Technical opinion article on
Environment/Ambiente/Meio ambiente
What is the commitment to environmental protection of South American countries compared to benchmark countries, and what are the best practices and lessons learned to follow?
Andres Yrigoyen y Alfonso Quaglia
Recibido: 17-2-23; Aprobado: 16-3-23
Andres Yrigoyen
Ing°Petró°, MSc. YH Provider Consulting. Correo-e: yrigoyena@gmail.com
Alfonso Quaglia
Ing°Geó°, MSc. Inter-Rock USA. Correo-e: quagliaa@inter-rock-ca.com
Democratically elected governments and free markets are best positioned to respond to environmental challenges and adopt policy preferences that drive countries toward a more sustainable future.
Overview
One approach: The increase in the earth’s average temperatures is generally referred to as global warming. This increase in the earth’s average temperature has been discussed by several scientific studies. An accurate perception of the degree of scientific consensus is a crucial element of public support for climate policy (Ding et al. 2011).
The ideas expressed in this technical opinion article are the sole responsibility of the author(s). Neither Geominas nor Fundageominas nor Universidad de Oriente nor sponsors, necessarily share, what has been said.
A large sample of the scientific literature on global CC, published over a 21-year period, was examined in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW) (John Cook et al., 2013).
There is a strong consensus among scientists, representing 97% of actively publishing climate scientists, that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed global warming trends since the 20th century (John Cook et al., 2013). The relevance of this term lies in the abrupt increase in the earth’s temperature in the last 72 years.
Figure 1 shows evidence that atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) has increased since the Industrial Revolution, based on a comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements (NASA, 2022). The current global warming trend is different because it is clearly the result associated with human activities since the mid-19th century, and it is advancing at an accelerated rate not seen in many recent millennia (IPCC, 2021).
Figure 1. Evidence of the increase in atmospheric CO2 since the Industrial Revolution (1950) based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements (NASA, 2022).
Figure 2 compares the changes in global surface temperature, red line, and the energy received by Earth from the sun, yellow line, in units of energy (watts) per square meter since 1880. The lighter/thinner lines show the yearly levels, while the heavier/thicker lines show the 11-year average trends. Eleven-year averages are used to reduce the year-to-year natural noise in the data. The amount of solar energy received by Earth has followed the natural 11-year solar cycle of small rises and falls, with no net increase since the 1950s. Over the same period, global temperatures have risen noticeably. Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that the Sun caused the global warming trend observed over the last half century (NASA, 2022).
Second approach: Other scientists and researchers have found that these warming phenomena and cooling with their respective glaciations, have occurred throughout the entire geological history of the planet, from the Precambrian period 4.6 billion years ago until now, when there was no presence of the human species.
These climatic changes have been associated with natural multifactorial causes associated with the solar activity as variations in: ellipse changes of the orbit and tilt and roll of the terrestrial axis in its rotatory motion. It is important to note that these climatic changes that have occurred in geological history are the generators of glaciations, warming, transgressions and regressions, changes in sea level, the coastlines and the different sedimentary deposits derived from these variations; all this, with subsequent impact on stratigraphic sequences and appearance and extinction of species of flora and fauna.
According to Dr. Scotese the Earth “has alternated between a frigid ´Ice House´, like today’s world, and a steaming ´Hot House´, like the world of the dinosaurs.”. For fully two-thirds of that time, the Earth experienced temperatures that were much warmer than today. During these periods of “Hot House” conditions, there was no ice at either pole. We “only” entered our current “Ice House” conditions about 50 million years ago.
Figure 2. Earth’s temperature versus solar activity. The graph compares global surface temperature changes (red line) and the Sun’s energy that Earth receives (yellow line) in watts (units of energy) per square meter since 1880 (climate.nasa.gov).
Using the average temperature of the Earth for the last 600 million years, we have experienced 50 million consecutive years of below average temperature (Scotese, 2002) as displayed in figure 3. Dr. Scotese explains that a recent widely publicized report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) that the planet had its 420th consecutive month with above-average temperature. He said, bear in mind that the “average temperature” they were referring to was that of the 20th century.
Figure 3. An analysis of the temperature oscillations in geological eras (Scotese, 2002).
