Global warming: causes, manifestations and ways. Global warming and climate change are approaching Russia
At the end of the last century, a group of scientists went to the Arctic. It is here that the history of our planet is perfectly preserved in the thickness of the ice. Ice is a time machine that takes us back in time, revealing a picture of climate change. Everything was preserved in the layers of ice - sand and volcanic dust, the concentration of isotopes and carbon dioxide. Therefore, it is easy to understand what happened to the atmosphere. If you make a graph of changes in ambient temperature and the level of carbon dioxide obtained in ice cores, then the cause of the crisis is modern world will become obvious. The level of carbon dioxide is directly dependent on the temperature level. In the twenty-first century, the content of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere began to grow at a gigantic pace. Carbon dioxide is one of the known greenhouse gases. The thing is that greenhouse gases trap the heat radiated from the surface of our planet. Instead of leaving the atmosphere, heat remains in it. And the greenhouse effect causes global warming. What global warming can lead to and its consequences, you will learn in this article.
Causes of global warming
If the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continues to rise further, an unenviable future awaits humanity. Warming is inevitable, and scientists provide several evidence for this fact. If we look at the situation with the Arctic, we can find that it was the Arctic that received quite a lot of sunlight during the cold period. At first glance, it is a little strange why the abundance of the sun gives little heat, but the reason for everything is carbon dioxide. In Antarctica, during cold times, the level of carbon dioxide was low, and when it was warm in this area, the concentration of carbon dioxide was increased. The relationship between these two indicators was discovered long ago, but in the twenty-first century the situation has changed. So, after all, what will global warming and its consequences lead to? Today, the jump in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is due not only to natural processes. The human factor played a big role.
Global warming is an irreversible process and is projected to reach an all-time high by the end of this century.
A century and a half ago, the industrial revolution began, the rapid development of production led to the fact that the level of carbon dioxide began to rise sharply. People burn fuel, fossils, cut down trees. That is why carbon dioxide accumulates in the atmosphere. If a person does not change anything, then the level of carbon dioxide will continue to grow, increasing by thirty percent every half century. At this rate, the temperature on the planet will reach a record high by the end of this century. But maybe not everything is so terrible, and humanity will live well in the new conditions: exotic fruits will be grown in Russia, and winter holidays will become like summer ones? Let's turn to the opinion of the great minds of mankind.
Consequences of global warming
 |
The mechanisms that caused the melting of glaciers millions of years ago are still working today. Humanity is worried that our planet is approaching global melting several times faster than it was before. Once past the tipping point, climate change will be irreversible. An increase in average temperature by only 5-7 degrees can have a detrimental effect on the ecosystem and humans. Earth is on the verge of a planetary cataclysm. If effective and urgent action is not taken, perhaps our generation will already witness a sea level rise of six meters.
Today it is not known exactly when the process of melting ice will become irreversible. Some scientists believe that even now the destruction of the ice cover has passed the critical point. True, according to the most optimistic forecasts, if you start taking measures, the situation can be saved. Of course, humanity can move cities deep into the continents, start building walls, but in case of failure, the world will change completely - social, economic disasters, chaos, the struggle for survival - that's what awaits us. Tomorrow may not be like today, but it all depends on us.
Good day dear readers! Today we will talk about global problems ah humanity. I would like to discuss the topic discussed by everyone - global warming. Find out the causes and how the Earth suffers from this and how to cope with it...
Global warming is believed to be directly related to human economic activity.. Although we practically do not feel a slight increase in temperature, however, this can have the most detrimental consequences for the entire biosphere. Water shortages and droughts, severe floods, hurricanes and fires in different regions of the planet are the result of global warming. In addition, under its influence, the flora and fauna noticeably change.
Some scientists believe that these are the stages of the evolutionary development of our planet. After all, the Earth has already experienced several, so we may well live in a warm interglacial. Strong warming occurred during the Pliocene epoch (5.3-1.6 million years ago). Then the sea level was 30-35 meters higher than today. It is assumed that the direct cause of the Ice Age was a change in the angle of inclination of the earth's axis to the plane of the orbit along which it revolves around the Sun. Among other factors of global warming are: an increase in solar activity and a significant dustiness of the atmosphere due to volcanic activity of industrial emissions.
It is established that before 1990 the temperature increased by 0.5°C every 100 years, while recently it has been increasing by 0.3°C every 10 years. If humanity continues to pollute the atmosphere at the same rate, then already in the current century the climate on earth will become warmer by 1-5°C.
Main reasons.
The most common belief is that a mixture of natural and industrial gases (including nitrous oxide, water vapor, sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide, and methane) traps heat energy in the Earth, which leads to heating. These gases have a common name - greenhouse gases, and they also have a common effect that they have, it is called the greenhouse effect (sometimes the greenhouse effect).
A significant part of solar energy is absorbed by the earth, and the unused part normally goes into outer space. However, greenhouse gases interfere with this process, so the surface of our planet begins to heat up. Global warming is the result of the described mechanism.
Mountain systems, snow and ice sheets, and the vegetation cover of the planet play a key role in the regulation of air currents and temperature. Cryosphere - areas covered with snow and ice - reflects heat from the entire surface into space. The ratio of the radiation flux scattered by a surface to the flux falling on it is called albedo by scientists. As much of the rainforest has been cut down, the "greenbelt" that they form along the equator is slowly turning into deforested regions, which some experts believe increases albedo and contributes to global warming.
To date, there is no unanimous opinion among scientists about the source and composition of the greenhouse gas mixture. Carbon dioxide - natural component earth's atmosphere, which is continuously absorbed and released by plants in the course of their life. Its concentration in the air is steadily increasing: from 0.0256 volume percent at the beginning of the 19th century to 0.0340 today.
Carbon dioxide is released in significant quantities during the combustion of fossil fuels (oil, coal, wood). The ever-growing population of the Earth, using these types of fuel as the main source of energy resources, year after year increases carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. In addition, as a result of large-scale deforestation and burning of tropical forests, green plants are converted into carbon dioxide. All of these factors lead to the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Recently, scientists have attributed a significant role in the carbon dioxide cycle to phytoplankton, since these smallest plants that live in the world's oceans process significant amounts of carbon dioxide. The mass death of phytoplankton leads to the accumulation of this gas in natural layers.
Nitrous oxide is present in car exhaust, as are other harmful gases produced by the combustion of fossil fuels.
