather events are expected to change, particularly in terms of intense rainfall, droughts and heat spells. Severe storms, including hurricanes, may extend further into mid-latitude regions as ocean surfaces warm.
*       climate sensitive diseases such as malaria are likely to increase their range poleward.

Global Community can contribute in evaluating options and strategies for adapting to climate change as it occurs, and in identifying human activities that are even now maladapted to climate. There are two fundamental types of response to the risks of climate change:

1.       reducing the rate and magnitudes of change through mitigating the causes, and
2.       reducing the harmful consequences through anticipatory adaptation.

Mitigating the causes of global warming implies limiting the rates and magnitudes of increase in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, either by reducing emissions or by increasing sinks for atmospheric CO₂. Reducing the harmful consequences can be achieved by co-operating together with the global ministries on climate change and emergencies. The Global Community has created the global ministries to help humanity be prepared to fight the harmful consequences of a global warming through anticipatory adaptation. The global ministries on climate change and emergencies are now operating. The ministries have developed:

1. policy response to the consequences of the global warming, and

2. strategies to adapt to the consequences of the unavoidable climate change.

The Global Community also proposes that all nations of the world promote the Scale of Human and Earth Rights and the criteria to obtain the Global Community Citizenship. Every global community citizen lives a life with the higher values described in the Scale and the criteria. Global community citizens are good members of the human family. Most global problems, including global warming and world overpopulation, can be managed through acceptance of the Scale and the criteria.

We know that stabilizing emissions of greenhouse gases will not stabilize concentrations. While slowing the rate of increase in atmospheric concentrations, such actions will still likely lead to a doubled CO₂-type environment within the next century. Considering the residence time of various greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, a reduction of 10% in methane emissions would be required to stabilize methane concentrations, reductions in excess of 50% would be required to stabilize CO₂ and N₂O emissions, and virtual elimination of emissions would be needed to stabilize concentrations of very long-lived gases such as fully fluorinated compounds.

Scientists will also need to become more involved in assessing the viability of response options aimed at storing excess carbon in terrestrial or ocean systems. Land use changes from agricultural to forest ecosystems can help to remove carbon from the atmosphere at rates of 2 to 20 tonnes of carbon per hectare per year for periods of 50 years or more, until a new ecosystem equilibrium is reached. Similarly, soil conservation practices can help build up carbon reservoirs in forest and agricultural soils. Proposals to extract CO₂ from smoke stacks and dispose of it in liquid form in underground reservoirs or deep oceans also need careful evaluation in terms of long-term feedbacks, effectiveness and environmental acceptability. However, much remains to be learned about the biological and physical processes by which terrestial and ocean systems can act as sinks and permanent reservoirs for carbon.

The Global Community can contribute in evaluating options and strategies for adapting to climate change as it occurs, and in identifying human activities that are even now maladapted to climate. For example, identification of tree species that can grow well under current as well as projected future climates will help develop reforestation programs that are less vulnerable to both climate variability and change. Genetically improved species can be developed to replace the weakess species. Assessment of the role of agricultural subsidies and disaster relief programs in actually encouraging farmers to cultivate lands which are highly susceptible to droughts or floods can improve the adaptability of the agricultural sector. Alternatively, developing socio-economic activities that can thrive under anticipated climate changes can help realize some of the benefits of climate change. Collectively, such actions will help reduce human vulnerability to climate change, and hence raise the threshold at which such change becomes dangerous.

Human activities that add CO₂ to the atmosphere:

(1)       Burning of fossil fuels, contributing about 5 billion metric tons C/year. The combustion of fossil fuels oxidizes organic carbon, with carbon and oxygen combining to yield CO₂.

(2)       Anthropogenic land conversion (ALC)

Unfortunately, humans have recently been converting forested landscapes to grazed, cultivated, or urban landscapes. The impacts of such activities have been to:

(1)       Remove a large sink for atmospheric carbon (because forests take up and store larger amounts of carbon than do other terrestrial ecosystems). Tropical and temperate rainforests have been subjected to heavy logging during the 20th century, and the area covered by rainforest around the world is shrinking rapidly. Estimates range from 1 1/2 acres to 2 acres of rainforest disappear each second. Rainforests used to cover 14% of the Earth's surface. This percentage is now down to 6% and it is estimated that the remaining rainforests could disappear within 40 years at this present rate of logging. Further estimates suggest that large numbers of species are being driven extinct, possibly 50,000 species a year due to the removal of their habitat. The largest rainforests can be found today in the Amazon basin (the Amazon Rainforest), the inner parts of Democratic Republic of Congo and on Borneo.

(2)       Add a large source for atmospheric carbon (when the trees decay or are burned, releasing carbon). About 80% of the wood removed during tropical deforestation is destroyed (burned or decayed) or used as fuel wood, so the carbon stored in it is released rapidly as CO₂, as opposed to the delayed slow release that occurs when used for lumber.

Thus, there is an increased flux of carbon from terrestrial ecosystems to the atmosphere, resulting from this land conversion. It was estimated that the net input of CO₂ to the atmosphere from ALC was about 1/4 as much as from fossil fuel burning (1.3 billion metric tons of carbon per year compared to 5 billion metric tons of carbon per year from fossil fuel combustion). Most of this increased flux now comes from tropical Africa and Asia, but until about 1920, North America actually provided the largest ALC flux to the atmosphere.

At present, however, fossil fuel burning is a more important source of CO₂ to the atmosphere than is anthropogenic land conversion (ALC). Let us evaluate the impact of burning fossil fuels. Crude oil is certainly a major fossil fuel in use today.

More recent data have shown that there are seven billion tons of carbon emissions injected into the atmosphere every year and only a total of 5.4 billion of those tons accounted for! The remaining 1.6 billion tons represents the "missing carbon mystery!" If 40-50% of the carbon emissions stay in the atmosphere and 15-30 % go into the oceans, what happens to the remaining 20 - 35%? See sections J3 and J5 for possible explanation.

There is much uncertainty concerning the magnitude of fluxes associated with tropical deforestation, and whether it does in fact represent a net flux. The current range of estimates for fluxes from tropical deforestation is from 1.1 - 3.6 billion metric tons of C/year, which would be between 20-65% as much as from fossil fuel emissions. Quite a huge spread in estimates! Most estimates agree that between 1/5 -1/3 of the increased flux of CO₂ to the atmosphere results from deforestation.

Fossil fuel burning contributes about 5 billion metric tons C/year to the atmosphere. It is important now to describe the human activities that are involved in combustion.

