GLOBALIZATION AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Climate Change poses an extraordinary threat to the planet and its inhabitants.

What Is Climate Change?

Why the climate is changing, what it means for us, and what we can do
about it.

Watch this discussion on Climate Change: https://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=4vUV9mw3ltA

Climate change is rapidly altering our world in profound ways. Human activity has
already increased the earth’s temperature by about 1.5°F over the past century, and as the planet
continues to warm, the dangers intensify. Millions of people could be displaced and vital
infrastructure could be destroyed. Climate change’s effects are far-reaching and varied and touch
virtually every aspect of life on the earth: extreme heat events, rising sea levels, deeper droughts,
desertification, bigger wildfires, and more intense storms.

Because climate change poses such an extraordinary threat to the planet, it needs to be
counteracted. There are no clear-cut answers to this global challenge, but it is not
insurmountable. Countries are already taking steps to adapt to climate change and mitigate its
effects. Blueprints exist, but they need to be used more widely and more effectively, because the
longer action is delayed, the worse climate change becomes—and the more difficult it will be to
endure.

In this module, we will examine three basic questions on climate change:

What is happening?

 Gain some scientific context by learning about the greenhouse effect and its
relationship to climate change.

 Understand the vast and varied effects of climate change, including through an in-
depth look at how climate change is affecting ice melt patterns in Greenland.

 See how climate change affects millions of people worldwide who depend on the
coffee industry for economic survival.

Why is it happening?

 Learn about the trade-offs of fossil fuels and alternative energy sources, and take
a critical look at the mix of energy sources countries use.

 Explore the lenses through which greenhouse gas emissions can be viewed.
  Understand the historical division between developed and developing countries
and the debate over responsibility for climate change.

What is being done?

 Study the background, structure, and significance of the Paris Agreement, the first
truly global climate action accord.

 Take a tour of adaptation programs around the world, from Kiribati’s purchase of
land in Fiji to Vietnam’s cultivation of salt-resistant rice.

The Greenhouse Effect

The world is getting warmer. What role do greenhouse gas emissions play,
and why is this cause for concern?

Smoke billows from chimneys at a chemical factory in Hefei in the Anhui province of China on March 10, 2010.
Source: Reuters

The greenhouse effect is a natural process responsible for keeping the earth at the
temperature needed to sustain life. Acting just like the glass walls of a greenhouse, gases like
carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide trap the sun’s heat in the atmosphere and prevent it
from escaping into space.
 About half of the sun’s radiation that travels toward the earth never makes it to the earth’s
surface. Clouds and the atmosphere reflect about one-third of the radiation back toward the sun,
and they also absorb another 20 percent. The rest of the radiation—about 50 percent—reaches
the earth, where it is absorbed by oceans and land. This keeps the earth warm and sustains plant,
animal, and human life. The earth also releases heat back toward space. Some of this heat passes
through the atmosphere, but most of it is captured and retained by greenhouse gases before it can
escape. This is the mechanism that keeps the earth warm.

Normally, the greenhouse effect keeps the earth just warm enough to sustain life.
Scientists say that without the greenhouse effect, the average temperature of the earth would
drop to as low as −18˚C (0˚F), compared to the twentieth-century average of 14˚C (57˚F).

Enhanced Greenhouse Effect

 The greenhouse effect has supported life on the earth for millions of years. Today,
however, the greenhouse effect is growing stronger as human activities such as deforestation and
fossil fuel use release more and more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This traps greater
amounts of the sun’s radiation, which contributes to rising temperatures, also known as global
warming.

In 2018, the United States alone emitted 14.7 trillion pounds of greenhouse gases. For
reference, that weighs more than 20,000 Empire State Buildings—and the United States is not
even the biggest emitter. In 2019, China emitted nearly twice as much greenhouse gas as the
United States did that year.

Source: Climate Watch, Postdam Institute For Climate Impact Research

Due in large part to this enhanced greenhouse effect, the world today is more than 1˚C
(1.8˚F) warmer than it was in the nineteenth century. While 1˚C may seem hardly noticeable on a
sunny day, countries are already seeing the severe effects of planet-wide warming at this level.
Heat waves are lasting longer, crop yields are shrinking, and rising sea levels are threatening
coastal areas.

Scientists warn that human activity will likely raise global temperatures to 1.5˚C (2.7˚F)
above nineteenth-century averages by 2050. Without a significant reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions, global temperatures could even increase by 2˚C (3.6˚F). Should this happen, the
results would be catastrophic: for example, nearly all coral reefs could die out, and sixty million
more people could experience severe drought.

Although this future may seem far off, climate change is already worsening wildfires in
the western United States, intensifying cyclones in Mozambique, and reducing crop production
in Vietnam.
 NASA Climate Change shows a color-coded map displaying a progression of changing
global surface temperature anomalies from 1880 through 2018 in this video link. Higher than
normal temperatures are shown in red and lower than normal temperatures are shown in blue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXXOkhoki8s

You may also download the video through this link: https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4626

Why Scientists Are Watching Greenland

In Greenland, climate change has created a vicious cycle of warming—and it
may never stop.

Greenland’s Tracy and Heilprin Glaciers Melt

Before
(Left) After (Right).
September 28, 1987 (Left) September 30, 2017

Source: NASA Earth Observatory

The climate is changing. Retreating glaciers; rising sea levels; hotter and more acidic
oceans; and more frequent, stronger storms: all of these changes can be traced to an increase in
the earth’s average temperature, which is about 2°F higher today than it was near the turn of the
twentieth century.

But the consequences of climate change are more complicated and connected than a
simple list of weather events implies. For example, floods caused by rising sea levels can destroy
infrastructure and displace communities, exacerbating issues like poverty, instability, and
migration.
 Enter Greenland, where a changing ecosystem illustrates the complexity of this issue.

For at least five thousand years, sea levels were more or less stable. But since the end of
the nineteenth century, average sea level has risen about eight inches, and it is rising faster now:
roughly one-third of that increase has happened in the past twenty-five years.

So why are sea levels rising? A major factor is glacier melt, and scientists are particularly
concerned about Greenland’s melting. Eighty percent of Greenland is covered by an ice sheet, or
large area of land covered in glacial ice. It’s one of only two in the world. (The other is
Antarctica.)

Melting is not normally cause for alarm. It is a seasonal process: ice sheets melt in the
summer, and then typically regain their mass through water that refreezes in the winter.

Here is how the process of melting and refreezing has looked for thousands of years:

But climate change has interrupted this process. Exposed to warmer weather for a longer
portion of the year, Greenland is now experiencing a longer melt season than normal, which
means it is shrinking. Think of it as a receding hairline: hair still grows, but not quickly enough
to outpace hair loss.

“Feedback loops”: Longer melting periods causes more ice to melt even faster.

Most scientists agree that feedback loops—or self-reinforcing cycles—are occurring in

Greenland. This means that as hotter temperatures spur more melting and longer melt seasons,
two related consequences occur: First, older, darker ice is exposed. Like a black shirt absorbing
more heat than a light-colored one, this darker ice absorbs more of the sun’s energy and
accelerates the natural melting cycle. Second, meltwater also travels down moulins, or ice
tunnels, that extend to the bottom of the ice sheet, and lubricates the space between the ice and
the bedrock. This causes ice to break off and move more quickly out to sea where it will melt.
So, again, the more ice that melts on the surface, the more quickly glacier melt occurs.

Not only is melt season now a couple of months longer, but more of the ice sheet is
melting. The island lost around four trillion tons of ice between 1992 and 2018, according to one
study.

The video below illustrates this phenomenon. In the map on the left, you can see the area
where melting was observed expand every year. In the graph on the right, you can see the
amount of ice rise each winter and fall each summer. But every year, more is lost than gained.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVWXC_j7Dqs

And as more ice melts, the higher sea levels rise.

