What a holiday surprise! And we thought islands off Papua New Guinea would be the first— in about 8 years… wrong! India’s mangrove island on the Bay of Bengal, Lochachara, is now gone. In the same at-risk delta region, 70,000 people and 400 tigers now at risk…
Disappearing Worlds: Global Warming claims tropical island
For the first time, an inhabited island has disappeared beneath rising seas.
The Independent
Environment Editor, Geoffrey Lean reports
Published: 24 December 2006
Rising seas, caused by global warming, have for the first time washed an inhabited island off the face of the Earth. The obliteration of Lohachara island, in India’s part of the Sundarbans where the Ganges and the Brahmaputra rivers empty into the Bay of Bengal, marks the moment when one of the most apocalyptic predictions of environmentalists and climate scientists has started coming true.
As the seas continue to swell, they will swallow whole island nations, from the Maldives to the Marshall Islands, inundate vast areas of countries from Bangladesh to Egypt, and submerge parts of scores of coastal cities.
Eight years ago, as exclusively reported in The Independent on Sunday, the first uninhabited islands – in the Pacific atoll nation of Kiribati – vanished beneath the waves. The people of low-lying islands in Vanuatu, also in the Pacific, have been evacuated as a precaution, but the land still juts above the sea. The disappearance of Lohachara, once home to 10,000 people, is unprecedented.
It has been officially recorded in a six-year study of the Sunderbans by researchers at Calcutta’s Jadavpur University. So remote is the island that the researchers first learned of its submergence, and that of an uninhabited neighbouring island, Suparibhanga, when they saw they had vanished from satellite pictures.
Two-thirds of nearby populated island Ghoramara has also been permanently inundated. Dr Sugata Hazra, director of the university’s School of Oceanographic Studies, says “it is only a matter of some years” before it is swallowed up too. Dr Hazra says there are now a dozen “vanishing islands” in India’s part of the delta. The area’s 400 tigers are also in danger.
Until now the Carteret Islands off Papua New Guinea were expected to be the first populated ones to disappear, in about eight years’ time, but Lohachara has beaten them to the dubious distinction.
Human cost of global warming: Rising seas will soon make 70,000 people homeless
Refugees from the vanished Lohachara island and the disappearing Ghoramara island have fled to Sagar, but this island has already lost 7,500 acres of land to the sea. In all, a dozen islands, home to 70,000 people, are in danger of being submerged by the rising seas.
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2099971.ece
The time has come to call for leaders in this fight. We are the first generation who’s children will indeed suffer for their grandparents neglagence. The responsibility to change is on us now; the last generation to know a difference between moderate consumption and scorge. I am 24 years old and I want to see 64. Without strong leaders I am without hope.
You gotta be kidding me, Christina! Sea level has been rising slowly since the height of the last ice age 20,000 years ago, and it’s still rising today. Back then, much of the North American continent was covered in ice a mile deep. Science tells us the oceans have risen at least 100 meters since the warming began, and it’s still happening today.
These islands of which you write aren’t being “inundated” as if there was a sudden flood. They’re gradually being eroded away by a process that takes years to happen.
You’re ignorant and/or extremely gullible if you believe humans control the climate. Just think about it for a bit.
I beleive we have thought about it a lot that is why this blog and others like it are around. It pains me to think that some still try to say we are not affecting global climate. Of course the global climate goes through cycles but if you look at the data for a BIT you’ll notice that our current warming is happening much more quickly than any in the past. Though it does pain me to see Ralph’s comment I am also pleased that it’s there the fact that there have been more comments such as his on the blog shows that we are starting to be seen as a coalition that is a threat to the status quo of keeping people wealthy by unjustly hurting those who aren’t. And to speak on that for a second lets think about something else even if, as you say humans aren’t affecting climate (which we are), the fact is that the very things that are causing climate change are causing many other problems to people all over the world with such things as air pollution, water pollution, coal mining, and violent conflict over resources, just to name a few. So why not change the way we produce energy to stop those things from happening to people. Lets convert our consumption to REAL sources of clean energy such as wind and solar so that we stop harming people and destroying our world with dirty energy. It just makes sense.
May I just say Ralph what a long neck you have… and what long skinny legs you have… and my how you resemble a flightless bird… and here’s where I’m going to demonstrate how gullible I am and go out on a limb with a cliche like “Ralph, you my friend might as well be an Ostrich and you should bury your head a little further into the sand”.
I supose you haven’t even bothered to do even the slightest bit of research on the subject on which you write. Well even for the slightly ignorant – you could do yourself and the world a favor and watch “An Inconvienient Truth” by Al Gore. Then ask yourself the following question: If man has no impact on the climate… Why in over 600,000,000 years of recorded data (ice core C02/Temp samples), have the 10 hottest years ever recorded been in the last 14 years? Guess that’s just coincidental.
Ralph it’s people like you… that make me cringe thinking that in 10 years we won’t even recognise our coastlines and you’ll still be saying “Oh, couldn’t be human beings impacting the climate”… it must be nature. The thing is Ralph… nature can go on without Mankind… however Mankind can’t go on without nature.
TY… you’re much too soft spoken for someone that obviously recognises how bad off we are. We’re about 20 years too late from being able to change the probable outcomes of our climate/eco-erosion. Don’t go soft… get angry… set the record straight. Tell the world to wake the F@$(#*$(%*^(*!!!!!!!! UP!!!
I can’t go on for fear I will beat my keyboard into a non-functional state.
Too little – too late…
KD
Thanks for replying to my post, this gives me a chance to clarify a few things that you and other readers may (and should) be thinking about- as is the purpose of this forum.
1) I want to clarify that I did not write the article, it was reported from The Independent, a UK newspaper- whose link was included at the bottom of the post. With that said, I do not separate myself from what was (or should be) learned by reading the story of this loud-and-clear example of global warming directly impacting the livelihood and existence of fellow human beings.
2) Secondly, I want to clarify that I support all the sound, scientific data that has reported on climate change and global warming. I obviously have no knowledge of where you (Ralph) come from or your political preferences, but it is clear that you have not done substantial research or, if so, have used “junk” science, as, unfortunately, has been common due to pressure by our federal administration. Now, I can sympathize with you if you have been using research suggested by particular political parties or special interests, for they would have led you astray from sound, unbiased scientific data. To remedy this problem, here’s a few links you really should look at to get a reliable, scientific background on the human influence on global warming and climate change. Also, take a look at the archives of this website- the writers here are just as serious as I am about science, fact, and action.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: http://www.ipcc.ch/
Pew Center on Global Climate Change: http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/
An Inconvenient Truth: The Science: http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/
So please check out these sites, they should clear up some misconceptions and information for you.
3) Ralph, your statement that “humans control the climate” is itself an overstatement. Obviously, the earth is continuing on with its movements, its climate patterns shifting, in many ways doing it’s own “thing” as it has for millenia. However, it is completely false and blind to claim that humans have zero impact on the warming of the planet, which obviously alters climates worldwide. We do not “control” the climate as simply as an air-conditioning machine- so don’t try to simplify something so complex in such trite terms. Our human actions (including the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, etc) increase carbon dioxide in our atmosphere and have heated the planet more quickly and more substantially in the past few decades more so than any time period EVER ACCOUNTED FOR. This subject is what you need to learn about, since this seems to be your main point of contention. Check out the IPCC link above, which assesses “on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.” (quoted from the IPCC “About” page)
4) There was no instantaneous flood that wiped away Lochachara; clearly, it was a gradual process. Yet, what made this gradual process accelerate (what happened to the 8 year window we thought we had before an inhabited island would be submerged?)? And more importantly, what does this mean to Lochachara’s surrounding communities and region? One thing this event shows us is that we aren’t watching closely enough where rising sea levels are impacting communities and to what extent, which is spmething that should be solved through increased investment in such research (as soon as people start recognizing it as an area worthy of study- how many more islands and coasts would that take, I wonder?)
