Image
File
ae
SS a a ae eT a Te Se Te ae
=a
ee Se Le
a patyerrens
Se: Se
'
§
'
Op-Ed
October 9, 2002
the other press
oin the Super Friends
eam: Write for the
ther Press
Science Matters
Dirty Air Fuels Global Warming
David Suzuki
While Alberta and the fossil fuel sector trade jabs
with clean energy advocates over the Kyoto climate
treaty, the science of climate change marches on.
The political world may have been slow to tackle the
challenge of global warming, but the scientific com-
munity early on recognized the enormity of the
problem and set about to better understand the
earth’s climate system.
One of the more perplexing factors of climate is
the role of aerosols. Although most people probably
associate “aerosols” with things like hair spray, scien-
tists actually use the term to refer to fine particles
suspended in the air. These particles are a mix of
salts, mineral dust, carbon and other ingredients.
Some aerosols come from natural sources, like volca-
noes, but most are from human activities, such as
burning wood and coal.
© page 8
These particles are bad for human health and they
can also alter the climate. Some of them reflect sun-
light back into space—and thus cool the earth to a
certain extent—while others absorb sunlight, heat
the air, and contribute to global warming. It is the
latter particles, called “black carbon” or “soot” that
have especially interested scientists, because many of
our dirty energy sources like coal, wood and diesel
produce it in large quantities. And scientists say that
it may be the biggest single contributor to global
warming after carbon dioxide.
We can see soot in the air on smoggy days in our
cities—it forms part of the brown haze that covers
urban areas. But soot is much worse in many devel-
oping countries like China and India, which use far
more coal and wood as fuel for industry, heating and
cooking. These fuels are inefficient and dirty at the
best of times. Using old, wasteful combustion tech-
nologies (in many cases simply open cooking fires)
makes them even worse. The resulting air pollution
in the towns and cities of many developed countries
has become a terrible health hazard. Soot is known
to cause cancer and is a major cause of illness and
death in these areas.
All that soot in the air is also having a significant
effect on regional climate. A recent study published
in the journal Science reported that soot emissions
from China and India may be responsible for
increased droughts in northeast China and floods in
southeast parts of that country. Northeast China has
suffered from increasingly severe dust storms that
may be due to a combination of poor land-use prac-
tices (such as overgrazing and forest destruction) and
the effects of soot on the area’s climate. Soot and
other particles in the air are also thought to be
blocking sunlight, reducing photosynthesis and low-
ering crop yields. Last year, a plume of soot and dust
from Asian storms actually found its way across the
Pacific to North America.
If soot is such an important factor in regional cli-
mate change, does it mean that we should be going
after China and India to reduce their soot emissions,
rather than reducing our own greenhouse gas emis-
sions as is required by the Kyoto Protocol? No. It
means we should be doing both. But it should be
done fairly. Developed and developing nations are
not exactly on a level playing field. Telling an auto
company that it needs to make more fuel-efficient
SUVs and telling a Chinese peasant that her cooking
fire needs to produce less soot are not exactly equal
on the fairness scale. And unlike greenhouse gases,
which build up in the atmosphere and contribute to
an overall warming effect for hundreds of years,
soot’ effect on climate is more localized and short-
term.
So we have to address both problems. The Kyoto
Protocol offers us a starting point because mecha-
nisms built into the treaty allow developed counties
to fund energy-efficiency projects in the developing
world and obtain greenhouse gas “credits” for the
emissions reduced. Wise use of such mechanisms
could be beneficial to both parties and also start to
reduce the substantial health and environmental
damage caused by soot.
To discuss this topic with others, visit the discus-
sion forum at
SS a a ae eT a Te Se Te ae
=a
ee Se Le
a patyerrens
Se: Se
'
§
'
Op-Ed
October 9, 2002
the other press
oin the Super Friends
eam: Write for the
ther Press
Science Matters
Dirty Air Fuels Global Warming
David Suzuki
While Alberta and the fossil fuel sector trade jabs
with clean energy advocates over the Kyoto climate
treaty, the science of climate change marches on.
The political world may have been slow to tackle the
challenge of global warming, but the scientific com-
munity early on recognized the enormity of the
problem and set about to better understand the
earth’s climate system.