Temperature anomalies depict the changes in global temperature compared with the base period of 1951-
1980.
Source: NASA; Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation.

Rising sea levels have their own adverse effects.

Higher sea levels threaten coastal cities, increase flooding, and intensify storms. This puts
millions of people at risk: 40 percent of the U.S. population lives in coastal areas, and eight of
the world’s ten largest cities are near a coast.

This map shows coastal urban areas, and the percentages of their populations that would
be affected by rising sea levels if global temperatures rose to 4°C higher than they were before
the Industrial Revolution. If the climate keeps getting warmer and ice in Greenland and
elsewhere continues to melt at a fast pace, many of these cities could be in danger.

https://choices.climatecentral.org/#11/13.3763/121.9040?compare=temperatures&carbon-end-
yr=2100&scenario-a=warming-4&scenario-b=warming-2

If all of Greenland’s ice melts—which could happen if temperatures rise by more than
2°C—sea levels will rise by twenty-three feet. That is higher than the average two-story house.
That is why scientists are tracking Greenland’s ice loss so carefully.

There is no going back for Greenland. The feedback loops created by rising temperatures
mean that Greenland will probably continue to rapidly lose ice for years to come, even if
greenhouse gas emissions completely stop tomorrow. But scientists believe that by studying
Greenland, they can achieve a better understanding of the wide range of consequences climate
change will have on other parts of the world—and help people prepare to adapt to the new reality
it will bring.
 Climate Change and the Coffee Industry
Climate change is not just an environmental problem. It is also an economic
one.

The effects of climate change threaten global food security, endangering the food sources
people depend on to survive. But changing weather patterns also have serious economic impacts.
For crops like coffee, which are grown predominantly in the developing world, climate change
also imperils producers' livelihoods.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaK4u2aIhJc

What Is Water Scarcity?

The global water crisis is already here. Climate change will only make it
more severe.

The Blue Nile in Guba, Ethiopia, on May 28, 2013. Ethiopia began diverting the Blue Nile as part of a giant
dam project, risking unease from Egypt, a downstream nation.
Source: William Lloyd George/AFP via Getty Images

On June 1, 2020, Egyptian hackers infiltrated twelve Ethiopian government websites. As

part of the group’s attack, the websites displayed a dire warning: “If the river’s level drops, let all
the Pharaoh’s soldiers hurry.”

The referenced river was the Nile, which Ethiopian leaders have for years worked to
partially dam in order to generate hydroelectric energy. But why would hackers get so up in arms
over an infrastructure project?

The answer has to do with an ancient problem: water scarcity. Egyptians fear Ethiopia’s
dam will diminish Egypt’s clean water supply, and they’re not alone in their concerns over
access to this life-sustaining and increasingly limited resource.
 Over one billion people worldwide experience year-round water scarcity—defined as a
lack of sufficient clean water to meet daily demands—and almost three billion lack regular water
access for at least one month of the year. Experts project that this problem will only worsen as
the world’s population grows and climate change becomes more severe.

This lesson explores the origins of water scarcity, the stakes of the problem, and possible
solutions.

Why is water scarce?

It’s hard to think of water as scarce when you look at a world map dominated by blue.
But most of that water—97 percent—is salt water and therefore not potable (drinkable). Of the
remaining 3 percent fresh water, only about one-third is readily accessible. The rest is locked
away in glaciers or ice caps. To paraphrase the poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge: “Water, water,
everywhere, and not a drop to drink.”

Even so, the world’s water supply is large enough to meet the needs of all the planet’s
inhabitants. It’s just not evenly distributed. Some regions are wetter than others; think of how
certain countries have rain forests while others have deserts. However, experts say that difficulty
accessing drinking water usually boils down to a lack of infrastructure rather than a lack of
rainfall or other water in the environment.

Take the Democratic Republic of Congo, for instance. More than half of Africa’s water
reserves sit within Congo’s borders, but infrastructure issues and resource mismanagement are
common. As a result, more than thirty-three million people—over one-third of the country’s
population—lack adequate access to water.

Source: World Resources Institute (2019)

What role does climate change play?

Climate change is poised to make these matters worse. As the planet warms, the
atmosphere expands, enabling the air to suck up and retain more moisture during the evaporation
stage of the water cycle. The result: arid regions will get drier and drier over time.

Meanwhile, climate change has already decreased the global potable water supply. This
has occurred at a time when demand for water has skyrocketed due to a growing global
population.

Source: Our World in Data

Climate change affects water supply in many ways. It has led to longer droughts and
resulted in more natural disasters, which threaten the infrastructures that deliver clean water.
Meanwhile, global warming has dried up water sources and helped pathogens thrive in (and
contaminate) fresh water. Rising sea levels, driven by climate change, also make fresh water
salty (or salinated) and undrinkable.

The effects of climate change and water scarcity are evident in California. There, water
scarcity has mostly taken the form of droughts. These protracted arid periods have increased the
risks and severity of wildfires in recent years. In 2020 alone, wildfires displaced nearly two
hundred thousand Californians. These disasters disproportionately affect low-income
communities—people who can’t afford to leave their homes or hire private firefighters.

How does water scarcity affect society?

Water scarcity affects every aspect of life. For instance, people in water-scarce
communities often have to spend extra money to buy bottled water to cook and shower or travel
for hours to access clean water. This lost time has a cost; research suggests the global economy
loses $260 billion every year due to inadequate access to clean water and sanitation.

In this way, the consequences of local water scarcity can quickly become global
challenges. Let’s explore a few examples:

Heightens risk of illness: For millions of children around the globe, water scarcity
means they cannot turn on the tap to access clean, safe, and drinkable water. And their exposure
to unclean or unsafe water raises their risk of contracting diseases like diarrhea, which kills more
than eighty-five thousand children per year.

Threatens urban life: To access clean water, communities require basic infrastructure—
especially in cities, where a growing share of the global population lives. However, in many
cities around the globe, this infrastructure is crumbling or obsolete. The United States loses six
billion gallons of clean drinking water every day due to decades-old leaky pipes.

Source: World Bank

Endangers rural economies: Farming needs a lot of water—it currently accounts for
about 70 percent of all water humans use globally. (As this water helps grow the global food
supply, humans actually “eat” much more water than they drink.) Climate change has already
made crops less productive, and longer droughts have forced farmers to buy more water rather
than rely on rain. This trend has increased farming costs and decreased the water supply for
everyone else. It can also lead to higher food prices.

Water scarcity also threatens farmers’ livelihoods. For instance, in 2017 Cape Town,
South Africa, almost entirely ran out of water. To avoid the crisis, city officials reallocated water
from the agricultural sector, leaving farmers without the resources necessary to sustain their
crops. Although the move helped save the city from running out of water, it also contributed to
the loss of thirty thousand farming jobs.
 Perpetuates conflict: For as long as history has been recorded, conflicts over water have
occurred. For example, surviving records from 650 BCE tell the story of an Assyrian king who
dried up an enemy’s wells to starve them of water.

More recently, as access to water around the world deteriorates, water-related violence
has escalated both between and within countries. Throughout Yemen’s seven-year civil war, for
example, both government forces and rebel groups have targeted their enemies’ water
infrastructure, including dams, reservoirs, and freshwater pipes. These attacks take place in what
is already one of the world’s most water-scarce places.

What can be done?

Although the issue of water scarcity can be daunting, solutions exist. Let’s break down a
few:

Desalination: Desalination removes salt and other minerals from seawater, evaporating
salt components and leaving behind clean and drinkable fresh water. Sailors have used this
technique for hundreds of years, but only recently have countries—including the United States,
Australia, Israel, and Saudi Arabia—invested in large-scale desalination plants. For example,
between 2009 and 2012, Australia spent $3.5 billion to build a desalination plant in Melbourne,
which now provides about one-third of the city’s water supply. Although these plants are
promising, they remain expensive to build and energy-intensive to operate. However, experts
predict costs will decline in the future.

