CHAPTER 11
ENVIRONMENT
Does global climate change change everything?
What Should We Know After Studying This Chapter?
• To understand the physical and economic geography of climate change.
• To examine the uneven geographies of global warming’s causes and impacts.
• To explore the ways in which governments attempt to reduce carbon emissions.
• To analyze the changing economic geographies of a ‘post‐carbon’ world.
By mastering these topics, we will also be prepared to answer key exam questions
such as:
A. Does global climate change, change everything?
B. Regulating emissions
Pensavo come introduzione all’argomento questo esempio qui, secondo me il prof
apprezza
The Kiribati islands are a striking example of vulnerability to climate change.
Located in the Pacific Ocean, they consist of 32 coral atolls spread across a vast
area of ocean but with a land surface of just 726 km², most of which lies below 2
meters above sea level. Rising sea levels caused by global warming directly
threaten the existence of this small island nation. Beyond the loss of territory,
climate change has devastating consequences for local ecosystems, endangering
coral reefs, freshwater reserves, and key economic sectors like fishing and tourism.
Despite contributing minimally to global emissions, Kiribati is among the first
countries to face the most severe consequences, embodying the stark reality of
global climate injustice.
11.2 Climate Complacency
The text delves into the issue of climate complacency, examining public opinions,
skeptic arguments, and societal responses. Despite a robust scientific consensus
on climate change and its anthropogenic causes, doubts and lack of concrete action
persist.
Public Opinion and Skepticism
Global public opinion on climate change varies significantly. In 2015, only 45% of
Americans considered climate change a “very serious problem”, a figure
mirrored in the Asia-Pacific region. Europe was slightly higher at 54%, while
concern was far greater in Africa (61%) and Latin America (74%).
In a 2016 survey, 48% of Americans attributed climate change to human activity,
31% to natural causes, and 20% denied it entirely. This skepticism has remained
stable over time, with less than 50% acknowledging human responsibility for
climate change.
Arguments from Skeptics
Climate skeptics offer several arguments to downplay the urgency of action:
1. Global warming is not occurring, and the data is misinterpreted or
manipulated.
2. Any warming is a natural phenomenon, caused by environmental cycles
or solar variations.
3. The impacts of climate change are uncertain or potentially beneficial, such
as extended growing seasons.
4. Addressing climate change is too costly, and adaptation through
technological innovation (e.g., drought-resistant crops or efficient
engines) is a better solution.
Skeptics also undermine climate scientists, amplifying their views in the media,
where journalists often feel compelled to provide “balanced” coverage, giving
equal weight to unsupported opposing views.
Motivations Behind Climate Skepticism
Two key factors drive climate skepticism:
Political ideology: Many conservatives, especially in the United States,
oppose government intervention, regulations, and spending associated
with emission reductions.
Economic interests: Industries, particularly in fossil fuels and automotive
sectors, resist regulations or taxes that threaten their profits.
Denial in Everyday Life
Beyond ideological skeptics, many individuals engage in “everyday denial” of
climate change through apathy and inaction. This stems from:
The complexity of scientific and policy debates.
The perception that climate change impacts are distant in time and space.
A reluctance to give up lifestyle comforts like cars, air travel, and
globalized consumer goods.
A Broken Consensus
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, there was a growing scientific and political
consensus to act on climate change. Events like James Hansen’s testimony to the
US Congress and the first IPCC report (1990) emphasized the link between human
emissions and global warming. Yet, a counter-narrative emerged, driven by non-
climate scientists, economists, and industry-backed groups, which undermined
progress and delayed action.
11.3 Causes and Sources of Climate Change
Without an atmosphere, the average surface temperature of the earth would be
around minus 23 °C. This figure is based solely on the amount of incoming solar
radiation that the planet’s surface would retain. With the benefit of our
atmosphere, however, the actual surface temperature of the planet is
approximately +14 °C. This warming, or the so‐called ‘greenhouse effect’, occurs
because several atmospheric gases have the capacity to absorb and retain energy
when solar radiation is reflected back from the earth’s surface. The most important
gas in this respect is water vapour (H₂O), but energy retention is also a property
of carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), nitrous oxide (N₂O), and ozone (O₃)
(listed in descending order of their contribution to the earth’s natural warming).