Figure 4. Detail of the current Holocene interglacial era supported by analysis of ice cores from the polar cap of Greenland, in which it is determined that the temperature of the 21st century is much less than all nine (9) points maximum warming occurred at this time geological. Source: Gregory Wrightstone. Inconvenient Facts (2020). Temperature: Alley 2004. Current temperature: Box 2009. Modified: Julián Andrés Salazar Velázquez. 2021 (Julian Salazar, 2021).
This figure 3 illustrates the history of the planet from the Precambrian (4,600 million years ag) to present days in the Quaternary, it can be observed that the planet climate changes have occurred ranging from very low glaciation-generating temperatures to high temperatures with hot climates. From this it is concluded that for about 570 million years, at the limit between the end of the Precambrian and the beginning of the Cambrian, these ice ages and global warming have come constantly occurring, with five (5) major periods glaciers with their respective interglacial eras at the beginning of the warm-ups; one of which, the most recent, goes from 3.64 million years in the Pliocene to the end of the Quaternary 11 thousand years ago. From there on began the warming and retreat of the great glacial to the present (Julian Salazar, 2021). In addition to that, it is interesting to see how it has behaved this last era of interglacial warming in recent 10 thousand years, according to the analysis of ice cores in Greenland, where the previous statement is reiterated that the temperature in recent years at the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the XXI is much less than all nine (9) points maximum warming, so it can be concluded, without fear of mistake, that there is no need of alarmist statements of hypothetical catastrophes climatic conditions when the history of the planet has said the contrary (Figure 4) (Julian Salazar, 2021).
Likewise, as visualized with the temperatures, a similar conclusion can be deduced in relation to the concentration of CO2 in terrestrial history (Figure 5), which reached maximum levels between 4,000 to 6,000 parts per million (ppm) from the Cambrian to the Devonian in the geological time between 570 and 363 million years.
Thanks to these high levels of CO2, the origin and evolution of the first vegetables and the great fern and coniferous forests occurred on earth. This is because CO2 is the main sustenance of plant life. The high CO2 concentration also reached another extreme of 3,000 ppm at the Jurassic-Cretaceous boundary, 146 million years ago, which has steadily declined to the current levels around 400 ppm; i.e., 7.5 times less; therefore current facts are not signs of catastrophism or destruction of the planet, for the primary reason that the cause of these changes are not produced by exclusive presence of CO2 in the atmosphere (Julian Salazar, 2021).
Discussion
Even though these two scientific approaches differ in the average earth temperature calculations, this study aims to find actions and strategies that are aligned to create a conservation awareness of the environment where we live and take the best practices of those countries that are world reference in this regard and recommend implementing them in South American countries in order to reduce emissions that contaminate the air and would cause the greenhouse effect.
One method that quantifies and numerically classifies the environmental performance of a country’s policies is the Environmental Performance Index (EPI). The EPI was preceded by the Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI), published between 1999 and 2005. Both indicators were developed by the Center for Environmental Law and Policy at Yale University, in conjunction with the Network Information Center of the International Center for Earth Sciences of Columbia University in collaboration with the World Economic Forum.
The Environmental Performance Index designed in 2008 focuses on two broad objectives of environmental protection: (1) reduce the environmental impact on human health and (2) promote the vitality of the ecosystem and the rational management of natural resources (SEDAC, 2008). The Environmental Performance Index (EPI) is a method of quantifying and numerically marking the environmental performance of a state’s policies.
EPI indicators provide a way to spot problems, set targets, track trends, understand outcomes, and identify the best policy practices. Good data and fact-based analysis can also help government officials improve their policy agendas, facilitate communications with key stakeholders, and maximize the return on environmental investments.
Figure 6 shows the framework of the Environmental Performance Index 2022 (EPI, 2022) which provides a data-driven summary of the state of sustainability around the world. Using 40 performance indicators across 11 issue categories, the EPI ranks 180 countries on environmental health and ecosystem vitality. These indicators provide a gauge at a national scale of how close countries are to established environmental policy targets.
Figure 6. 2022 EPI Framework (EPI, 2022).
The three EPI policy objectives, represented by the innermost ring in figure 6 are: environmental health with a weight of 20%, climate change with a weight of 38%, and ecosystem vitality with a weight of 42 %.