Filtration: One reason water is scarce is because so many sources of it have become
contaminated with harmful chemicals. That’s why water filtration, which removes unsafe
bacteria from fresh water, can be an effective tool. Chicago provides safe tap water for the city’s
residents through a treatment process that removes harmful pollutants from water in nearby Lake
Michigan. Individuals can also filter concerning chemicals from their water supply with
relatively inexpensive household filtration devices.

Recycling wastewater: Some water-scarce communities have begun recycling their

wastewater. This process involves treating municipal sewage to rid it of bacteria and then reusing
wastewater for toilet flushing and irrigation systems, among other purposes. Orange County,
California has mitigated its drought risk by recycling more than 250 billion gallons of water.

Drip irrigation: Many farmers water their crops by entirely flooding a field or using far-
reaching sprinklers. These methods, however, can waste substantial amounts of water. Drip
irrigation, on the other hand, involves watering crops by targeting roots with small amounts of
water—a process that saves water while maximizing crop yields. As of 2015, approximately 9
percent of the United States’ irrigated farmland was using drip irrigation.
So where do we go from here?

Clean water is a source of life, but shortages can be a source of conflict. And as our
demand for clean water rises and the amount of clean water dwindles, our relationship with this
precious resource will likely become more complex.

Various solutions can mitigate water scarcity—but to really address this problem, the
world will have to tackle the challenge of climate change head on.

Sources of Energy: A Comparison

Turning toward cleaner energy sources means factoring in economic and
energy needs alongside environmental ones.

A man rides a motorcycle carrying his children along the top of a dam, which is flooded by an overflowing river
near the Junyue township of Pengzhou, in the Sichuan province of China, on September 12, 2013.
Source: Reuters

If you want to be eco-friendly, you should be driving an electric car. Right?

Unfortunately, it is not as simple as that. While electric cars do not pollute the air around
them like a combustion engine does, they do need to be charged, leading to questions such as
what energy source the electricity is coming from and whether that energy source is clean.

The overall evaluation of an energy source is based not only on how clean it is; it also has
to be reliable, accessible, and affordable. Not all of these factors can be categorized neatly. For
example, petroleum tends to be relatively affordable in the United States, but that is in part
because the government subsidizes fossil fuel industries. Similarly, while wind energy tends to
be relatively expensive, its cost has been steadily declining for years as its use increases.

To evaluate the options available, understanding fundamental facts about what types of
energy are available and what trade-offs each presents is helpful.

There are three main categories of energy sources: fossil fuel, alternative, and renewable.
Renewable is sometimes, but not always, included under alternative.

Fossil fuels formed over millions of years ago as dead plants and animals were subjected
to extreme heat and pressure in the earth’s crust. This natural process converted bones and other
organic matter into carbon-rich substances that, when burned, generate energy. There are three
main fossil fuels.

Petroleum is an umbrella term that includes products such as crude oil, which is refined
into more familiar fuels such as gasoline, jet fuel, kerosene, and diesel. Petroleum and oil are
often used interchangeably. It is extracted through drilling or hydraulic fracturing (also known as
fracking).

Coal is a rock found close to the earth’s surface and is one of the world’s most abundant
fossil fuels. It is extracted through surface mining (using machines to clear away the uppermost
layers of rock and soil) and underground mining (using machines and miners to remove coal
deep underground).

Natural gas, a mixture of gases trapped underneath the earth’s surface, is extracted in
similar ways as oil. Advances in drilling and fracking have unlocked vast reserves of natural gas.

Fossil fuels are often called dirty energy sources because using them comes at a high—
and often irreversible—cost to the environment. Carbon emissions, or the amount of carbon
dioxide these fuels release into the atmosphere, add up over generations and cannot be taken
back. Moreover, there is only a finite amount of these resources on earth.

Forms of energy not derived from fossil fuels include both renewable and alternative
energy, terms that are sometimes used interchangeably but do not mean the same thing.
Alternative energy broadly refers to any energy that is not extracted from a fossil fuel, but not
necessarily only from a renewable source. For example, nuclear power generation most
commonly uses uranium, an abundant but not technically renewable fuel. Renewable energy, on
the other hand, includes sources such as sun and wind that occur naturally and continuously.

There are five main renewable and alternative fuels.

  Wind power is created when wind spins a turbine, or a windmill, which can be
located on land or offshore.

 Solar power harnesses the sun’s energy in two ways: by converting the sun’s
light directly into electricity when the sun is out (think solar panels), or solar
thermal energy, which uses the sun’s heat to create electricity, a method that
works even when the sun is down.

 Hydropower is created when rapidly flowing water turns turbines inside a dam,
generating electricity.

 Nuclear energy is produced at power plants by the process of nuclear fission. The
energy created during nuclear reactions is harnessed to produce electricity.

 Biofuels, also referred to as biomass, are produced using organic materials (wood,
agricultural crops and waste, food waste, and animal manure) that contain stored
energy from the sun. Humans have used biomass since they discovered how to
burn wood to make fire. Liquid biofuels, such as ethanol, also release chemical
energy in the form of heat.

Renewable and alternative energy sources are often categorized as clean energy because
they produce significantly less carbon emissions compared to fossil fuels. But they are not
without environmental footprint.
Hydropower generation, for example, releases lower carbon emissions than fossil fuel
plants do. However, damming water to build reservoirs for hydropower floods valleys, disrupting
local ecosystems and livelihoods. In another case, biofuels are renewable but are cultivated on
huge swaths of land and sometimes generate more carbon emissions than fossil fuels do.
Other considerations such as safety also matter. The likelihood of a meltdown at a
nuclear facility is exceedingly small, but if one were to occur, the results would be catastrophic.
In fact, concerns about the dangers associated with operating nuclear power plants have limited
the expansion of nuclear energy.
*Because hydropower plants can significantly damage the ecosystems where they are built, hydropower is not
always classified as renewable energy.

Despite the diversity of energy sources available, most countries rely on the three major fossil
fuels.

In 2018, more than 81 percent of the energy countries produced came from fossil fuels.
Hydroelectricity and other renewable energy (14 percent) and nuclear energy (about 5 percent)
accounted for the remainder. But not all countries consume energy at the same levels. For
example, the United States, China, and European Union countries combined were responsible for
half of the world’s total coal, natural gas, and oil consumption in 2018. Nor do all countries use
the same mix of fuels. Norway primarily uses hydroelectric power, for example, but in Saudi
Arabia oil reigns supreme. When choosing which types of energy to use, countries balance their
economic needs with environmental concerns.

Electric Power Consumption by Country

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.ELEC.KH.PC
Climate change has added new considerations and urgency to the decisions countries make
about their energy sources.

Developing countries have different needs than developed countries—and they face a
different set of energy challenges as consequences of climate change become more severe. Many
developing countries are going through industrialization, the development of factories and mass
production, which requires large amounts of energy. Some of these countries see fossil fuels as
the best way to achieve those energy goals, though many are turning to alternative energy
sources as well—seeing them as the future of energy consumption.

In 2015, 196 countries pledged to increase their use of clean energy as part of the Paris
Agreement, a treaty that allowed signatories to set their own goals for lower carbon emissions.
As countries around the world push to adopt more clean energy sources, they will increasingly
contend with the environmental and economic trade-offs that renewable sources present and the
reality that opting for clean over dirty energy is not such a simple choice after all.

Who Releases the Most Greenhouse Gases?

 Who is at the top depends on how you interpret the data.

This video present a short history of global emissions from fossil-fuels:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lJ2uZSRfHI

Since the Industrial Revolution, rising emissions of greenhouse gases—including carbon

dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and others—have been the driving force behind climate change.