Methane is produced in the course of their life by bacteria belonging to the genus Methanecoccbs, which are able to obtain energy by reducing carbon dioxide to methane.
They live in marshy soils and lake silt, in sewage sludge, and in the intestines of sheep and cattle. In the subpolar regions, due to the methane is retained in the frozen layer. With global warming and the gradual thawing of the frozen horizon, methane begins to be released into the atmosphere, having a significant impact on it. Scientists say that over the past 100 years, the level of this gas in the atmosphere has doubled.
Chlorofluorocarbons - man-made chemical compounds used in refrigeration and aerosol dispensers. After use, they enter the atmosphere and accumulate in the stratosphere. Here they interact with ozone, a natural atmospheric component. The ozone layer, which normally protects our planet from harmful ultraviolet radiation, is destroyed, forming the so-called ozone holes. As a result, the increased level of ultraviolet radiation leads to more intense heating of the Earth's surface and atmosphere.
Impact on ecosystems.
Global warming can lead to intense melting of glaciers; already today, scientists have discovered quite large cracks in the ice fields of the Western Atlantic. Large-scale melting of ice will lead to a rise in the level of the World Ocean and flooding of vast areas of coastal regions. According to available data, the ocean level is rising at a rate of 6 cm per 10 years. If the pace of global warming continues, such cities as New Orleans (USA), Rotterdam (Netherlands), Venice (Italy), London (England) and others will be completely flooded.
And since water (like all physical bodies) expands when heated, it is assumed that this will lead to an even more significant rise in the level of the World Ocean.
With climate warming, terrestrial ecosystems will become drier, and consequently, the risk of fires will increase. Although the fauna and flora are gradually adapting to the changed conditions, the number of such arid areas is constantly increasing.
The person who changes natural ecosystems as a result of urbanization, agricultural and industrial activity, as well as the constant increase in the consumption of fossil fuels and other forms of energy, is largely responsible for global warming.
Due to lack of water and frequent droughts, crop yields are falling in many previously very fertile regions. During the period of climate change, cyclonic activity noticeably increases, which is accompanied by more frequent natural disasters: hurricanes, destructive storms, tsunamis, storms, and so on.
Floods are another consequence of global warming, which is associated with the melting of mountain glaciers and ice-bound lakes. Mudflows in mountainous regions (due to the lack of vegetation that strengthens the soil horizon) and flooding of large areas of low-lying areas are a fairly common phenomenon these days, especially in India.
It affects about 300 million people who live in mountainous areas, covering about 40% of the land surface.
What happens to wildlife?
Barely perceptible temperature fluctuations (both in the direction of cooling and in the direction of warming) have a significant impact on the populations of living beings. For example, the fauna and flora of Britain, which is located off the northwestern coast of Europe, is very sensitive to climate change on the mainland: birds, insects and plants are expanding their ranges to the north, and the natural distribution regions of species that have adapted to harsh climatic conditions, on the contrary, are reduced.
Desertification of fertile agricultural lands due to soil drainage, rising temperatures and erosion also pose a danger. An example is the strip of deserts and semi-desert shrouds south of the Sahara, which is constantly expanding due to uncontrolled grazing and timber harvesting.
Reasons for nesting.
The rise in temperature also had an impact on the feathered inhabitants of the planet: many birds begin to nest and breed earlier than usual. As a result of long-term observations (1962-1990) of 30,000 representatives of the bird kingdom, British scientists found that as a result of global warming, 33 out of 88 species have an unusually early mating season. This trend has been evident since the mid-1970s.
As a result migratory birds have more time to prepare for a long and very difficult journey to the mainland, to their usual wintering areas, and the species that live all year round in the British Isles got the opportunity to better prepare for the cold.
Disagreements.
Such a large scale of the emerging and developing problem necessitated its solution at the international level. The Second United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, which was held in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro and at which the Framework Convention on Climate Change was signed, served as an impetus for the creation of mechanisms for interstate cooperation that provide an opportunity to reduce the amount of harmful emissions into the atmosphere.
In December 1997, in the Japanese city of Kyoto, a new international agreement was approved, which is an addition to the Framework Convention on Climate Change and is called the Kyoto Protocol. This agreement provides for a whole range of measures to prevent negative climate change.
All states that have joined the Kyoto Protocol are obliged to develop and implement a set of measures aimed at reducing the concentration of "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere.
For today I have all the information for you about global warming. Come visit often, very soon new articles. And don't forget to subscribe to blog updates so you don't miss them.
An article about global warming. What is happening now in the world on a global scale, what consequences may be due to global warming. At times it is worth looking at what WE have brought the world to.
What is global warming?
Global warming is a slow and gradual increase in the average temperature on our planet, which is currently observed. Global warming is a fact that is pointless to argue with, and that is why it is necessary to approach it soberly and objectively.
Causes of global warming
According to scientific data, global warming can be caused by many factors:
Volcanic eruptions;
Behavior of the World Ocean (typhoons, hurricanes, etc.);
Solar Activity;
Earth's magnetic field;
Human activity. The so-called anthropogenic factor. The idea is supported by most scientists, public organizations and the media, which does not mean its unshakable truth.
Most likely, it will turn out that each of these components contributes to global warming.
What is the greenhouse effect?
The greenhouse effect has been observed by any of us. In greenhouses, the temperature is always higher than outside; in a closed car on a sunny day, the same thing is observed. On the scale of the globe, everything is the same. Part of the solar heat received by the Earth's surface cannot escape back into space, since the atmosphere acts like polyethylene in a greenhouse. Do not be greenhouse effect average temperature Earth's surface should be around -18°C, but in reality around +14°C. How much heat remains on the planet directly depends on the composition of the air, which just changes under the influence of the factors described above (What causes global warming?); namely, the content of greenhouse gases is changing, which include water vapor (responsible for more than 60% of the effect), carbon dioxide (carbon dioxide), methane (causes the most warming) and a number of others.
Coal-fired power plants, car exhausts, factory chimneys and other man-made sources of pollution together emit about 22 billion tons of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases per year. Animal husbandry, fertilizer application, coal burning and other sources produce about 250 million tons of methane per year. About half of all greenhouse gases emitted by mankind remain in the atmosphere. About three-quarters of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions over the past 20 years have been caused by the use of oil, natural gas and coal. Much of the rest is caused by landscape changes, primarily deforestation.