At present, however, fossil fuel burning is a more important source of CO₂ to the atmosphere than is anthropogenic land conversion (ALC). Let us evaluate the impact of burning fossil fuels. Crude oil is certainly a major fossil fuel in use today.

Conclusion

Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, and temperatures are rising globally due to these activities. There are plenty of observable effects of the global warming. And certainly this ridiculous and false solution of buying environmental credits from each other should not be considered as a way out of resolving the problem. The ratification the Kyoto Protocol is only a beginning to protect the global life-support systems. There is much more to do!

It is OK to be more energy efficient for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

It is also OK to build new cars with engines that do not emit greenhouse gases.

Global Community has seen oil companies improving a lot on many important aspects of their business. And that is OK!

A lot of new solutions to resolve the problem of global warming are welcome and certainly are OK.

But none of them tackle the problem head-on! None of the solutions make a dent in resolving the problem. None are significant solutions!

None of the solutions truly show any significant cut in greenhouse gas emissions.

None of the solutions tell us that producers of the deadly gases are the problems and so are consumers.

Producers of the deadly gases are fooling themselves first and then they fool the consumers of their products of mass destruction, the greenhouse gases.

Global warming is the highest threat to Earth security and is everyone's business. Terrorism was, and still is, a problem humanity needed to tackle head-on and resolve the best we could, but global warming is by far the greatest threat to the security of all people on Earth and to life itself. We have never tackle the problem head-on. We played around the problem and its solution. We know the solution to the problem of global warming, we know what we need to do to make this generation and future generations safe and secure, but we just never do what we really have to do to resolve the problem.

Why?

What will it take to make us act on the problem of global warming?

What will it take to make the North American Way of Life safe and secure to humanity?

What will it take to make Canadians and Americans understand that it does not matter how many guns we have, how many weapons of mass destruction we have hidden everywhere, or how good a 'Star War System' could be, and how many nations we invade, and how big is our GDP and how good is our economy.

None of that matters! None!

The biggest problem to security is smaller than anything we can see, smaller than the smallest particle we can breathe, and it is a trace element in the air we breathe. A deadly gas, the greenhouse gas!

We all know the problem, and we also know the solution. We can stop creating greenhouse gases. So now what is the problem?

The biggest problem is the North American continent Way of Life, consuming too much of the wrong things.

The biggest problem is too much freedom of doing the wrong things.

The biggest problem is our own weaknesses and helplessness in tackling the problem head-on and solve it.

The biggest problem is that Canadians and Americans are getting too proud about things that are completely unimportant and missing out on the things that are truly important, and we have been left behind by most other nations on those things that are truly important for the generations to come and to life itself.

Global Community is asking North Americans and everyone else on Earth to tackle the problem head-on. We must solve the problem we have with global warming.

Producers of the greenhouse gases tell us "we are energy efficient" but the truth of the matter is that they are producing the deadly gases of mass destruction, and those deadly gases are killing us all, and all life on Earth. It does not matter how smart you may be in fooling yourselves in accepting a slow death, a suicide in a way, you are still killing yourselves and the people of the next generations. That is a crime against humanity. You are criminals.

An oil company is proudly telling us with all sorts of gifts, grants and awards to the community that every year they have 'given' to their customers trillions of litres of the deadly gases. And, their customers, very proudly and carefully burned all of those litres. That is the biggest problem. We are told that we should be proud of burning the deadly gases. Americans invaded the Middle East to take over OPEC and their oil and burn trillions of barrels of oil. That means trillions of litres of the deadly gases entering the atmosphere of the Earth. The best and cheapest oil in the world being taken over by the worst consumers of the world. Just how mad are we? How insane are we getting to be? How can anyone be proud of thenselves about such an invasion? What is it? We enjoy driving with freedom on the highway?! We enjoy driving and to forget completely that we are actually killing ourselves and taking away the lives of people of the next generations. We want to forget we are destroying all life on Earth.

And please dont even mention the 'carbon emission trading permits' (a mechanism by which oil companies could buy and sell greenhouse gas emissions trading permits) as a possible solution. You are just extending the death of all lives by a few years, and you are not tackling the problem head-on.

Over its long past history trade has never evolved to require from the trading partners to become legally and morally responsible and accountable for their products from beginning to end. At the end the product becomes a waste and it needs to be properly dispose of. Now trade must be given a new impetus to be in line with the global concepts of Global Community. You manufacture, produce, mine, farm or create a product, you become legally and morally responsible and accountable of your product from beginning to end (to the point where it actually becomes a waste; you are also responsible for the proper disposable of the waste). This product may be anything and everything from oil & gas, weapons, war products, to genetically engineered food products. All consumer products. All medicinal products! All pharmaceutical products! In order words, a person becomes responsible and accountable for anything and everything in his or her life.

As a business you may be using standards of operating and managing that are similar to the ISO 14001 environmental management plan (internationally recognized standards that provide guidelines to reduce environmental impacts). ISO 14001 provides a framework for continual improvement to mitigate potential environmental impacts from operations and businesses dealing with your company.

The problem is not so much how good is your environmental management plan. The problem is the product you produce and put on the market to consumers. The problem is your product, a deadly product of mass destruction. It is worst than all known weapons of mass destruction as it kills by making consumers believe it is good for them. Like smoking cigarettes! Companies making cigarettes have for long told their consumers that a longer filter would not affect them so much and they would not get cancer and die of it. Whether or not you use the most energy-efficient machines and the best management team, and ISO 14001 for that matter, at the end it does not matter. You are still producing the deadly gases and consumers are still burning them. Consider the long filter for cigarettes as an illusionary solution to the problem and so are carbon emission trading permits.

Oil companies are responsible and accountable of their products from beginning to end. The 'end' for an oil company does not end at the gas pump where a consumer buy your refine products. No! The end for you goes all the way to global warming, to pollution of the environment, to the destruction of the global life-support systems, to taking away lives of future generations, to the destruction of life on Earth. Very much so!

Global Community proposes to ask you to pay a global tax on your products. The tax would be high enough to discourage consumers from buying your products and force you to use viable alternatives. The Governments of the United States and Canada should put a high tax on all oil based products and their derivatives and certainly gasoline should have the highest tax possible. The tax would be a carbon tax allocated for the protection of the environment and the global life-support systems.

A workable type of Tobin tax should also be in place as it is a powerful instrument to promote sustainable development and force shareholders in moving away from producing oil.