One of the more perplexing factors of climate is
the role of aerosols. Although most people probably
associate “aerosols” with things like hair spray, scien-
tists actually use the term to refer to fine particles
suspended in the air. These particles are a mix of
salts, mineral dust, carbon and other ingredients.
Some aerosols come from natural sources, like volca-
noes, but most are from human activities, such as
burning wood and coal.
© page 8
These particles are bad for human health and they
can also alter the climate. Some of them reflect sun-
light back into space—and thus cool the earth to a
certain extent—while others absorb sunlight, heat
the air, and contribute to global warming. It is the
latter particles, called “black carbon” or “soot” that
have especially interested scientists, because many of
our dirty energy sources like coal, wood and diesel
produce it in large quantities. And scientists say that
it may be the biggest single contributor to global
warming after carbon dioxide.
We can see soot in the air on smoggy days in our
cities—it forms part of the brown haze that covers
urban areas. But soot is much worse in many devel-
oping countries like China and India, which use far
more coal and wood as fuel for industry, heating and
cooking. These fuels are inefficient and dirty at the
best of times. Using old, wasteful combustion tech-
nologies (in many cases simply open cooking fires)
makes them even worse. The resulting air pollution
in the towns and cities of many developed countries
has become a terrible health hazard. Soot is known
to cause cancer and is a major cause of illness and
death in these areas.
All that soot in the air is also having a significant
effect on regional climate. A recent study published
in the journal Science reported that soot emissions
from China and India may be responsible for
increased droughts in northeast China and floods in
southeast parts of that country. Northeast China has
suffered from increasingly severe dust storms that
may be due to a combination of poor land-use prac-
tices (such as overgrazing and forest destruction) and
the effects of soot on the area’s climate. Soot and
other particles in the air are also thought to be
blocking sunlight, reducing photosynthesis and low-
ering crop yields. Last year, a plume of soot and dust
from Asian storms actually found its way across the
Pacific to North America.
If soot is such an important factor in regional cli-
mate change, does it mean that we should be going
after China and India to reduce their soot emissions,
rather than reducing our own greenhouse gas emis-
sions as is required by the Kyoto Protocol? No. It
means we should be doing both. But it should be
done fairly. Developed and developing nations are
not exactly on a level playing field. Telling an auto
company that it needs to make more fuel-efficient
SUVs and telling a Chinese peasant that her cooking
fire needs to produce less soot are not exactly equal
on the fairness scale. And unlike greenhouse gases,
which build up in the atmosphere and contribute to
an overall warming effect for hundreds of years,
soot’ effect on climate is more localized and short-
term.
So we have to address both problems. The Kyoto
Protocol offers us a starting point because mecha-
nisms built into the treaty allow developed counties
to fund energy-efficiency projects in the developing
world and obtain greenhouse gas “credits” for the
emissions reduced. Wise use of such mechanisms
could be beneficial to both parties and also start to
reduce the substantial health and environmental
damage caused by soot.
To discuss this topic with others, visit the discus-
sion forum at
Edited Text
ae
SS a a ae eT a Te Se Te ae
=a
ee Se Le
a patyerrens
Se: Se
'
§
'
Op-Ed
October 9, 2002
the other press
oin the Super Friends
eam: Write for the
ther Press
Science Matters
Dirty Air Fuels Global Warming
David Suzuki
While Alberta and the fossil fuel sector trade jabs
with clean energy advocates over the Kyoto climate
treaty, the science of climate change marches on.
The political world may have been slow to tackle the
challenge of global warming, but the scientific com-
munity early on recognized the enormity of the
problem and set about to better understand the
earth’s climate system.
One of the more perplexing factors of climate is
the role of aerosols. Although most people probably
associate “aerosols” with things like hair spray, scien-
tists actually use the term to refer to fine particles
suspended in the air. These particles are a mix of
salts, mineral dust, carbon and other ingredients.
Some aerosols come from natural sources, like volca-
noes, but most are from human activities, such as
burning wood and coal.
© page 8
These particles are bad for human health and they
can also alter the climate. Some of them reflect sun-
light back into space—and thus cool the earth to a
certain extent—while others absorb sunlight, heat
the air, and contribute to global warming. It is the
latter particles, called “black carbon” or “soot” that
have especially interested scientists, because many of
our dirty energy sources like coal, wood and diesel
produce it in large quantities. And scientists say that
it may be the biggest single contributor to global
warming after carbon dioxide.