What facts prove global warming?
Rising temperatures
The temperature has been documented for about 150 years. It is generally accepted that it has risen by about 0.6 ° C over the past century, although there is still no clear methodology for determining this parameter, and there is also no confidence in the adequacy of the data. hundred years ago. Rumor has it that warming has been sharp since 1976, the beginning of rapid industrial activity of man and reached its maximum acceleration in the second half of the 90s. But even here there are discrepancies between ground-based and satellite observations.
Rising sea levels
As a result of warming and melting of glaciers in the Arctic, Antarctica and Greenland, the water level on the planet has risen by 10-20 cm, possibly more.
Melting glaciers
Well, what can I say, global warming is really the cause of the melting of glaciers, and better than words photos will confirm this.
The Upsala Glacier in Patagonia (Argentina) used to be one of the largest glaciers in South America, but is now disappearing at 200 meters per year.
Rhoun glacier, Valais, Switzerland rose up to 450 meters.
Portage Glacier in Alaska.
1875 photo courtesy H. Slupetzky/University of Salzburg Pasterze.
Relationship between global warming and global cataclysms
Global warming prediction methods
Global warming and its development are predicted mainly with the help of computer models, based on the collected data on temperature, carbon dioxide concentration and much more. Of course, the accuracy of such forecasts leaves much to be desired and, as a rule, does not exceed 50%, and the further scientists swing, the less likely the prediction will come true.
Also, ultra-deep drilling of glaciers is used to obtain data, sometimes samples are taken from a depth of up to 3000 meters. This ancient ice contains information about the temperature, solar activity, and the intensity of the Earth's magnetic field at that time. The information is used for comparison with current indicators.
What measures are being taken to stop global warming?
A broad consensus among climate scientists that global temperatures continue to rise has led a number of governments, corporations and individuals to try to prevent or adapt to global warming. Many environmental organizations advocate for action against climate change, mainly by consumers, but also at the municipal, regional and government levels. Some also advocate limiting the global production of fossil fuels, citing a direct link between fuel combustion and CO2 emissions.
To date, the main world agreement to combat global warming is the Kyoto Protocol (agreed in 1997, entered into force in 2005), an addition to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The protocol includes more than 160 countries of the world and covers about 55% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
The European Union is to cut CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions by 8%, the US by 7% and Japan by 6%. Thus, it is assumed that the main goal - to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5% over the next 15 years - will be achieved. But this will not stop global warming, but only slightly slow its growth. And it's in best case. So, we can conclude that serious measures to prevent global warming are not being considered and are not being taken.
Figures and facts of global warming
One of the most visible processes associated with global warming is the melting of glaciers.
Over the past half century, temperatures in southwestern Antarctica, on the Antarctic Peninsula, have risen by 2.5°C. In 2002, an iceberg with an area of over 2500 km broke away from the Larsen Ice Shelf with an area of 3250 km and a thickness of more than 200 meters, located on the Antarctic Peninsula, which actually means the destruction of the glacier. The entire destruction process took only 35 days. Prior to this, the glacier had remained stable for 10,000 years, since the end of the last ice age. Over the course of millennia, the thickness of the glacier decreased gradually, but in the second half of the 20th century, the rate of its melting increased significantly. The melting of the glacier led to the release of a large number of icebergs (over a thousand) into the Weddell Sea.
Other glaciers are also collapsing. Thus, in the summer of 2007, an iceberg 200 km long and 30 km wide broke off from the Ross Ice Shelf; somewhat earlier, in the spring of 2007, an ice field 270 km long and 40 km wide broke away from the Antarctic continent. The accumulation of icebergs prevents the exit of cold waters from the Ross Sea, which leads to a violation of the ecological balance (one of the consequences, for example, is the death of penguins, who lost the opportunity to reach their usual food sources due to the fact that the ice in the Ross Sea lasted longer than usual).
The acceleration of the degradation of permafrost has been noted.
Since the beginning of the 1970s, the temperature of permafrost soils in Western Siberia has increased by 1.0°C, in central Yakutia - by 1-1.5°C. In northern Alaska, the temperature of the top layer of frozen rocks has increased by 3°C since the mid-1980s.
What impact will global warming have on the environment?
It will greatly affect the lives of some animals. For example, polar bears, seals and penguins will be forced to change their habitats, as the current ones will simply melt away. Many species of animals and plants may simply disappear, unable to adapt to a rapidly changing environment. Will change the weather on a global scale. An increase in the number of climatic disasters is expected; more extended periods extremely hot weather; there will be more rain, but the likelihood of drought in many regions will increase; increased flooding due to hurricanes and rising sea levels. But it all depends on the specific region.
The report of the Working Group of the Intergovernmental Commission on Climate Change (Shanghai, 2001) lists seven models of climate change in the 21st century. The main conclusions made in the report are the continuation of global warming, accompanied by an increase in greenhouse gas emissions (although according to some scenarios, a decline in greenhouse gas emissions is possible by the end of the century as a result of bans on industrial emissions); an increase in surface air temperature (by the end of the 21st century, an increase in surface temperature by 6°C is possible); sea level rise (on average - by 0.5 m per century).
The most likely changes in weather factors include more intense precipitation; higher maximum temperatures, an increase in the number of hot days and a decrease in the number of frosty days in almost all regions of the Earth; with heatwaves becoming more frequent in most continental areas; reduction in temperature spread.
As a result of these changes, we can expect an increase in winds and an increase in the intensity of tropical cyclones (the general tendency to increase which was noted back in the 20th century), an increase in the frequency of heavy precipitation, and a noticeable expansion of drought areas.
The Intergovernmental Commission has identified a number of areas most vulnerable to expected climate change. This is the Sahara region, the Arctic, the mega-deltas of Asia, small islands.
Negative developments in Europe include rising temperatures and increased droughts in the south (resulting in a decrease in water resources and a decrease in hydroelectric power generation, a decrease in production Agriculture, deterioration of tourism conditions), reduction of snow cover and retreat of mountain glaciers, increased risk of severe floods and catastrophic floods on rivers; increased summer precipitation in Central and Eastern Europe, increased frequency of forest fires, fires in peatlands, reduced forest productivity; increase in soil instability in Northern Europe. In the Arctic, there is a catastrophic decrease in the area of ice cover, a reduction in the area of sea ice, and increased coastal erosion.