5) I URGE you and other readers to NOT “just think about it for a bit.” You see, if you think about it for a bit, then you’ll buy into propaganda and forget the fact that you have to make decisions on your own. DON’T think about it for a minute- think about it for a few hours, a few days– think about it until you’ve learned enough to form an opinion and can act intelligently with facts, data, and solutions. But at the same time, be quick because the world isn’t going to wait until you wake up about the threat of global warming. Time IS of the essence.
6) I’d also like to throw out there that global warming isn’t this Holy Grail that is an elusive goal that environmentalists want to create, beat, and then say “hey, I told you so!” This issue impacts my family as much as it does yours, Ralph. So to brush me off as gullible or ignorant is really an irresponsible way of distancing yourself from this issue that threatens to hurt your kids/loved ones as well as mine, since we’re all in this together. Ignoring the facts and ignoring solutions because they are out of one’s comfort zone is counterproductive and only keeps us behind in moving forward with cool new technologies and products that will reap incredible benefits for us in the future. Also, it’s not about “believing” in global warming similiarly to “believing” in a religion or in whatever values one may hold. It’s about REALITY. Reality as exemplified by the climate refugees out of Lochachara, reality as illustrated by the giant Canadian Ice Shelf collapse less than a week ago. The reality is that the human impact on global warming is substantial enough for us as humans to be alarmed and change our actions. It’s not easy and it’s not fun, but it’s necessary if you care about our future generations.
For years I’ve been hearing about global warming and just didn’t really pay it much attention. Then one day I watched an episode of the Oprah Winfrey show when Al Gore was the guest. After watching that show my wife and I rented his video “An inconvenient Truth”. After watching this video, then going on the internet to do our own research, one thing is very clear. We are in BIG trouble if major changes aren’t made very soon!
I am not viewed by my friends and co-workers as a “political correct” person, so it’s a bit of a surprise to them when I start telling them about what I’ve learned and how very serious this issue is. It is very unfortunate that an issue of this magnitude is viewed as a “tree hugger” or some “politically correct” person’s imagination gone wild.
My wife and I have changed the light bulbs in our home from incandescent to florescent type bulbs. We stopped leaving a light on in the kitchen all night also. We will be taking advantage of every opportunity to make changes in our daily living habits to decrease our energy consumption. It has to start somewhere, and the best place to start is with me! If EVERYONE will make some very easy changes we can turn this situation around. One of the very easy things we can and must do is vote in politicians that will do what is necessary to get our Country’s auto and energy industries headed in the right direction.
We have a choice. Do nothing and soon cry very bitter tears OR make the changes necessary to stop global warming then reap the blessings.
Most discussions of Global Warming the effect of culture on the aggregate political decisions made by a given society. I have just returned from a 3.5 week trip to Europe where I completed an international business seminar in Munich and Paris. We met with business leaders such as the French Ambassador of the Ministry of Finance and Economy, directors from global companies like Siemens, and representatives from various Chambers of Commerce. Afterwards, I volunteered a week at the Borneo Orangutan Survival Foundation (http://www.savetheorangutan.co.uk/). Rarely was the topic of Global Warming was NOT discussed in terms of something clearly in the planning agenda of the companies we visited. It was also implied that human causality was a foregone conclusion.
In terms of the opinion of regular people you meet on the street, there was positive and frank discussion in the pubs and bars throughout Paris, Garmische, Munich, Buckinghamshire, and Oxford. As an American though, they were rather direct in questioning me about my personal responsibility for having a president such as Mr. Bush. Apparently, Bush is widely considered to be the most dangerous leader the world has faced since Hitler. I found that surprising, but like a frog boiled slowly in a pot of water, I have succumbed to our political state of affairs as the accepted status quo.
My point, and forgive my taking so long to arrive at the point, is that in my travels I noticed that people elsewhere find it socially acceptable to discuss issues that are meaningful while out in a bar or pub environment. There is little divide between having a good time and having real conversations. By contrast, at the Fox and Hound, a pub near my home in Atlanta, people dip their toes in the waters of this discussion. Perhaps they want to appear intelligent, caring, or socially responsible. Invariably, once a boundary is passed where the real urgency is laid plain, people then go to a “I don’t want to think about” “eat, drink, and be merry” attitude.
The fact is that US citizens have NEVER been invaded. One could argue Mexico invaded. However, we garrisoned Mexico City in the 1840′s.
By contrast, the old world has been bombed, blasted, and tortured throughout many wars. We at home wring our hands that we lost thousands of people in a terrorist bombing, then we allow our government to spend 4x the money on a war in country that we know has no relation to the bombing, all the while allowing Bin Laden to literally walk out of the canyon where he was surrounded. Europe lost millions in ovens, hundreds of thousands in bombings, and thousands to small arms fire. Besides the civil war that was self-inflicted, we simply cannot conceive of this reality. Only 50 years ago, Europe was a wasteland, divided in half, with nukes bristling at the pickets. They were forced to make decisions that led to cooperation and coalitions. Add to this the loss of their colonial holdings and warfare across these former colonies, you have a grim picture. Yet, they prevailed, and their Euro and Pound in now 40% stronger over the past 5 years than the dollar.
The fact is the we Americans have never faced at home the real atrocities that led to modern Europe having to find political means to reconcile differences, creates social programs, and develop a faculty for thoughtful listening. Instead, we have allowed our attitude to shift to the point where we have become a ruthless society that attacks anything that remotely resembles a threat to the cocktail party we live in. We let 30 million people go without adequate medical care. We allow people to freeze in the streets. We allow our old to face care systems in the nursing homes that are expensive and downright deadly. We force welfare recipients to work two jobs to pay the rent, provide no day care services, and wonder why 6 years show up at school with handguns. We have more immediate problems that some ice shelf calving in the hinterlands of Canada. Even these immediate problems, we find ways to rationalize and ignore.
In Europe, the issue of whether Global Warming is related to we humans is not even questioned any longer.
We subsidized through the Farm Vehicle Tax Credit driving gas guzzling SUV’s while providing little incentive to buy hybrid cars and removing electric cars from the market despite strong demand. During a time when we are fighting a war directly related to our dependence on oil, this is completely irrational to a clear thinking conscience regardless of your own beliefs of Global Warming. Our consumption puts our nation directly at risk, yet we would rather throw our brothers and sisters into the line of fire rather than give up our Navigators and Escalades.
If driving an SUV is not viewed as unpatriotic to America, then how in the world can anyone have a hope that people will accept a meaningful dialogue about Global Warming, much less support positive actions to put a halt to the problem?
On the world political stage, the US is viewed as an adolescent with a good heart, a bad temper, inconsistent foreign policy, and access to resources that no adolescent should ever have. The US simply does not have the motivation or the capacity to face the issues related to fossil fuel based economics. We must look to the Old World countries for leadership is this matter. They have the skills in global trade relations, language, diplomacy, and have had to learn hard lessons about the consequences of reactionary and aggressive forms of conflict resolution.