Who is responsible for emitting the most greenhouse gases? The answer may not be as
clear as one might assume, because the top emitters change depending on how the data is
collected and what numbers are included.

When looking at emissions by country, there are three ways researchers generally sort
their data:

 Annually, the total greenhouse gases emitted every year.

 Cumulatively, the historical levels of emissions by a country.

 Per capita, the average greenhouse gases emitted by each person.

Annually: Which countries emit the most greenhouse gases every year?

One way to understand responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions is to examine which
countries emit the most every year.

Data for European Union incorporates measurements for all its members.
Source: Climate Watch; World Resources Institute CAIT Climate Data Explorer.
 Two of the top countries on this list, China and India, are experiencing rapid economic
growth. Also on the list are the United States and European Union members—developed
countries that have historically emitted and continue to emit greenhouse gases at high levels.

It is important to note that these ten countries produce a majority of global emissions. In
2017, they accounted for more than two-thirds of global greenhouse gas emissions. And the one
hundred countries that emit the least? They collectively produced less than 3 percent of the
world’s greenhouse gas emissions that year.

Data for European Union incorporates measurements for all its members.
Source: Climate Watch; World Resources Institute CAIT Climate Data Explorer.

Looking at the top ten fossil fuel–producing countries can help policymakers focus
climate change legislation to address emissions. While the annual data tells the story of which
relatively small number of countries is responsible for current emissions, it does not account for
countries that previously released large amounts of greenhouse gases but have since been able to
afford cleaner energy sources. To account for this fact, researchers take a cumulative, or
historical, approach to the data to determine the top emitters.

Cumulatively: Which countries have historically emitted the most greenhouse gases?

Calculating emissions data cumulatively allows a researcher to understand which

countries have historically emitted the most greenhouse gases.
Data for European Union incorporates measurements for all its members.
Source: Climate Watch; Postdam Institute For Climate Impact Research.

This way of looking at emissions illustrates the uneven history of industrialization: about
half of total carbon dioxide emissions have been released by a handful of now-developed
countries. Industrialization massively increased standards of living in countries that developed
early—and hugely increased their emissions, which have only compounded with time.

Meanwhile, countries that developed later are further down on the historical list of
emitters: for example, although China tops the list of annual emitters as it fuels its rapid
development today, its carbon dioxide emissions account for only 13 percent of the historical
total. (Carbon dioxide is the largest contributor to climate change, so sometimes it is measured
independently of other greenhouse gases.)

Per Capita: Which countries emit the most greenhouse gases by population?

Unlike the other lists, which are dominated by large countries with developed or rapidly
growing economies, at the top of this list are small countries that rely on energy-intensive
industries.
Source: Climate Watch; World Resources Institute CAIT Climate Data Explorer; World Bank.

The energy-intensive industries causing emissions often vary depending on each

country’s economic climate. For example, Guyana and Paraguay are clearing lots of forestland to
make way for new industries, so deforestation contributes to climate change there. In Mongolia,
the use of fossil fuels and the clearing of grasslands for agriculture contribute to the country’s
high emissions profile.

Examining emissions per capita also exposes differences among top annual greenhouse
gas emitters. For example, the United States’ per capita emissions are more than eight times
those of India. Although the United States and India rank high in terms of annual emissions,
India and neighboring China both have much lower per capita emissions given their large
populations (each exceeding one billion).

Economic Sector: Which industries emit the most greenhouse gases?

As we have seen, a country’s greenhouse gas emissions are often tied to its level of
industrialization. So it is also helpful to look at what kinds of industries produce the most
greenhouse gases.
Source: Climate Watch; World Resources Institute CAIT Climate Data Explorer.

Each industry contributes to emissions in various ways:

 Energy sector generates the most greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions related to energy
are tied to various sources including electricity and heat that power households,
manufacturing, construction, and transportation.

 Industrial processes unrelated to energy generation also cause emissions. For example,
greenhouse gases are emitted during the production of materials like cement and glass, as
well as household goods like soap and detergent. Additionally, the industrial process of
extracting fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas generates emissions.

 Agricultural sources, such as farming, including manure management, fertilizers, field

burning, and fuel use on farms, generate emissions. In fact, about one-third of agricultural
emissions come from animals belching: when a cow burps, it releases methane gas—and
cows burp a lot.

 Land-use change and forestry include activities such as deforestation. Deforestation

contributes to increased emissions in two ways. The machines that cut down and process
trees use fossil fuel, which generates emissions. And since trees use carbon dioxide
during photosynthesis, cutting them down reduces the earth’s ability to soak up the
increased carbon emissions.

 Waste elimination processes such as incineration and landfilling emit greenhouse gases.
For example, as organic material in landfills disintegrates, it produces methane.

 Bunker fuels power ships and aircraft. The term refers to the thick, viscous oil left over
after crude oil goes through the refining process of extracting diesel and gasoline. Only
 large, complex engines like those in ships can heat up bunker fuel enough for it to
combust.

Companies: Which companies are the top emitters of greenhouse gases?

Now that we have looked at which countries and sectors emit the most greenhouse gases,
there is another way to look at emissions that combines the two. We can look at how companies
—both private and government-owned—contribute to climate change.

It is important to note that this chart examines

 emissions caused by a company’s operations, and

 emissions from products or services provided by that company.

The amount of emissions of any oil company shown on the chart is the combination of
both the greenhouse gases released during the process of extracting the oil from the ground and
the burning of all that oil by customers who use it to power their cars or to generate electricity,
for instance.

Includes emissions from direct operations of companies and indirect emissions of a company’s operations,
such as emissions from sold products or services.
Source: The Carbon Majors Database: CDP Carbon Majors Report 2017.

Due to the high levels of emissions in both their operations and the consumption of their
product, fossil fuel companies are the top emitters. According to one report, between 1751 and
2017 just 103 companies have released more than two-thirds of industrial greenhouse gas
emissions—the top ten of which are fossil fuel companies.
Why is it important to know the top greenhouse gas emitters?

Since climate change greatly affects every issue we face today, understanding the effect
of greenhouse gas emissions on our economies and our environment is crucial. Understanding
which countries, industries, and companies are the top greenhouse gas emitters can help
policymakers decide where to focus their attention as they tackle issues such as global trade, job
growth, energy independence, environmental safety regulations, and more.

This knowledge also raises questions: Should those responsible for emitting the most
greenhouse gases also be most responsible for mitigating and reversing the effects of climate
change? And if so, what metric should be used to determine who these top emitters are?

Who is Responsible for Climate Change?

Developed and developing countries disagree.

Addressing climate change is a collective responsibility. Early climate negotiations at the

United Nations recognized a shared responsibility for climate change but—driven by a principle
of “common but differentiated responsibilities”—relied on developed countries, and not
developing ones, to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Developed countries had released most of the
greenhouse gases to date, the thinking went, and their advanced economies could better absorb
the costs.

Now all countries—including developing ones—need to address climate change. But the
historical difference in responsibility is echoed in current climate debates, as developing
countries such as India face the challenges of a growing economy alongside a changing climate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebjd14f2d48

The Paris Agreement

What actions are countries taking to address the global threat of climate
change?
The Eiffel Tower at sunset in Paris, France on November 22, 2015. The capital hosted the World Climate
Change Conference 2015 (COP21).
Source: Charles Platiau/Reuters
On December 12, 2015, in Paris, 195 governments agreed to the text of the most
significant global climate agreement in history. Known as the Paris Agreement, the
international deal commits nearly every country in the world to lowering greenhouse gas
emissions in an effort to curb the dangerous effects of climate change.