Some researchers (for example, P. Schwartz and D. Randell) offer a pessimistic forecast, according to which, already in the first quarter of the 21st century, a sharp jump in climate is possible in an unforeseen direction, and the onset of a new ice age lasting hundreds of years may be the result.
How will global warming affect humans?
They are afraid of a lack of drinking water, an increase in the number of infectious diseases, problems in agriculture due to droughts. But in the long run, nothing but human evolution awaits. Our ancestors faced a bigger problem when temperatures soared by 10°C after the end of the ice age, but that is what led to the creation of our civilization. Otherwise, they would still probably hunt mammoths with spears.
Of course, this is not a reason to pollute the atmosphere with anything, because in the short term we will have to go bad. Global warming is a question in which you need to follow the call of common sense, logic, not fall for cheap bikes and not be led by the majority, because history knows many examples when the majority were very deeply mistaken and did a lot of trouble, up to the burning of great minds, who, in the end, turned out to be right.
Global warming is the modern theory of relativity, the law gravity, the fact of the rotation of the Earth around the Sun, the sphericity of our planet at the time of their submission to the public, when opinions were also divided. Someone is definitely right. But who is it?
P.S.
More on Global Warming.
Greenhouse gas emissions from the world's most oil-burning countries, 2000.
Forecast of the growth of arid areas caused by global warming. The simulation was carried out on a supercomputer at the Institute of Space Research. Goddard (NASA, GISS, USA).
Consequences of global warming.
For more than a decade, the issue of the possibility of global warming has been at the center of attention of the world community. Judging by the news feeds of Internet sites and newspaper headlines, it may seem that this is the most pressing scientific, social and economic problem facing humanity today. Heavily funded rallies and summits are held regularly in various parts of the globe, bringing together a well-established cohort of fighters against the impending disaster. The ratification of the Kyoto Protocol was presented by the fighters against global warming as the highest goal of the world community, and to the United States and Russia as major countries Those who doubted the expediency of this step were subjected to unprecedented pressure (as a result, we really managed to “put pressure on us”).
Considering the huge price that not only Russia, but also other countries will have to pay in the practical implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, and the far from obvious global consequences, it is worth re-analyzing how big the threat is and how we can, if we can at all, influence the course of events .
The essence of life is forecasting: any living organism tries to guess future changes in the environment in order to adequately respond to them. It is not surprising that attempts to anticipate the future (today we call it futurology) became one of the first manifestations of conscious human activity. But either at all times pessimistic forecasts turned out to be more realistic, or human psyche more receptive to them, one way or another, the topic of the coming global catastrophe has always been one of the most relevant. legends about global flood in the past and the imminent Apocalypse in the future can be found in almost all religions and teachings. As civilization developed, only the details and timing changed, but not the essence of the forecast.
The plot was well developed in antiquity, and modernity has not been able to add much: the prophecies of Nostradamus are as popular now as they were during the author's lifetime. And today, like thousands of years ago, the predicted period of the next universal catastrophe does not have time to pass, as a new one is already on the way. The atomic phobia of the 50s and 60s of the last century had hardly subsided, when the world learned about the impending "ozone" catastrophe, under the sword of Damocles almost the entire end of the 20th century passed. But the ink under the Montreal Protocol to ban the production of chlorofluorocarbons had not yet dried (skeptics still doubt the reality of the threat and the true motives of the initiators), as the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 heralded the world about an even more terrible threat of global warming.
Now this symbol of the coming retribution of mankind for the "excesses" and "sins" of industrialization successfully competes in the media with sensations from the life of pop stars and sports news. The apologists of "eco-religion" call on mankind to repent of their deeds and to devote all their strength and resources to atonement for sins, that is, to put a significant share of their current and future well-being on the altar of a new faith. But, as you know, when you are called to donate, you need to carefully monitor your wallet.
Although a political decision on the problem has already been made, it makes sense to discuss some fundamental issues. Still, before the serious economic consequences of warming, even under the most gloomy scenarios, there are still several decades. In addition, the Russian authorities have never been punctual in complying with laws and fulfilling their obligations. And as the wise Lao Tzu taught, it is often in the inaction of the rulers that good is for the subjects. Let's try to answer some of the most important questions:
How big is the actual observed climate change?
It is usually claimed that the temperature has risen by 0.6°C over the past century, although so far, apparently, there is not even a single method for determining this parameter. For example, satellite data give a lower value than ground-based measurements, only 0.2°C. At the same time, doubts remain about the adequacy of climatic observations made a hundred years ago, modern observations and the sufficient breadth of their geographical coverage. In addition, natural fluctuations of climate on a century scale, even with the constancy of all external parameters, are just about 0.4 ° C. So the threat is rather hypothetical.
Could the observed changes be due to natural causes?
This is one of the most painful questions for global warming fighters. There are many quite natural causes that cause such and even more noticeable climatic fluctuations, and the global climate can experience strong fluctuations without any external influences. Even with a fixed level of solar radiation and a constant concentration of greenhouse gases over a century, the fluctuation in the average surface temperature can reach 0.4 ° C (an article was devoted to this problem in " Nature”, 1990, v. 346, p. 713). In particular, due to the enormous thermal inertia of the ocean, chaotic changes in the atmosphere can cause an aftereffect that affects decades later. And in order for our attempts to influence the atmosphere to give the desired effect, they must significantly exceed the natural fluctuation "noise" of the system.
What is the contribution of the anthropogenic factor to atmospheric processes?
Modern anthropogenic fluxes of the main greenhouse gases are almost two orders of magnitude lower than their natural fluxes and many times lower than the uncertainty in their assessment. In the IPCC draft report ( Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) of 1995 reported that "any claim of significant climate change is debatable until the number of uncertain variables responsible for the natural variability of the climate system is reduced." And in the same place: “There are no studies that state with certainty that all or part of the recorded climate changes are caused by anthropogenic causes.” These words were later replaced by others: "The balance of evidence suggests a clear human impact on climate", although no additional data was presented to substantiate this conclusion.
Moreover, the rate at which the climate impact of greenhouse gases is changing is by no means correlated with the consumption of hydrocarbon fuels, the main source of their anthropogenic emissions. For example, in the early 1940s, when the growth rate of fuel consumption fell, the global temperature rose especially rapidly, and in the 1960s and 1970s, when the consumption of hydrocarbons grew rapidly, the global temperature, on the contrary, decreased. Despite a 30% increase in carbon fuel production from the 1970s to the end of the 1990s, the rate of increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide over this period slowed down sharply, and methane even began to decline.