We simply do not have the need to use these skills in our country. We are the largest economy. We have the largest military. Moreover, if we halt our consumption patterns, we will bankrupt entire nations. We should we change our ways? This is driving the psyche of our countrymen.
Yet, there are Americans actively working on the problem. If you want to know about REAL alternatives to fossil fuels and bio fuels go to http://intergalactichydrogen.com/ where a close friend 3 years ago became the first American to drive round trip coast to coast on Hydrogen. He has now created the first quad fuel vehicle, Unleaded, Ethanol, Natural Gas, and Hydrogen. Flip a switch; change the fuel. This solves all manner of logistical problems about fuel types, distribution, and vehicle range.
Here is the rub – if Mr. Robinson can do this in his garage without a college degree, then one has to wonder why the largest corporations in the world are withholding this technology from us, for they also must have developed similar capabilities.
For once, our pride in America may put us in the follower position in the fight to save the world. For we are saving the world from ourselves.
As one who has been on this planet for a while and was an ecologist and an advocate for our planet before it was cool, I have to speak up. I have seen the impact we’ve (yes, we humans) have had on our planet–the warming of our Earth–the destruction of our ecosystems and untold species, which we have only just begun to understand–the greed of our political systems and corporations–both in the US and abroad. I have “noticed” the gradual changes and have felt the Earth groan under the pressure of too many people, too many wars, too much corruption and too many people burying their heads in the sand. An oil tanker ran aground and wiped out an Alaskan coast line–thousands of creatures and a way of life–gone forever and still not “cleaned up”. There have been many others–can you name them? Do you know where they will drill next? Do you know the risks? Do you care that one little island is under water or that polar bears are starving? That the habitats of literally thousands of species of plants and animals are disappearing daily? That the desert is claiming fertile land in a third world country and people are dying as a result? That the US is responsible for most of the carbon which is in the atmosphere? It’s easy to look the other way and if we don’t see it then, well it doesn’t exist.—Yes we are impacting our planet and to think otherwise is literally suicide and what we often fail to understand is that we are taking others with us–ourselves, other species, and future generations.
There have been many who have known for many years—before some of you were born–the harm we were causing and we knew that our dependence on fossil fuels would be our undoing. We know it now (well most of us) and still our country marches on towards it’s inevitable undoing. We focus on small things and then forget–we justify our desecration at almost every turn–we turn back to the easy way, the way we have been taught—which is to take more than we need and leave a barren landscape behind. The need to control resources–and inevitably each other has led to this escalating waste and greed, and our own destruction, if we allow it. Never let anyone tell you that we are simply in a cycle and yes, get angry–apathy is the terrible monster which has stopped us before–learn from history.
Changing a light bulb, recyling and growing an organic garden are some of the things we can do but the things that are going on behind closed doors make this look like a drop in the bucket–yes it all adds up but our time is running out and in some cases it already has. We must not only educate but also radically change the administration under which we are all subjected. They (we) must reflect new ecological minded values under which our country must proceed–which is to implement actions on many levels which will take care of the home that we live in–not exploit it for a moment’s pleasure. We will have to free ourselves from our dependence and our greed and our inability to see the ripple effects of our seemingly innocent actions. We have many brilliant minds who have developed ways to free us from our dependence on fossil fuels–what we must do is to push for development–not allow the greed of big corporations and a government with vested interests in the old ways to shut them down.
We must not turn away and forget on the next sunny day. If we do, it is you who will be telling your grand children and great-grand children the same thing–you will be apologizing for dropping the ball when you had the chance to make a change. It’s you will be apologizing for forgetting on the next sunny day–if there is one.
Good grief. Talk about over-reacting. I merely pointed out that the article was terribly misleading by suggesting that global warming was responsible for obliterating these islands. And I pointed that humans don’t control the climate … and probably never will. But allow me to respond to some of the hysterics cast in my direction …
To Ty – if we expect to make meaningful reductions in carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, it will NOT be achieved by wind and solar. Do you understand that we need electricity 24/7? It’s available all the time. Wind and solar are intermittent power sources. The only existing technology that would allow us to shut down the coal burners is nuclear energy. American has 103 nuclear plants now. Are you ready for 1,000 more?
To KD – I find it fascinating that you know “in over 600,000,000 years of recorded data” that the 10 hottest years ever recorded have been in the last 14 years? It’s a remarkable statement when one considers that Daniel Fahrenheit didn’t invent the mercury thermometer until 1714.
I live in the northern United States in an area that 20,000 years ago was covered in ice. Yet within 50 miles of my home paleontologists have unearthed the fossilized remains of dinosaurs that could only have survived in a tropical climate. But KD tells me the earth is warmer now than in the age of dinosaurs?
To Christina – I’ve thought about this more than a bit. I’ve thought about it a lot. People keep talking about “solutions” to global warming. What is your solution? Our entire world economy depends on fossil fuels. Half of America’s electricity comes from coal. Our cars, trucks, buses, trains, airplanes and ships use fossil fuels. We heat our homes with fuel oil and natural gas. And you know what? Other people in other countries would like to enjoy our high standard of living, but the only way they will achieve it is by … you guessed it, burning fossil fuels.
To Owen Maupin – you need to recognize that Al Gore’s movie is not a documentary. Much of it is science fiction. It is not based on scientific fact. Studies done in Antarctica indicate that the ice sheet withstood much warmer weather in the past, and recent measurements indicate Antarctica is actually getting slightly colder. Ice in the Arctic is already floating, so further melting will not affect sea level. Gore’s prediction about catastrophic rises in ocean levels and flooded coastlines is pure fantasy. Sea level has risen 400 feet since the height of the last ice age, and is continuing to rise an average of seven inches per century.
To Brian Grant – you are right on, we do have more serious problems, one of which is world poverty. Achieving reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, by necessity, means depriving these underprivileged people of an opportunity to raise their standard of living. These new technologies of which you write will be marvelous, but they don’t exist today, and when they are developed they will be expensive. Today, the only affordable means to assist those in poverty around the world is the use of energy provided by fossil fuels.
All I’m asking is that people think about what they’re being told. I don’t deny that the earth has gotten warmer the past few decades, but I have my doubts that humanity’s emission of “greenhouse gases” is anything more than a minor contributing factor. And I have even stronger doubts that any political “solution” can realistically do anything to affect the earth’s climate.
Maybe I’m too practical, but I do understand economics and the concept of the cost-benefit ratio. If we are asked to spend money (on higher energy prices), shouldn’t we know that we’ll get something in return? And shouldn’t we be assured that other nations are making the same sacrifices (reducing their standard of living)?
I’m truly not convinced that global warming is a problem. Al Gore and the news media focus on its negative aspects, but what’s so terrible about milder winters and longer growing seasons? It’s certainly preferable to global cooling and trying to keep from freezing to death. Imagine the energy consumption that would require.
But the bottom line is this — if Americans insist that global warming is a problem, shouldn’t we also insist that we develop a global “solution?”
Ralph, there are a few things that I would like to point out here. The first is that although we didn’t have thermometers until 1714, there are other measurements of temperature and carbon dioxde cconcentrations. While we were not able to directly measure atmospheric concentration or temperatures, ice cores do provide a record that stretches back past the last ice age. With my background as a geologist, I can assure you that ice core data is not science fiction. The trends found in the ice cores may not be exact reflections of the atmospheric trends since the last ice age, but they are internally consistent and show that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases has risen dramatically in the last 150 years. Never before in all of Earth’s history has atmospheric carbon reached the point where it is today. In all the cyclic global warming and cooling events atmospheric carbon stayed below 380 ppm.
