|
SustainableMiddleClass. |
|||
|
|
|||
Global Warming: Complexities
Cloud the Science, and the Risk
|
"The United States makes up 4% of the world's population and uses 25% of the resources."-Dr. Peter Raven |
Global Warming is a problem, but is not
the main reason for conserving fossil fuels and converting to renewable energy
sources.
The main reason to conserve is so that
others, now and later, will have enough.
IN A 2004 PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE,
GEORGE BUSH AND JOHN KERRY IDENTIFIED NUCLEAR TERRORISM AS THE NUMBER ONE
THREAT TO AMERICANS. BOTH MEN GOT IT RIGHT.
Judging from the number and size of vehicles
on the road lately, it seems most people have little concern for global
warming. There are, after all, many questions and doubts surrounding the issue.
Here is a small sample of them.
1.
Is the apparent warming
of the global climate a result of human activities, or is it due to natural
variability? We know from geologic evidence that the earth is colder today than
it has been throughout most of its history.
2.
Might the degree of
change be "normal" but the rate of change accelerating because of
human activities? Does this faster rate of change exceed the rate of adaptability
of some biological systems?
3.
Is more atmospheric
carbon dioxide really a bad thing? Studies in Florida, Kansas, and elsewhere
have shown some plants have greater productivity and water use efficiency when
grown under higher carbon dioxide levels (more on this later).
4.
Might higher global
temperatures hasten the decomposition of vast areas of organic soils stored in
wetlands, boreal forests and permafrost environments, resulting in even more
carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere - causing further warming?
5.
How will global warming
affect global cloud cover? More heat in the atmosphere will result in more
water vapor, and potentially, more clouds. If so, clouds are white, which would
increase the earth's albedo (portion of solar radiation reflected back to
space). Result: global cooling.
The overwhelming data and analyses from these
respected sources indicate the earth is warming.
Global Warming: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
For the most part, it will not be the warming
itself that will likely kill us, or make us sick. It will be the asthma and
lung cancer and emphysema that goes along with air pollution caused by burning
more coal. It will be cancers caused by relaxing the mercury emission standards
for cheap, technologically obsolete coal-fired power plants, as the Bush
Administration has recently done. It will be the geopolitical conflicts that
arise as various countries and corporations position themselves to control the
world's energy reserves.
As a citizen, I am worried about a possible
scenario where society will need to do something in a big way, requiring a
level of industrial re-tooling and civic commitment not seen in this country
since World War II. Would we, the Unites States, and the rest of the
"developed nations" be up to the task?
As a scientist, I am concerned that society
will not be willing to substantially reduce fossil fuel burning until science
provides a level of evidence typically required for criminal court cases, i.e.,
proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Is this a realistic burden of proof when
scientists deal with systems as large and complex as the global climate? Doubt
will likely persist.
President Bush and others have criticized the
science of global warming research. The level of certainty associated with
global warming studies will never reach the level that can be attained through
experimental science because we do not have multiple earths available to use as
treatment groups with CO2 modified atmospheres and
"pristine" control groups.
It would be great if we could line up about
16 earths in a "laboratory" experiment and subject them to various
levels of industrialization and carbon dioxide emissions and compare them to a
control group of earths that never had industry, using standard experimental
statistical analysis such as Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Obviously it can't
happen, but some politicians are asking the science community to give society
the kind of proof that could only come from that kind of impossible
experimental design.
The best that science can do, is monitor the
globe carefully, compile better standardized data, build better models, continue
to study complex processes to make reasonably intelligent assessments,
encourage conservation and cleaner technologies, and encourage development of
renewable sources.
In order to have a proper dialog over global
warming, questions and doubts need to be voiced. Reasonable people must be
ready to consider new positions. But at some point, raising doubts simply
serves our convenience: if the scientists can't prove it, then we don't have to
change our behavior. It's business as usual.
THE KYOTO TREATY: THE UNITED
STATES HEADS TO THE SIDELINE
The Kyoto Treaty would require 38
industrialized nations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions from 1990
levels, that is, 1990 would be considered the baseline against which the
reduced emissions would be compared. The European Union would have to reduce
their emissions by eight percent, Japan by six percent, and the United States
by seven percent. Developing countries such as China and India would be asked
to set voluntary reduction goals. The Treaty would go into effect once it was
ratified by 55 nations that, together, accounted for 55 percent of the world's
1990 carbon dioxide emissions. The issue of enforcement was put off until a
later meeting, which would then decide "appropriate and effective"
means of dealing with noncompliance.
The Bush Administration refused to sign the
Treaty and, to be fair, the Clinton Administration never sent the Treaty to the
Senate for ratification, presumably sensing that it would have been "dead
on arrival." Senators of both parties were apparently reluctant to go on
record for or against the Treaty. The vote would have been particularly hard on
Democrats like Michigan Senators Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow, who need to
consider the auto industry. Michigan Congressman John Dingle has consistently
opposed higher CAFE standards
If we can not rely on our policy makers to
make the right decisions, then what is the answer? Once again, like Thomas
Jefferson said, the answer is an educated citizenry. Going one step further,
the answer is an EDUCATED AND POLITICALLY ACTIVE CITIZENRY.
Toward
Sustainable Design: Enviro-Friendly Products
|
|
American Wind Energy Association
Existing and Planned State Wind Projects
Keywords: keywords: Global warming, global warming debate, climate change
Copyright © 2005-2008 sustainablemiddleclass.com. All Rights Reserved.