Global Community also proposes to develope a method of raising global taxes, of redistributing incomes to the poorest communities, of providing debt-free technical assistance to non-industrial and developing countries to help them out of poverty and to meet environmental and social standards.

The WTO, the World Bank, the IMF, the EU and the UN are worldwide organizations that can and should be used to raise global taxes to redistribute to the poorest and developing nations.

Recommendations

Losses of biomass through deforestation and the cutting down of tropical forests put our supply of oxygen (O2) gas at risk. The Earth's forests did not use to play a dominant role in maintaining O2 reserves because they consume just as much of this gas as they produce. Today forests are being destroy at an astronomical rate. No O2 is created after a forest is put down, and more CO₂ is produced in the process. In the tropics, ants, termites, bacteria, and fungi eat nearly the entire photosynthetic O2 product. Only a tiny fraction of the organic matter they produce accumulates in swamps and soils or is carried down the rivers for burial on the sea floor. The O2 content of our atmosphere is slowly declining. The content of the atmosphere decreased at an average annual rate of 2 parts per million. The atmosphere contains 210,000 parts per million. Combustion of fossil fuels destroys O2. For each 100 atoms of fossil-fuel carbon burned, about 140 molecules of O2 are consumed.
A typical American uses 15 times as much lumber and paper as a resident of a developing country. Reducing wood consumption in the industrialized world is unlikely to stop forest loss in developing countries however, since most of the wood consumed comes from trees in the industrialized countries themselves. Nevertheless, the consumption model offered to the rest of the world threatens accelerated forest loss as both populations and economies grow in developing countries.

Scientists will need to become more involved in assessing the viability of response options aimed at storing excess carbon in terrestrial or ocean systems. Land use changes from agricultural to forest ecosystems can help to remove carbon from the atmosphere at rates of 2 to 20 tonnes of carbon per hectare per year for periods of 50 years or more, until a new ecosystem equilibrium is reached. Similarly, soil conservation practices can help build up carbon reservoirs in forest and agricultural soils. Proposals to extract CO₂ from smoke stacks and dispose of it in liquid form in underground reservoirs or deep oceans also need careful evaluation in terms of long-term feedbacks, effectiveness and environmental acceptability. However, much remains to be learned about the biological and physical processes by which terrestial and ocean systems can act as sinks and permanent reservoirs for carbon.



We need to improve on our ability to:

*       predict future anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. While demographic, technological and economic factors are in many respects inherently speculative, better observations and understanding of the processes by which human activities directly or indirectly contribute to emissions are clearly required. These in particular include emissions from deforestation and agricultural activities;
*       obtain more data on the effect of human emissions on atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. Not only do we need to reduce the uncertainties about past and current sinks for emitted greenhouse gases, but we need to better understand and quantify the long term feedbacks such as CO₂ fertilization and physical and biological response to climate change if we expect to improve our confidence in projections of future concentrations.
*       measure direct and indirect effects of radiative forcing of greenhouse gases and aerosols.
*       measure climate sensitivity to changes in radiative forcing.
*       measure the response to climate change of biological and physical processes with the terrestrial and ocean systems
*       obtain an early detection of the signal of human interference with the climate system against the change caused by natural forces or internal system noise is important in fostering timely and responsible coping actions.
*       develop actions to limit emissions of greenhouse gases and prepare to adapt to climate change. However, stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions will not stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations and climate but only slow down the rates of change.
*       live with the facts that climate change is unavoidable, atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations are already signficantly higher than pre-industrial levels, and that aggressive efforts to reduce their anthropogenic emission sources would only slow down the growth in their concentrations, not stop it. Therefore, policy response to this issue must also include strategies to adapt to the consequences of unavoidable climate change.

XII. Preventive actions against polluters

Individuals, too, can help bring about a world that is more secure and more supportive of life, health and happiness. They can educate themselves on population dynamics, consumption patterns and the impact of these forces on natural resources and the environment. They can be socially, politically and culturally active to elevate the issues they care about. They can become more environmentally responsible in their purchasing decisions and their use of energy and natural resources. And individuals and couples can consider the impacts of their reproductive decisions on their communities and the world as a whole.

What is needed is for government and the private sector to make reproductive health services available to all who seek them, to make sure that girls and boys can go to and stay in school, and to make economic opportunities as accessible to women as to men. Combined with improved energy and natural-resource technologies and saner models of consumption and the “good life,” these strategies can bring humanity into enduring balance with the environment and the natural resources that people will always need.

Nationalization of natural resources

As defined by the Global Community, the concept of ownership states that land and natural resources of the planet are a common heritage and belong equally to everyone, to all life on Earth, as a birthright. Products and services created by individuals are properly viewed as private property. Products and services created by groups of individuals are properly viewed as collective property. Only the Global Community can rightfully claim ownership of the Earth. October 29 is the day to celebrate ownership of our natural resources.

Along with ownership comes the obligation of using the resources, share them or lose them. Land and all other Earth natural resources are not commodities. Use the land, share it or lose it. This principle also applies to banks and similar institutions all over the world and to Wall Street. You own property because the previous owners could not pay. Use that property, share it or lose it. The Global Community stipulates that land ownership is no longer a problem. The Earth and all its natural resources belong to all the "global communities" contained therein. A village, or a city is "a global community" and owns the land around its boundaries. Along with the Global Community, it has ownership of all natural resources within its boundaries. So, by definition, land here, covers all naturally occurring resources like surface land, the air, minerals deposits, fossil fuels, water, electromagnetic spectrum, the trees, fish in the seas and rivers. It is unjust to treat land as private property. As mentioned above, land here, by definition, covers all naturally occurring resources like surface land, minerals deposits (gold, oil and gas etc), water, electromagnetic spectrum, the trees, fishes in the seas, lakes and rivers. It is unjust to treat land as private property. Land is not a product of labour. Everyone should therefore be given equal access to such natural resources.

In order to better protect life on our planet, the Global Community is asking people of all nations to defend and protect their natural resources. In particular, all the hydrocarbons within a national territory must be nationalized. It is an obligation, not only of a national government, but also of all the active forces in a country; it is the duty of local and municipal authorities, the duty of state authorities, of everyone, to take upon themselves this defense and this recuperation of natural resources.

Nationalization is a necessity because American corporations have been buying local corporations to acquire natural resources of a country. This state of affairs has been going on ever since WWII. Over the past decades, the US national debt and annual deficit have been out-of-control because of a complete business freedom of the US corporate world. No taxation! When a large corporation is about to go out of business, the White House intervened with a bail out.

