carbon ‘sink’ by ingesting carbon dioxide. This would leave yet more of the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Some scientists also fear that rising sea temperatures could cause a sudden release of methane from clathrate compounds on ocean floors. These are vast deposits of solid water crystals containing methane which, if melted, could create a runaway greenhouse effect. Such an occurrence is believed to have caused the Permian-Triassic event, or the ‘mother of all mass extinctions’, around 250 million years ago.
How does global warming cause the climate to change?
Increases in average air and ocean temperatures destabilise climate systems and create extreme and unpredictable weather. In some regions this means heavier rainfall, which causes flooding (and often more erosion and subsequent desertification), whereas other areas experience longer droughts, heat waves and forest fires. When water gets warmer, it expands, which, along with the extra meltwater from disappearing ice caps, snow and glaciers, is causing sea levels to rise at the rate of several millimetres per year. The incidence of strong hurricanes (category 4 or 5) has nearly doubled in the past thirty years. Their relationship with global warming remains uncertain, although they have been linked to increased evaporation caused by rising tropical sea temperatures.
What could be the effects of climate change for life on earth?
It is well known that climate change is endangering the polar bear, but according to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) there are as many as 10,000 species likely to become extinct as a result of climate change in the next 50 years alone. The bleaching of coral reefs and death of plankton caused by rising sea temperatures will seriously affect marine biodiversity and the ocean food chain (and dependent bird species). Amongst many other adverse effects on ecosystems, global warming is causing infestations of tree-killing beetles and playing havoc with the migratory habits of animals and birds.
What could be the human costs of climate change?
It depends on how much action we take to stop it. If allowed to continue unchecked, the potential costs are huge. Rising temperatures will diminish yields of staple food crops such as rice and wheat, creating more hunger and malnutrition in developing countries. Mosquitoes will inhabit more of the planet as it warms, enabling malaria to spread further. Flooding caused by heavier rainfalls or meltwater could contaminate water supplies, damage homes and spread water-borne diseases. Heat waves will continue to kill people (35,000 died in the European heat wave of 2003). The world’s freshwater supply will decrease as snow and glaciers melt. Island states such as Tuvalu and the Maldives are likely to be submerged or become uninhabitable during this century, while low-lying countries (e.g. Bangladesh, the Netherlands) and coastal cities (e.g. New York, Shanghai) could soon be threatened. Desertification is causing pasture to disappear, creating competition over land—this has already been a cause of war (see Darfur). A World Health Organisation study in 2005 established that around 150,000 people die every year from the effects of global warming, a number which could almost double by 2020. In economic terms, it will cost much less to act now to combat climate change than to pay for it later (1% of global GDP compared to 20%, according to the 2006 Stern Review into the Economics of Climate Change).
Are there any positives?
In the UK, we’re already enjoying shorter winters and warmer average temperatures as a result of climate change, and tourism and agriculture could benefit from the rising temperatures in the short term. In the Arctic, the melting ice sheet is likely to open up the Northwest Passage (between Canada and the North Pole) within a couple of decades, dramatically shortening shipping times from Asia to Europe. It is also going to enable access to the vast reserves of oil and gas believed to lie under the Arctic seabed; international squabbling over their ownership has already started, with Russia sending a mini-submarine to plant a flag on the seabed beneath the North Pole in August 2007. Whoever gets their hands on the oil and gas, it will all get burnt, warming up the atmosphere that little bit more.
When was the country formed?
The area now known as Colombia was colonised by the Spanish in the 16th century, along with much of South and Central America. In the 18th century, Bogotá (capital of present-day Colombia) became, with Mexico City and Lima, one of the main administrative centres of the Spanish colonies in America. Napoleon’s conquest of Spain in 1810 caused several of its
South American colonies to break away and declare their independence, which was properly achieved for Colombia by 1819 after an independence struggle spearheaded by Simón Bolívar (’the Liberator’) and Francisco de Paula Santander. The resulting state was called Gran Colombia and included Colombia, Panama, Ecuador and Venezuela. The latter two countries broke away in 1830, however, and the country went through various changes of name before the Republic of Colombia was founded in 1886. Panama declared its independence in 1903.
Conservatives vs Liberals
In 1849 Colombia’s Conservative and Liberal parties were founded, with contrasting political visions based on those of the country’s two founders, Bolívar and Santander. Over the next century, competition between these parties often spilled over into political violence when extremist factions sought to eliminate their rivals by any means possible. Sometimes this violence led to wider civil unrest, most notably the ‘Thousand Days War’ (1899-1902), which resulted in over 100,000 deaths, and ‘La Violencia’ (1948-57), which caused more than 250,000. To end ‘La Violencia’, Conservatives and Liberals agreed to form a National Front from 1958-74; this was a power-sharing arrangement in which each party took turns to rule for four years at a time.
Rebels with a cause
In the 1960s, however, left-wing guerrilla groups started appearing; the two most prominent of these were, and still are, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), and National Revolution Army (ELN), both established in 1964. These two rival groups were founded upon Marxist principles, are based in the mountains of southern and eastern Colombia and claim to fight for the poor and against the disparity of wealth in the country. Various right-wing paramilitary groups also sprang up to protect local interests and fight the guerrillas, combining forces in 1997 to create the United Self-Defence Forces of Colombia (AUC). All of the above groups are listed as terrorist organisations by the US and EU and fund their operations largely via their links to the cocaine trade. Between them they have been responsible for thousands of kidnappings over the last few decades, as well as assassinations, hijacks, massacres of civilians, rapes and the use of child soldiers. For decades the guerrillas and the paramilitaries have fought against each other and the government in a sporadic and bloody ongoing conflict.
Coca-Colombia
Although Colombia is the world’s largest producer of emeralds, it is most famous—or infamous—for its cocaine production. There was relatively little cocaine trafficking from Colombia in the 1960s, but in the following decade a growing demand for the new drug of choice in the US and Europe saw production boom. Soon Colombian drug cartels and kingpins became extremely rich off the back of this illegal trade; the drug baron Pablo Escobar even made it on to the Forbes Rich List before he was killed in 1993. Since 2000, the US has spent $6 billion on ‘Plan Colombia’, a programme to combat the drugs trade, which includes providing the Colombian army with training and equipment. The initial targets of the plan were not met, and Colombia still supplies the US with 90% of its cocaine. There are signs, however, that anti-narcotic operations may be beginning to work: 2008 saw Colombian coca cultivation fall by 18% and cocaine production fall by 28%.
El Presidente
President Álvaro Uribe has won praise both at home and abroad for his aggressive stance against the rebels. He was elected president