While such warming is a natural process, the important point is that human
activities have increased the concentrations of ‘greenhouse’ gases and
therefore the warming capacity of the atmosphere. This has primarily occurred
through the burning of hydrocarbon‐based fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural
gases. This process of carbon release started to pick up in the 1800s and then
accelerated rapidly as industrial and urban development spread around the
world.
Carbon dioxide is also produced in other ways, besides the burning of fossil fuels.
Deforestation and land use changes (e.g. conversion to agricultural uses) lead to
the release of carbon locked into plant material or soils. Cement production
has also been a significant source, as the heating process used in its manufacture
releases large amounts of carbon dioxide.
Because of these anthropogenic sources, between the pre‐industrial era
(around 1750) and the current decade (2010s), average levels of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere have increased by 40%. About half of that increase
has been in the last 40 years. The earth’s average temperature has increased
by about 1 °C since pre‐industrial times, and the latest IPCC assessment
estimates that 61% of this increase is due to anthropogenic CO₂ emissions.
The intensifying use of livestock for dairy and meat production has been a
major source of methane (CH₄), which is released in the digestive process of
animals such as cattle and sheep. Waste organic matter is also a methane
source. Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide
(per molecule) but is present in much lower quantities and has a shorter
lifespan in the atmosphere. It is estimated that CH₄ concentrations have
increased by 150% since pre-industrial times and account for 17% of observed
warming.
Processes of industrial production and agriculture have increased nitrous
oxide levels, while chlorofluorocarbons and ozone are released in industrial
processes. Together, these gases account for 16% of global warming.
Feedback loops can potentially intensify the process of warming. For instance,
thawing permafrost regions release trapped gases like methane, while melting
polar ice caps reduce the earth’s albedo, trapping more energy in the
atmosphere. Forest fires release additional carbon into the atmosphere, creating
further feedback loops.
Greenhouse gases circulate globally, affecting the entire planet, regardless of
where they are emitted. This highlights the interconnection of human activities
and the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide emissions are uneven, with China and the
United States contributing nearly half of all emissions. However, historical
emissions show that Europe and North America have contributed most of the
carbon dioxide since the Industrial Revolution.
The concept of ‘climate debt’ argues that wealthier countries bear historical
responsibility for climate change and should lead in reducing emissions and
assisting those affected.
Global production networks complicate responsibility: 26% of global
emissions in 2008 were due to production for trade. Similarly, luxury
emissions (from high consumption lifestyles) differ from survival emissions,
which support basic needs, as seen in countries like India, where 200 million
people lacked electricity in 2016.
Finally, individual carbon footprints and corporate emissions further blur the
lines of responsibility. Studies suggest that just 90 companies accounted for two-
thirds of global carbon emissions between 1854 and 2010.
Understanding these spatialities of emissions is crucial for assigning
responsibility in global climate negotiations.
11.4 The Impacts and Costs of Climate Change
Professor’s slides->The excerpt highlights the relationship between the economy,
society, and the environment, emphasizing that the economy operates within two
main types of limits:
Social Limits:
o The economy is shaped by societal decisions and structures,
including institutions, policies, and governance.
o Communities set boundaries on what activities are permissible,
establish regulations, and create incentives or disincentives for
specific economic behaviors.
o The interaction between private and public sectors reflects these
socially determined constraints.
Physical Limits:
o The economy is inherently dependent on the finite resources of the
physical world, including land, water, energy, and raw materials.
o Despite this reality, some individuals and leaders fail to recognize or
acknowledge these natural constraints, often prioritizing short-term
growth over sustainable practices.
This section discusses the physical and economic impacts of global warming,
highlighting their uneven distribution and disconnection from the causes of
emissions.
Physical Impacts:
1. Warming: The global temperature has risen by about 0.9°C since 1880, with
uneven regional effects. Some areas are significantly warmer, while others
remain cooler. Extreme weather events like hot, dry days are increasing in
frequency and intensity.