For example in Canada, the property of the hydrocarbons, the oil and natural gas, and tarsands, have mostly owned by American and other foreign corporations. Our natural resources have been bought out by foreigners. Pipelines have been built to transport the oil and natural gas to the customers in the United States without paying taxes to Canada. Canadian corporations that have been taken over by American corporations with bankrupted money, paper money, Stock Exchange money, money that Americans dont even have. The White House prints dollar bills by the trillions and give them to corporations to buy more Canadian corporations. This is no longer a fair exchange of something tangible with something else of an equivalent value. We have natural resources and Americans have bankrupted money to exchange with. That's not right! How can we let that happened? It is time to nationalize Canadian natural resources.

From this point onward, with the nationalization of our natural resources, those Canadian natural resources will be under control of the Canadian people, for Canadians, and help resolve Canada's economic and social problems. Nationalization is not new. The global financial crisis is good example of nationalization. When Wall Street started to crash, the US Government thought it would be wise to nationalize key financial institutions, even partially nationalized, so why not natural resources? They are in great danger of being destroyed (forests, oceans, fresh water, soils, air we breath, electromagnetic spectrum) or destroying all life on Earth (petroleum rersources). Once Canadians have recovered these natural resources, it will generate employment.

Today here in Canada, the new P.R. b...s... the conservative government uses to promote the development of the dirty tar sands oil of Alberta and of its transportation through pipelines to the West and East coasts of Canada and, from there by ships to places such as China, is:

"It is good for all Canadians and economic development. More taxes will be coming to Ottawa for every baril of oil sold overseas."

What a monumental lie once more! For one thing, the conservative government uses tax money to promote the dirty tar sands oil development. No other industry has this kind of attention by the hundreds of millions of tax dollars. And secondly, this project will make very rich the following terrarist businesses and major partners in producing the dirty tar sands oil

Suncor, Syncrude, Shell, Chevron, Marathon, BP, Oxy, ConocoPhillips, Cenovus, CNRL, Devon, Statoil, Nexen, Imperial Oil, Petro Canada, ExxonMobil, Laricina Energy, OSUM and KNOC.

Most of those businesses are owned by foreign corporations. CEOs of those corporations and their shareholders have no problems transfering their money to offshore bank accounts so as to avoid paying taxes to Canada.

And thirdly, just the greengase emissions from the burning of the dirty tar sands oil will bring up the overall emissions in the air we breathe to 600 ppmv and that means the end of civilization as we know it, and the end of most lifeforms on our planet. And again let us mention that while this is happening today, the conservative government is shoting the Canadian manufacturing industry. And they have the guts to tell us that this is all good for Canadians. There is so much corruption in the Canadian conservative government and in the oil and gas industry of Alberta it supports by the billion of dollars of Canadian taxpayer money that no one understand what is happening. A normal person understands losing let say fifty thousand dollars because of some climate change disaster. But when it comes to losing or wasting several billion dollars of taxpayer money in supporting the oil and gas industry, everyone dont understand what is happening, and it seems unreal, and we keep hearing in the news a message from the conservative government that is good for all Canadians, and therefore corruption stays unpunished.

While in Alberta I struggled to find employment related to my education and training. Being seen as an environmental activist never help me, my wife and her two daughters. Then my wife and I decided that I would go to Ottawa and campaign to re-elect Prime Minister Brian Mulroney as Prime Minister of Canada. We thought helping will translate into a job for myself.

I campaigned with the team in Ottawa Centre. We re-elected him. And yes I got a job offer, an eleven months contract work as Analyst with the Energy, Mines and Resources Branch in Calgary, my home base. My job was to analyze oil and gas applications for incentives, i.e. money to explore and develop new oil and gas wells mostly found in Alberta.

When I started working the Branch was already giving away 33 1/3 % for any expenses incurred during and after exploration of wells including their development afterward. This percentage was down from a 50% incentive of previous years. Even expenses for wells that did not end up producing anything. Imagine that! In the US the White House helped the U.S. auto manufacturing industry with large amounts of US taxpayer dollars in the hope they will pay back every penny. And they have! But here in Alberta the oil and gas industry never paid back the amounts of Canadian tax payer dollars given to them. Neither did the big corporations pay taxes to government. Many of them are not even Canadian owned corporations. They are getting away from paying taxes due to loopholes everywhere in the system. In the 80s instead of paying taxes big oil corporations found ways to waste money everyway they could, including money used to develop tar sands projects.

Throughout the 80s the development of the tar sands was very costly and the price of oil was low. Indeed it was not good economics to produce the crude oil from the tar sands. But this way the big oil corporations did not have to pay taxes. It was classified as research and development by Conservatives. During those years I was doing activism work on my own against the development of the tar sands. Of course I was labelled as a social nonsense.

During those years big oil corporations were very successful with their Public Relations (PR) strategy. They kept saying how badly they were taking avantage by Ottawa. The reality was that Ottawa was paying for half of their expenses. Today those same big oil corporations are using a PR strategy that says how good they are: "look we remediate sites after using them by growing grass over the land". Of course they never mention what happens in between because that would not be good PR. Here is what really happens. The environmental impacts of tar sands development include: irreversible effects on biodiversity and the natural environment, reduced water quality, destruction of fragile pristine Boreal Forest and associated wetlands, aquatic and watershed mismanagement, habitat fragmentation, habitat loss, disruption to life cycles of endemic wildlife particularly bird and Caribou migration, fish deformities and negative impacts on the human health in downstream communities, and the destruction of the global life-support systems with their enormous quantities of greenhouse gase emissions resulting from the production and processing of the tar sands, and the transportation and burning of the crude oil.

The Energy, Mines and Resources Branch was grandfathering oil and gas applications made in 1980s and kept paying throughout the 90s. I myself analyzed and paid over 200 millions dollars to applicants during my eleven months contract work in Calgary, Alberta. I must say that analysing was nothing but following a protocol designed and approved by the Conservative Government. It really meant to just sign an apllication. Each application was worth at least a million dollar to tens of millions. And there were 10 other analysts like myself doing the same work. They had been around for much longer then I was and kept working after my eleven months and throughout the 90s. Very likely billions of Canadian tax payers money went back to Albertans towards oil and gas exploration expenses in the 80s and 90s.

