As the curtain rose in Cancun, Mexico, on the next round of international talks on climate change, expectations are low that the delegates will agree on a new treaty to reduce emissions that contribute to global warming. They were unable to do so last year in Copenhagen and since then the negotiating positions of the biggest countries have grown even further apart. Yet it is still possible to make significant progress.

METHANE AND HFCS

Take methane, for example, which is 25 times more powerful than carbon dioxide in causing warming.

It is emitted by coal mines, landfills, rice paddies and livestock. And because it is the main ingredient in natural gas, it leaks from many older natural-gas pipelines.

With relatively minor changes — for example, replacing old gas pipelines, better managing the water used in rice cultivation (so that less of the rice rots) and collecting the methane emitted by landfills — it would be possible to lower methane emissions by 40 per cent. Since saved methane is a valuable fuel, some of this effort could pay for itself.

Unfortunately, the accounting systems used in climate diplomacy are cumbersome and offer relatively few incentives for countries to make much effort to control methane. Big cuts are also possible in HFCs, many of which are used as refrigerants in air-conditioners and other cooling systems.

The most troubling of the shortlived HFCs were invented to replace chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), refrigerants that were thinning the ozone layer in the upper atmosphere and were also a major warming agent.

CFCs were regulated under the Montreal Protocol starting in 1987.

The New York Times

To give these talks their best chance for success, the delegates in Cancun should move beyond their focus on long-term efforts to stop warming and take a few immediate, practical actions that could have a tangible effect on the climate in the coming decades.

The opportunity to make progress arises from the fact that global warming is caused by two separate types of pollution.

One is the long-term buildup of carbon dioxide, which can remain in the atmosphere for centuries. Diplomacy has understandably focused on this problem because, without deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions, there can be no permanent solution to warming.

The carbon dioxide problem is hard to fix, however, because it comes mainly from the burning of fossil fuels, which is so essential to modern life and commerce. It will take decades and trillions of dollars to convert all the world’s fossil fuel-based energy systems to cleaner systems like nuclear, solar and wind power. In the meantime, a fast-action plan is needed.

But carbon dioxide is not the only kind of pollution that contributes to global warming.

Other potent warming agents include three short-lived gases — methane, some hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and lower atmospheric ozone — and dark soot particles. The warming effect of these pollutants, which stay in the atmosphere for several days to about a decade, is already about 80 per cent of the amount that carbon dioxide causes.

The world could easily and quickly reduce these pollutants; the technology and regulatory systems needed to do so are already in place.

Clear the air to fight climate change

Why do global talks focus on hardest-to-solve problems, when we can start with modest, quicker steps?

Veerabhadran Ramanathan and David G Victor

The warming effect of methane, HFCs, soot particles and lower atmospheric ozone is already about 80 per cent of the amount that carbon dioxide causes.

The world could easily and quickly reduce these pollutants; the technology and regulatory systems needed are already in place.

However, in the interest of climate change, Cancun is strategically important and must make progress in key areas if we really are to mitigate the effects of catastrophic climate change. 

The hottest year in recorded history?

With temperatures about 0.5°C above the recent average, 2010 is in the running for an unwanted crown

OSLO —

United Nations climate talks resume in Cancun, Mexico, where expectations are no longer for a comprehensive deal to slow warming, but smaller progress — for example to curb deforestation, in a bid to agree to a pact next year or later

The previous conference in Copenhagen [2009 ?] last year fell short of hopes, but about 140 countries have agreed to a non-binding deal to try to limit warming to less than 2°C above pre-industrial levels.

Temperatures are now about 0.8°C above pre-industrial levels, and this year is about 0.5°C above the 1961-to-1990 average.

Even with a possible cool end to the year, 2010 is expected to be no lower than third in a record where 1998 and 2005 are warmest. The UN panel of climate scientists says higher temperatures mean more floods, heatwaves and rising sea levels.

“I think it’s too close to call. Based on these numbers it’ll be second (behind 1998), but it depends on how warm November and December are,” said Dr Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.

By contrast, scientists at Nasa say surface temperatures until last month were above the previous record year, which it says was 2005. Differences between years are only a few hundredths of a degree.

“I would not be surprised if most or all groups found that 2010 was tied for the warmest year,” said Nasa’s Dr James Hansen.

And the US National Climatic Data Centre (NCDC) at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said this year until last month was a “dead-heat” for the record, “virtually tied with 1998”, according to climatologist Deke Arndt from the NCDC.

Some sceptics argue that because the last temperature peak was in 2005 or 1998, global warming must have stalled.

Most scientists reject that view, saying that whether or not this year is the hottest year is less important than the long-term trend, which is up, due to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. The period 2000-to-2009 was the warmest decade on record.

“The trend is overwhelming, particularly over the past 50 years,” said Dr Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN panel of climate scientists. “I wouldn’t read these numbers for a particular year as very compelling;

we have to take a historical view.”

In one of the biggest bets on climate change, Dr James Annan — a climate scientist at the Frontier Research Centre for Global Change in Japan — in 2005 made a US$10,000 wager with two Russian solar physicists who are sceptical about global warming.

He will win if average world temperatures are higher from 2012-17 than they were from 1998-2003. “Things are progressing smoothly,” he said.

