I am not a scientist, but I am also unsure anyone can claim with a 100% certainty that global warming is a consequence of human behavior. I don’t think I am going too far afield stating that some pollutants, whether or not they are causing climate change, are harming world health.
A planet in orbit spinning on an axis along with prevailing winds and shifting weather patterns cause pollutants spewing from any facility to often rest far from their origination.
If there is something all nations commonly share, it is the entrapment in the atmosphere of pollutants. Airborne particles and gases, even if the concentration originates in one geographic area will, come to rest throughout the globe.
India and China together account for about one-third of the worldwide population and both countries are heavily committed to coal generation for about 80% of their current power requirements. Their needs are growing exponentially and China has recently been credited as the world’s largest polluter, displacing the United States, which held that title for decades.
The greenhouse gas phobia, particularly with respect to CO2 emissions, is largely overstated. Quoting a joint study between Zogby Associates and The Manhattan Institute’s Center for Energy and Environment: the burning of fossil fuels is responsible for just 3.27% of the carbon dioxide that enters the atmosphere each year, while the biosphere and oceans account for 55.28% and 41.5% respectively. This is statistically interesting given that 63% of people from the same survey believe human activity is the greatest source of greenhouse gases.
The current thrust toward a European Cap and Trade system also has flaws. There has not been any significant decrease in either particles or greenhouse gases since the system was enacted in Europe. In 2008 the first marginal decline was registered. A function of Cap and Trade or the results of Europe’s 19% drop in industrial production?
Ultimately, the United States must derive power from renewable energy resources. But we must also learn from past mistakes. As corn-based ethanol was quickly deemed the panacea for high energy prices, the previous administration enacted thoughtless legislation without truly examining the unexpected consequences of higher food costs and taxpayer subsidies.
The European model of Cap and Trade has apparently not worked, but it has increased energy costs and in turn increased the cost of power vital to manufacturing. Does Congress feel they can make a failed example work or will new legislation produce an even larger failure? Foreign governments are already bristling at a possible “Clean Energy Trade Policy” which could be enacted by the United States.
I fear that should our diminishing manufacturing base become even less globally competitive that we will try to economically blackmail countries that do not abide by standards we impose. Protectionist policies, regardless of how they are disguised, have never succeeded historically. The problem needs to be addressed through a partnership of private industry and government along with comprehensive global pacts.
The movement away from fossil fuels needs to be gradual otherwise the shock to our own economy may create another crisis. The worst approach is to capriciously spend trillions of dollars to reduce pollutants by a miniscule amount while fooling the American taxpayers about the legitimacy of the plan. A thoughtful, cohesive and intelligent approach is necessary and reducing pollution needs to be a global endeavor and priority.
May 27, 2009 at 7:43 pm |
It’s good Lou to re-state what most of us have heard quite often but it seems your final statement is all that really matters. Developing countries do not hold the same importance to the problem as we do. Remember the discovery that recycled computers were sold to China and when China got what they wanted from them…They Burned them? Well if that was true then they have no respect for the environment and are not likely to cooperate. Another statement I remember in so far as the bio-fuels being rushed into without real study was that not only would it contribute to food shortage but the carbon footprint of production was far too high.
Don’t you just love all the new buzz words our increasing delemas are producing?
Karen
May 28, 2009 at 6:38 pm |
I agree with Karen — the only thing that really matters is the “thoughtful, cohesive and intelligent approach” to the problem. But, unfortunately, we live in a world where self-interest seems to be the rule of the day — every day! Can you see the two giants of pollution — India and China — giving up their headlong race to financial independence and industrial domination in order to stop and smell the flowers?? (Which, by the way, will probably have disappeared from this earth by the time we humans get around to acting thoughtfully, cohesively and intelligently.) I hate to be such a cynic but, after watching our own elected representatinves in the U.S. Congress work hard only to further their own agenda — and to hell with the rest of us — it angers me greatly to think that the answers and solutions are right there in front of us, if only we could learn to look past our own noses.
May 29, 2009 at 1:07 pm |
Dear Paul,
You are completely correct (in my humble but educated opinion).
A poll just released claims telephone calls, emails and letters to Congress at the end of the Bush Administration were running over 60% against bailing out the automobile industry and during Obama’s early days nearly 70% against the stimulus package as presented by Congress. In both cases Congress saw fit to pass each bill. This is tantamount to taxation without representation.
A unilateral approach by the United States to fight pollution will accomplish very little. Diplomacy not only applies solely to military threats, but applies to the betterment of people through-out the world and preserving our planet.
Best regards,
Lou
May 28, 2009 at 8:07 pm |
Lou,
Zogby is a polling group, and the Manhattan Instute is a conservative think tank without serious scientific credentials. Almost all scientific bodies from all countries and international organizations insist that the major cause of global warming (as opposed to cyclical climate changes) are increased fossil-fuel and agricultural (cattle-raising) activities. No one involved with business likes this news, but it is not in dispute scientifically throughout the knowledge communities in the world.