The entire depth of our misunderstanding of global natural processes is especially clearly demonstrated by the course of changes in the concentration of methane in the atmosphere. Having begun 700 years before the Industrial Revolution, back in the time of the Vikings, this process has now just as suddenly stopped with the continued growth in production and, accordingly, anthropogenic emissions of hydrocarbons. Atmospheric methane levels have remained constant over the past four years, according to two independent research teams from Australia, as well as from the US and the Netherlands.
And what are the natural climatic and atmospheric trends?
Supporters of emergency measures, for obvious reasons, do not like to discuss this issue either. Here we refer to the opinion of well-known domestic experts in this field (A.L. Yanshin, M.I. Budyko, Yu.A. Izrael. Global warming and its consequences: A strategy for measures taken. In: Global problems of the biosphere. - M .: Nauka, 2003).
“The study of changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere in the geological past has shown that over millions of years the trend towards a decrease in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has prevailed.<...>This process led to a decrease in the average temperature of the lower air layer due to the weakening of the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere, which, in turn, was accompanied by the development of glaciations, first at high and then at middle latitudes, as well as aridization (desertification. — Note. ed.) vast territories in lower latitudes.
Along with this, with a reduced amount of carbon dioxide, the intensity of photosynthesis decreased, which, apparently, reduced the total biomass on our planet. These processes manifested themselves especially sharply during the glacial epochs of the Pleistocene, when the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere repeatedly approached 200 ppm. This concentration slightly exceeds the critical concentration values, one of which corresponds to the glaciation of the entire planet, and the other to a decrease in photosynthesis to the limits that make the existence of autotrophic plants impossible.<...>Without touching on the details of the distant possibility of the death of the biosphere as a result of its natural development, we note that the probability of such death seems significant.
Thus, if a climate catastrophe threatens humanity in the future, it will not be due to an excessive increase, but, on the contrary, due to a decrease in temperature! Recall that, according to modern geological concepts, we live just at the peak of the interglacial era, and the beginning of the next ice age is expected in the near future. And here is the conclusion of the authors: “By burning an ever-increasing amount of coal, oil and other types of carbon fuel, man has embarked on the path of restoring the chemical composition of the atmosphere of the warm epochs of the geological past.<...>Man unintentionally stopped the process of carbon dioxide depletion, which is dangerous for wildlife, the main resource in the creation of organic matter by autotrophic plants, and made it possible to increase primary productivity, which is the basis for the existence of all heterotrophic organisms, including humans.
What is the scale of expected climate change?
Under various scenarios, the expected change in mean temperature by the end of the century ranges from a 10°C increase to a decrease relative to present-day levels. Usually operate as the "most likely" average value of 2-3 ° C, although this value does not become more reasonable from averaging. In fact, such a forecast should take into account not only the main processes in the most complex natural machine that determines the climate of our planet, but also the scientific, technological and sociological achievements of mankind for a century ahead.
Do we understand today how the Earth's climate is formed, and if not, will we understand in the near future? All experts in this field confidently give a negative answer to both questions. Can we predict man-caused and social development civilization for the next hundred years? And in general, what is the time horizon of a more or less realistic forecast? The answer is also quite obvious. The most conservative and at the same time determining branches of the modern economy are energy, raw materials, heavy and chemical industries. The capital costs in these industries are so high that the equipment is almost always used until the resource is fully depleted - about 30 years. Consequently, the industrial and energy plants that are now being put into operation will determine the technological potential of the world during the first third of the century. Considering that all other industries (for example, electronics and communications) are evolving much faster, it is better not to guess more than 30 years ahead. As a curious example, showing the price of bolder forecasts, one often recalls the fears of futurists of the late 19th century, who predicted that the streets of London would be littered with horse manure, although the first cars had already appeared on the roads of England.
In addition, according to alarmist scenarios, the main source of danger is hydrocarbon energy resources: oil, coal and gas. However, according to the forecasts of the same futurologists, even with the most economical spending, humanity will have enough of these resources for about a century, and a decrease in oil production is expected in the next ten years. Given the proximity of a new ice age, apparently, one can only regret the short duration of the "hydrocarbon era" in the history of world energy.
Has mankind faced such large-scale climate change before?
Oh yeah! And with what! After all, an increase in global temperature by 10 ° C after the end of the ice age caused not only an ecological, but also a real economic catastrophe, undermining the foundations of economic activity. primitive man- a hunter for mammoths and large ungulates of the tundra fauna. However, humanity not only survived, but it was thanks to this event, having found a worthy response to the challenge of nature, that it rose to a new level, creating a civilization.
As the example of our ancestors shows, the increase in global temperature does not pose a real threat to the existence of mankind (and even more so to life on Earth, as it is sometimes claimed). The consequences of the large-scale restructuring of the climate expected today can be quite well imagined by considering the Pliocene epoch relatively close to us (the period from 5 to 1.8 million years ago), when the first direct human ancestors appeared. The average surface temperature then exceeded the modern one by more than 1°C. And if our primitive ancestors managed to survive both the ice age and the warming that followed it, then it is even inconvenient to estimate our own potential so low.
Significant climate change has also taken place during historical period the existence of civilization: this was shown by the data of paleoclimatic studies and historical chronicles. Climate change caused the rise and fall of many great civilizations, but did not pose a threat to humanity as a whole. (Suffice it to recall the decline of pastoralism in the Sahara, the civilization of Mesopotamia, the Tangut kingdom in northern China; more details on the role of climate change in the history of culture can be found in L.N. Gumilyov's book "Ethnogenesis and the Biosphere of the Earth".)
What are the potential consequences of climate change, on the one hand, and the economic cost of our efforts to slow it down, on the other?