Yes, Earth has gone through periods of warming and cooling in the past. It would be ignorant to ignore that fact. These cycles happen on a fairly regular basis. However, what makes this one different is the level of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases in the air. You make the claim that the ice sheets have survived higher temperatures than this. That is valid, but there is a time lapse before the full effects of our current GHG levels will be felt. Because carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for well over 100 years, the earth’s atmosphere will continue warming while the increased (and by this I mean higher than the maximum ever recorded in Earth’s geologic history) levels of GHGs are still around. We don’t know how much warmer the climate may become, but elevated temperatures will result in the continued melting of floating ice shelves and continental sheet ice.
Another claim you make is that floating ice will not contribute to raising sea levels. That’s true. However, this is important because it reflects the loss of sea ice in general. Within the century, perhaps even 50 years it is possible that there will no longer be sea ice covering the Arctic Ocean in the summertime. There could finally be a “Northwest Passage” that explorers were searching for two centuries ago. Now feel free to dispute this claim if you like; it is an prediction which involves some uncertainty. But, the facts that sea ice is melting and continental ice sheets are melting are grave signals. The oceans are getting warmer and melting continental ice sheets will raise sea levels.
Now, aside from melting ice, what is wrong with warmer oceans? They would be more pleasant to swim in. If we take a strictly anthropocentric view, here is why this is bad: most of the Earth’s fisheries are currently being overwhelmed. Overfishing (to feed the world’s population) has put many fisheries on the brink of extinction. That’s bad. Without fish many people would starve (not to mention the catastrophic effects this owuld have on oceanic ecosystems). Now enter global warming. With increased levels of carbon cioxide in the atmosphere, more CO2 is dissolved into the oceans than has been in the past. Now consider this: many microscopic marine organisms that are at the bottom of the food chain survive by forming shells out of calcium carbonate. Increased levels of CO2 increases the acidity of the oceans. In turn the increased acidity dissolves the calcareous walls of many marine organisms. Without this base for organisms higher on the food chain (such as fish and eventually humans) our marine ecosystems are in grave danger of total collapse.
This post has turned out to be longer than I intended and I haven’t even addressed all of the issues that I wanted to. However, I would like to make the point that there is plenty of SOUND SCIENCE out there. Sure the raw data is up to interpretation, but the methods by which the data are collected are sound methods. And some of the trends relating to climate change are pretty much obvious to any observer (Such as rising CO2 levels, loss of biodiversity, shrinking habitats due to changing weather and precipitation patterns, etc). There is a lot of scientific research out there, but how much can you dismiss as science fiction? Where do stop and finally believe the data that scientists have meticulously gathered? Scientific research has lead to nuclear generators, and you seem to believe the science behind those. You can’t throw out all science on the principle that the data must be interpreted.
I hope to make my last points briefly. Yes, other countries should be doing their part in reducing GHG emissions. Countries with the infrastructure and resources to do so are doing just that (with the exception of the US and Australia). To impose the same regulations on developing countries as on developed countries would severly handicap their further development. Some countries simply cannot handle the task yet. But with the exception of China and India, most of these developing countries are not major producers of GHG emissions. And I think that both India and China should take bigger strides to reduce their emissions. AND SO SHOULD THE USA. Currently the US is the world largest emitter of greenhouse gases. We may not be the only cause of the problem, but we are the largest one. Therefore it is our responsibility to take action, especially since we have the econimic resources, the infrastructure and the political ability to make these changes. We have and obligation to the rest of the world to do our part, not just sit by and twiddle our thumbs while everyone else tries to compensate for our ignorance and stubbornness.
Lastly, let’s look outside the American bubble for a moment. Sure global warming would likely mean warmer winters in the upper midwest. It would make life a lot easier over there. But think about the other changes that are happening across the world. Deserts are expanding, meaning that previously arable land is unavailable for people to cultivate. This again contributes to poverty and malnourishment (which also lead to political instability). Warmer oceans result in more intense weather (read any textbook on climate and it will tell you this). More intense weather means more storms, not just hurricanes, but more storms in typically calm regions. Storms not only can cause direct damage, but increased precipitation in areas that lack the vegetation to stabilize the land will suffer more mudflows and landslides. Permafrost is melting in the Arctic, in Canada, in Siberia, in Mongolia. This in turn releases previously trapped GHGs into the atmosphere, along with significantly affecting local ecosystems. Warmer waters mean insects live longer, increasing the likelihood of widespread diseases. Warmer temperatures mean that glaciers are melting, and glaciers around the world are major sources of freshwater for humans, and all life. With most glaciers retreating this source of clean fresh water is disappearing. All of these problems are directly or indirectly results of increased levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The world systems are connected and we do not yet know all of the effects that this will have, but these are the changes that are ALREADY happening. So feel free to sit on your duff and wonder whether or not global warming is happening. But consider this: do we have the time to wait for enough indisputable proof before we start acting? Do you dare risk waiting to see if we are wrong? If nothing else, investing in cleaner electricity, cleaner fuels, more efficient technologies and more sustainable consumption and manufacturing practices benefit everyone. As I see it, the only thing to dispute is the pace at which we pursue these changes. Do we dare wait to implement these changes? I say no. I am not willing to gamble on my future like that.
PS. Yes we should insist on global solutions. Addressing climate change will not require one magic solution, one silver bullet to make it go away. It will require many changes on many different fronts. And I’d like to point out that there is already a framework for GLOBAL solutions. It’s called the Kyoto Protocol, which the US withdrew from. While the Kyoto Protocol is not perfect, and in my opinion is not bold enough, it is the best thing we have to implement global solutions. And the US decided that it was not going to be a part of Kyoto because it didn’t reach far enough. Does this make sense? “t doesn’t do enough, so we aren’t going to be a part of it, and the “voluntary” measures we are going to implement are not even going to come close to the targets set out by the Kyoto Protocol. Does this seem backwards to anyone else? The US is acting, as Bryan says, like and adolescent. We need to buck up and take responsibility for our emissions, not just pass the blame onto other countries. The US is the single largest emitter in the world. If you want global solutions, they must include the US. And that is exactly what we as cliamte activists are advocating.
I was wondering, is there any research being conducted to treat the atmosphere with a compound that can react with greenhouse gases and restore the ozone layer or reverse the warming effect?
Likewise, if there is a chemical imbalance in the oceans, can it be treated like a swimming pool, to be brought back into balance?
If it can be done on a small scale, I’m sure there is a way to balance the chemistry (atmospheric or oceanic) on a large scale.
This would potential solution would be in parallel to reducing GHG emissions.
One last brainstorming thought; couldn’t we as citizens adopt the Kyoto Accord at the State level? If so, then why not place it on the State elections ballots in 2008?
Just some thoughts….
To Juliana – The United States is responsible for roughly 25% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. Wow! Sounds terrible! We should do something! But did you know the United States also represents 25% of the world’s economy, so our “global warming pollution” (to quote Al Gore) is to be expected. It’s not like we’re disproportionately mucking up the planet because of our excessive consumption, so we don’t have to feel guilty about being No. 1.
