Israel and Climate Change

A Class Project

Category: Uncategorized

Israeli Adaptation

Welcome to this blogs last post.  As the title suggests, this blog will focus on how Israel plans to adapt to the pressures of climate change.  It must be understood that much of the world is more focused on midigating climate change than they are about adapting to it’s effects.  The truth of the matter is that we can’t perfectly predict what challenges climate change is going to impose on our planet.  So, planning to adapt can be a tricky situation.  This post will focus on what Israel is doing to adapt.

According to the Ministry of Environmental Proctection adaptations is defined as “a change in a system’s behavior in response to an external stimulus, such as a change in the climate system.” (  So, the question is: what is Israel doing to change it’s systems behavior. ”

“The reaction to climate change is on two levels: reaction by precursory actions, in anticipation of change (such as building planning and disaster insurance), and reaction to the change itself (such as migration from disaster areas, coastal nourishment, and enforcement of building regulations)” (Ibid).  I found that the precursory actions listed above (building planning and disaster insurance) were two of the most interesting things that Israel is pursuing in adapting to climate change.

Adapatations that Israel’s insurance companies could make are planning for their redemption capacity.  Insurance companies could raise rates now to plan for the increased expenditures that they could face.  This would obviously create a lot of tension with the insurance companies customers though, so another option that has been proposed is for insurance companies to provide incentives to it’s customers who prepare themselves for the the impacts of climate change.  If people took individual interests in adapting to climate change, the insurance companies would have less burden to bare, so incentives are a great idea.

As for building planning, Israel would be wise to reinforce it’s infrastructures.  Increased flooding could potentially impact Israel.  If it’s railroads, bridges, port, and other essential elements of Israel’s infrastucture are not built to withstand increased flood, this could potentially cripple the way Israel citizens function.  It might sound like it’s a waste of finances before anything happens but if Israel were to be devastated by increased flooding, the cost they would have to pay in order to fix their infrastucture is sure to be lesser than it would be merely to reinforce it.

Though Israel should be concerned about elements such as insurance and infrastructure reinforcement, this does not mean that this should be every countries concerned.  Some lesser developed countries, such as Uganda, still need to prepare for climate change but the country is not as developed as Israel, so insurance and infrastructure might not be as important.  For instance, Uganda, might be concerned with implimenting a task force in order to protect the countries ecosystems, Israel already moving forward with adaptation.  This is not to say that Israel and Uganda don’t have similar concerns.  Both countries absolutely need to make sure that clean water is a priority.  It doesn’t matter how developed your country is, if there are not safeguards in place to provide the country with clean water in a time of disaster, the people will not survive and chaos will ensue.

Israel is not in a region that would welcome it migrating onto their land for any reason.  If Israel does not plan ahead for the impacts of climate change, the consequences could be dire.  Being a Jewish state surrounded by Muslim countries, some of which believe that Israel is rightfully theirs, military readiness must be Israel’s first line of defense against climate change.








This should be followed closely by disaster planning.  These are more important than anything Israel could do to attempt to midigate climate change.  Adaptation to climate change is, by far, the most important mesaure that Israel should take.  They’re not the biggest emitter of greenhouse gasses but they are an extremely vulnerable region.  Not because of direct natural causes, but rather because of the volititlity that exists in the region.  If Israel was hit by a natural disater, there are many countries around them that would love nothing more than to pounce on the opportunity and attack, leaving Israel vulnerable to be hit from two fronts.

I hope that this page clearly conveys the threats that Israel faces due to climate change.  I believe their greatest threat is their neighbors and this could just be exacerbated by the threats that climate change poses.  Climate change could devastate many areas of the world with natural disasters but in many developed countries, these consequences could be repaired.  Israel might not have that luxary.  Israel is in a unique situation because it has many supporters that would be willing to go to war if Israel were to be attacked.  So, more lives are at stake than just the Israeli people.  This is why it should be Israel’s divine responsiblility to be aware of the potential impacts of climate change and seriously prepare for them.  If they ignore this responsibility, the impacts could be global.