We can see soot in the air on smoggy days in our
cities—it forms part of the brown haze that covers
urban areas. But soot is much worse in many devel-
oping countries like China and India, which use far
more coal and wood as fuel for industry, heating and
cooking. These fuels are inefficient and dirty at the
best of times. Using old, wasteful combustion tech-
nologies (in many cases simply open cooking fires)
makes them even worse. The resulting air pollution
in the towns and cities of many developed countries
has become a terrible health hazard. Soot is known
to cause cancer and is a major cause of illness and
death in these areas.
All that soot in the air is also having a significant
effect on regional climate. A recent study published
in the journal Science reported that soot emissions
from China and India may be responsible for
increased droughts in northeast China and floods in
southeast parts of that country. Northeast China has
suffered from increasingly severe dust storms that
may be due to a combination of poor land-use prac-
tices (such as overgrazing and forest destruction) and
the effects of soot on the area’s climate. Soot and
other particles in the air are also thought to be
blocking sunlight, reducing photosynthesis and low-
ering crop yields. Last year, a plume of soot and dust
from Asian storms actually found its way across the
Pacific to North America.
If soot is such an important factor in regional cli-
mate change, does it mean that we should be going
after China and India to reduce their soot emissions,
rather than reducing our own greenhouse gas emis-
sions as is required by the Kyoto Protocol? No. It
means we should be doing both. But it should be
done fairly. Developed and developing nations are
not exactly on a level playing field. Telling an auto
company that it needs to make more fuel-efficient
SUVs and telling a Chinese peasant that her cooking
fire needs to produce less soot are not exactly equal
on the fairness scale. And unlike greenhouse gases,
which build up in the atmosphere and contribute to
an overall warming effect for hundreds of years,
soot’ effect on climate is more localized and short-
term.
So we have to address both problems. The Kyoto
Protocol offers us a starting point because mecha-
nisms built into the treaty allow developed counties
to fund energy-efficiency projects in the developing
world and obtain greenhouse gas “credits” for the
emissions reduced. Wise use of such mechanisms
could be beneficial to both parties and also start to
reduce the substantial health and environmental
damage caused by soot.
To discuss this topic with others, visit the discus-
sion forum at
SS a a ae eT a Te Se Te ae
=a
ee Se Le
a patyerrens
Se: Se
'
§
'
Op-Ed
October 9, 2002
the other press
oin the Super Friends
eam: Write for the
ther Press
Science Matters
Dirty Air Fuels Global Warming
David Suzuki
While Alberta and the fossil fuel sector trade jabs
with clean energy advocates over the Kyoto climate
treaty, the science of climate change marches on.
The political world may have been slow to tackle the
challenge of global warming, but the scientific com-
munity early on recognized the enormity of the
problem and set about to better understand the
earth’s climate system.
One of the more perplexing factors of climate is
the role of aerosols. Although most people probably
associate “aerosols” with things like hair spray, scien-
tists actually use the term to refer to fine particles
suspended in the air. These particles are a mix of
salts, mineral dust, carbon and other ingredients.
Some aerosols come from natural sources, like volca-
noes, but most are from human activities, such as
burning wood and coal.
© page 8
These particles are bad for human health and they
can also alter the climate. Some of them reflect sun-
light back into space—and thus cool the earth to a
certain extent—while others absorb sunlight, heat
the air, and contribute to global warming. It is the
latter particles, called “black carbon” or “soot” that
have especially interested scientists, because many of
our dirty energy sources like coal, wood and diesel
produce it in large quantities. And scientists say that
it may be the biggest single contributor to global
warming after carbon dioxide.
We can see soot in the air on smoggy days in our
cities—it forms part of the brown haze that covers
urban areas. But soot is much worse in many devel-
oping countries like China and India, which use far
more coal and wood as fuel for industry, heating and
cooking. These fuels are inefficient and dirty at the
best of times. Using old, wasteful combustion tech-
nologies (in many cases simply open cooking fires)
makes them even worse. The resulting air pollution
in the towns and cities of many developed countries
has become a terrible health hazard. Soot is known
to cause cancer and is a major cause of illness and
death in these areas.