Noone truly knows how many of those expenses were really exploration and development expenses. There was corruption everywhere. Money spent may have been expensive private jet flights to Vegas and extravagant meals CEOs were having with friends and relatives. They treated themselves as do princes in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, an absolute monarchy where the royal family dominates the political system. Saudi Arabia has the world's largest oil reserves and very much your friend. There were a few scandals in Alberta on the fraudulent use of tax dollars but the media was reluctant to report on them because the media itself was and still is own by large corporations with a definite Conservative agenda. And the Energy Branch was not about to do anything about them.

But then could the people of Saudi Arabia have told King Abdul Aziz and his princes not to waste resources money the way they have done? The people over there have been kept so backward that they cannot even research and develop the working of a toaster. They buy everything from elsewhere, especially the military armament from the US. What a waste of Earth resources, the military. You should be ashamed Sir of your military and your war industry, and so should the British people of their military and war industry.

The US military and its war industry are the worst polluters on the planet. Not only do they pollute the planet but they also bomb communities and destroy everything, the latest examples being Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya. These countries and their people were sent back to stone age by your military Sir. You decided not to use diplomacy because you did not like either Iraqi President Saddam Hussein or Col. Mu'ammar al-Qadhafi!? Your invasions were truly uncivilized, barbaric, and unjust. You have shown no respect for life on our planet. And it was truly for the oil owned by the people of those countries. You just had to steal the oil. You figure your military should be good for something. Stealing being one of them. In my book Sir, Americans and British people are plundering the Earth resources wherever they are found. And of course your war industry is back there again selling armaments to rebels, and they will pay you with their oil revenues. What a disgusting waste! You shut down the Tar Sands Keystone XL Pipeline project but you should completely shut down your military Sir. And that would be good!

During my 12 years of living in Alberta I embraced Conservative values and campaigned with Conservative candidates provincially and federally. One thing that still is stuck on my mind to these days was a fundamental Conservative value we, as Conservatives, all agreed upon and was that "growth should pay for itself". Government should not be helping corporations to pay for there expenses. Tar sands projects are an obvious example of large corporations not paying for their own growth. Beside not paying taxes, they also never paid for building the infrastructures and facilities needed by their own workers. Schools, hospitals, fire stations, health care services, and so on! What we have witnessed happening in the tar sands kingdom was that the fundamental Conservative value, "growth should pay for itself", was truly not on the agenda of the big corporations. In fact, not only they would not pay for their growth but they would not even participate in the 'growth' of every one else in Canada. That makes them 'separatists'. They would gladly separate from the rest of Canada and join the US. Big oil corporations figure they are a country themselves and own the planet resources. They are the 1% .

The plundering of our natural resources by international and transnational oil and gas companies must come to an end. And for this reason we want to share the joy on this historic day of nationalization. If indeed previous governments have used the Armed Forces for the benefit of transnational corporations, the Armed Forces can now be used to unite for their country, for their nation, for their patria. We are a government of the people, a native government. We are a global community. We want to ask government to defend its sovereignty, its dignity and above all the integrity of its territory, we want to ask that it take charge of all the oil fields of all of its nation. Unless a reformed or empowered Global Community is leading firmly upon the principle of equal rights for all Global Citizens, then the planet will be controlled by a handful of vested interests. Land is not a product of labour. Everyone should therefore be given equal access to natural resources. The Global Economic Model proposes to make private property the product of labour. Common property is all what Nature offers. The Global Economic Model policy removes taxes from wages and increases taxes and user fees on common property.

Claiming ownership of the Earth as a birthright

Along with all the global communities, the Global Community, all life on Earth, and the Soul of Humanity can rightfully claim ownership of the Earth as a birthright.

And October 29 of every year is a special day to claim that right. Let us celebrate! The Earth and all its natural resources belong to all the "global communities" contained therein.

A village, or a city is "a global community" and owns the land and all other natural resources around its boundaries.

Along with the Global Community, all life on Earth, and the Soul of Humanity, a global community has ownership of all natural resources within its boundaries. Founders and Spiritual Leaders of the Global Community organization are happy to celebrate that day with all life on Earth.

To create a biodiversity zone over the entire planet by way of Earth rights and taxation of natural resources

Fot the protection of those global communities we will need to create a biodiversity zone over the entire planet by way of Earth rights and taxation of natural resources.

Climate change is a result of the rising global temperatures associated with global warming and human activities, the effects of which have a direct impact on all life on Earth. Global warming is causing the melting of the polar ice caps. The Polar Regions are very sensitive indicators of global warming. These regions are highly vulnerable to rising temperatures and may be virtually ice free by the summer of 2030.

The Global Community also proposes that all nations of the world promote the Scale of Global Rights and the criteria to obtain the Global Community Citizenship. Every global community citizen lives a life with the higher values described in the Scale and the criteria. Global community citizens are good members of the human family. Most global problems, including global warming and world overpopulation, can be managed through acceptance of the Scale and the criteria.

The Global Community can contribute in evaluating options and strategies for adapting to climate change as it occurs, and in identifying human activities that are even now maladapted to climate. There are two fundamental types of response to the risks of climate change:

1.     reducing the rate and magnitudes of change through mitigating the causes, and
2.     reducing the harmful consequences through anticipatory adaptation.

Mitigating the causes of global warming implies limiting the rates and magnitudes of increase in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, either by reducing emissions or by increasing sinks for atmospheric CO2. Reducing the harmful consequences can be achieved by co-operating together with the global ministries on climate change and emergencies. The Global Community has created the global ministries to help humanity be prepared to fight the harmful consequences of a global warming through anticipatory adaptation. The global ministries on climate change and emergencies are now operating. The ministries have developed:

1.     policy response to the consequences of the global warming, and
2.     strategies to adapt to the consequences of the unavoidable climate change.

The Global Community has given back responsibility to every citizen on Earth. Everyone shares responsibility for the present and future well-being of life within the Global Community. We will work together in finding sound solutions to local and global problems. It would be wrong and dishonest to blame it all on the leader of a country. Most problems in the world must find solutions at the local and global community levels (and not assume that the leader alone is responsible and will handle it). There is a wisdom in the ways of very humble people that needs to be utilized. Every humble person deserves to have ideas respected, and encouraged to develop his or her own life for the better. Sound solutions to help manage and sustain Earth will very likely be found this way. Everyone can help assess the needs of the planet and propose sound solutions for its proper management, present and future. Everyone can think of better ideas to sustain all life on Earth and realize these ideas by conducting positive and constructive actions. When there is a need to find a solution to a problem or a concern, a sound solution would be to choose a measure or conduct an action, if possible, which causes reversible damage as opposed to a measure or an action causing an irreversible loss; that is the grassroots process. The Global Community can help people realized their actions by coordinating efforts efficiently together.