One of the most threatening consequences of global warming is considered to be a rise in the level of the World Ocean by tens of meters, which will occur with the complete melting of the glaciers of Greenland and Antarctica. Alarmists usually forget to clarify that under the most unfavorable circumstances, this will take more than 1000 years! The real rise in the ocean level over the past century was 10-20 cm with a much greater amplitude of transgression and regression of the coastline as a result of tectonic processes. In the next hundred years, the ocean level is expected to rise by no more than 88 cm, which is unlikely to disrupt the world economy. Such a rise in sea levels can only cause the gradual migration of a small part of the world's population - a phenomenon much less tragic than the annual death from starvation of tens of millions of people. And we hardly need to worry about how our distant descendants will cope with the flood in a thousand years (remember the “horse manure problem”!). Who will undertake to predict how our civilization will change by that time, and whether this problem will be among the urgent ones?
So far, the expected annual damage to the global economy due to the projected increase in temperature by 2050 is estimated at only $300 billion. This is less than 1% of the current global GDP. And what will the fight against warming cost?
Institute "World Watch" ( World Watch Institute) in Washington believes that it is necessary to introduce a "carbon tax" in the amount of 50 dollars. per 1 ton of carbon in order to stimulate the reduction of fossil fuel consumption, improve technologies for its combustion and resource conservation. But according to the same institute, such a tax would increase the cost of 1 liter of gasoline by 4.5 cents, and the cost of 1 kWh of electricity by 2 cents (that is, almost twice!). And for the widespread introduction of solar and hydrogen energy sources, this tax should already be from 70 to 660 dollars. for 1 t.
The costs of fulfilling the conditions of the Kyoto Protocol are estimated at 1-2% of world GDP, while the assessment of the positive effect does not exceed 1.3%. In addition, climate models predict that a much larger reduction in emissions will be required to stabilize the climate than the return to 1990 levels envisaged by the protocol.
Here we come to another fundamental issue. Activists of the "green" movements often do not realize that absolutely all environmental protection measures require the consumption of resources and energy and, like any type of production activity, cause undesirable environmental consequences. From the point of view of global ecology, there is no harmless industrial activity. The same “alternative” energy, with full consideration of all emissions into the environment during the production, operation and disposal of the necessary raw materials and equipment, such as solar panels, agricultural machines, hydrocarbon fuels, hydrogen, etc., in most cases turns out to be more dangerous, than coal power.
“Until now, in the view of most people, the negative environmental consequences of economic activity are associated with smoking factory chimneys or the dead surface of abandoned quarries and industrial dumps. Indeed, the contribution to environmental poisoning of such industries as metallurgy, the chemical industry, and energy is great. But no less dangerous for the biosphere are idyllic agricultural lands, well-groomed forest parks and city lawns. The openness of the local circulation as a result of human economic activity means that the existence of a site artificially maintained in a stationary state is accompanied by a deterioration in the state of the environment in the rest of the biosphere. A blooming garden, a lake or a river, maintained in a stationary state on the basis of an open circulation of substances with productivity brought to a maximum, is much more dangerous for the biosphere as a whole than an abandoned land turned into a desert ”(from V.G. Gorshkov’s book“ Physical and Biological Fundamentals sustainability of life". M.: VINITI, 1995).
Therefore, in the global ecology, the strategy of preventive measures is not applicable. Need to quantify optimal balance between the desired result and the cost of reducing damage to the environment. The cost of preventing the emission of a ton of carbon dioxide reaches $300, while the cost of hydrocarbon raw materials that produce this ton when burned is less than $100 (recall that 1 ton of hydrocarbon produces 3 tons of CO 2), and this means that we increase our total energy costs by several times , the cost of energy received and the rate of depletion of scarce hydrocarbon resources. In addition, even in the US for 1 million dollars. of produced GDP, 240 tons of CO 2 are emitted (in other countries it is much more, for example, in Russia - five times!), and most of the GDP falls on non-productive, that is, non-emitting CO 2 industries. It turns out that the cost of 300 dollars. for the utilization of 1 ton of carbon dioxide will lead to an additional emission of at least several hundred kilograms of the same CO 2 . Thus, we run the risk of launching a giant machine, idly burning our already scarce energy resources. Apparently, such calculations prompted the United States to refuse to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.
But there is also a fundamentally different approach. Instead of wasting energy and resources on fighting the inevitable, we need to evaluate whether it would be cheaper to adapt to change, to try to benefit from it. And then it will turn out that the reduction of the land surface due to its partial flooding will more than pay off with an increase in the used territory in the same Siberia, and eventually in Greenland and Antarctica, as well as by increasing the overall productivity of the biosphere. Increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the air will be beneficial for most crops. This becomes clear if we remember that the genera, which include modern cultivated plants, appeared in the early Pliocene and late Miocene, when the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere reached 0.4%, that is, it was an order of magnitude higher than the modern one. It has been experimentally shown that doubling the concentration of CO 2 in the atmospheric air can lead to a 30% increase in the yield of some agricultural crops, and this is extremely important for the rapidly growing population of the planet.
Who and why is in favor of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol?
The most active position in the fight against global warming is occupied by Western European politicians and the public. To understand the reasons for such an emotional attitude of Europeans to this problem, it is enough to look at geographical map. Western Europe is located in the same latitude as Siberia. But what a climate contrast! In Stockholm, on the same latitude as Magadan, grapes ripen steadily. A gift of fate in the form of a warm Gulf Stream became the economic basis of European civilization and culture.
Therefore, Europeans are not worried about global warming and the fate of the population of Bangladesh, which is at risk of being left without a territory, but a local cooling in Western Europe, which may be the result of a restructuring of oceanic and atmospheric flows with a significant increase in global temperature. Although no one is now able to even approximately determine the threshold temperature for the onset of such a restructuring, its consequences for historical centers Western European civilization can be quite serious.
European politicians take, as a rule, the toughest and most uncompromising position in the negotiations on these issues. But we also need to understand what their motives are. Do we really take the fate of Western Europeans so close to our hearts that we are ready to sacrifice our future for the sake of preserving their well-being? By the way, in warmer Siberia there will be enough room for all Europeans, and maybe the new settlers will finally equip it.
There is also a more prosaic reason forcing the Europeans to fight for the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol. It's no secret that Western Europe consumes about 16% of the world's energy resources. An acute shortage of energy is forcing Europeans to actively introduce expensive energy-saving technologies, and this undermines their competitiveness in the world market. From this point of view, the Kyoto Protocol is a brilliant move: to impose the same strict energy consumption standards on potential competitors, and at the same time create a market for the sale of their energy-saving technologies. The Americans refused to voluntarily impose restrictions on themselves that would undermine their economy and benefit Western European competitors. China, India and other developing countries, the main competitors of the industrial powers of the Old World, including Russia, are also. It seems that only we are not afraid that as a result of the signing of the protocol, our competitiveness will fall below the current, approximately 55th place in the world ranking...
