Global Warming, Our Immediate Responsibility
January is a good month. It’s a month that is the human symbol of starting over. Out with the old, in with the new. This January was particularly exciting for us here in the US, as we ushered in a new era of progressive politics with almost a little too much pomp and circumstance. But underneath the excitement lies a particularly disconcerting truth. We still have a nation to fix.
- » See also: CARB Unveils DriveClean, a New Web Tool to Help Consumers Pick Green Cars
- » Get Gas 2.0 by RSS or sign up by email.
I like getting big things out of the way, so here it is. According to Susan Solomon, scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, once global warming sets in, it isn’t going away. The voice on NPR told me with such solemnity that I assumed that we had already lost the war with Global Warming. No matter how evenly I accelerated my car, it would no longer matter because the damage was done. Once I stopped hyperventilating I realized that there was more to the story, and the thoughtful voice informed me that the effects haven’t reached the point of no return yet. The oceans are currently padding the effects of global warming, holding it in check indefinitely. According to Solomon, the oceans will be able to hold off the siege of carbon dioxide for some time, but there are more immediate problems at hand.
According to Solomon’s study published in the Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences, not immediately curtailing our carbon emissions could create permanent dust-bowl conditions in the U.S. Southwest as well as the Mediterranean. I immediately thought of all the wonderful French wines I wouldn’t be able to try if that happened and subsequently panicked until I was informed that even this could take decades. I let out a nervous sigh of relief, knowing that this news just adds to the urgency of our battle for the atmosphere.
“We’re used to thinking about pollution problems as things that we can fix. Smog, we just cut back and everything will be better later. Or haze, you know, it’ll go away pretty quickly,” Solomon said of cleaning up our current mess. “People have imagined that if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide that the climate would go back to normal in 100 years. What we’re showing here is that’s not right. It’s essentially an irreversible change.”
It’s still rather unsettling that we can’t get a better picture of what kind of time frame we’re working on here. Global warming isn’t exactly priority number one on everyone’s list, which is understandable considering our current economic meltdown. A Rasmussen Report as well as a Pew Research Center Pole taken around inauguration time showed a general cooling in global warming concern. Again, the current economic crisis calls for immediate attention, but how much longer will it be until global warming gets immediate attention?
Fortunately, we’re already beginning to see a drastic reversal of climate change policies as President Obama opened the door for states to regulate their own emissions (something California has been chomping at the bit to do). Of course I’m worried that global warming apathy will continue and lead to irreparable repercussions, but at the same time I’m optimistic. The Pew pole showed that in general, environmental issues are important to the American public, and that right now we’re just experiencing a lull. On the other hand the Rasmussen Report showed again that the American public is becoming increasingly divided along party lines, especially when dealing with the environment (21% of questioned Republicans believe that global warming is being induced by human activity).
President Obama has made it a priority of his to curtail global warming, and he hired an energy secretary who knows his science to prove it, but we can’t forget that our planet is our responsibility. No matter how many laws are enacted or how much reach the EPA is granted, it will still ultimately be up to us how far we allow global warming to go before it’s stomped out.
Sources:
The New York Times (There is a nice little graph here that shows how America’s concerns have changed over the years)
National Public Radio
Thanks to CarbonNYC for the picture (via Flickr creative commons).
And in case you missed it, our Fireside Chat for the week.
Let’s see if I understand this… This was the coldest October in 104 years, the coldest November in I don’t remember how many years, the coldest January in 24 years. The Iowa weather study shows increasing polar ice, and a two year period of global cooling. Russian meteorologist have predicted the onset of another period of glaciation in parts of Russia and Siberia. You want Americans to accept as “the gospel” a theory that is being widely deserted by scientist worldwide? Congratulations…
> This was the coldest October in 104 years, the coldest November in I don’t remember how many years, the coldest January in 24 years. The Iowa weather study shows increasing polar ice, and a two year period of global cooling.
So the WEATHER is temporarily cooler. This has little to do with CLIMATE, which involves periods of at least 15 years. Look at the average temperature worldwide for 2008, and compare it to the average 15 years ago:
http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/07/very-warm-2008-makes-this-hottest-decade-in-recorded-history-by-far/
Yup, the earth is still warming.
Let’s reduce air pollution. I agree 100% with that. Energy conservation and new tech should be explored. But don’t blame climate change on 100 years of man made air pollution. It’s just another cycle. It get’s hot then it get’s cold. We haven’t measured this long enough to understand anyway.
I certainly hope no scientist said “once global warming sets in, it isn’t going away.” If Susan is a scientist then she knows that our atmosphere at present is C02 deprived. C02 levels have been 20 times as high in the earth’s history. She will also know that C02 has never been a climate driver and is not now. And she will know that the earth has cooled .5 C in the last 2 years. And we all know that we only have valid temperature readings since 1979, way to short a time to decide that the planet is overheating or cooling, though I liked 1998 to 2006’s temperatures a lot better than the ones we have now. However no one can change the climate not even Al Gore.
> We haven’t measured this long enough to understand anyway.
Actually, the discovery of global warming took place over a century, and the science is very solid. See this web site for the history:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
Try this URL
http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2008_09/contoski-warming.html
During the 20th century, the earth warmed a huge 0.6 degrees C.
In 2007 alone the earth warmed by 0.63 degrees C.
In any event, the volcano in Alaska that is expected to erupt very soon, just may make any question of global warming moot as it throws enough sediment into the stratosphere to drop the temperature by several degrees C. or more.
There is evidence that the answer to the question of the cause of sinking ships and the disappearance of aircraft over the Bermuda Triangle may be caused by huge eruptions of methane and or carbon dioxide from the below ocean floor.
It would be nice it these doomsayers would collect all available information and analyze all of it rather than just that which fits with their desired objective.
Correction—-
In 2007 the earth COOLED NOT WARMED by 0.63 degrees C.
SORRY ABOUT THE TYPO.
Anthony,
Didn’t you get the news:
Over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernemntal Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore.
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/comment.php?comment.news.93.6
“No matter how many laws are enacted or how much reach the EPA is granted, it will still ultimately be up to us how far we allow global warming to go before it’s stomped out.”
Maybe its time to end Oil, natural gas, and coal subsidies, eh? Let more of the actual cost be payed by those who purchase electricity from those plants. Perhaps this would help spur Nuclear Power, or even renewable energy. Nuclear is the answer today though, renewable energy is still not up to the challenge, yet.
Also, tell your politicians to support free trade and end corn subsidies and restrictions on imported agriculture which leads to damaging farming techniques in other areas of the world like slash-and-burn forest clearing. Opening up our borders to imported corn, sugarcane, etc., would drastically reduce the cost of ethanol to the point it would significantly reduce oil consumption.
Warning: Oversimplification here. I don’t know why, but that last line in the article really set me off. So whats the point of all the laws, regulations, EPA, countless gov’t agencies whose goals are conflicting. Department of Energy vs. EPA for instance. Yet the ultimate solution is just to remove artificial pricing. Then no matter how each consumer feels about reducing CO2 emissions, the real market pricing will be more successful than any law or gov’t agency in achieving that goal.
Why anyone put confidence (and their money) in the gov’t to fix this, or just about any problem, I do not know. Today’s anti-gov’t rhetoric was brought to you by this article:
…
“New York’s Charles Rangel and five other Democratic members of the House enjoyed a trip to the Caribbean sponsored in part by Citigroup in November - after Congress had approved the $700 bailout for financial firms (including Citigroup).”
http://www.pressconnects.com/article/20090201/OPINION01/902010344/1005/OPINION