The United States government is not doing enough? In the past six years (yes, the Bush Administration), our government has invested $29 billion in alternative energy and clean-coal technology. The United States is not “twiddling its thumbs.” Other countries have imposed caps under the Kyoto Protocol which you espouse, and virtually all are finding the reduction targets are unachievable. The USA is actually the WORLD LEADER in funding the research that will make it possible to someday wean ourselves from fossil fuels. It’s a fact.
What our government hasn’t done is impose restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions that would have no discernible environmental benefit, and would further compromise our nation’s ability to compete in the global economy. American business is already over-regulated and over-taxed to feed our bloated government. Our power plants, factories and furnaces are the cleanest in the world. We’ve achieved that distinction through ingenuity, hard work and a strong commitment to environmental responsibility. And we do it because we can afford to do it. Other nations cannot. Others will simply refuse to comply because they fall into the “developing nation” category. Any action we take in the United States to reduce emissions will be more than offset by the poor countries that are trying to work their way out of poverty.
That is why I contend it would be foolish for the United States to impose carbon sanctions on its businesses and consumers. It will hurt our country, and it will do the planet no good. Here’s another fact. The United States’ economy runs on carbon, and any restrictions on its use will have a measurable negative impact on our economy. Rather than impose sanctions on the use of fossil fuels, our best course of action is to continue what we’ve been doing. Congress should continue to create tax incentives to encourage the use of renewable and non-polluting forms of energy (including clean coal) and stimulate the development of new energy technology. We will get there, but we shouldn’t allow global warming alarmists holding a gun to our head to force us into passing ineffective and costly regulations that drive up the price of fossil fuels.
What really gripes me about the entire debate is this. It is the same people, the Barbara Boxer’s of the world who insist that the United States needs to impose limits on greenhouse gas emissions, who will scream and yell every time an American corporation closes a factory, eliminates American jobs and ships its operations to another country. Businesses are in business to make money, and when it becomes unprofitable in the United States, they will leave. It’s a fact. And it has to be factored into the cost-benefit equation of yet another environmental regulation.
As to Al Gore’s science fiction, these are the claims I’m talking about:
1) The debate is over and all credible climate scientists are agreed that humans are the major cause of recent warming. Absolutely false.
2) That temperature has risen above millennial variability. False – what about the Medieval Warming prior to 1400?
3) Changes in solar radiation are insignificant. Obviously, the output of a 10,000 degree, million-mile wide ball just 93 million miles from our planet impacts our climate.
4) Greenhouse gas increases are the main forcing agent of temperature. Not proven. What about the sun, variations in the earth’s orbit and its ocean currents, deforestation, urbanization and other land use changes, underwater volcanic activity??
5) Temperature increases will do more harm than good. Not likely. What about longer growing seasons and milder winters? Or consider the alternative – a colder climate.
6) Strict carbon emission limits will make a definite difference. Not likely, at best one-tenth of a degree, and that’s if others comply as well.
7) Environmental benefits of remediation will be cost-effective. Not unlikely. Energy prices will skyrocket. Benefits cannot be identified.
Now, go watch “An Inconvenient Truth” again.
The United States is working on the climate change issue. We are moving in the right direction. But it would absolutely pointless for the United States to enact carbon restrictions that would amount to a token gesture in the global scheme of things, but that would have very real and very detrimental effects on our economy and our standard of living.
I like how this post has turned out- we’re getting to explore a lot of the common misconceptions surrounding global warming and I really like hearing how different people are working to fight it. Thanks for all the comments.
a) First, “The US emits more, absolutely and per head, than any other country – although it also produces more wealth. When Kyoto was agreed, the US signed and committed to reducing its emissions by 6%. But since then it has pulled out of the agreement and its carbon dioxide emissions have increased to more than 15% above 1990 levels.” Also, according to the same BBC article, the US accounts for 36.1% of greenhouse gas emissions in 2005. Plus, the Energy Department reported one year ago that US greenhouse gas emissions have in fact increased by an additional 2%. So where are you getting these numbers, Ralph?
Even if this were true (that we were producing a proportionate amount of pollution to our economic production), it shouldn’t reach a point that we were the worst polluting country on the earth before we start making changes. It’s obvious that we are contributing to a huge problem, and rather than play ignorant or wait until we are “disproportionate” polluters – wait, what kind of glory is that? That would suck! I would hate to be able to brag that “yeah man! My country’s destroying the planet the fastest!” I mean, wait… the United States is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases already. Oh, hold up- we’ve have already earned that title. Dang it! But even in theory, do we have to mess up that bad before you decide to do something?
b) —”The United States government is not doing enough? In the past six years (yes, the Bush Administration), our government has invested $29 billion in alternative energy and clean-coal technology.” —
I’m not sure where you’re getting your numbers or information, Ralph, but out of a $2.77 Trillion budget for Fiscal Year 2007, only $50 million was given to the EPA regarding clean diesel grants, and just $11 million for developing and implementing a renewable fuel standard. Other monies were allocated to the numerous issues the EPA has to deal with, but it’s strikingly clear at a glance to the White House FYF Budget documents that little if any emphasis has been given to clean alternatives and efficiency programs. The apple of the federal eye has been nuclear and now there’s a new emphasis “clean coal”- neither of which are clean. (“Clean coal” has the same extraction and development pollution and environmental destruction as normal coal, but instead sequesters- yet not “disappears” (darn it!) carbon dioxide- thereby avoiding its immediate (but also allowing for its eventual) release into the atmosphere. Clean coal ain’t clean, it just puts the problem in another form.
c) —”Other countries have imposed caps under the Kyoto Protocol which you espouse, and virtually all are finding the reduction targets are unachievable. The USA is actually the WORLD LEADER in funding the research that will make it possible to someday wean ourselves from fossil fuels. It’s a fact.” —
It’s a fact from where? The US is certainly not a world leader actually doing something proactive. As you see in the federal budget linked above- the federal government is not investing enough into clean, renewable energy sources. It’s confused nuclear and “clean” coal for those! Oh that silly federal branch!
We’re missing out on opportunities and handling global warming with incompetence. The Kyoto targets aren’t unachievable- European countries such as the UK and Sweden are already meeting it. The climate activist community even has issues with it being too soft, with no teeth to it. I see it as a first step, and definitely not the final answer. If we all meet Kyoto, that doesn’t stop global warming in its tracks, but it will undoubtedly help us shape up.
d) There is discernible environmental benefit- “…at the end of 2004, U.S. emissions were 5,905 mmt, or 27% above the Kyoto target. Energy Information Agency models forecast U.S. CO2 emission to be 6,415 mmt by 2008―38% above the Kyoto target―and 6,812 mmt by 2012―47% above the Kyoto target.” This data, provided by a Senior Fellow at Resources for the Future in Washington DC further proves to us that the United States is not handling greenhouse gas emissions on our own without Kyoto or well enough.
e) Let’s look to our very similar neighbor, Canada for an example of Kyoto’s economic impact. “Under a scenario where Canada achieves the Kyoto Target entirely through domestic abatement and using a cost-effective approach to emissions reduction, the cost of compliance for Canada is estimated to be less than 1.5% of Gross National Product (GNP).” Additionally, regarding international trading systems altered to meet Kyoto standards, impacts to GDP are consistently less than 1%.”