May 29, 2009 at 1:50 am |
Dear Mike,
I am not sure the Manhattan Institute is any more or any less credible or culpable than http://www.moveon.org
Many scientists and researchers have an agenda. Let’s not forget the evidence of world over-population that was in vogue a few years ago. More recently, the threat of swine flu has been rather overdone.
The thrust of my statement was that emissions may not be the cause of global warming but they are likely a contributing factor. After the burgeoning ethanol fiasco I feel government must tackle any critical issue with foresight and intelligence and not by pandering to any political element. This not only applies to the environment.
The thoughtless programs being considered, including the useless European model could have a devastating effect on business in America with virtually no results. The main polluters, India and China have no interest to get on board a clean air agenda. Spewing waste emanating from China may find favorable wind currents and come to rest in Los Angeles.
Unilateral environment action would share the same results as unilateral military action.
Regards,
Lou
May 28, 2009 at 8:31 pm |
You raise two valid points and one invalid point. First the invalid point: there is no disputing that the drastic rise in CO2 in the atmosphere in the past four decades (from 0.35% of air to 0.65%) is due to the burining of fossil fuels. There simply is no other conceivable source for it. And it is logical that that doubling of CO2 in the air will have an impact on global temperatures. Exactly how much that impact will be is heartily debated by climate scientists. But the fact that fossil fuels have led to heightened temperatures is no longer in doubt.
Your other points relate to what we should do about it. Various policy alternatives run into the same two points that you rightly highlight:
*India and China won’t do cap and trade.
*The European cap and trade program has done nothing so far.
Those two points make me very suspicious of cap and trade. It introduces a complex legal infrastructure that doesn’t help anyone if everyone isn’t involved and might not even do what it’s supposed to do (except for employment of a lot of lawyers).
There are other methods of regulating our way out of this. They all have problems too: a carbon tax would be extremely regressive and might not change people’s lifestyles; a federal RPS system might be so weak that it doesn’t help to alleviate the problem; a massive inflow of federal money to subsidize solar and wind is too expensive as a long-term solution. The fundamental problem is that there is no perfect policy solution that alleviates GHG’s at the least possible cost to society. Whatever we do, it’s going to be messy, painful and expensive.
My complaint about the administration’s policies in this area is that they are enacting every possible policy (cap & trade, EPA regulation, CAFE limits, RPS’s, massive R&D investments, solar and wind subsidies and international diplomacy), but instituting each one in a willfully weak manner. We might end up with each of the above programs, but–even taken as a whole–having no consequence on GHG emissions. I would much prefer that they take a single policy, make it strong and effective, and then jettison the rest.
We do need to do something. But taking the whole pot of spaghetti and throwing it against the wall to see what sticks makes for a lousy dining experience–and a messy cleanup.
May 29, 2009 at 2:17 am |
Dear Sam,
Thank you for your comments and getting 2 out of 3 correct is not so bad. I won’t stand on the argument about the degree of measuring accuracy over the last four decades because I personally would like to see emissions reduced.
I cannot believe that cherry picking from various programs will produce a hybrid. It will produce an unmanageable mess, add to government’s payroll and Goldman Sachs will certainly find a way to profit from it.
My own preference is to first enact a serious gasoline tax. When gasoline hit $4.00/gallon the consumption dropped precipitously and even at $4.00/gallon it remains inexpensive compared to Europe, Japan and a host of other countries.
Long term, emissions from industry and power plants must be dealt with but statistically the power generation companies have made great strides during the last two decades to reduce emissions.
We’re building more roads to accommodate more cars. Perhaps better roads will reduce congestion and fuel consumption or more roads may spawn new neighbors that require residents to use cars to get to work. No one seems to bother with a projection.
We’re saving 2 car companies in a market that has at least 25% overcapacity. Do you suppose any Congressperson has even been to a steel factory, a tire plant, a glass production facility or a plastics factory? These are amongst the worst polluters in America.
China burns 2 billion ton of coal each year and India’s consumption will not be far behind. The worst type of lignite coal is exported from the United States to both China and India – some of it is banned from use in this country. Is our policy to export our pollution and then complain the air is thick with emissions?
Until some common sense and business acumen is found I fear our domestic environmental policies, international trade pressures and conflicting lobbying interests in Washington will make sure that any program will be toothless or useless.
Best regards,
Lou
May 29, 2009 at 12:49 am |
What do they plan to do with the CO2 each of us exhales after every breath?
FYI, the Congressional sponsor of this “Cap & Trade” bill of horror, Henry Waxman, has not even read his own bill & doesn’t know what’s in it. He left it to the “scientists”.
May 29, 2009 at 9:10 pm |
Lou opened his essay by acknowledging that he was not a scientist. I’m not sure what Karen’s, Paul’s, Mike’s and Sam’s scientific credentials are, but they all seem sure that “man caused global warming” is real. Before I debate this issue with anyone, I usually try to get the other person to answer these questions. Actually, all Americans and all world leaders should at least think about these before assuming that so-called “scientists” are correct.