2. Changing Weather Patterns: Some regions are becoming wetter, while
others drier, leading to altered precipitation patterns. For example, snow in
certain areas is being replaced by rain, affecting ecosystems. Increased
flooding is also a result of changing hydrological regimes.
3. Ecological Shifts: Warming affects the distribution and migration of plants,
animals, and marine species. Desertification may expand, and ocean
environments are becoming less hospitable due to CO2 absorption,
increasing acidity and temperature, which harms marine life.
4. Rising Sea Levels: Global sea levels rose by 19 cm from 1901-2010, with
projections of an additional rise of 44-74 cm by 2100. Melting ice sheets and
glaciers contribute to this rise, impacting coastal regions and island nations.
5. Extreme Weather Events: Warmer seawater intensifies storms like
hurricanes and typhoons, while rising sea levels exacerbate storm surges,
causing increased destruction. Weather patterns are also linked to more
frequent droughts and wildfires.
Economic Costs:
1. Agriculture and Fisheries: Climate change impacts crop yields and fishing
industries. Warmer temperatures may increase plant growth in some areas,
but other factors like water shortages and extreme weather will lead to
reduced yields, particularly for crops like wheat and maize. This threatens
global food security.
2. Urban Infrastructure: Extreme weather events like hurricanes and typhoons
cause significant damage to infrastructure, including water supplies, energy
systems, and housing. Coastal areas, particularly low-lying regions, are
increasingly at risk. The economic cost of these events is high, with notable
examples including Hurricane Harvey (US$125 billion) and Typhoon Haiyan
(over US$6,000 deaths, US$14 billion damage).
3. Human Health: Climate change leads to health impacts, such as heat-related
deaths, respiratory issues from wildfires, and the spread of foodborne and
waterborne diseases. Vulnerable groups like the elderly, agricultural
workers, and children are at higher risk. The World Health Organization
estimates 250,000 additional deaths per year between 2030 and 2050.
4. Economic Models: The Stern Review (2006) estimated that the costs of
climate change could equate to 5% of global GDP annually, with some
regions experiencing even higher costs. Action to reduce emissions could
cost 1% of global GDP annually.
5. Social Cost of Carbon (SCC): The SCC estimates the cost of carbon emissions,
factoring in long-term damages like sea level rise and health impacts. The
most recent SCC estimate is US$87 per tonne of carbon, according to the
DICE model by economist William Nordhaus.
Vulnerability and Inequality: The impacts of climate change are not felt equally.
Vulnerable groups, including marginalized communities, are more likely to suffer
due to their socio-economic and political status. Local vulnerabilities, shaped by
factors like occupation, ethnicity, and immigration status, interact with larger
global processes, leading to greater inequality in climate change impacts.
11.5 Regulating Emissions
CASE STUDY
The Deccan Plateau in south-central
India is a semi-arid region facing
significant vulnerability to climate
change. Around 60% of its population
relies on agriculture, but the area
suffers from regular droughts. In
recent decades, agricultural
liberalization, increasing household
debt, and unequal access to irrigation
have exacerbated these challenges. The
reduction of subsidies and protection
for local producers has benefited large
farmers, while smallholders have struggled. These farmers are increasingly
turning to cash crops, which require more water, leading to more debt and
further environmental strain.
Climate change has worsened these issues, with rising temperatures, more
extreme heat, declining monsoon rains, and intensified rainfall events.
Vulnerability is not evenly distributed; poorer farmers, already struggling with
debt and poverty, are the most affected. The financial strain has led to a tragic rise
in farmer suicides, with estimates suggesting nearly 60,000 suicides in India
linked to climate stress.
The Deccan Plateau illustrates how local environmental and economic factors
are deeply intertwined, and how broader national and global processes
contribute to this vulnerability. This case highlights the spatial and social
inequalities in climate change impacts, making it a geographical problem with
devastating consequences.
Rising Awareness of Global Warming
In the 1980s and early 1990s, there was a growing scientific and political
awareness of global warming as an urgent issue. Despite being undermined by
climate change denialists, this awareness led to the creation of national and
international institutions aimed at negotiating reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions.