Specific sectors of the economy are already feeling the blow from inaction on climate change an global warming. The BBC reported that 2002 European conference of leading insurance companies concluded, (conceding that the humans doubtlessly contribute to global warming) using data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that in the next decade, “the annual COST of global warming will hit $150 billion a year- that’s five times the annual earnings of the entire population of Nigeria.”
The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change also issued a scary report that concluded “that one percent of global GDP is required to be invested in order to mitigate the effects of climate change, and that failure to do so could risk a recession worth up to twenty percent of global GDP.” This report was authored by an economist, not an environmentalist (not to say that the two can’t be the same). Now THAT is a blow to business and the economy!
f) —“Here’s another fact. The United States’ economy runs on carbon, and any restrictions on its use will have a measurable negative impact on our economy.” —
We run on carbon? No, but one can argue that we run on fossil fuels…
g) If we continue “doing what we’ve been doing” then we’ll just see those numbers of greenhouse gases continue to rise, continue to heat the planet, and exacerbate global warming. I’m all for investing in clean energy technology, but it has to be CLEAN to be “CLEAN TECHNOLOGY.”
h) The only fact that holds water throughout all of your post is that businesses are in business to make money. So uh, it really shouldn’t be businesses in charge of enforcing environmental standards, nor should they be rewarded when they meet them. It’s common sense, there needs to be a watchdog to these businesses that are increasing our carbon count and GHG emissions.
i) That’s why I love Juliana’s comment. It’s all about GLOBAL SOLUTIONS. Kyoto isn’t perfect, no climate activist will say it is. But it’s moving in the right direction- it’s finally making our global problem into some sort of global solution and making sure everyone pulls their weight. That’s why we all need to adopt Kyoto protocol and actually enforce it (and help those that can’t- be responsible citizens of the planet). Carbon trading is emerging as a new method to involve developing countries in the fight against global warming- it’s making carbon a commodity and economizing it. There are solutions and new ones being developed everyday. What we DON’T need is to keep on truckin’ like we have been. There’s too much at risk and we don’t have the time to get there “eventually”.
Regarding Al Gore’s documentary:
1) Any legitimate, scientific institution that you look to will agree that global warming has been substantially and rapidly impacted by humans. Please look to the IPCC link and the Pew Center link posted above- you can’t argue with science. But you can argue with interpretations, as Juliana stated above. Name some credible scientists and organizations that refute this. Can you?
2) I thought you believed we couldn’t read temperatures prior to 1714? Anyway, this report has also been assailed by climatologists and paleoclimatologists since the get-go. The Scientific American released an article explaining how this report does not list data quantitatively and even quotes a University of Arizona researcher in stating, “The Soon et al. paper is so fundamentally misconceived and contains so many egregious errors that it would take weeks to list and explain them all.” Read up on it- even the IPCC says the “study’s conclusions are scientifically dubious and colored by politics.”
3 & 4) Another Scientific American article quotes, “Even though humans release other greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, experts project that carbon dioxide emissions will account for about two thirds of potential global warming. Two-thirds. That’s 66%. Over One Half. Any of those other variables combined are less than the carbon dioxide emissions released by humans.
5) Juliana pointed out a ton of examples why a warmer planet is BAD. Spread of disease, more violent and intense weather patterns, just read what she went into detail about above. A colder climate? Are you kidding me?
6) As stated above, they do- look at the projections for US compliance with the Kyoto Protocol! And look at these benefits too, as assessed by MIT research studies.
7) cross-apply the “if we Don’t act on global warming we hurt our economy and global economy WAYYY more” fact noted above. Also, the US clearly isn’t doing enough. The Bush Administration’s approach to matching up to Kyoto’s targets is pretty sorry. Here’s a link to the Pew Center’s anaylsis of the situation.
I’d love to watch an Inconvenient Truth again! Would you like to come with me? (I really think you should.)
I give up, Christina. You win. I’m convinced. The earth is about to boil. Your obviously superior intellect has prevailed over my shallow little mind. Let’s assuage our guilt for being the most successful country on the planet by beating ourselves about the head and face. Let’s further trash the US economy with more needless environmental regulations, make it even more difficult for American business to earn a buck, and declare victory over Mother Earth’s whimsical ways of flicking our planet’s thermostat. God bless you and all the Democrats. Senator Boxer and her minions will save the world.
Do you feel self-righteous about what you’re doing? Have you lost the capability for independent thought? Do you feel compelled to repeat the libelous drivel spewed by the likes of Al Gore, Laurie David and the mindless Hollywood liberals? Do I have your attention yet, Christina?
I’ve ranted because I have little patience for people like you, Christina. Others who’ve posted here, it would appear, have at least considered my point of view. Please explain why you would think I’m kidding that a colder climate is possible. Do you know the reason for the last ice age? Do you understand that far and away the primary greenhouse gas is water vapor? What was the source of the warming 65 million years ago when Tyrannosaurus Rex romped around in South Dakota’s tropical climate? Why are you so convinced that increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide molecules in our atmosphere from 3 out of every 10,000 to 4 out of every 10,000 is the source of the warming? And why are you so convinced that humans are the source of the higher CO2 concentrations, considering that more than 60% of carbon dioxide emissions emanate from the oceans? Could there be other reasons the planet is getting warmer? What about the sun, variations in the earth’s orbit and its ocean currents, deforestation, urbanization and other land use changes, underwater volcanic activity? Are these possibilities irrelevant, or is the debate over?
Your comments and the (biased) sources you quote make it clear that you’ve totally blown me off. You’ve swallowed the load of bull being spread by the environmental propagandists, and in fact, have become one of them. Nicholas Stern’s report has been widely discredited for its worst-of-the-worst scenario and near total disregard of negative economic consequences, the Pew Center is about as far left as one can get, your defense of Al Gore’s fantasy is infantile, and in case you haven’t noticed, the IPCC has backed off on many of its alarmist predictions.
Please listen. The United States can NOT address this issue alone.
We could shut down every power plant, every factory, every furnace, every train, every plane, every truck, every bus, every car, every fossil-fuel burning machine in America, and it might, just maybe, reduce the earth’s average temperature by a few hundredths of a degree in the next 20 years.
I am concerned about this issue and I want to do what’s best for our planet. But it will do absolutely no one any good anywhere for the world’s most powerful economy to weaken itself with superfluous, punitive environmental laws that will destroy wealth, and ultimately hamper our ability to develop the technology that will free the world from its dependence on fossil fuels.
We need to focus our resources on technology, and we will develop more environmentally friendly sources of energy. But in the meantime, let’s allow the economy to continue producing the wealth that will allow us to fund the research that will develop these new technologies.
Am I getting through to you, Christina?
Mr Sugata Hazra, the source for the latest news on Lohachara Island, and his staff presented a paper to the Asian Conference on Remote Sensing IN 2001 entitled, “Assessment of Landuse/Landcover Dynamics and Shoreline Changes of Sagar Island Through Remote Sensing.”
http://www.crisp.nus.edu.sg/~acrs2001/pdf/172HAZRA.pdf
The submerged island of Lohachara is just northwest of Sagar Island. Interestingly, in this paper he doesn’t claim global warming to be the explanation for the shoreline changes on Sagar Island. Hazra and his staff have found that the rate of erosion increased greater than the rate of accretion. The paper explains that the islands in this estuary experienced a stable existence when the freshwater inflow from the Hoogly was of high intensity until the Ganges shifted course due to a
recent tectonic tilt. Since then the islands within the estuary are experiencing a hydrodynamic imbalance. It is also noted that the sea level rise is 2.36 mm/yr…less than the global average of approximately 3mm/yr…the closest he comes to attributing the cause soley on global warming.