Israeli Mitigation

So far on this blog we’ve discussed how Israel contributes to climate change and how Israel could be impacted by climate change.  Being that Israel is the focus of so much political and religious interest they should be extremely concerned about how they will be impacted.  However, Israel is still an extremely small region.  No matter how much Israel attempts to mitigate the effects of climate change, their attempts will not be able to solve the problem.  As you can see on the graph used for the contribution blog post, even though Israel emitts a lot more per square mile than many other countries, the country is not large enough to rival the CO2 emissions of the larger countries.  This is also the case for mitigation.  Point being, while Israel should attempt to mitigate the effects of climate change, the United States, China, India, Australia and the other larger countries need to lead by example.

Israel did it’s part to ratify the Kyoto protocol in 1998 and entered in to the force in 2005 (  This is a step in the right direction but the Kyoto Protocol has been widely critisized.  Many say that the Montreal Protocol was more effective in combating climate change even though it focused on substances that deplete the ozone layer, which has nothing to do with global warming.  Also, the Kyoto Protocol expires at the end of 2012.  So, though Israel might have had good intentions in signing the Kyoto protocol, those intentions will not mean anything in 2013.

This is not to say that Israel is not doing anything to combat climate change.  Thanks to the 2009 COP-15 conferrence in Copenhagen:

Israel “committed to a Green House Gas emission reduction target of 20% of expected growth based on a Business As Usual scenario by 2020.” (  Even with this scenario though, Israel is expected to have an 11% increase in green house gas emissions by 2025 (Ibid).  In addition to this, Israel is doing it’s part to mitigate climate change through forestation efforts in the Negev desert (  Israel ” plans to expand the groves and forests in the Negev.”  Hopefully that which is planted will be able to filter out enough CO2 to stabalize the increase in CO2 emissons that Israel is projected to have.

Though Israel might not be able to postively effect mitigation efforts as much as larger countries, they should still make a great effort because of how much attention they receive.  Think about how awesome it would be if Israel received as much attention for it’s efforts to mitigate climate change, as it does for the conflicts within it’s borders.  The region is small, it’s influcence is not.  Therefore it should take climate change mitigation more seriously than other countries of it’s same size.  The country is small but the stakes are high.

Climate Change Impacts

As you can see below, Israel’s contribution to climate change is being followed and monitored, just as many other countries.  Surely the data is going to be critiqued and skewed by climate change deniers but these naysayers should not be given the dignity of an educated response.  They’re going to think what they want to think and deny the evidence in front of their faces no matter what the facts they’re presented with are.  If these climate change deniers are given the amount of attention they want, the community of climate scientists will forever be busy answering their ignorant questions instead of focusing on the more important issues.  In the end, impacts are going to be far more important than debate and rhetoric.

The science behind determining what has already happened is sure to be more reliable than theories about what is going to happen.  Does this mean that we shouldn’t hypothesize about what we think could happen to the world if we don’t do anything about anthropogenic climate change?  By no means!  It’s important to study what has happened and learn about what could possibly happen.  Quite possibly the most trusted source for information about future projections related to changing climate is the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).   There is a lot of information available on the website but what you might find to be facinating is how vague a lot of the projections are for Europe and the Mediterranian.  You’ll find many times that projections are followed by phrases like: “the evidence is mixed” or that the models “vary on both sides” (

However, this is not to say that there aren’t any predictions being made for how various regions will be impacted by climate change.  The most predominant tool used to support climate change is a trendline.  The reason for this is that we can chart what has already been found and also make predictions about how climate change will progress.  For example, see the graph below:

As you can see the data goes well beyond what we actually know.  It’s only the year 2012 but the graph goes up until 2100.  These projections could not have been formulated if we didn’t have data from the past and present.  However, the past and present give us reason to believe that these numbers might be accurate.  It’s interesting to have projections so far in the future!