Questions:
1. What is your theory regarding the cause of the Mediaeval Warm Period? Hint: It lasted about 400 years (900 – 1300 AD). The average temperature in the northern hemisphere was 7 C warmer than it is today; grapes grew in England and Greenland was settled and farmed. The world population in 900 AD was about 250 million.
2. What caused the Little Ice Age? Do you think that people panicked because in a few generations the climate went from warm and pleasant to cold and frigid?
3. What is the “normal” average temperature of the earth and in what year did it occur?
4. If northern hemisphere warming and cooling has occurred many times in the past, what makes anyone think that this time it is man made?
5. How did the polar bears (over 10,000 years as a distinct species) survive for the 400 years during the Mediaeval Warm Period (900 AD – 1300 AD)?
6. What do you know about solar storms and sun spots and the effect both have on climate?
7. A Chinese fleet in 1423 AD sailed around Greenland and mapped the coast with remarkable accuracy? This could only have been accomplished if the northern coast of Greenland was ice free. How do you explain this?
I have thought about these questions and have researched all of them and others since 1990. My conclusion is that there is no climate “problem.” Barbara’s response deserves a lot of study. Every mammal on earth exhales CO2. All vegetation uses that CO2 as a fuel and produces oxygen as a result. You may want to look up photosynthesis in one of your children’s school books. What kind of perverse reasoning would declare CO2 as a pollutant?
So, what should we be doing about “global warming?” The answer is nothing. Why? Because, mankind couldn’t stop it or “global cooling” even if it were a good idea…which it isn’t.
June 1, 2009 at 8:11 pm |
Dear Joe,
I certainly am not qualified to answer all of your questions but I do know that often scientific theory is more accurate at the end of an event than during an event. Therefore, 400 years from now the cutting edge scientific community will be accurate about man’s effect on global warming or if it was a natural phenomenon or a combination of natural and man-made.
I am of the opinion that clearing the Amazon basin and other densely forested areas may also have an effect of the increase of measured CO2 in the atmosphere.
I am not sure a concerted effort is possible on a worldwide basis to strive for cleaner air and I do not believe the United States is the only villain. I am a proponent of cleaner air within reasonable economic limits and that such a program needs to be well thought out and not done to satisfy fringe political elements.
Regards,
Lou
June 2, 2009 at 1:31 pm |
Give these answers a glance:
Some Question for a Serious Debate of “Man-made Global Warming”
Proposal: If an appropriate forum could be arranged, all participants would be asked to provide an answer to these six questions. The audience would find such an event to be instructive. Here are my answers to the questions (red).
1. What is your theory regarding the cause of the Mediaeval Warm Period (MWP)? Hints; It lasted about 400 years, grapes grew in England and Greenland was settled and farmed. The world population in 900 AD was about 250 million.
There is a large body of evidence that points to the sun as the cause of warming and cooling climate phases. During the MWP, the sun was unusually active. The more active the sun, the more energy is sent toward the earth. The real provocative point is that warm periods are common. Why is this warm period so worthy of being labeled “man caused?”
2. What caused the Little Ice Age? Do you think that people panicked because in a few generations the climate went from warm and pleasant to cold and frigid?
The sun became much calmer following the MWP. This caused the Little Ice Age. We are experiencing a calmer sun today. Some scientists believe that we could be facing global cooling as a result. During these periods, snow and ice contribute to the cooling effect by reflecting the sun’s energy into space. Simply speaking, this is what has caused our ice ages.
3. What is the normal average temperature of the earth and in what year did it occur?
There is no “normal” temperature and there never will be. How could there be? The laws of thermodynamics require that equilibrium will be sought. Heat moves from the hot to the cold seeking equilibrium. Keep in mind that the earth is 7/10ths water. The oceans absorb and surrender heat much more slowly than the atmosphere. This creates a dampening effect on climate change. Things do not change as quickly as Al Gore says they do.
4. If northern hemisphere warming and cooling has occurred many times in the past, what makes you think that this time it is man made?
I do not believe that mankind has anything to do with climate changes. Human activity has an effect on “micro-climates,” however. We know that cities are warmer than less occupied places on the earth. It is also well known that volcanic activity has temporarily changed climate in large portions of the earth. Check it out yourself. Google Pinatubo (the early 1700s) or Krakatau (in 1883).
5. How did the polar bears survive for the 400 years during the Mediaeval Warm Period (900 AD – 1300 AD)?
Simple, they just did. Bears will eat anything. Polar bears eat large sea creatures because they are plentiful. They do not need enormous ice floes to survive. They will do just fine on land.
6. What do you know about solar storms and sun spots and the effect both have on climate?
It is well known that an active sun generates more energy. The more sun spots and solar storms, the more energy produced. The quieter the sun, the less energy is generated. Keep in mind that pioneers like Copernicus and Galileo did observe the sun and recorded what they saw. We know how the sun has behaved for several hundred years. When one compares recent (last 1000 years or so) warm and cool periods with solar activity, there is an indisputable correlation.
I wish that these things were discussed in the popular media, but this kind of discussion is boring to most.