Now let’s compare that rate of sea level rise to the rate measured by the Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research at the University of Colorado. For the Bay of Bengal the average rise in sea level is 2.825mm since late 1992 (see inverted barometer adjustment)
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/results.html
What should also be noted, that you won’t hear from global warming advocates like Al Gore, is that this estuary is on the Faridpur Trough, adjacent to the Calcutta-Mymensingh Hinge. The Faridpur Trough is part of the subsiding Bengal Basin. It is subsiding at a rate of at least 2 cm/yr!!!!
http://banglapedia.org/HT/S_0575.HTM
And for some context take a look at long-term sea level changes:
http://www.nio.org/aroundus/Sagar/sea_level_changes.jsp
But enough of that. Let’s go back to Mr Hazra and his gross errors, exaggerated facts, or just plain lies. You decide. Take a look at Figure 2 in the paper presented at the Asian Conference on Remote Sensing. The change in shoreline extents has been demarcated. In Figure 3 he shows a graph of areal change over time. The graph shows a reduction of areal extents by a little over 12%, or 33.62 km sq. (The paper indicates 30 km sq). But does the Figure 2 map look like there has been that great of a change? I don’t think so. Well, I planimetered the shorelines in his figure 2 and came up with some
interesting calculations. For the 1999 boundary I calculated an area similar to his – 243 km sq (compared to his 240).
But for the 1969 boundary the area is not 273 km sq as Hazra’s paper claims. It’s approximately 255 km sq – a difference of 12 km sq, or a change of about 5%!!!!
Mr Hazra, you claim Sagar Island has lost 30 km sq in 30 years, but your data says the island has lost 12 km sq.
But it gets worse for Mr Hazra. Let’s refer to maps prepared by the US Army Map Service in compiled in 1954, specifically sheet NF-45-11 which shows Sagar Island.
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/ams/india/
I planimetered Sagar Island calculating an area of 247 km sq, or 61,206 acres. Mr Hazra’s area calculation for Sagar Island in 1999 is 240 km sq. Results? The area of Sagar Island has reduced in size by 7 km sq, or 930 acres.
But what does the recent news story tell us? Remember, Mr Hazra is the source. Here it is:
Refugees from the vanished Lohachara island and the disappearing Ghoramara island have fled to Sagar, but this island has already lost 7,500 acres of land to the sea.
Uh, Mr Hazra, your hoax has been exposed.
Mr Hazra repeats the error, exaggeration or lie again:
http://www.omantribune.com/index.php?page=news&id=22798&heading=India
Pointing out that the Sagar island, the largest among the 100 odd ones in the deltaic region, has already lost nearly 30sq km area in last three decades, he said that apart from the factors mentioned earlier, increasing population, rise in salinity in water, siltation at jetties and navigational channels were also responsible for the disastrous consequences.
Mr Hazra has submitted his latest study to the IPCC for next report on climate change. He has not released it or the data
to the public. I wonder why? You got something to hide, Mr Hazra?
Ralph – I don’t think Christina has lost the capacity for independent thought. Putting aside that attacking her personally is a logical fallacy, let’s address a few of your points:
1. You state the Antarctic is getting colder. This is not the case. Every indication is that both the Arctic and Antarctic are getting warmer, and much faster than the rest of the planet. In many ways the vulnerable poles are our early warning system, and they are sounding a very clear alarm at the moment.
2. Ice ages are caused by the Milankovitch cycle, a small but significant fluctuations in the earth’s orbit around the sun resulting in a decrease in incident solar radiation and consequently drop in surface temperature. However, recent warming and increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations has been far too rapid to be correlated with this cycle. The current concentration of CO2 is now substantially higher than at any point in known history, including during all ice age / interglacial periods for which we have data. Furthermore, 650,000 years of ice core data shows a clear correlation between temperature and CO2.
3. Water vapour is, as you say, one of the primary “green house” gasses, however water is so short lived in the atmosphere it’s effect is responsive, rather than driving, and the best way to look at the effect of water is as an amplifier. CO2 is the gas primarily responsible for forcing temperature, CO2 magnifies that effect.
4. Implying that a 300ppm – 400ppm (3/10,000 to 4/10,000) increase in CO2 concentration is somehow negligible because the overall concentration is so low (compared to nitrogen and oxygen, the primary components of the atmosphere) shows a remarkable lack of understanding of the basics of atmospheric physics.
5. I’d be interested to see a peer-reviewed, scientific paper that shows that 60% of global CO2 emissions come from the oceans.
6. If you the IPCC’s third assessment report you will know that many other factors (such as deforestation) are considered by climate scientists. However, the bulk of the evidence suggests that these are far less important than the primary cause of warming – anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide from combustion of fossil fuels.
7. Stating the IPCC has backed off on “many of its alarmist predictions” is also naive. The recent press reports of the likely reduction in the upper level of predicted sea level rise in the IPCC’s fourth assessment report due this year are a prime example of scientists doing good science. In the third assessment report they gave three possible scenarios of sea level rise due to global warming. The upper scenario has been reduced slightly due to new data – this is how science works, and if you look at the data you will see that the (revised) upper “business as usual” scenario for sea level rise is still a big, big problem. Alarmism has never played a role in the IPCC’s work – it is good quality science, and good quality scientists revise things when new data becomes available. That doesn’t mean they were “wrong”, per se, or that there is no longer a problem.
8. Nobody is suggesting that the US address the issue alone. Of course it can’t do that.
9. Regarding the economy, one of the greatest problems we, as human beings, face is that our economic systems fail, utterly, to account for their true costs. In business terms, fossil fuels are like capital. Our global economy has been built by spending an energy capital (energy from the sun stored in fossil fuels) and that capital is running out. We have a bubble, which we can no longer sustain, and our best hope is that we can deflate it slowly in a controlled fashion, before it bursts. New technologies undoubtedly have a role to play, but in reality we have technologies already that will help greatly in solving this problem – energy efficiency, renewables, lifestyle change, public transit, etc. The issue is that we do not have the political, and social, will to implement them on the scale that is required since most of society has been lulled into a state of sheer denial regarding the problem we face.
10. “in the meantime, let’s allow the economy to continue producing the wealth” is exactly the upper-level “worst case” emissions scenario talked about in the IPCC’s work.
Matthew
It’s interesting Ralph eludes to dinosaurs. Ralph – your thinking is dinosauric, and the rest of us will end up like the dinosaurs – extinct – with our leaders thinking the way you do. Unfortunately the only way out of this mess at this point is science. Nanotechnologists will need to release something in the air to combat the CO2 levels over a period of time to safely bring down levels. Is it possible? Not sure at this point, but over the next 100 years, things will get dire without them.
yowza. just got the chance for internet access- I was out for the weekend at the Sierra Club’s Smart Energy Solutions Committee meeting in Washington DC, and it was very interesting. I learned alot and got to see the huge diversity of people and organizations that are concerned about global warming and the realities of dirty energy. Representatives from the Steelworkers Union, the Apollo Alliance, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the National Council of Churches were key speakers at the conference to illustrate how their organizations are working to move America toward a clean energy future to fight global warming and climate change. And the cool thing is that this is just a taste of the movement!