It is certain that many different countries are going to be impacted by anthropogenic climate change, some regions more than others.  However, Asia is projected to be affected more than many others.  Israel is in Asia.  According to the intergovernmental panel on climate change, more than a billion people people in Asia could be “adeversely affected” by the 2050’s (  This is because changes are expected in various regions throughout Asia.  For instance, coastal regions are expected to be affected by increased flooding, which means that there will be more people that could be affected by diarrhoeal diseases that arise from an increase in flooding (ibid).

The reality of climate change affecting Asia is all too real.  Here are just a few things the IPCC is highly confident about:

  •  Sea level rise
  • “Significant losses to coastal ecosystems”
  • “Increases in endemic morbidity and mortality due to diarrhoeal disease.”


All of the above are issues that could directly affect Israel.  Israel is right on the coast of the Mediterranian, so it is vulnerable to sea level rise.  Israel is not as at risk as some other countries because it is more economically prosperous than a lot of the countries that surround it.  So it is less at risk for climate change to seriously affect it economically.  No country is immune though.  Being that Israel is such a small country surrounded by countries that don’t necessarily agree with their world view,  they could be put at risk of military conflict if they were already hit with a natural disaster.

Luckily for Israel, they have the support of the United State, who has the strongest military in the world.  Regardless, Israel should be even more aware of their the impacts that climate change could have on it because of how fragile the relations they have with their neighboring countries.  Sure sea rise and increased diseases are scary but that is compacted with military threats from neighboring countries who would love to take advantage of their weakened state.  Israel must be prepared.  Not only for it’s environment but also for it’s safety.

Israel’s Contribution to Climate Change

Hello, welcome to this blogs first post.  In this post we will be focusing on Israel’s contribution to Climate Change.  While Israel is an extremely small country, it is highly developed.  So, try to refrain from ignoring Israel’s contribution to climate change just because it is not as significant as some larger countries such as the United States or China.

Consider this:

  • The United States of America is 3,794,083 square miles and it emitted 1,546,903 (thousand metric tons of carbon) in 2008.
  • Israel is 7,992 square miles and it emitted 18,432 (thousand metric tons of carbon) in 2008.

So, per square mile, the United States emitted .40 thousand metric tons of carbon in 2008 and Israel emitted 2.3 thousand metric tons of carbon in 2008.  Israel emitted more than five times the amount of carbon, per square mile, to that of the United States in 2008!  Israel may be small but it is densely populated.  In fact, it is the 24th most densely populated country in the world (

Contributing Factors:

As you can see in the graph below, the greatest factors in Israel’s contribution to climate change are obviously liquids and solids.  However, it wasn’t until 1980 that solids started to play a significant role (notice the blue line).  What’s more important to note is the largest increase on the graph, which seems to be around 1948.  It seems as though Israel wasn’t emitting any CO2 before 1948.

Why is there such an increase in carbon emissions in 1948?

May 14, 1948

On May 14th 1948 the British Mandate was ended and the State of Israel was proclaimed, this means that Israel didn’t even exist before 1948, which obviously explains why there is a rapid spike in the graph around that time. In the years that followed, there was a mass immigration of Jews from Europe and Arab countries.

CO2 emissions per capita:

We already looked how much carbon is emitted per square mile of the United States and Israel.  Now, let’s look at CO2 emissions per capita (per person).  Israel is ranked 37th in the world for per capita CO2 emissions at 2.61 metric tons of carbon per capita. The United States is ranked 12th at 4.90 metric tons of carbon per capita.  This means that the people of Israel only emit about half (.53) the metric tons of carbon that American’s do.  This, I believe is a more accurate estimate of a countries anthropogenic contribution to climate change because it more accurately assesses how much the people are contributing.  However, it’s still fascinating that such a small area of land can contribute to climate change as much as Israel does.