The Paris Agreement, which entered into force on November 4, 2016, aims to
prevent global temperatures from rising above pre–Industrial Revolution temperatures by
2˚C (3.6˚F). Ideally, the Paris Agreement strives to limit global temperature increases to
1.5˚C (2.7˚F), as scientists caution that the effects of temperatures rising any higher would
be catastrophic and potentially irreversible.

Scientists focus on the Industrial Revolution because it marks the time when human
activities began releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in massive quantities. Since
then, global temperatures have risen by more than 1˚C (1.8˚F), and scientists predict that
this may increase to between 2°C and 6°C in the next century. Global temperatures have
fluctuated throughout the earth’s history, but the current pace of change is unprecedented.
NASA has estimated that the rate of global warming over the next century will be twenty
times faster than historic averages, which is cause for serious concern.
Source: NASA; Climate Watch; Postdam Institute For Climate Impact Research.

Under the Paris Agreement, all countries share responsibility.

Past climate agreements—most notably the Kyoto Protocol, the most significant climate
accord before the Paris Agreement—mandated that countries reduce their emissions by particular
standards. It placed the responsibility of climate change—and the obligation to fix it—on
developed countries, which historically have emitted the most greenhouse gases. For example,
the legally binding Kyoto Protocol initially required the European Union to cut greenhouse gas
emissions by 8 percent while not asking for any reduction from dozens of less-developed
countries.

But the Paris Agreement revolutionized climate politics by changing the model of
negotiations. Now, all countries voluntarily set their goals based on their economic abilities. To
achieve this, countries put forward individual plans known as nationally determined
contributions (NDCs), which outline their proposed emissions reductions and adaptation
strategies.

Unlike previous climate agreements, the Paris Agreement is entirely voluntary. This
means that while the agreement requires every country to submit an NDC plan, there are no
stipulations as to what ways and by how much countries should cut emissions. Countries’ plans
can differ significantly, varying with regard to their specific goals, levels of ambition, and even
how they measure emissions cuts.

“The Paris Agreement’s central aim is to strengthen the global response

to the threat of climate change by keeping a global temperature rise
this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.”

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, unfccc.int

Understanding national pledges

In 2017, the top ten emitters of greenhouse gases accounted for more than two-thirds of
global emissions. However, according to Climate Action Tracker, which monitors the Paris
Agreement, India is the only top ten emitter whose current policies are on track to help keep
global temperature increases below 2˚C.

India’s NDC revolves around a reduction in total greenhouse gas emissions, the creation
of additional forests, and a shift toward renewable energy sources. By 2030, India plans for 40
percent of its power generation to come from renewable energy sources such as solar. As the
third-largest national emitter of greenhouse gases, India has already taken steps in this direction:
investments in renewables surpassed fossil fuel investments in 2017.

There are challenges, however: most notably a continued reliance on coal-fired power
plants as well as a growing population—with increasing energy demands—poised to become the
world’s largest potentially in the next decade.

Sources: Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT), Climate-Action Tracker

Where India is setting the tone for responsible climate policy, Russia is doing the
opposite. It took Russia four years to secure domestic political approval—also known as
ratification—for the Paris Agreement. Meanwhile Russia’s leader has flip-flopped on climate
change in recent years. In 2015, Russian President Vladimir Putin cautioned that “the quality of
life of all people on the planet depends on solving the climate problem.” Just two years later,
however, the Russian president adopted a different position, denying the significant role humans
have played in contributing to climate change. No real progress has been made toward
responsible climate policy in Russia, and the pledges Russia has made are either vague or weak
and ultimately unlikely to meaningfully reduce its emissions.

Rather than reducing emissions and focusing on the root cause of climate change, Russia
appears to be responding to climate-related disasters as they arise. This strategy of adaptation
could prove prohibitively expensive in the long run as climate disasters increase in frequency on
a rapidly warming planet. If all countries followed Russia’s example, rises in global temperature
could far exceed 2˚C.

Sources: Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT), Climate-Action Tracker

The United States withdraws

The United States announced its decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement in June
2017 despite originally helping to lead negotiations to draft the agreement. President Donald J.
Trump, who often ridiculed the science behind climate change and promised to boost the heavily
greenhouse gas–emitting coal industry, claimed that the Paris Agreement would cost the United
States jobs. His decision to withdraw the United States, which went into effect in 2020, left the
United States as the only country in the world outside the Paris Agreement.

The significance of the U.S. decision to leave the Paris Agreement should not be
understated, especially given that the United States is the world’s second-largest greenhouse gas
emitter. The country’s promised emissions cuts accounted for approximately 20 percent of total
global cuts projected under the Paris Agreement. However, even with the United States’ 2015
pledge, the country did not appear to be on track to limit global warming to well below 2˚C. At
the current rate, the United States could be contributing to a drastically warmer planet.

But this could change under a new U.S. administration. Upon taking office in 2021,
President Joe Biden re-entered the United States into the Paris Agreement. His administration’s
climate plan sets the goal of guiding the United States toward net-zero emissions by 2050.

In the absence of a commitment from the Trump administration, individual states began
working to achieve the Paris Agreement’s goals. The U.S. Climate Alliance formed immediately
following the Trump administration’s June 2017 announcement to withdraw from the Paris
Agreement. As of January 2021, this coalition comprises twenty-four states as well as Puerto
Rico, representing more than 50 percent of the U.S. population. Under the Biden administration,
the United States is pursuing Paris Agreement goals both on the federal and state levels.
Source: U.S. Climate Alliance *as of March 2019

The future of the Paris Agreement

As it currently stands, existing NDCs are not enough to achieve the Paris Agreement’s
objective. Many of them are vague, unclear, and short, missing important details on how the
country plans to actually tackle climate change. So far, the voluntary pledges made by
governments would still result in global warming exceeding 3˚C by the year 2100, well above
the 2˚C goal.
 Fortunately, the Paris Agreement does have provisions for a “ratchet mechanism,”
designed so that NDCs grow more aggressive over time. Every government that agreed to the
Paris Agreement is required to either update or submit a new NDC, at minimum, every five
years. Each subsequent NDC must be more ambitious than the last—in other words, the updated
plans must ratchet up the stringency of emissions targets and other actions.

While the Paris Agreement is not perfect, it is significant because it is the first major
climate agreement of its kind, and it represents a global step toward resolving an issue that
greatly affects the entire world. The Paris Agreement is a historic first step, but it cannot be the
last.

Climate Change Inequality

Explore how rising temperatures disproportionately affect certain
communities.
A rancher fills up his water tank at the livestock water spigot at the Bodaway chapter of the Navajo Nation in
Gap, Arizona, on September 17, 2020. A drought that dried up traditional watering holes forced livestock
owners to haul water to their livestock.
Source: Stephanie Keith/Reuters

Climate change is a global problem, but its consequences are not evenly distributed
around the world. For example, although average global temperatures are projected to rise by
3°C (5.4°F) by 2100, some places along the equator have already warmed twice as much, leading
to increased rates of drought and extreme heat.

Location is not all that determines a community’s vulnerability. Income levels also
dictate whether populations can afford costly adaptations—such as air conditioning and fire
insurance—that would minimize the consequences of climate change.

In many instances, those two factors—location and income—work in tandem. Some of

the most climate-affected communities are also the least financially equipped to adapt. As a
result, climate change is projected to dramatically increase global inequality, with one study
estimating that average incomes in the poorest countries will decline by 75 percent by 2100,
while incomes in some of the richest countries will continue to grow.

Climate change inequality manifests in many forms; certain communities are particularly
susceptible to rising sea levels, while others face heightened risks from severe storms. This
cartoon explores just one consequence of climate change—heat waves—following how two
people living in separate communities experience the effects of rising temperatures in strikingly
different ways.
 How Do Governments Combat Climate
Change?
Explore seven ways countries are responding to a changing environment.
Actor Joaquin Phoenix (center) stands with protestors waiting to be arrested on the steps of the U.S. Capitol
Building during a climate change protest and rally on Capitol Hill on January 10, 2020 in Washington, D.C.
Source: Paul Morigi/Getty Images

Have you ever brought a reusable tote bag to the grocery store? Or refilled a water bottle
rather than buy a disposable one? Do you separate your recycling from your trash?