The 11 categories in order from most to least important, represented by the second ring in figure 6 are climate change mitigation (38%), biodiversity and habitat (18%), air quality (11%), ecosystem services (8%), fisheries (5%), sanitation and drinking water (5%), acid rains (4%), agriculture (4%), water resources (3%), waste management (2%), heavy metals (2%).
The 40 indicators used in the EPI estimation are shown in the outermost ring of figure 6, of which we can mention the three areas that have the greatest weight in the EPI calculation, which are: projected greenhouse gas emissions in 2050 (13.8%), CO2 emissions (13.8%), and the loss of area covered by trees (6%).
Figure 7 shows the relationship between the climate change objective and the overall EPI scores for the Latin America & Caribbean region versus top performers (global west). Table 1 shows the exact values of the climate change scores and the overall EPI score per country and the average for South American countries. From table 1 we can see there is a gap of about 56 score points between the average climate change score for the South American countries and Denmark (the best performer for this objective). This means there is much to do to reach the top-performance countries.
Figure 7. Relationship between the Climate Change objective and the overall EPI scores for the Latin America & Caribbean region and top performers (global west), (EPI, 2022).
Table 1. South America countries Total EPI and EPI Objectives performance versus Top three benchmark countries.adapted from Nahle (2007), referencing Ruddiman (2001), Scotese (2002), Pagani et al. (2005).
Figure 8 shows the relationship between the Ecosystem Vitality objective and the overall EPI scores for the Latin America & Caribbean region and top performers (global west), (EPI, 2022). From table 1 we can see there is a gap of about 16 score points between the average ecosystem vitality score for South American countries and the United Kingdom (the best performer for this objective). In this case, the gap is not as big as in the previous case, nonetheless, best practices and lessons learned from top performers should be analyzed.
Figure 9 shows the Relationship between the Environmental Health objective and the overall EPI scores for the Latin America & Caribbean region and top performers (global west). From table 1 we can see there is a gap of about 47 score points between the average score for South American countries and Finland (the best performer for this objective). This means there is much to do to reach the top ten benchmark countries’ Environmental Health scores.
Figure 8. Relationship between the Ecosystem Vitality objective and the overall EPI scores for the Latin America & Caribbean region and top performers (global west), (EPI, 2022).
Figure 9. Relationship between the Environmental Health objective and the overall EPI scores for the Latin America & Caribbean region and top performers (global west), (EPI, 2022).
Figure 10 shows the EPI versus the PIB for the South America countries and Benchmark countries. From this figure we can note, all the South American countries are close to the trend line with EPI scores ranging between 37.4 (Uruguay) and 46.7 (Chile). There is an important gap (about 35 EPI score points) between the top EPI performers and the average EPI of South American countries.
Figure 10. Environmental Performance Index (EPI) versus PIB showing South America countries and Benchmark countries performance.
Based on the EPI and the three EPI objectives analysis (environmental health, climate change, and ecosystem vitality) South American countries have a window of opportunities to improve all EPI objectives. The EPI offers a scorecard that highlights leaders and laggards in environmental performance and provides practical guidance for countries that aspire to move toward a sustainable future. Figure 10 shows that good policy results are associated with wealth (GDP per capita), meaning that economic prosperity makes it possible for nations to invest in policies and programs that lead to desirable outcomes.
EPI Analysis
The relationship between economic prosperity and EPI. Pollution and other strains on ecosystem vitality are generally associated with industrialization and urbanization, particularly in developing countries, where air and water emissions are still large. At the same time, the facts imply that governments do not have to choose between economic security and sustainability.
Despite the stresses associated with economic prosperity, policymakers and other stakeholders in major countries demonstrate that focused attention can motivate communities to preserve natural resources and human well-being.
Good governance, such as devotion to the rule of law, a dynamic press, and even-handed regulation enforcement, have strong ties to high EPI rankings.
While top EPI performers pay attention to all areas of sustainability, their lagging peers tend to have uneven performance. Denmark, which ranks #1, has strong results across most issues and with leading-edge commitments and outcomes with regard to climate change mitigation. The United Kingdom and Finland place 2nd and 3rd, both earning high scores for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in recent years.
National sustainability efforts must be deepened on all aspects by laggards.
Several key countries in the Global South, such as India and Nigeria, are near the bottom of the list. Their poor EPI scores suggest that they need to pay more attention to a wider range of sustainability needs, with a particular emphasis on crucial concerns including air and water quality, biodiversity, and climate change.