XIII. Recommendations

The Global Community has developed a global strategy to reinforce primordial human rights.

Recommendations to that effect are:

*     provision of minimal standards of health, education, and housing worldwide
*     reduce inequality in access to work opportunities
*     care for the quality of life of the people
*     all nations must ratify an agreement to form the Earth Court of Justice
*     increase global cooperation between nations to deal with terrorism in a more selective, targeted way
*     help the Global Community promote and implement its global civic ethic program worldwide
*     allow our volunteers perform their global ethical management tasks during conflict resolution
*     emphasise social responsibility of corporations in the whole cycle of their products or services
*     expand coordination and global cooperation among nations, agencies, and NGOs, regarding information, early warning, apprehension, and punishment of terrorists through the Earth Court of Justice. The Court will create an environment for transparent Justice.
*     when there is massive damage done to a country that is abhorent to most countries of the world then the Earth Court of Justice will find it justified to go after the suspected criminals wherever they may be hiding

Agricultural practices must be changed to get more crop per liter of water by:

*     developing plants that are drought-hearty and more tolerant to a lesser quality of the soil
*     practicing desalination and water efficiencies in agricultural and urban usage

The lack of potable water and availability of water for agriculture use will contribute to the cause of conflicts between nations. In order to avoid conflicts over water, other actions have to be taken:

*     investing in reforestation and in watershed management
*     promoting the healthy effects of vegetarianism
*     using animal stem cells to produce meat tissue without animals
*     securing treaties and cooperatives agreements on water rights
*     implementing integrated water management plans

Drinking water is primordial human right Green tax policy INCREASES taxes and fees on:

*     Land sites according to land value
*     Lands used for timber, grazing, mining
*     Emissions into air, water, or soil
*     Ocean and freshwater resources
*     Electromagnetic spectrum
*     Satellite orbital zones
*     Oil and minerals

Green tax policy seeks to ELIMINATE subsidies environmentally or socially harmful, unnecessary, or inequitable. Slated for drastic reduction or complete removal are subsidies for:

*     Energy production
*     Resource extraction
*     Commerce and industry
*     Agriculture and forestry
*     Weapons of mass destruction

Global Community can contribute in evaluating options and strategies for adapting to climate change as it occurs, and in identifying human activities that are even now maladapted to climate. There are two fundamental types of response to the risks of climate change:

1.       reducing the rate and magnitudes of change through mitigating the causes, and
2.       reducing the harmful consequences through anticipatory adaptation.

Mitigating the causes of global warming implies limiting the rates and magnitudes of increase in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, either by reducing emissions or by increasing sinks for atmospheric CO₂. Reducing the harmful consequences can be achieved by co-operating together with the global ministries on climate change and emergencies. The Global Community has created the global ministries to help humanity be prepared to fight the harmful consequences of a global warming through anticipatory adaptation. The global ministries on climate change and emergencies are now operating.

Global warming is the highest threat to Earth security and is everyone's business. Terrorism was, and still is, a problem humanity needed to tackle head-on and resolve the best we could, but global warming is by far the greatest threat to the security of all people on Earth and to life itself. We have never tackle the problem head-on. We played around the problem and its solution. We know the solution to the problem of global warming, we know what we need to do to make this generation and future generations safe and secure, but we just never do what we really have to do to resolve the problem.

Why?

What will it take to make us act on the problem of global warming?

What will it take to make the North American Way of Life safe and secure to humanity?

What will it take to make Canadians and Americans understand that it does not matter how many guns we have, how many weapons of mass destruction we have hidden everywhere, or how good a 'Star War System' could be, and how many nations we invade, and how big is our GDP and how good is our economy.

None of that matters! None!

The biggest problem to security is smaller than anything we can see, smaller than the smallest particle we can breathe, and it is a trace element in the air we breathe. A deadly gas, the greenhouse gas!

We all know the problem, and we also know the solution. We can stop creating greenhouse gases. So now what is the problem?

The biggest problem is the North American continent Way of Life, consuming too much of the wrong things.

The biggest problem is too much freedom of doing the wrong things.

The biggest problem is our own weaknesses and helplessness in tackling the problem head-on and solve it.

The biggest problem is that Canadians and Americans are getting too proud about things that are completely unimportant and missing out on the things that are truly important, and we have been left behind by most other nations on those things that are truly important for the generations to come and to life itself.

Global Community is asking North Americans and everyone else on Earth to tackle the problem head-on. We must solve the problem we have with global warming.

Producers of the greenhouse gases tell us "we are energy efficient" but the truth of the matter is that they are producing the deadly gases of mass destruction, and those deadly gases are killing us all, and all life on Earth. It does not matter how smart you may be in fooling yourselves in accepting a slow death, a suicide in a way, you are still killing yourselves and the people of the next generations. That is a crime against humanity. You are criminals.

An oil company is proudly telling us with all sorts of gifts, grants and awards to the community that every year they have 'given' to their customers trillions of litres of the deadly gases. And, their customers, very proudly and carefully burned all of those litres. That is the biggest problem. We are told that we should be proud of burning the deadly gases. Americans invaded the Middle East to take over OPEC and their oil and burn trillions of barrels of oil. That means trillions of litres of the deadly gases entering the atmosphere of the Earth. The best and cheapest oil in the world being taken over by the worst consumers of the world. Just how mad are we? How insane are we getting to be? How can anyone be proud of thenselves about such an invasion? What is it? We enjoy driving with freedom on the highway?! We enjoy driving and to forget completely that we are actually killing ourselves and taking away the lives of people of the next generations. We want to forget we are destroying all life on Earth.

And please dont even mention the 'carbon emission trading permits' (a mechanism by which oil companies could buy and sell greenhouse gas emissions trading permits) as a possible solution. You are just extending the death of all lives by a few years, and you are not tackling the problem head-on.

Over its long past history trade has never evolved to require from the trading partners to become legally and morally responsible and accountable for their products from beginning to end. At the end the product becomes a waste and it needs to be properly dispose of. Now trade must be given a new impetus to be in line with the global concepts of Global Community. You manufacture, produce, mine, farm or create a product, you become legally and morally responsible and accountable of your product from beginning to end (to the point where it actually becomes a waste; you are also responsible for the proper disposable of the waste). This product may be anything and everything from oil & gas, weapons, war products, to genetically engineered food products. All consumer products. All medicinal products! All pharmaceutical products! In order words, a person becomes responsible and accountable for anything and everything in his or her life.