If you answered yes to any of those questions, you’re not alone. In the United States,
more than half of all adults claim to have taken some action to protect the environment. But will
individual actions be enough to address the massive, transnational challenge of climate change?
Unfortunately, no.

Almost all experts agree that governments—not individuals or private businesses—need

to lead the fight against climate change. However, they disagree on the most effective options to
address the problem. This lesson outlines seven policies aimed at combating climate change and
explores their potential upsides and downsides for society.

U.S. Senators Claire McCaskill, Sherrod

Brown, and Robert Menendez, during a
news conference announcing legislation
aimed at ending subsidies to the five
largest oil companies, on May 10, 2011.

Source: Scott J. Ferrell/Congressional

Quarterly via Getty Images

Carbon taxes
 Greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide, pollute the atmosphere and change
the climate. Carbon taxes attempt to minimize those emissions by requiring the largest
greenhouse gas producers—for instance, coal-fired power plants—to pay for the damage they
cause. By attaching fees to emissions, carbon taxes encourage people, businesses, and
governments to emit less.

Governments can use the revenue generated from these fees to pay for social programs,
invest in clean energy, or lower taxes for the public. However, some experts believe carbon taxes
cause economic strain for people in lower income brackets. For example, if electric companies
respond to carbon taxes by raising prices, the increase can disproportionately affect low-income
households, which on average spend greater percentages of their earnings on utilities than
wealthier households do.

Where it worked: Since becoming one of the first countries to implement a national
carbon tax in 1991, Sweden has successfully lowered its greenhouse gas emissions by 27
percent. And although critics believed the tax would stunt the economy, Sweden’s gross
domestic product has since doubled. Today, more than forty countries have implemented a
national carbon tax, including Argentina, Canada, Japan, Singapore, and Ukraine.

An onshore processing facility at the

Prigorodnoye production complex of the
Sakhalin Energy Company on the southern
shore of Sakhalin Island, Russia, on July
14, 2021.

Source: Yuri Smityuk/TASS via Getty

Images

Cap and trade

The term cap and trade refers to a government program designed to limit (or cap) private-
sector greenhouse gas emissions. In cap and trade systems, governments allocate or sell a set
number of permits, each of which represents the right to emit a specific amount of greenhouse
gases. If a company needs more permits to make its product, it has to trade with another
company to buy them. So, as with a carbon tax, companies directly pay for their pollution.

However, unlike carbon taxes, cap and trade programs ensure emissions in a city or
country do not exceed a designated limit. Today, thirteen U.S. states, China, Mexico, and every
country in the European Union have implemented cap and trade systems. But experts disagree on
whether these policies are more effective than carbon taxes at limiting emissions.
 Where it worked: In 2013, California launched one of the United States’ first cap and
trade programs. As a result, the state’s emissions fell by 10 percent between 2013 and 2018.
However, in 2021 officials decided to reform the program amid criticism that it failed to limit the
private sector’s pollution-causing emissions in low-income communities.

Electric cars stand in front of a charging station in

a residential area in the Prenzlauer Berg district of
Berlin on September 2, 2021.

Source: Carsten Koall/Picture Alliance via Getty

Images

Clean energy standards

Electricity generation accounts for 25 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. To

decrease emissions, three-quarters of U.S. states have implemented clean energy standards—
laws that encourage utility companies to generate a certain percentage of their electricity from
low-emission energy sources, such as solar or wind power. However, each state’s standard varies
in how it defines clean energy, what percentage of low-emission energy it requires or
recommends, and whether the standard is mandatory or voluntary.

Where it worked: In 1999, Texas instituted a clean energy standard to source ten
thousand megawatts of electricity—enough energy to power a thousand homes for a year—from
renewable energy by 2025. This standard helped kick start growth in the state’s renewable
energy sector, and by 2010, Texas had surpassed its goal for 2025. Today, Texas generates
around 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources. However, the state’s fossil fuel
sector still leads the country in greenhouse gas emissions.

Youth activist Greta Thunberg speaks at

the Climate Action Summit at the United
Nations on September 23, 2019 in New
York City.

Source: Stephanie Keith/Getty Images

International agreements

In 2020, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres announced the world needed to reach

net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 in order to limit global warming to 1.5°C. His
statement made one thing clear: climate change is a global problem that requires a global
response.

Over the past three decades, countries have worked together to coordinate this response
through international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol. However, those agreements have
varied in effectiveness, with countries disagreeing on goals for emissions reductions and rules on
how to enforce emissions cuts.

Where it worked: One of the most significant climate agreements in history, the Paris
Agreement requires its almost two hundred signatories to set individual goals to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. Nearly every country in the world has signed on, and over sixty
countries (including top emitters the United States and China) have pledged to achieve net-zero
emissions by 2060. Although participation in the voluntary agreement is near universal, experts
believe countries’ pledges are not ambitious enough to meet the agreement’s target of limiting
global warming to 1.5°C.

A family takes shelter on the rooftop as river

embankments have broken and several
villages flooded on May 28, 2021 in South
24 Parganas, West Bengal, India.

Source: Dipayan Bose/NurPhoto via Getty

Images

Adaptation policies

Extreme weather events such as heat waves, droughts, and floods are getting worse. To
address these consequences of climate change, governments have instituted adaptation policies
aimed at making cities, states, and even countries less vulnerable to these disasters.

Adaptation policies range from creating evacuation plans to building roads and bridges
that can withstand rising sea levels and extreme weather conditions. Some governments have
also turned to innovative strategies such as building public parks that can absorb and store water
in the event of floods.

Where it worked: Many governments are trying to ensure their adaptation programs
serve the needs of low-income communities, whom climate change will most greatly affect. For
instance, the United States’ Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program helps vulnerable
communities cover heating and cooling costs during heat waves or severe winters. Health
departments in cities such as New York and Paris have also created public cooling centers to
protect their citizens who lack access to air conditioning. And in Philadelphia, the city even
sponsored “Beat the Heat” block parties to distribute air conditioners, fans, and ice water to local
residents.

People walk past the New York Stock Exchange

on a rainy day in the Financial District on October
11, 2018 in New York City.

Source: Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Minimizing financial risks of climate change

On the world’s current climate trajectory, researchers predict the global economy could
lose up to $23 trillion per year by 2100 due to climate factors such as falling crop yields,
increasing disease rates, and rising sea levels. For comparison, that’s around double the global
economic losses from the 2008 financial crisis.

To avoid future financial instability, governments have begun implementing policies to

prepare for climate-related economic shocks. These policies include mandating that all citizens
have access to fire insurance and requiring that banks disclose whether climate change has the
potential to affect their investments.

Where it worked: Countries such as the United Kingdom run financial stress tests to
determine whether a bank or financial system has enough money to function in the event of a
disaster. For example, say the Thames River overflows and destroys houses across London; these
simulations would check whether banks have enough money to give out loans for home repairs
and survive the loss of revenue from fewer home sales.

Tech investment

From the internet to self-driving cars, governments have long invested in cutting-edge
technology. And for the past few decades, many have supported the research and development of
technology designed to greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Let’s take a closer look at a
few of those technologies.
 Climate Policy Solutions: Technology Investment

Renewable energy
Solar panels produce renewable energy at the
photovoltaic park in Les Mees, in the department
of Alpes-de-Haute-Provence, in southern France
on March 31, 2015.