Best practices and lessons learned (Key findings)
High-scoring countries have lengthy policies and procedures in place to protect public health, preserve natural resources, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The findings also imply that countries that make concentrated efforts to decarbonize their electrical sectors have made the most progress in combatting climate change, with positive outcomes for ecosystems and human health.
Good governance is related to high EPI score. For instance, countries like Nepal and Afghanistan, suffer bigger issues like civil conflict, and their low rankings are almost entirely due to poor governance.
Considering the strong association between EPI and Index of Economic Freedom (IEF) scores, the 2022 EPI drivers analysis suggests that democratically elected governments and free markets are best positioned to respond to environmental challenges and adopt policy preferences that drive countries toward a more sustainable future.
The importance of the EPI lies not only in the overall rankings, which are intended to encourage productive competitiveness, but also in the issue-by-issue metrics, which are used as a diagnostic tool for countries to determine areas of weakness and strength inside their own borders. These metrics are the starting point for planning concrete actions to increase the three goals established in the EPI 2022.
References
Berner, R. A., and Kothavala, Z., 2001. GEOCARB III: A revised model of atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic time. American Journal of Science, Vol. 301, p. 182–204, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2475/ajs.301.2.182
Ding D, Maibach E W, Zhao X, Roser-Renouf C and Leiserowitz A, 2011, Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement.
EPI, Environmental performance index, 2022. https://epi.yale.edu/epi-results/2022/component/epi.
Idso, C. D., 2019. What Rising CO2 Means for Global Food Security. CO2 Coalition, http://co2coalition.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019/02/Rising_CO2__Food-Security-2-21-19-1.pdf, accessed and archived on August 8, 2020.
IPCC, 2014. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014, Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate.
John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs, and Andrew Skuce, 2013, Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature.
Julian Andres Salazar Velasquez, 2021, Gerencia de campos no convencionales de lutitas. La gran pregunta y la gran verdad: el CO2 y el calentamiento global.
Nahle, N., 2007. Cycles of Global Climate Change. Biology Cabinet Journal Online. Article no. 295. http://www.biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_Geological_Timescale.html, accessed and archived August 27, 2020
NASA, 2022. Global climate change. https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
NASA, 2022. Global climate change. Las causas del cambio climático. https://climate.nasa.gov/causas/
IPCC, 2022. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2012: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Pagani, M., Zachos, J. C., Freeman, K. H., Tipple, B., Boharty, S., 2005. Marked decline in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations during the Paleogene. Science, Vol. 309, Issue 5734, p.600-603, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1110063
Poyet, Patrice (2021). The Rational Climate e-Book. Cooler is riskier. https://patricepoyet.org/
SEDAC, Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center Environmental Performance Index, 2008 Release (1994 – 2007). https://doi.org/10.7927/H4HT2M77.
Ruddiman, W.F., 2001. Earth’s Climate: Past and Future. First Edition, New York, NY: W.H. Freeman and Co., ISBN-13: 978-0-7167-8490-6, 388 pp
Scotese, C.R. (2002) Analysis of the Temperature Oscillations in Geological Eras. W.H. Freeman & Company, New York.
Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy, and Center for International Earth Science Information Network at Columbia University, 2008. Environmental Performance Index.
Wrightstone, Gregory (2020). Inconvenient Facts. The science that Al Gore doesn´t want you to know. https://inconvenientfacts.xyz
Palabras clave/Keywords/Palabras-chave:
Aquecimento global, calentamiento global, cambio climático, climate change, ecosystem vitality, environmental health, Environmental Performance Index, global warming, Índice de Desempenho Ambiental, Indice de Desempeño Ambiental, Mudanças climáticas, salud ambiental, saúde ambiental, vitalidad del ecosistema, vitalidade do ecossistema.
Citar así/Cite like this/Citação assim: Yrigoyen y Quaglia (2023) o (Yrigoyen y Quaglia, 2023).
Referenciar así/Reference like this/Referência como esta:
Yrigoyen, A., Quaglia, A. (2023, abril). What is the commitment to environmental protection of South American countries compared to benchmark countries, and what are the best practices and lessons learned to follow? Geominas 51(90). 41-48.