The UN’s World Meteorological Organisation will publish an estimate on Dec 2 of where this year ranks. “We have indications that it will match one of the three warmest years,” said Dr Omar Baddour, head of climate data management operations. This year is — so far — tied for the hottest year in a record dating back to 1850 in a new sign of a warming trend, the three major institutes which calculate global warming estimates told Reuters.(see commentary).Reuters

by WHO ’s standard.

TODAY FILE PHOTO

No all-clear on air quality here

Singapore still falls short of WHO standards despite stricter enforcement against smoke emissions

Esther Ng

estherng@mediacorp.com.sg

SINGAPORE

A report issued on Tuesday by the United States-based Health Effects Institute (HEI) put the level of particulate matter here at 50-per-cent [200%    ? ? ? ?] above the WHO 2005 Air Quality Guidelines — even though the Pollutant Standards Index (PSI) here has been mostly in the “good” range, Solid particles 10 micrometres (PM10) in diameter or smaller, such as soot, dirt, liquid droplets, can cause health problems when inhaled.

The annual mean was 30 micrograms per cubic metre (ug/m

The National Environment Agency told MediaCorp, however, that the WHO guidelines are set at “very stringent levels”.  *merItOcracy    ? ? ? ?*

Said an NEA spokesperson: “WHO recognised that many countries wouldn’t be able to meet the guidelines immediately, and it, therefore, set interim guidelines which countries could choose to adopt as they work towards achieving the final guidelines.”

Singapore has met three of these interim targets, which range from 30 to 70ug/m3  [medIOcrIty    ? ? ? ?].

The main sources of PM10 here were motor vehicles, refineries and power stations, as well as haze from fires in Indonesia, said the NEA.

The HEI report noted that the air quality here was much better than in other cities such as Bangkok, Hong Kong, Seoul and Tokyo, a fact the NEA also highlighted.

While the report did not look into PM2.5 (particles less than 2.5 micrometres in diameter) found in haze and from car emissions, Singapore similarly falls short of the WHO’s highest standards.

PM2.5 is believed to pose the greatest health risks because they can lodge deeply in the lungs and carry more toxic substances.

Short-term exposure risks include heart attacks and strokes and there are also long-term cardiovascular risks, according to the American Heart Association.

The WHO standard for PM2.5 is 10ug/m3.

Last year, the PM2.5 average here was 19ug/m3,

down from 21ug/m3 [>100+%] in 2005.

The NEA attributed the drop to the introduction of stringent vehicular emission standards and stricter enforcement action against smoke emissions from motor vehicles and industries.

Singapore’s PSI does not measure PM2.5 levels and there have been calls recently to include it.

There may well be a change when a review of the PSI is completed next year.

“These measures are regularly reviewed and refined as better pollution control technologies become available. In addition, the move to promote the use of cleaner vehicles such as CNG vehicles and the use of public transport to control the car population has also helped to keep PM2.5 emissions in check,” the NEA spokesperson said.— The haze may have gone for now but Singapore’s air quality has apparently not been up to the mark over the years — at least going by the highest standards set by the World Health Organisation (WHO).3) in Singapore — 10ug/m3 more than the WHO’s recommended level — between 2000 and 2004.

Even then, a better educated readership is inclined towards and receptive of competing ideas, informed and robust interpretations and pertinent analysis.

Warning: Harmful labels

We need a rethink on the health warnings, pictures found on cigarette packs

Letter from Ho Swee Huat

IT HAS been a couple of years since warning labels were mandated on cigarette packs.

But whether in the form of labels with warning messages such as “Smoking kills” and gruesome pictures of the consequences of smoking, by and large, these measures seem to have been ineffective.

According to the National Health Surveillance Survey 2007, the proportion of Singapore residents aged between 18 and 69 who smoked stood at 13.6 per cent.

One of the recommended measures from this study is to enhance the packaging and labelling restrictions and requirements.

In 2004, Dr Gemma Calvert, founder of Neurosense in Oxford and Professor Richard Silberstein, chief executive officer of Neuroinsight in Australia, performed brain scans on smokers on the effects of the warning labels on cigarette packs.

The results showed that these warning labels had no effect at all on suppressing the cravings of the smokers.

According to their findings, the cigarette warnings had, in fact, stimulated an area of the smokers’ brains called the nucleus accumbens, otherwise known as “the craving spot”. This region, they claim, is a chain-link of specialised neurons that lights up when the body desires something — whether it’s alcohol, drugs, tobacco, sex or gambling. When stimulated, the nucleus accumbens requires higher and higher doses to get its fix.

The results showed that cigarette warning labels not only failed to deter smoking but, by activating the nucleus accumbens, it appeared that they have actually encouraged smokers to light up.

According to the book

The researchers found that health warnings on cigarette packages and even banning cigarette advertising actually promotes their sales. They found that it was only the prohibition of smoking in public places that finally made a noticeable dent in tobacco sales.

In other words, the photographs and warning labels may have amounted to a big waste of money.

We should start relooking these labels and spearhead some initiatives to make them more effective, while avoiding the risk of them being a marketing tool.Buy-ology by Martin Lindstrom, which cites the study, cigarette warning labels may even have become a killer marketing tool for the tobacco industry.

Surely the authorities should be able to get the petrol companies to divulge the sulphur content of their products sold in Singapore, and display this information at the petrol pumps and on the NEA website?

Sulphur leaves a bad taste

It seems impossible to find out the sulphur content of petrol sold in Singapore

Letter from Prithpal Singh