Amen
I say amen to the fact that the The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its findings this month. Why? Because now we have an official declaration that the globe is warming and that we have seen the enemy. It’s done, the self-flagellation has been administered and we can move on. This is a serious issue and deserves profound national and global debate.
In moving on there has been a rash of interesting articles that must have been awaiting the epiphany. One of my favorites was in Newsweek by Fareed Zakaria. The crux is that we are not going to significantly affect greenhouse gases for decades—this also seems to be “scientifically settled”. This raises the question of how we should prioritize this mammoth problem.
First, the reduction of greenhouse gas and particulate emissions is in our best interests even if such a reduction has no affect on global climate change. Think of the impact of such a reduction on disease and foreign energy dependence. We can make large improvements through conservation and the use of existing technology—no need to wait for break-throughs or burden ourselves with the Kyoto Protocol. Instead we need national leadership. We need the vision and courage that JFK displayed with his sixties space initiative. Only directed toward clean air, protection of water and the efficient production and use of energy. We, as a nation, can do it if inspired and guided.
Secondly, Zakaria noted that the sea level could rise as much as two feet before the end of this century. If we believe this to be a probable event, we would be wise to consider consistent national policies. For example, should government spending encourage continued growth and development of those coastal areas likely to be inundated? We did this with New Orleans and suffered the consequences of the inevitable statistical event that ends in monumental tragedy.
Technorati Tags:conservation, global warming, climate change
3 comments:
For those interested in planning to adapt to climate change, since that is surely what we must do, I would recommend the books of Dr. Vaclav Smil of the University of Alberta. Dr. Smil is an expert in population growth, fossile fuels and their alternatives, and global food production. These are all elements in a successful adaptation to our changing climates, and he explains the geology, chemistry, and human nature in ways a layman like myself can follow.
Thanks Jeff. I'll take a look at his books.
I have been thinking about this topic from the perspective of honest science and Christian stewardship, and here are a few thoughts, far too much to post as a comment:
As I understand it, here it is in a nutshell:
1. At the beginning of the industrial age, CO2 made up about 250 ppm of the atmosphere. (Air is 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen, 1% other. CO2 is part of the "other.") It is now around 350 ppm.
2. All components of the air have a calculable "greenhouse" effect, but the carbon atom has a slightly larger one than either N2 or O2 due to its size. CO2 is nowhere near as efficient at the greenhouse effect as CFC's, but is is more efficient than either O2 or N2.
3. The reason it is a calculable concern is this: Sunlight and radiant heat reflect back into space at a lower frequency and larger wavelength than they enter. This means that the larger molecules in the atmosphere block more of the "leaving" energy than "entering" energy. This difference is very, very small. But over decades it has a cumulative effect. The oceans serve as an enormous heat sink, gradually storing the energy which accumulates. Hence the 1 degree rise in ocean temperature over the past century.
4. 1 degree is small when representing the energy required to raise the temerature of a room. But in order for the oceans to have a difference of 1 degree, an enormous amount of energy has been stored in them.
5. "Global" warming is misleading. The mean temperature of the earth may increase by a degree, but the oceans and jetstreams see that it is distributed unevenly. This doesn't result in a uniform warming of the earth, but a reordering of its climate patterns. These effects are not well known, and many of the recent meteorological discoveries are shedding light on how warmer oceans may affect regional climates.
6. A few parts of the earth have enormous amounts of ice stored on land shelves. If these begin shedding their ancient reserves into the oceans, without a counterbalance somewhere else, ocean levels will rise.
7. Climate does change. Humans have had to adapt to some pretty dramatic climate changes throughout the earth's history, and did so both with migrations and technology.
8. The earth, through its natural biological processes, maintains an equilibrium in the CO2 level worldwide. CO2 is emitted by living things, by geological processes, and by the activity of mankind. The CO2 emissions by mankind are largely caused by the rapid oxidation of ancient biological stores of carbon from solar energy converted to sugars in plants of the ancient world, represented by today's coal beds; and by oil. Oil and coal were probably created by similar processes, and represent a mass-burying of carbon by the earth many years ago. It is now being released. Since it is not part of the natural processes of the earth, it does have the effect of slightly tipping the balance of CO2 in the atmosphere from equilibrium over time. While the oceans and plant life on the earth are very efficient at scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere and returning the carbon atom to the ground, they have slightly lost ground over the past 150 years.
Now, that being said, what do we, as good stewards, do?
Many seem to want to know which "side" they should "support." Instead, we should try to learn the facts. Theories don't need "support." That concept is what turns issues of planetary stewardship into farcical political battles, as "'global warming" is today. Not only are you tricked into believing that you have to "pick a side," but you can also nearly predict to a man or woman who will be on each "side" based on the presumed factions of the awful "culture wars" that have beset us.
I think the facts I listed above are accurate. I'm not a scientist myself, and I apologize if I got anything wrong. I tried to summarize my own reading on the topic as I understand it. It does, however, lead me to a few conclusions as to what we should do.
1. Don't preach to China or anyone else what we are economically unwilling or unable to do ourselves.
2. Remember that economics, not political coersion, are the best motivator of human activity in the free world.
3. Learn about what activities you do result in a carbon emission. For instance, many are now wild about hybrid or hydrogen cell cars because they believe they are "green." However, the technology to efficiently manufacture useable hydrogen without polluting the air with carbon has not yet been developed. Most hydrogen today is made by stripping hydrogen atoms from methane. This results in a carbon emission at the point of manufacture. Your hybrid car uses electricity, which is generated with coal or natural gas, resulting in a carbon emission at the electric generation plant. These solutions may seem cleaner where you are, but they are dirtier someplace else. If you are able, support research into the efficient, cheap and safe generation of hydrogen gas from water. This is probably the key to safe and clean energy, and even energy inependence. The best solution would be to develop ways to generate electricity and hydrogen using only solar and wind power. Then there would be no carbon emissions, and the electricity and hydrogen could be shipped where needed.
4. Try to emit fewer carbon atoms yourself with what you have learned.
5. Support policies which adapt to predictable climate change, and don't get lost in the argument about whose fault it is. It may be nobody's fault at all. What matters is how humans will adapt to it. That is what mattered in the past as well. Migrations and changes in technology will help. Special attention to changes in agriculture and water distribution resulting from climate change are in order. A sensible approach to these regional problems, with rich and poor countries working together, will alleviate so much human suffering, which really should be our goal anyway.
6. If you are able to do so, economically support companies which are working in this direction. Americans really vote with their dollars, and this is how they do it. Forget about Al Gore, Michael Crichton, and the like. They had their say. Learn something from what they said, but move on. Much of what is proposed in the political arena in response to "global warming" merely increases human suffering, which is a shame. We need to alleviate it through inventive means.
The earth is our home, and we need to take care of it until God decides it is time to perfect it. Some education and calm, intelligent work will go a lot further than all the political hot air in the world in making this a better place to live and learn about Jesus.
Jeff
Post a Comment