Source: Jean-Paul Pelissier/Reuters

A majority of the world’s energy

comes from fossil fuels such as petroleum,
natural gas, and coal. In recent decades,
many governments have begun investing in
low-emission alternatives to fossil fuels
called renewable energy technologies, which harness energy generated by natural resources
including wind and the sun. Because the cost of producing renewable energy has fallen by as
much as 88 percent in the past decade, some experts predict renewable sources could produce
more than half of the world’s electricity as soon as 2035.

Nuclear energy
A windmill is seen near the Doel's nuclear plant in
northern Belgium on August 20, 2014.

Source: Francois Lenoir/Reuters

Nuclear energy uses fission—a

reaction that occurs when splitting an atom—
to generate electricity without producing
greenhouse gas emissions. Since 2009, the
United States has invested over $863 million
in developing nuclear energy, which accounts
for nearly 20 percent of the country’s
electricity generation. However, the number of nuclear reactors has stagnated in recent decades,
in part due to high-profile disasters at nuclear plants such as Chernobyl and Fukushima.
Although regulatory bodies hold nuclear plants to strict safety standards, polls show that many
Americans still fear nuclear power is unsafe.
Carbon capture
Equipment used to capture carbon dioxide
emissions is seen at a coal-fired power plant owned
by NRG Energy, where carbon collected from the
plant will be used to extract crude from a nearby
oilfield in Thomspsons, Texas, on January 9, 2017.

Source: Ernest Scheyder/Reuters

As of 2019, emissions from factories

and power plants make up nearly half of total
greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.
But with carbon capture technology, factories
and power plants can cut their emissions by up
to 90 percent by capturing and storing the carbon they produce underground instead of sending it
into the atmosphere. However, existing carbon capture technology is costly and therefore not
widely adopted.

Geoengineering
An aerial view shows people working on a newly
built Tolou Keur garden in Boki Diawe, in the Matam
region of Senegal, on July 10, 2021. Tolou Keur
gardens hold plants and trees resistant to hot, dry
climates.

Source: Zohra Bensemra/Reuters

Geoengineering projects aim to change

natural systems to combat climate change. They
typically fall into two categories: those that
remove carbon directly from the atmosphere
and those that drop global temperatures by reflecting sunlight away from the planet. These
projects involve anything from planting billions of trees to sending giant mirrors into Earth’s
orbit. However, critics point out that some forms of geoengineering could potentially have
dangerous unintended consequences for the environment.

Climate Change Adaptations

Explore how countries are adapting to the effects of climate change.

With climate change becoming more severe, international organizations, national

governments, nongovernmental organizations, and local communities need to find new ways to
work together to prepare for, and survive, its effects. Many of the major policy responses to
climate change fall under two categories.
  Mitigation: reducing or preventing the emission of greenhouse gases.

 Adaptation: reacting to the effects of climate change that have already occurred or are
projected to occur in the future.

There are a few international efforts to assist adaptation in developing countries, which
are often hit the hardest by the effects of climate change. Other efforts are led by local
governments or community groups working to make their homes and livelihoods more climate
resilient.

Because the effects of climate change are so varied, adaptations need to vary too in order
to respond to the needs of the affected areas. Adaptations run the gamut from relocating residents
of areas susceptible to flooding to securing food and water supplies in regions affected by
drought. The map below includes different countries’ solutions as they react to changes that have
already occurred—and prepare for what is to come.

Adaptations to Climate Change around the World

Read about the effects of climate change – such as rising sea levels, drought, and
flooding – and the policies and practices that communities and governments are using to adapt to
them.

Kiribati
A woman stands on top of a rock holding a
fish her husband just caught off the
Bikeman islet in the central Pacific island
nation of Kiribati on May 25, 2013.

Source: David Gray/Reuters

Climate change effect(s): Rising sea levels

will likely sink much of the island nation
over the next century. Several villages
could be underwater by 2050.

Adaptation: In 2014, the government bought about six thousand acres of land in Fiji to
potentially be used as a refuge for citizens fleeing rising sea levels.1

1
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/01/kiribati-climate-change-fiji-vanua-levu
Results: The Fiji purchase accompanies other efforts to combat rising seas levels, including
teaming with other countries to help raise the nation’s land.2

United States
Melting permafrost causes a road to
drop about 10 feet on the Seward
Peninsula in Alaska.

Source: John Cloud/National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration

Climate change effect(s): As

temperatures rise, permafrost – land
that is usually frozen underground –
thaws damaging roads and the
foundations of houses in Alaska.

Adaptation: Alaskans are using new construction techniques to prevent damage from thawing
permafrost, including designing houses that can be adjusted to keep the houses level if the
permafrost underneath them melts.

Results: Experts say Alaska’s infrastructure can be maintained, but it will be expensive for
indigenous people3, and many might be forced to migrate elsewhere.

Bolivia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wBS2GJMGms
The disappearance of Lake Poopo has completely transformed the ecosystem of the region.
Source: TeleSUR English via YouTube

Climate change effect(s): In 2015, drought caused Lake Poopo, once Bolivia’s largest, to almost
completely dry up, endangering the livelihoods of indigenous fishing communities.

Adaptation: Many of the Uru-Murato people who lived on the shores of the lake, have left the
area and found occupations other than fishing.

Results: Scores of Uru-Murato migrants have found work in lead mines or salt flats. Because
quinoa has become popular in Western countries, some former fishers have begun growing the
crop.
2
https://thediplomat.com/2020/08/kiribati-announces-plans-to-raise-islands-above-rising-seas/
3
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/08/alaska-builds-climate-change/2944803/
 Climate Change Module Assessment
Questions to check your understanding.

Assessment will be posted in your Google Classroom.

Climate Change Reading List

Supplemental readings and other resources to help you explore a full range
of issues and debates related to the module materials.

CFR Resources

James McBride, “The Consequences of Leaving the Paris Agreement,” last updated June 1,
2017. 

- A brief explainer on the U.S. government’s decision to withdraw from the Paris

Agreement: how and why the decision was made, how withdrawal will work, and what
the results might be. (1,200 words)

James McBride and Sabine Baumgartner, “The Year in Extreme Weather: Climate in 2018,”
December 12, 2018. 

- A roundup of extreme weather from 2018 organized into four trends, with analysis of
how each trend is related to global warming.

Articles

Gabe Bullard, “See What Climate Change Means for the World’s Poor,” National Geographic,
December 1, 2015. 

- A clear and thought-provoking argument about the disparate impact of climate change on
the world’s poor that includes a number of graphs. (1,200 words)

Geoff Dembicki, “The Convenient Disappearance of Climate Change Denial in China,” Foreign

Policy, May 31, 2017.

- The story of how Chinese rhetoric and policy on climate change has shifted over the last
ten years. (4,600 words)

Jon Gertner, “Is It O.K. to Tinker With the Environment to Fight Climate Change?,” New York
Times magazine, April 18, 2017. 
 - A discussion of the concerns around using geo-engineering to fight climate change.
(3,600 words)

Jon Gertner, “The Tiny Swiss Company That Thinks It Can Help Stop Climate Change,” New
York Times magazine, February 12, 2019. 

- The story of a company attempting to use carbon capture technology to combat climate
change. (6,800 words)

Jeff Goodell, “Welcome to the Age of Climate Migration,” Rolling Stone, February 25, 2018. 

- A look at how climate change is pushing Americans living in affected areas to move.
(5,800 words)

Elizabeth Kolbert, “The Sixth Extinction?,” New Yorker, May 25, 2009. 

- A discussion of how human actions and their effects, including global warming, are
leading to the mass death of species around the globe. The article turned into Kolbert’s
Pulitzer Prize–winning book of the same name (also on this list). (9,600 words)

Oliver Milman, “‘We’re Moving to Higher Ground’: America’s Era of Climate Mass Migration
Is Here,” Guardian, September 24, 2018. 