As a business you may be using standards of operating and managing that are similar to the ISO 14001 environmental management plan (internationally recognized standards that provide guidelines to reduce environmental impacts). ISO 14001 provides a framework for continual improvement to mitigate potential environmental impacts from operations and businesses dealing with your company.

The problem is not so much how good is your environmental management plan. The problem is the product you produce and put on the market to consumers. The problem is your product, a deadly product of mass destruction. It is worst than all known weapons of mass destruction as it kills by making consumers believe it is good for them. Like smoking cigarettes! Companies making cigarettes have for long told their consumers that a longer filter would not affect them so much and they would not get cancer and die of it. Whether or not you use the most energy-efficient machines and the best management team, and ISO 14001 for that matter, at the end it does not matter. You are still producing the deadly gases and consumers are still burning them. Consider the long filter for cigarettes as an illusionary solution to the problem and so are carbon emission trading permits.

Oil companies are responsible and accountable of their products from beginning to end. The 'end' for an oil company does not end at the gas pump where a consumer buy your refine products. No! The end for you goes all the way to global warming, to pollution of the environment, to the destruction of the global life-support systems, to taking away lives of future generations, to the destruction of life on Earth. Very much so!

Global Community proposes to ask you to pay a global tax on your products. The tax would be high enough to discourage consumers from buying your products and force you to use viable alternatives. The Governments of the United States and Canada should put a high tax on all oil based products and their derivatives and certainly gasoline should have the highest tax possible. The tax would be a carbon tax allocated for the protection of the environment and the global life-support systems.

A workable type of Tobin tax should also be in place as it is a powerful instrument to promote sustainable development and force shareholders in moving away from producing oil.

Global Community also proposes to develope a method of raising global taxes, of redistributing incomes to the poorest communities, of providing debt-free technical assistance to non-industrial and developing countries to help them out of poverty and to meet environmental and social standards.

The WTO, the World Bank, the IMF, the EU and the UN are worldwide organizations that can and should be used to raise global taxes to redistribute to the poorest and developing nations.

Losses of biomass through deforestation and the cutting down of tropical forests put our supply of oxygen (O2) gas at risk. The Earth's forests did not use to play a dominant role in maintaining O2 reserves because they consume just as much of this gas as they produce. Today forests are being destroy at an astronomical rate. No O2 is created after a forest is put down, and more CO₂ is produced in the process. In the tropics, ants, termites, bacteria, and fungi eat nearly the entire photosynthetic O2 product. Only a tiny fraction of the organic matter they produce accumulates in swamps and soils or is carried down the rivers for burial on the sea floor. The O2 content of our atmosphere is slowly declining. The content of the atmosphere decreased at an average annual rate of 2 parts per million. The atmosphere contains 210,000 parts per million. Combustion of fossil fuels destroys O2. For each 100 atoms of fossil-fuel carbon burned, about 140 molecules of O2 are consumed.
A typical American uses 15 times as much lumber and paper as a resident of a developing country. Reducing wood consumption in the industrialized world is unlikely to stop forest loss in developing countries however, since most of the wood consumed comes from trees in the industrialized countries themselves. Nevertheless, the consumption model offered to the rest of the world threatens accelerated forest loss as both populations and economies grow in developing countries.

Scientists will need to become more involved in assessing the viability of response options aimed at storing excess carbon in terrestrial or ocean systems. Land use changes from agricultural to forest ecosystems can help to remove carbon from the atmosphere at rates of 2 to 20 tonnes of carbon per hectare per year for periods of 50 years or more, until a new ecosystem equilibrium is reached. Similarly, soil conservation practices can help build up carbon reservoirs in forest and agricultural soils. Proposals to extract CO₂ from smoke stacks and dispose of it in liquid form in underground reservoirs or deep oceans also need careful evaluation in terms of long-term feedbacks, effectiveness and environmental acceptability. However, much remains to be learned about the biological and physical processes by which terrestial and ocean systems can act as sinks and permanent reservoirs for carbon.



We need to improve on our ability to:

*       predict future anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. While demographic, technological and economic factors are in many respects inherently speculative, better observations and understanding of the processes by which human activities directly or indirectly contribute to emissions are clearly required. These in particular include emissions from deforestation and agricultural activities;
*       obtain more data on the effect of human emissions on atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. Not only do we need to reduce the uncertainties about past and current sinks for emitted greenhouse gases, but we need to better understand and quantify the long term feedbacks such as CO₂ fertilization and physical and biological response to climate change if we expect to improve our confidence in projections of future concentrations.
*       measure direct and indirect effects of radiative forcing of greenhouse gases and aerosols.
*       measure climate sensitivity to changes in radiative forcing.
*       measure the response to climate change of biological and physical processes with the terrestrial and ocean systems
*       obtain an early detection of the signal of human interference with the climate system against the change caused by natural forces or internal system noise is important in fostering timely and responsible coping actions.
*       develop actions to limit emissions of greenhouse gases and prepare to adapt to climate change. However, stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions will not stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations and climate but only slow down the rates of change.
*       live with the facts that climate change is unavoidable, atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations are already signficantly higher than pre-industrial levels, and that aggressive efforts to reduce their anthropogenic emission sources would only slow down the growth in their concentrations, not stop it. Therefore, policy response to this issue must also include strategies to adapt to the consequences of unavoidable climate change.

Individuals, too, can help bring about a world that is more secure and more supportive of life, health and happiness. They can educate themselves on population dynamics, consumption patterns and the impact of these forces on natural resources and the environment. They can be socially, politically and culturally active to elevate the issues they care about. They can become more environmentally responsible in their purchasing decisions and their use of energy and natural resources. And individuals and couples can consider the impacts of their reproductive decisions on their communities and the world as a whole.

What is needed is for government and the private sector to make reproductive health services available to all who seek them, to make sure that girls and boys can go to and stay in school, and to make economic opportunities as accessible to women as to men. Combined with improved energy and natural-resource technologies and saner models of consumption and the “good life,” these strategies can bring humanity into enduring balance with the environment and the natural resources that people will always need.