The Role of International Institutions
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was
established in 1992 at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. The 1997 Kyoto
Protocol introduced emission reduction targets based on the principle of
"common but differentiated responsibilities." However, challenges arose with
the absence of the United States and Canada's withdrawal in 2011, which
hindered progress.
The Kyoto Protocol (P. Slides)
The Kyoto Protocol is an important international environmental treaty that
addresses global warming. Signed on December 11, 1997, during the COP 3
Conference in Kyoto, Japan, the protocol set legally binding emission reduction
targets for developed countries. The treaty aimed for a reduction of greenhouse
gases (such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides, and others) by 8%
from 1990 levels during the period from 2008 to 2012. The protocol entered into
force on February 16, 2005, after being ratified by Russia. By March 2013, it had
been ratified by 191 states and the European Union. The Doha Amendment in
2012 extended the protocol's commitment period until 2020, with further goals for
reducing emissions.
The Paris Agreement (P. Slides)
The Paris Agreement emerged from the COP 21 conference held in Paris in
December 2015. It was signed by 195 countries and seeks to limit global
temperature rise to well below 2°C compared to pre-industrial levels, with an
aspiration to keep it below 1.5°C. The agreement requires at least 55 countries
representing 55% of global emissions to ratify it before coming into force. The
agreement, which entered into force on November 4, 2016, is a legally binding
international treaty that aims for long-term emission reductions and emphasizes
climate change mitigation and adaptation. Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris
Agreement applies to all countries, including developing nations. Furthermore, it
establishes financial and technological support to assist in the transition to low-
carbon economies.
Limitations of International Regulatory Mechanisms
International emission reduction frameworks have been criticized for their
inability to enforce binding obligations, resulting in inconsistent regulations and
the risk of industries relocating to jurisdictions with weaker environmental laws.
Types of Emission Reduction Policies
Carbon Taxes
Carbon taxes impose a direct cost on carbon emissions, encouraging both reduced
consumption and the adoption of cleaner alternatives. For example, British
Columbia implemented a carbon tax in 2008, which has successfully reduced
emissions while maintaining economic growth.
Emission Trading Schemes
Emission trading schemes set a cap on emissions and allow companies to buy
and sell permits to emit greenhouse gases. The California Cap-and-Trade
Program, launched in 2013, is one of the most significant examples of such a
scheme in practice.
Carbon Offsets
Carbon offsets allow businesses to compensate for their emissions by investing in
projects that reduce or capture emissions elsewhere. The Clean Development
Mechanism (CDM) under the Kyoto Protocol facilitated this process by allowing
companies to invest in emissions-reducing projects in developing countries.
Criticism of Trading Schemes and Offsets
Emission trading schemes and carbon offset programs have faced criticism for
encouraging speculation and for their difficulty in ensuring real reductions in
emissions. The effectiveness of these systems is often questioned, as they may not
lead to genuine environmental benefits.
Direct Regulations for Emission Reductions
Some countries have implemented direct regulations to reduce emissions, such as
the UK and France's decision to ban the sale of gasoline and diesel cars by 2040.
Additionally, China has been pushing for the development of electric vehicles,
signaling a shift toward more sustainable transportation.
Territorial Power in Environmental Policy Development
Emission policies are shaped by the territorial power of individual states.
However, there is a mismatch between the geographic scale of these regulations
and the global nature of climate change. This misalignment limits the overall
effectiveness of national policies in addressing the global crisis.
Free Rider Problems and Carbon Leakage
The "free rider" problem arises when certain jurisdictions fail to implement
stringent regulations but still benefit from the efforts of others. Carbon leakage
also presents a challenge, as industries may relocate to countries with weaker
environmental regulations, undermining the global goal of reducing emissions.
This has been evident in cases such as the shift of industries to China.
11.6 Geographies of the Green Economy
The green economy, emerging due to concerns over climate change, has two
main dimensions: the development of new industrial processes to reduce
emissions and a broader transition towards decarbonization in energy
production and usage. This shift impacts the structure of urban and industrial
landscapes.