What will Russia gain and what will it lose from participation or non-participation in the Kyoto Protocol?
The climate of Russia is the most severe on the globe. The weather in the northern countries of Europe is made by the warm Gulf Stream, and in Canada, almost the entire population lives along the border with the United States, that is, much south of Moscow. This is one of the main reasons why, per unit of GDP produced, Russia spends five times more energy (and produces more CO2!) than the US and European countries. For a country, more than 60% of whose territory is located in the permafrost zone, which reaches almost to our southern border in Transbaikalia, it is somehow ridiculous to fight the warming. According to economists, a one degree increase in the average annual temperature reduces the cost of maintaining each workplace by half. It turns out that we voluntarily agree to participate in the fight against the natural possibility of doubling our economic potential, although such a doubling has been officially proclaimed by the president as the goal of state policy!
We do not undertake to discuss the political benefits of demonstrating unity with Europe on the issue of the Kyoto Protocol. There is also no point in seriously considering the possibility of making money on the "air trade" (that is, CO 2 emission quotas). First, we are already placed at the very end of a long line of potential sellers, after all the new members of the EU, the countries of North Africa and the Middle East. Secondly, at the appointed price of 5 euros for a quota of 1 ton of CO 2 (at a real price of 300 dollars!) the proceeds will not be comparable with our current oil and gas exports. And thirdly, with the predicted pace of development Russian economy Even before 2012, we will have to think not about selling, but about buying quotas. If only for the sake of demonstration European unity nor will we voluntarily restrict our economic development.
Such a possibility seems incredible, but let us recall that since 2000, in accordance with the Montreal Protocol, the production of substances that lead to the destruction of the ozone layer has been stopped in Russia. Since Russia did not have time to develop and implement its own alternative technologies by this date, this led to the almost complete elimination of the Russian production of aerosols and refrigeration equipment. And the domestic market was captured by foreign, mainly Western European manufacturers. Unfortunately, now history is repeating itself: energy conservation is by no means the most forte We don’t have Russian energy and our own energy-saving technologies ...
The flagrant injustice of the Kyoto Protocol in relation to Russia also lies in the fact that the boreal forests of Russia with an area of 8.5 million km 2 (or 22% of the area of all the Earth's forests) accumulate 323 Gt of carbon per year. No other ecosystem on Earth can compare with them in this. By modern ideas, tropical rainforests, sometimes referred to as the "lungs of the planet", absorb about the same amount of CO 2 as is released during the destruction of the organic matter they produce. But the forests of the temperate zone north of 30 ° N. sh. store 26% of the Earth's carbon (http://epa.gov/climatechange/). This alone allows Russia to demand special approach- for example, the allocation of funds by the world community to compensate for damage from the restriction of economic activity and the protection of nature in these regions.
Will warming be prevented by the measures envisaged by the Kyoto Protocol?
Alas, this very main question even the supporters of the protocol are forced to give a negative answer. According to climate models, if greenhouse gas emissions are not controlled, then by 2100 the concentration of carbon dioxide could increase by 30-150% compared to state of the art. This may lead to an increase in the average global temperature of the earth's surface by 1-3.5°C by 2100 (with significant regional variations in this value), which will certainly cause serious consequences for the ecosphere and economic activity. However, assuming that the conditions of the protocol are met by reducing CO 2 emissions, the reduction in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration compared to the scenario in which emissions are not regulated at all will be from 20 to 80 ppm by 2100. At the same time, to stabilize its concentration at a level of at least 550 ppm, a reduction of at least 170 ppm is necessary. In all scenarios considered, the resulting effect of this on temperature change is insignificant: only 0.08–0.28°C. Thus, the real expected effect of the Kyoto Protocol comes down to demonstrating fidelity to "environmental ideals". But isn't the price of a demonstration too high?
Is the problem of global warming the most important of those that humanity is currently facing?
Another unpleasant question for the advocates of "environmental ideals". The fact that the third world has long lost interest in this problem was clearly shown by the 2002 summit in Johannesburg, whose participants stated that the fight against poverty and hunger is more important for humanity than climate change, which is possible in the distant future. For their part, the Americans, who perfectly understand the whole background of what is happening, were rightly outraged by the attempt to solve European problems at their expense, especially since in the coming decades the main increase in anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases will come from the technologically backward energy sector of developing countries, which is not regulated by the Kyoto Protocol.
What does this problem look like in the context of the further development of civilization?
Man's conflict with Nature is by no means a consequence of our "environmental uncleanliness". Its essence lies in the violation of the biospheric balance by civilization, and from this point of view, both pastoral-patriarchal agriculture and the dream of the "greens" - "renewable" energy are no less a threat than the loudly cursed industrialization. According to the estimates given in the already mentioned book by V.G. Gorshkov, in order to maintain the stability of the biosphere, civilization should not consume more than 1% of net primary production global biota. The current direct consumption of land biosphere products is already almost an order of magnitude greater, and the share of the developed and transformed part of the land has exceeded 60%.
Nature and Civilization are essentially antagonists. Civilization seeks to use the potential accumulated by Nature as a resource for its development. And for the system of natural regulators, debugged over billions of years of existence of the biosphere, the activity of Civilization is a perturbing influence, which must be suppressed in order to return the system to equilibrium.
From the very birth of our planet, the essence of the evolution of matter taking place on it is in accelerating the processes of transformation of matter and energy. Only it is capable of supporting the stable development of such complex non-equilibrium systems as the Biosphere or Civilization. Throughout the existence of our planet and throughout human history, the processes of emergence of new, more and more complex biological, and then historical and technological forms of organization of matter have been continuously accelerated. This is the basic principle of evolution, which cannot be canceled or circumvented. Accordingly, our civilization will either stop in its development and die (and then something else will inevitably arise in its place, but similar in essence), or it will evolve, processing more and more volumes of matter and dissipating more and more energy into the surrounding space. Therefore, an attempt to fit into Nature is a strategically dead-end path, which sooner or later will still lead to the cessation of development, and then to degradation and death. The Eskimos of the North and the Papuans of New Guinea have traveled a long and difficult path, as a result of which they fit perfectly into the surrounding nature - but paid for this by stopping their development. Such a path can only be considered as a time-out in anticipation of qualitative change character of civilization.