Nationalization of natural resources

As defined by the Global Community, the concept of ownership states that land and natural resources of the planet are a common heritage and belong equally to everyone, to all life on Earth, as a birthright. Products and services created by individuals are properly viewed as private property. Products and services created by groups of individuals are properly viewed as collective property. Only the Global Community can rightfully claim ownership of the Earth. October 29 is the day to celebrate ownership of our natural resources.

Along with ownership comes the obligation of using the resources, share them or lose them. Land and all other Earth natural resources are not commodities. Use the land, share it or lose it. This principle also applies to banks and similar institutions all over the world and to Wall Street. You own property because the previous owners could not pay. Use that property, share it or lose it. The Global Community stipulates that land ownership is no longer a problem. The Earth and all its natural resources belong to all the "global communities" contained therein. A village, or a city is "a global community" and owns the land around its boundaries. Along with the Global Community, it has ownership of all natural resources within its boundaries. So, by definition, land here, covers all naturally occurring resources like surface land, the air, minerals deposits, fossil fuels, water, electromagnetic spectrum, the trees, fish in the seas and rivers. It is unjust to treat land as private property. As mentioned above, land here, by definition, covers all naturally occurring resources like surface land, minerals deposits (gold, oil and gas etc), water, electromagnetic spectrum, the trees, fishes in the seas, lakes and rivers. It is unjust to treat land as private property. Land is not a product of labour. Everyone should therefore be given equal access to such natural resources.

In order to better protect life on our planet, the Global Community is asking people of all nations to defend and protect their natural resources. In particular, all the hydrocarbons within a national territory must be nationalized. It is an obligation, not only of a national government, but also of all the active forces in a country; it is the duty of local and municipal authorities, the duty of state authorities, of everyone, to take upon themselves this defense and this recuperation of natural resources.

Nationalization is a necessity because American corporations have been buying local corporations to acquire natural resources of a country. This state of affairs has been going on ever since WWII. Over the past decades, the US national debt and annual deficit have been out-of-control because of a complete business freedom of the US corporate world. No taxation! When a large corporation is about to go out of business, the White House intervened with a bail out.

References

Protection of the :

• global life-support systems


• Earth ecosystems


• environment

Security for all life, and safety at work
Peace and disarmament
Have shelter and basic clothing
Global voting
Sustainable agriculture and food supplies
Water resources protection and drinking fresh water
Ombudspersons Office
Global Information Media ( GIM )
Volunteering
Breathing clean air
Global Community Assessment Centre ( GCAC)
Preventive actions against polluters
Eating a balance diet
Sustainable use of human and natural resources
' Clean ' energy
Eradicating poverty and hunger
Universal health care and education for everyone
Global Rights
All of the above essentials for this generation and the next ones

Global Movement to Help main listing:

• Federation of Global Governments Head Quarters (HQ)
  
• Essential services
  
• Global Justice Network
  
• Global Protection Agency (GPA)
  
• Global Rights
  
• Portal of the Global Community
  
• Portal Global Dialogue 2009
  
• Global Information Media (GIM) proclamations
  
• Portal of Global Dialogue 2008
  
• Proceedings of the Global Dialogue
  
• Global Peace Movement amongst nations and people
  
• Global Citizens voting on issues
  

God's higher purpose for humanity    
Guiding Souls to serve God is a part of a new unifying religion of a modern symbiosis global society    
Definition of Global Rights    
Definition of the Scale of Global Rights    
Definition of the Global Community    
Who owns the Earth ?    
Planetary state of emergency    
The fundamental criteria of a global symbiotical relationship    
The fundamental principle that says you have a property, use it, share it, or lose it    
Our global commons    
Global standards and practices, and global law    
Land and all other natural resources on the planet belong to the Global Community along with the local communities where resources are found    
No taxes on labor but taxes on the use of natural resources    
The building of global communities for all life    
Justice for all    
New way of doing business and trade    
Disarmament from all nations    
Respecting Global Rights    
Global Community criteria for sovereignty    
The planet - Life - Soul of Humanity symbiotical relationship    
Global security for all life on the planet    
Social harmony    
Global citizenship    
Global Constitution    
Preventive actions against polluters    
Earth is the birth right of all life    
A sound solution would be to choose a measure or conduct an action, if possible, which causes reversible damage    
Actions for the good of all as per the Statement of Rights, Responsibilities, and Accountabilities    
The political system of an individual country does not have to be a democracy    
The Global Community must now direct the wealth of the world towards the building of local-to-global economic democracies in order to meet the needs for food, shelter, universal healthcare, education, and employment for all    
The Global Economic Model proposed by the Global Community is truly the best response to the world    
Direct democracy and global voting on issues    
Creation of a biodiversity zone protection all around the planet by way of Earth rights and taxation of natural resources    

There are a large body of work of articles, papers and reports concerning the need to protect our environment and the global life-support systems. We are showing here a few.

Reports by the Global Community Assessment Centre (GCAC)
Protect photosynthesis: less CO₂ , more Oxygen and better health for all of us.

A)     Protection of the global life-support systems

B)     Climate change prelude

C)     Climate change: responsibility and accountability of cities

Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been established by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
to assess scientific, technical and socio- economic information relevant for the understanding of climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. It is currently finalizing its Fourth Assessment Report "Climate Change 2007". The reports by the three Working Groups provide a comprehensive and up-to-date assessment of the current state of knowledge on climate change.

Articles and papers

1.0     Protection of the Global Environment
2.0     What is climate change? What has caused the climate to change?
3.0     The greatest threat to all life on Earth is a trace element.
4.0     Global warming tic-O-tack!
5.0     Results from studies on climate change.
6.0     Local and global impacts.
7.0     Storing excess carbon in terrestrial and ocean systems.
8.0     British Columbia’s battlefield for life.
9.0     Preventive actions to climate change.
10.0     Peak soils movement
11.0     Marine ecosystems, fisheries, Eco-label, seafood, and social marketing aspects and issues
12.0     Global development aspects and issues
13.0     Ocean conservation and protection aspects and issues
14.0     Forest protection aspects and issues
15.0     Soil lost prevention aspects and issues
16.0     Water conservation aspects and issues
17.0     Renewable energy aspects and issues
18.0     Clean air aspects and issues
19.0     Global pollution aspects and issues
20.0     To create a biodiversity zone over the entire planet by way of Earth rights and taxation of natural resources

Contact Information
Telephone: 250-754-0778
Postal address: 186 Bowlsby Street, Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada V9R 5K1
Electronic mail: globalcommunity@telus.net
Website: http://globalcommunitywebnet.com/
Webmaster: gdufour@globalcommunitywebnet.com