Global warming is Not A Left/Right Issue

June 29, 12:10 PMRichmond Liberal ExaminerAaron Colohan

Previous

9 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Richmond Liberal Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Is green really that bad?

Global warming is inevitable, it is a fact. The issues that confront us, and that are at the root of the debate is how soon, what is causing it and can it be delayed. On these points lay the foundation of heated arguments between politicians, laymen and to some degree, scientists. The Wall Street journal printed an editorial on Friday implying that a growing number of scientists are beginning to doubt the impact of man on global warming and that some foreign dignitaries of countries that historically have been vocal, such as Australia and Japan, have begun to challenge the Obama administration on the effects that man has had over our climate. All of this comes at a time that the beginnings of climate assisting legislation are being passed in congress. This, of course, will flame the debate between the left and the right in an already super-heated (no pun intended) environment of partisanship. But these arguments are nothing new within science and it should be noted that; “since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change)

With all of this being said, I want to explore some of the things that scientists do NOT disagree with: We are in an interglacial period which is the warm period between ice ages, we do not understand completely the processes that trigger ice ages and inter glacial periods, we do not know why the last interglacial ended, we in no way can factually predict the end of our current interglacial period, we can only interpret the events unfolding as they are. According to Vostok Ice Core data, (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok.html) the last interglacial period occurred from 131kybp (thousand years before present) to 120kybp. During this time, the global temperature matched, and for a few thousand years exceeded our own global temperature. It should also be noted that the 11-12,000 year time frame (approximate) is around the same length of our own interglacial period; 10,000bp to now. It is this time period that some scientists point at to argue against man caused global warming in pointing out that this may be a natural earth cycle and what we are seeing today are signs that the earth is beginning to change. This is plausible and a sound argument, but it does not rule out man induced global warming, it only offers a reasonable alternative. In a court of US law, this would be enough to acquit a defendant, but we are not in a court of law. The stakes are far greater than that. This must be a case of assuming and preparing for the worst case scenario because anything else would be irresponsible.

Here are another set of facts. A great majority of fossil fuel we utilize today, and their subsequent carbon emissions were deposited over 300 million years ago and they took several millions of years to form. Man kind has released over 50% of that CO2 back into the atmosphere in fewer than two hundred years and a vast majority of that within the last seventy five years. CO2 gasses are climate warming gasses that are scrubbed out of our atmosphere by coral reefs, oceans and plant life. These “scrubbers” are either dying (Great Barrier Reef), being cut down (Amazon) or are at their max capacity as far as we understand (oceans). With an atmosphere heavy in CO2, our earths climate will be one that homo sapien sapiens have never experienced that we know of. These are facts. I am not stating that man is causing global warming. I am just stating that we utilize fossil fuels. Cause and effect are assumed, rightly or wrongly.

The responsible thing for the global community to do is to work on the operative assumption that mankind and our use of fossil fuels is affecting our climate in a negative way. If we are not a major contributing factor of our changing climate, then doing nothing is irrelevant. If we are a major contributing factor, then doing nothing could be the greatest crime against humanity since, as a species, we have never lived through a Triassic like environment and as a society; we have never lived through an ice age. To put it another way; if we are not a major contributing factor and we do everything in our power believing that we are and trying to change that, then it is again, irrelevant. If we are a major contributing factor and we do everything in our power to change the effects we have on our environment and it does help then future generations would look upon us with honor and gratitude for giving them a world in which they may live in as we live in ours. If it doesn’t work, then we at least know we tried and provide object lessons for our children.

All in all, none of this is a left/right partisan debate. What is political is the monetary effect of policies on both sides. At this point the question then becomes which is better: fossil fuels or green technology?

Well, monetarily speaking with fossil fuels they are finite; we pay for the fuel, the processing of it, the shipping of it and for the burning of it. With renewable energy we would pay for the processing and distribution of it and the fuel its self is infinite as long as the earth exists. It would seem that the more cost efficient process is the one with fewer steps and unlimited resources. Oh, and there is also the added benefit of just maybe saving the future of our civilization.