All that soot in the air is also having a significant
effect on regional climate. A recent study published
in the journal Science reported that soot emissions
from China and India may be responsible for
increased droughts in northeast China and floods in
southeast parts of that country. Northeast China has
suffered from increasingly severe dust storms that
may be due to a combination of poor land-use prac-
tices (such as overgrazing and forest destruction) and
the effects of soot on the area’s climate. Soot and
other particles in the air are also thought to be
blocking sunlight, reducing photosynthesis and low-
ering crop yields. Last year, a plume of soot and dust
from Asian storms actually found its way across the
Pacific to North America.
If soot is such an important factor in regional cli-
mate change, does it mean that we should be going
after China and India to reduce their soot emissions,
rather than reducing our own greenhouse gas emis-
sions as is required by the Kyoto Protocol? No. It
means we should be doing both. But it should be
done fairly. Developed and developing nations are
not exactly on a level playing field. Telling an auto
company that it needs to make more fuel-efficient
SUVs and telling a Chinese peasant that her cooking
fire needs to produce less soot are not exactly equal
on the fairness scale. And unlike greenhouse gases,
which build up in the atmosphere and contribute to
an overall warming effect for hundreds of years,
soot’ effect on climate is more localized and short-
term.
So we have to address both problems. The Kyoto
Protocol offers us a starting point because mecha-
nisms built into the treaty allow developed counties
to fund energy-efficiency projects in the developing
world and obtain greenhouse gas “credits” for the
emissions reduced. Wise use of such mechanisms
could be beneficial to both parties and also start to
reduce the substantial health and environmental
damage caused by soot.
To discuss this topic with others, visit the discus-
sion forum at
SS a a ae eT a Te Se Te ae
=a
ee Se Le
a patyerrens
Se: Se
'
§
'
Op-Ed
October 9, 2002
the other press
oin the Super Friends
eam: Write for the
ther Press
Science Matters
Dirty Air Fuels Global Warming
David Suzuki
While Alberta and the fossil fuel sector trade jabs
with clean energy advocates over the Kyoto climate
treaty, the science of climate change marches on.
The political world may have been slow to tackle the
challenge of global warming, but the scientific com-
munity early on recognized the enormity of the
problem and set about to better understand the
earth’s climate system.
One of the more perplexing factors of climate is
the role of aerosols. Although most people probably
associate “aerosols” with things like hair spray, scien-
tists actually use the term to refer to fine particles
suspended in the air. These particles are a mix of
salts, mineral dust, carbon and other ingredients.
Some aerosols come from natural sources, like volca-
noes, but most are from human activities, such as
burning wood and coal.
© page 8
These particles are bad for human health and they
can also alter the climate. Some of them reflect sun-
light back into space—and thus cool the earth to a
certain extent—while others absorb sunlight, heat
the air, and contribute to global warming. It is the
latter particles, called “black carbon” or “soot” that
have especially interested scientists, because many of
our dirty energy sources like coal, wood and diesel
produce it in large quantities. And scientists say that
it may be the biggest single contributor to global
warming after carbon dioxide.
We can see soot in the air on smoggy days in our
cities—it forms part of the brown haze that covers
urban areas. But soot is much worse in many devel-
oping countries like China and India, which use far
more coal and wood as fuel for industry, heating and
cooking. These fuels are inefficient and dirty at the
best of times. Using old, wasteful combustion tech-
nologies (in many cases simply open cooking fires)
makes them even worse. The resulting air pollution
in the towns and cities of many developed countries
has become a terrible health hazard. Soot is known
to cause cancer and is a major cause of illness and
death in these areas.
All that soot in the air is also having a significant
effect on regional climate. A recent study published
in the journal Science reported that soot emissions
from China and India may be responsible for
increased droughts in northeast China and floods in
southeast parts of that country. Northeast China has
suffered from increasingly severe dust storms that
may be due to a combination of poor land-use prac-
tices (such as overgrazing and forest destruction) and
the effects of soot on the area’s climate. Soot and
other particles in the air are also thought to be
blocking sunlight, reducing photosynthesis and low-
ering crop yields. Last year, a plume of soot and dust
from Asian storms actually found its way across the
Pacific to North America.
If soot is such an important factor in regional cli-
mate change, does it mean that we should be going
after China and India to reduce their soot emissions,
rather than reducing our own greenhouse gas emis-
sions as is required by the Kyoto Protocol? No. It
means we should be doing both. But it should be
done fairly. Developed and developing nations are
not exactly on a level playing field. Telling an auto
company that it needs to make more fuel-efficient
SUVs and telling a Chinese peasant that her cooking
fire needs to produce less soot are not exactly equal
on the fairness scale. And unlike greenhouse gases,
which build up in the atmosphere and contribute to
an overall warming effect for hundreds of years,
soot’ effect on climate is more localized and short-
term.