In addition to regulatory efforts, some businesses voluntarily reduce emissions.
For instance, small enterprises focused on local products, or businesses that
lower costs by improving efficiency, contribute to environmental responsibility.
In the financial sector, emission permits have created new markets, and
industries such as solar panels, energy-efficient building materials, and
electric cars have grown substantially.
The green economy also introduces new geographical patterns. Electric car
production, for instance, is shifting production locations, while mining for
materials like cobalt and lithium (essential for electric vehicle batteries)
intensifies in countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo and Australia.
Additionally, renewable energy sources like wind, solar, and hydroelectric
power are developing new geographies of energy infrastructure, with countries
like Morocco and China leading in solar power generation.
However, the transition to a post-carbon economy is not without challenges. It
can disrupt traditional industries, such as coal mining, and cause social
disruptions. Renewable energy projects, like large solar farms, may conflict
with local land uses, as seen in Gujarat, India, where a solar park affected local
farmers and herders. This highlights the uneven impacts of the green economy
at various scales.
Case study-> Lithium as commodity
Lithium is a key raw material for manufacturing rechargeable lithium-ion
batteries, essential for the rise of electric vehicles. Its price has been volatile,
driven by growing demand. The extraction process, which primarily occurs in salt
lake brine in Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile, differs from other mineral extractions,
causing less environmental disruption. However, local politics in countries like
Bolivia have hindered production, despite having the largest known reserves. The
technological advancements in extraction have also made lower-concentration
deposits viable, turning lithium into a commodity.
PROFESSOR’S SLIDES
Earth Overshoot Day
Definition: Marks the date when humanity consumes more ecological
resources than Earth can regenerate in a year.
Trend: This day has been occurring earlier each year due to humanity’s
unsustainable resource consumption. For example:
o 2019: July 29
o 2022: July 28
Core Issue: The growing ecological deficit stems from depleting natural
reserves and accumulating waste, particularly carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere.
Activism Before Greta Thunberg
The document highlights significant figures and movements that paved the
way for environmental awareness before Greta’s rise to prominence.
Examples include:
o The Club of Rome: Established in 1968, it gained fame for its 1972
report The Limits to Growth, analyzing the unsustainability of growth
reliant on finite resources.
o Rachel Carson (1962): Author of the groundbreaking book Silent
Spring, which exposed the dangers of chemical pesticides and
sparked the modern environmental movement.
Agenda 2030 and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
Overview: Adopted in September 2015 by 193 UN Member States, the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development is a global framework aiming to
transform the world through 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and
169 specific targets. These goals address critical global issues such as
poverty, hunger, health, education, inequality, and environmental
sustainability.
Key Aspects:
o The SDGs are universal, applying to all countries regardless of
economic status.
o A strong focus is placed on fostering global partnerships and
financial/technological support for achieving low-carbon,
sustainable economies.
Impact in Europe:
o The European Union has aligned its environmental and development
policies with the Agenda, aiming for carbon neutrality by 2050
through initiatives like the European Green Deal and the Next
Generation EU Recovery Plan.
11.7 Should this Change Everything?
The section argues that current efforts to tackle climate change (such as
emissions control, taxation, and regulation) are insufficient to limit global warming
to acceptable levels. More profound, rapid changes in energy generation, land use,
urban planning, and industrial systems are required, as highlighted by the IPCC
2018 report. It also calls for a philosophical shift in how we view nature—moving
away from the assumption of "cheap nature" to a recognition that humans are
part of nature, not separate from it.
The third argument challenges the capitalist system that drives environmental
degradation. Naomi Klein’s book, This Changes Everything, argues that capitalism’s
emphasis on continuous growth, private ownership, corporate profit, and
externalizing environmental costs is incompatible with sustainability. To
address this, Klein suggests rethinking capitalism, including public ownership of
essential infrastructure, re-localizing production, and curbing the culture of
consumerism. The goal is to create a more sustainable, ethical, and equitable
system, with responsibility placed on wealthier countries and classes.