- A look at research that suggests climate change will drive many Americans to migrate
away from areas that are most affected. (2,400 words)

Raj Patel, “What Cuba Can Teach Us About Food and Climate Change,” Slate, April 5, 2012. 

- A history of Cuban agricultural technology, and the lessons it might provide for countries
trying to reduce their use of fossil fuels. (1,200 words)

Nathaniel Rich, “Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change,” New York
Times magazine, August 1, 2018. 

- A history of the period 1979–89 that tracks how people first became aware of the dangers
of climate change and why they could not achieve policy changes to combat it. (31,200
words)

Ben Taub, “Lake Chad: The World’s Most Complex Humanitarian Disaster,” New Yorker,
December 4, 2017. 

- A detailed piece that moves between travel narrative and historical background,
discussing environmental concerns, political unrest, and the rise of Boko Haram around
Lake Chad. (8,200 words)

Alina Tugend, “Women’s Crucial Role in Combating Climate Change,” New York Times, April
1, 2017. 

- An exploration of the disparate effects of climate change on women. (1,400 words)

David Wallace-Wells, “The Uninhabitable Earth,” New York, July 10, 2017.

 - A vivid account of the consequences of climate change that argues we are not nearly as
alarmed as we should be. (7,500 words)

“We Broke Down What Climate Change Will Do, Region by Region,” Grist, November 29,
2018. 

- A summary of what the Fourth National Climate Assessment, released in November

2018, predicts will be the impact of climate change in each region of the United States.
(2,500 words)

Books

Elizabeth Kolbert, Field Notes From a Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and Climate Change, 2015.

- Originally published in 2005 and updated in 2015, this book explores climate change
through narratives, while also presenting the salient facts. Based on “The Climate of
Man,” an award-winning 2005 series of magazine articles in the New Yorker. (320
pages)

Elizabeth Kolbert, The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History, 2014.

- The Pulitzer Prize–winning account of how we are living through the sixth mass
extinction in the earth’s history as a result of climate change and other human actions.
This book is based on a New Yorker article of the same name (which also appears on this
list). (336 pages)

Bill McKibben, The Global Warming Reader: A Century of Writing About Climate Change,
2012.

- An anthology of writing from thirty-five authors published over the last hundred years on
various aspects of global warming. (432 pages)

Multimedia

Alvin Chang, “How Humans Disrupted a Cycle Essential to All Life,” Vox, January 11, 2019. 

- An animated video that explains the carbon cycle and how the human burning of fossil
fuels has disrupted it. (4 minutes)

Bob Garfield and Brooke Gladstone, “How TV News Fumbles on Climate Change,” On the
Media, November 30, 2018. 

- A segment from the radio show On the Media that explores and criticizes television news
coverage of climate change. (12 minutes)

Eric Roston and Blacki Migliozzi, “What’s Really Warming the World,” Bloomberg
Businessweek, June 24, 2015. 

- A clever data visualization of what is and isn’t causing global warming. 

“Two (Totally Opposite) Ways to Save the Planet,” Freakonomics Radio, August 22, 2018. 

- A podcast episode that explores the debate between focusing on mitigation on the one
hand and adaptation and geoengineering on the other, told through the voices of several
famous thinkers. (51 minutes)

Resources

Climate Action Tracker. 

- A website that tracks in great detail the climate policies of each country and their
progress toward achieving their stated goals.

CoolClimate Calculator, CoolClimate Network, University of California, Berkeley. 

- An online calculator that allows the user to estimate their total carbon footprint.

Global Climate Change, NASA. 

- An outstanding collection of explainers, data, and teaching resources for people of all
ages and backgrounds.

Yale Climate Connections, Yale Center for Environmental Communication. 

- A collection of articles about how climate change affects our daily lives.

Glossary: Climate Change

Critical terms related to climate change.

adaptation: term for the actions and strategies that aim to reduce the exposure of people and
places to climate change’s effects. Adaptation may include moving people from areas prone to
flooding, implementing regulations such as building codes, developing drought-resistant crops,
and taking myriad other steps.

alternative energy: energy sources that are not fossil fuels. Derived from biofuels, solar, wind,
geothermal, tidal, or even nuclear power, these sources release few to no greenhouse gas
emissions. However, only some alternative energy sources are infinitely renewable, and sources
such as nuclear may carry their own adverse effects.

deforestation: the clearing or thinning of forests by people for materials, land-use, medicinal
ingredients, farming, paper production, or other non-forest purposes. Deforestation increases
greenhouse gas accumulations in the atmosphere because it eliminates trees, which naturally
absorb carbon dioxide as they grow, and releases carbon from the soil.

emissions: refers to the amount of greenhouse gases an entity, such as a country or company,
produces.
fossil fuels: hydrocarbon energy sources such as oil, coal, or natural gas, that are derived from
fossils and other organic matter buried under the earth millions of years ago. Fossil fuels are
burned to generate energy, but they come in finite amounts and their production and use emits
significant amounts of greenhouse gases.

geo-engineering: term for those actions intending to limit or reverse the effects of climate
change, such as by launching particles into the atmosphere to block the sun’s rays. Science
relating to geo-engineering remains underdeveloped and the idea is controversial.

greenhouse effect: the natural process that keeps the earth at a life-sustaining temperature.
Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and others trap the sun’s heat
in the atmosphere and prevent its escape into space, thereby keeping the earth warm enough for
plant, animal, and human life. Over the last several hundred years, however, the increasing
concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activity has trapped more and
more heat, causing global warming.

greenhouse gases (GHGs): gases that absorb heat in the atmosphere and reemit it back toward
earth, causing a warming effect. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous
oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulphur hexafluoride. Water vapor and ozone
are also greenhouse gases, but unlike the others listed, are not regulated by the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change.

industrialization: the process by which the balance of production shifts from agriculture toward
manufacturing and industry. Industrialization is typically marked by technological advances and
higher standards of living, but also heightened amounts of energy usage.

Industrial Revolution: a transition, beginning in the eighteenth century, from small-scale,

largely agricultural economies to more industry-intensive ones. It began in England and extended
to other parts of Europe, the United States, and beyond. Propelled by technological advances that
enabled vastly more efficient production, this process raised living standards dramatically, but
also boosted the use of fossil fuels and, therefore, the emission of greenhouse gases.

Kyoto Protocol: a 1997 agreement reached in Kyoto, Japan, that amended the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change. It mandated emissions cuts by thirty-eight
developed economies while encouraging (but not requiring) developing countries to follow suit,
and it was renewed in 2011 for an additional five years. The Kyoto Protocol was an example of
the UN climate principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities,” which acknowledged
collective obligation for the planet’s health but emphasized that only developed countries cut
emissions.

mitigation: efforts to reduce or prevent emissions of greenhouse gases. Examples of mitigation

efforts include increased use of energy-efficient goods and renewable energy sources, and the
preservation or replanting of forests.

ocean acidification: changes in the ocean’s seawater chemistry caused by an increase of

atmospheric carbon dioxide, which oceans absorb, altering marine ecosystems and disrupting
ocean life.
nationally determined contributions (NDCs): plans submitted by countries party to the Paris
Agreement that outline their proposed emissions reductions and adaptation strategies. NDCs can
vary widely in their length, specific proposals, and format.

Paris Agreement: a nearly universal international agreement reached in 2015 that requires
signatories to offer concrete emissions reductions pledges, establishes rules to monitor their
performance against those pledges, and sets up a process to review and increase the ambition of
the pledges over time. The Paris Agreement’s goal is to limit global warming by 2 degrees
Celsius (about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial temperatures.

renewable energy: energy derived from sources such as sunlight, wind, and water, which have a
steadily replenishing supply. These sources stand in contrast to fossil fuels, which emit large
amounts of greenhouse gases and regenerate only over enormous lengths of time.