The graph below illustrates Israel’s CO2 emissions per Capita:

The Greatest Contributors:

In the grand scheme of things, Israel’s contribution doesn’t hardly compare to the big contributors of the world.  When you look at the contributions of places like the United States, China, and India; Israel’s contribution is relatively insignificant.  When you look at the line below, it seems like Israel isn’t contributing anything at all but you must keep in mind how small the country is.  It’s contribution is small but per square mile and per capita, it’s a sizable drop in the bucket.

By Country

As you can see in the graph above, the greatest contributors to anthropogenic climate change are by far China and the United States.  If you look closely at the graph, you’ll notice that China has only recently started to come close to that of the United States.  It wasn’t until 2006 that China’s fossil fuel emissions surpassed that of the United States.  However, it should be mentioned that even though China has greater fossil fuel emissions as a whole, the United States has a higher amount of fossil fuel emissions per capita.  So, if we’re going to play the blame game, an American citizen is more responsible than a Chinese citizen for their countries fossil fuel emissions.

So, now we know who holds the most responsibility when comparing China to America but who bares the most cumulative responsibility out of all the countries listed on the graph above?  I crunched the numbers.  Keep two things in mind:  these numbers are from 1900 to 2008.  Also, the numbers are in thousand metric tons of carbon.  If you’d like to see the results in units of carbon, just multiply by 3.667.  Here are the numbers listed in order from greatest cumulative contribution to least cumulative contribution:

United States: 91,229,888
China: 31,793,558
India: 9,151,461
Italy: 5,364,817
Israel: 456,752
Kenya: 80,124

As you might have suspected, the United States is the greatest contributor. So, as you can see, the United States has emitted well beyond all of the other countries listed. China may have past the United States in current emissions but commutatively, the United States’ emissions trump all of the others. China is next in line but they have only emitted about 35% what the United States have. Next in line is India, which has only emitted about 10% as much as the United States. This goes to show that the United States has, over time, emitted far more than any other country.

The Big Picture:


Regardless, while the blame game might be interesting, when/if climate change starts seriously  affecting the lives of humans, the ultimate concern is not going to be who was the biggest contributor.  The ultimate concern isn’t going to be who emitted the most CO2.  The ultimate concern is going to be how much CO2 is already concentrated in our atmosphere and how it is affecting the lives of people all over the world.  If you take the countries out of the picture and only consider the fact that they all are human beings, the amount of CO2 emissions for all of the above countries is: 57,768,060 (thousand metric tons of carbon)!

The countries aren’t irrelevant but the most important thing to note is that CO2 concentrations are rising.  Many skeptics will try to find creative ways to try to dispute the facts that are presented.  Most of the time, the skeptics will point to the weather (not the climate) or one obscure circumstance.  One commonly used tactic is to point out a drop in CO2 emissions.  As you can see below, there are many different ways that CO2 can be emitted into the atmosphere and those numbers sometimes vary and not all of the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere stays in the atmosphere.  Regardless, you can still see an irrefutable upward trend that shows we are emitting CO2 at an increased rate.

Global Fossil Fuel Carbon Emissions:

Emissions v. Concentrations

However, emissions only contribute to the conclusive problem: CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.  The most well known set of numbers of the rising levels of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere originated from the work of Charles David Keeling who worked out of Hawaii’s Mauna Loa Observatory, both seen below:

 Concentrations observed by Keeling (Keeling Curve):

It was from this observatory that Charles David Keeling worked to confirm that carbon dioxide levels are rapidly rising in the atmosphere.  You can refute his claims but the numbers speak for themselves.  He charted these numbers on what is now famously knows as the “Keeling Curve” seen below:

Keeling’s work was very important in proving that there has been a dramatic rise in CO2 concentrations.  The curve clearly reflects the spike in global CO2 emissions that are depicted in the global fossil fuel carbon emissions graph.

So, now that we know that CO2 concentrations are rising in the atmosphere, the next question is: “So what?”  Why should the people of Israel, the United States, China, India, or any other country care about CO2 emissions and concentration?  That will be the next topic of discussion for this blog: “Impacts”, coming 10/31/2012.