Another way is to take over all the functions of managing natural processes, replacing the biospheric mechanism of homeostasis with an artificial one, that is, to create a technosphere. It is on this path, perhaps not fully realizing it, that the supporters of climate regulation are pushing us. But the amount of information circulating in the technosphere is many orders of magnitude inferior to that circulating in the biosphere, so the reliability of such technosphere regulation is still too low to guarantee salvation from death for humanity. Having started with the artificial regulation of the “dying” ozone layer, we are already forced to think about negative consequences excess atmospheric ozone. And the attempt to regulate the concentration of greenhouse gases is only the beginning of an endless and hopeless search to replace natural biospheric regulators with artificial ones.
The third and most realistic way is the co-evolution (according to N.N. Moiseev) of Nature and Civilization, a mutual adaptive transformation. What the outcome will be, we do not know. But it can be assumed that the inevitable change in climate and other natural conditions on the surface of the Earth will be the beginning of a movement towards a new global balance, a new global unity of Nature and Civilization.
Against the backdrop of the turbulent social and economic processes taking place in the modern world, and the real problems facing the multi-billion population of the planet, on the verge of a fundamental change in the nature of Civilization and its relationship with Nature, an attempt to regulate the climate is likely to come to naught in a natural way, as soon as comes to real costs. On the example of the ozone history, Russia already has a sad experience of participating in solving global problems. And it would be good for us not to repeat the mistakes once made, because if the domestic energy sector suffers the fate of the domestic refrigeration industry, even the worst global warming will not save us.
Global warming- the most acute climate problem causing significant changes in the natural balance in the world. According to the report of Leonid Zhindarev (a researcher at the Faculty of Geography of Moscow State University), by the end of the 21st century, the level of the World Ocean will rise by one and a half to two meters, which will lead to catastrophic consequences. Approximate calculations show that 20% of the world's population will be left homeless. The most fertile coastal zones will be flooded, many islands with thousands of people will disappear from the world map.
Global warming has been monitored since the beginning of the last century. It is noted that the average air temperature on the planet has increased by one degree - 90% of the increase in temperature occurred in the period from 1980 to 2016, when the industrial industry began to flourish. It is also worth noting that these processes are theoretically irreversible - in the distant future, the air temperature may increase so much that there will be practically no glaciers left on the planet.
Causes of global warming
Global warming is a large-scale uncontrolled increase in the average annual air temperature on our planet. According to recent studies, the trend towards a global increase in air temperature has persisted throughout the history of the Earth's development. The climate system of the planet readily responds to any external factors, which leads to a change in thermal cycles - known to all ice ages are replaced by extremely warm times.
Among the main reasons for such fluctuations are the following:
- natural change in the composition of the atmosphere;
- solar luminosity cycles;
- planetary variations (changes in the Earth's orbit);
- volcanic eruptions, carbon dioxide emissions.
For the first time global warming was noted in prehistoric times, when the cold climate was replaced by a hot tropical one. Then this was facilitated by the exuberant growth of breathing fauna, which led to an increase in carbon dioxide levels. In turn, the increased temperature caused more intense evaporation of water, which further intensified the processes of global warming.
Thus, the first ever climate change was caused by a significant increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. On this moment The following substances are known to contribute to the greenhouse effect:
- methane and other hydrocarbons;
- suspended soot particles;
- water vapor.
Causes of the greenhouse effect
If we talk about modern realities, then approximately 90% of the entire temperature balance depends on the greenhouse effect, which is produced by the consequences of human activity. Over the past 100 years, the concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere have increased by almost 150% - the highest concentration in the last million years. About 80% of all emissions into the atmosphere are the result of industrial activities (extraction and combustion of hydrocarbons, heavy industry, etc.).
It is also worth noting the significantly increased concentration of solid particles - dust and some others. They increase the heating of the earth's surface, increase the absorption of energy by the surface of the oceans, which leads to an increase in temperature throughout the Earth. Thus, human activity can be considered the cause of modern global warming. Other factors, such as changes in the activity of the Sun, do not have the desired effect.
Consequences of a global increase in temperature
The International Commission (IPEC) has published a working report that reflects possible scenarios for the consequences associated with global warming. The main motive of the report is that the trend towards an increase in the average annual temperature will continue, humanity is unlikely to be able to compensate for its influence on the planet's climate processes. It should be noted that the relationship between climate change and the state of ecosystems is currently poorly understood, so most of the forecasts are assumed.
Among all the expected consequences, one has been reliably established - the rise in the level of the World Ocean. As of 2016, an annual increase in the water level by 3-4 mm was noted. The increase in the average annual air temperature causes the emergence of two factors:
- melting glaciers;
- thermal expansion of water.
If current climate trends continue, by the end of the 21st century, the level of the World Ocean will rise by a maximum of two meters. In the next few centuries, its level may reach five meters above the present.
The melting of glaciers will change the chemical composition of the water, as well as the distribution of precipitation. An increase in the number of floods, hurricanes and other extreme disasters is expected. In addition, there will be a global change in ocean currents - for example, the Gulf Stream has already changed its direction, which has led to certain consequences in a number of countries.
Can't be overestimated. In the countries of the tropical regions, there will be a catastrophic decline in agricultural productivity. The most fertile regions will be flooded, which may eventually lead to mass starvation. However, it is worth noting that such serious consequences are expected not earlier than in a few hundred years - humanity has enough time to take appropriate measures.
Solving the problem of global warming and its consequences
At the international level, the fight against global warming is limited by the lack of common agreements and control measures. The main document that regulates climate change countermeasures is the Kyoto Protocol. In general, the level of responsibility in the fight against global warming can be assessed positively.
Industry standards are constantly being improved, new environmental standards are being adopted that regulate industrial production. The level of emissions into the atmosphere is reduced, glaciers are taken under protection, and ocean currents are constantly monitored. According to climate scientists, maintaining the current environmental campaign will help reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 30-40% by next year.
It is worth noting the increase in the participation of private companies in the fight against global warming. For example, British millionaire Richard Branson announced a scientific tender for The best way prevention of global warming. The winner will receive an impressive sum of $25 million. According to Branson, humanity must take responsibility for its actions. At the moment, several dozen applicants have been registered, offering their own solutions to this problem..