So we have to address both problems. The Kyoto
Protocol offers us a starting point because mecha-
nisms built into the treaty allow developed counties
to fund energy-efficiency projects in the developing
world and obtain greenhouse gas “credits” for the
emissions reduced. Wise use of such mechanisms
could be beneficial to both parties and also start to
reduce the substantial health and environmental
damage caused by soot.
To discuss this topic with others, visit the discus-
sion forum at
SS a a ae eT a Te Se Te ae
=a
ee Se Le
a patyerrens
Se: Se
'
§
'
Op-Ed
October 9, 2002
the other press
oin the Super Friends
eam: Write for the
ther Press
Science Matters
Dirty Air Fuels Global Warming
David Suzuki
While Alberta and the fossil fuel sector trade jabs
with clean energy advocates over the Kyoto climate
treaty, the science of climate change marches on.
The political world may have been slow to tackle the
challenge of global warming, but the scientific com-
munity early on recognized the enormity of the
problem and set about to better understand the
earth’s climate system.
One of the more perplexing factors of climate is
the role of aerosols. Although most people probably
associate “aerosols” with things like hair spray, scien-
tists actually use the term to refer to fine particles
suspended in the air. These particles are a mix of
salts, mineral dust, carbon and other ingredients.
Some aerosols come from natural sources, like volca-
noes, but most are from human activities, such as
burning wood and coal.
© page 8
These particles are bad for human health and they
can also alter the climate. Some of them reflect sun-
light back into space—and thus cool the earth to a
certain extent—while others absorb sunlight, heat
the air, and contribute to global warming. It is the
latter particles, called “black carbon” or “soot” that
have especially interested scientists, because many of
our dirty energy sources like coal, wood and diesel
produce it in large quantities. And scientists say that
it may be the biggest single contributor to global
warming after carbon dioxide.
We can see soot in the air on smoggy days in our
cities—it forms part of the brown haze that covers
urban areas. But soot is much worse in many devel-
oping countries like China and India, which use far
more coal and wood as fuel for industry, heating and
cooking. These fuels are inefficient and dirty at the
best of times. Using old, wasteful combustion tech-
nologies (in many cases simply open cooking fires)
makes them even worse. The resulting air pollution
in the towns and cities of many developed countries
has become a terrible health hazard. Soot is known
to cause cancer and is a major cause of illness and
death in these areas.
All that soot in the air is also having a significant
effect on regional climate. A recent study published
in the journal Science reported that soot emissions
from China and India may be responsible for
increased droughts in northeast China and floods in
southeast parts of that country. Northeast China has
suffered from increasingly severe dust storms that
may be due to a combination of poor land-use prac-
tices (such as overgrazing and forest destruction) and
the effects of soot on the area’s climate. Soot and
other particles in the air are also thought to be
blocking sunlight, reducing photosynthesis and low-
ering crop yields. Last year, a plume of soot and dust
from Asian storms actually found its way across the
Pacific to North America.
If soot is such an important factor in regional cli-
mate change, does it mean that we should be going
after China and India to reduce their soot emissions,
rather than reducing our own greenhouse gas emis-
sions as is required by the Kyoto Protocol? No. It
means we should be doing both. But it should be
done fairly. Developed and developing nations are
not exactly on a level playing field. Telling an auto
company that it needs to make more fuel-efficient
SUVs and telling a Chinese peasant that her cooking
fire needs to produce less soot are not exactly equal
on the fairness scale. And unlike greenhouse gases,
which build up in the atmosphere and contribute to
an overall warming effect for hundreds of years,
soot’ effect on climate is more localized and short-
term.
So we have to address both problems. The Kyoto
Protocol offers us a starting point because mecha-
nisms built into the treaty allow developed counties
to fund energy-efficiency projects in the developing
world and obtain greenhouse gas “credits” for the
emissions reduced. Wise use of such mechanisms
could be beneficial to both parties and also start to
reduce the substantial health and environmental
damage caused by soot.
To discuss this topic with others, visit the discus-
sion forum at