I have really liked the organization, Republicans for Environmental Protection (www.rep.org)- they’re finally making global warming a non-partisan issue- which it HAS to be. Being from Dallas, I can’t say that I’ve haven’t been debated and even personally attacked for the issues I’ve chosen to work on before. But Republicans for Environmental Protection has always provided a voice of reason for many of the conservative (but (more importantly) concerned) people I’ve spoken to and worked with. If you’re so inclined, I’d definitely recommend checking out their website, it’s really good and comprehensive- especially on the myths and concerns associated with global warming that’s been addressed here. And even they advocate “policies to reduce greenhouse gas emssions for which total benefits outweigh the costs.” I really like their article: “Facts and Myths about Global Warming: A Conservative Perspective” by John R. E. Bliese, Ph.D., (http://www.rep.org/news/GEvol5/ge5.1_globalwarming.html) which discusses the economics, science, and politics of global warming discourse from a conservative standpoint. Oh, and I’m certainly not a democrat, I’m an independent, for the record.
Solutions and efficiency. that’s what’s exciting. I left the meeting incredibly excited about the potentials for a new future- full of efficiency and renewables, away from dirty fossil fuels and old patterns of development. I can’t wait for the future, because it’s going to be great.
At the same time, it’s not going to just happen eventually. It will have to take concerned citizens to accept the science and the affects of the planet’s heating (it was 70degrees F in Washington DC! I spoke with a hotel concierge and for the first time, she considered becoming a Sierra Club member because she Knew that something was wrong when guests are walking around in t-shirts and jeans in mid-January. Not Normal. Citizens are waking up.
Mario— your idea on Kyoto on the state level is excellent. Some states are already adopting clean energy intitiatives (ie: Washington, Colorado and at least 20 others) and more are looking at clean care CAFE standards (California, Vermont, even Illinois perhaps in the next year) which cleans the air, provides jobs, enhances our energy security, and decreases our dangerous dependence on fossil fuels. In fact, the Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement is now a national project started by Mayor Greg Nickels of Seattle that urges cities to sign on to meet and even exceed Kyoto targets. As of Jan. 4th, 355 mayors are signed on, representing over 54 million Americans- each working to reach Kyoto on a local level! (http://www.seattle.gov/mayor/climate/) I’m not sure if scientists are looking to modify chemical imbalances in the ocean- but it seems like an interesting idea.
I don’t claim to know everything, that would be silly! I have a full life of learning ahead of me. So that’s why I trust climate scientists to guide my level of concern about global warming, and sane economists and engineers to help guide solutions.
I’ve only bought into science. I guess I’m guilty of that, but you know, I’m proud of it.
Hi,
Hope this doesn’t end up a repeat, just got up to get a glass of red, well I need something considering the content.
My journey only began last week when I saw An Inconvenient Truth, ( hey I live in a little town in Australia. I have been researching online nearly every day since. It seems to me that the only way we are going to do anything is to talk talk talk, to neighbours, to workmates, to anyone. It also seems that this has begun to have an effect. Hey Ralph the changes required from you personally are only energy reduction and recycling, leave the influencing to peoople better qualified.There are big corporations taking action, Seimens and Bluescope Steel as examples, there are research projects at many universities in association with industry. If CO2 is the biggest problem, please do not denegrate sequestration until you can suggest an alternative because most processes to try to convert it to something else will only produce more of it, it just doesn’t have big enough commercial uses or in other words it is a largely inert gas and energy is required to split it into it’s component parts, more energy producing more CO2.
I can tell you this, I live in a coastal region and I am looking to move to a higher altitude.
Things I have noticed in the last twenty years, Ross River Virus which was confined to the Ross River region of Queensland http://www.wtpc.org.au/images/australia map.gif
Isn’t it interesting that my most recent post was deleted? I suppose it’s because I disagree with your point of view. Oh wait, am I starting to sound like James Hansen, the NASA climate scientist, complaining about censorship?
Here’s a fact kiddies:
China burned 2.35 billion tons of coal last year. That’s more than TWICE the amount burned in the USA, and nearly half the world’s total. Based on its current rate of increase (8% per year), by the year 2030 China’s coal production will increase to 3.5 billion tons per year.
Here’s the math. In the next 20 years, Chinese coal consumption, much of which is subject to little (if any) pollution control measures, will increase more than 1 billion tons/year, which is about the amount burned in the United States each year.
So much for your global warming “solutions.” Maybe the Sierra Club should teach its lobbyists Mandarin and send them to Beijing.
Just in case you decide not to censor this post, here’s the link from my last post to the ridiculous list of things blamed on global warming …
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Ralph
Ralph – Just saw your censorship speculations in the moderation que. Didn’t see your original post, not sure what happened to it. IGHIH gets a good 50 spam posts for every legitimate comment (hundreds a day) and despite some really good software and diligent volunteers its not a perfect system. It might just have been lost to the spam filters. If you attacked someone or swore there’s a chance it got deleted. We moderate language, sometimes tone, and we moderate a lot of spam but we strive not to moderate ideas.
Anyway, as one of the moderators who is working late on a Friday night I just thought I would defend us.
GAME ON
My 2 cents:
Somehow someone always suggests humans are not agents in climate change. I disagree, but let’s assume, for the moment, that humans are not agents in climate change. What would this mean? We would still have massive amounts of evidence of climate change. Thus, if humans have played no role, this evidence would mean that the climate is changing such that it endangers humans! And, as human survival is the issue, this would mean our evidence indicates an even more severe danger for humans (and lots of other species we have come to depend upon)!
Thus, if humans have played no role, but we still want to survive as a species, we had better get to work doing what we can to try to push things in the opposite direction! So, if the corporate sponsors of the “humans have had no effect on on-going climate change” position are right, we are actually in MORE trouble than if they are wrong, because any way you slice it, the projected changes are going to be overall negative for human survival (disease, collapse of ocean ecologies, more severe weather, endangered growing seasons, and on and on and on). And, if we have had no effect in producing this problem, then we have to take even more drastic measures to push matters toward a survivable equilibrium.
Thus, if some want to argue humans have played no role so far in climate change, I think that’s a distraction. Let’s just accept that claim. But, that just means we have to take even more extreme actions to increase humanity’s chance of surviving. So, which is it–have humans made a difference, or not?
Take care.
Sam
The thing people are not looking at is how much c02 the factories send out into our atmosphere. Yes we as people have been destroying our Earth bit by bit. I’m a 14 year old teen here knowing more about what’s going on then 41 year old men and women with degrees. The more the factories work, the more carbon dioxide and methane will be released into our atmosphere and be caught. Keshia and I are 14 and 15 years in age and we are concerned about the babies here and to come and also people with asthma and allergies. The Earth, our home WILL be destroyed if we don’t do something about it as a community…
…what can be done?
Is this a great world or WHAT? Those wanting to read about it will see the latest data, showing the warming of the oceans themselves has and is recorded, and that rise in average temperature now extends to a m i l e, thats a mile. What the current forcasts do not include is that water expands when warm warmer water gives an effect net of more water. Now you couple that with the current and latest predictions and you have major land loss throughout the world, along the coastlines, upriver, and of islands.
As wise readers, I am sure you know that we can stabilize land, build dams, dykes, and so on. Ah yes. But we are talking mostly sand here, not rock as a substrate on which to build. Those with a long memory, on hearing the name New Orleans , will know how secure that can be. Building on marshlands is not feasable either.
So IF the above is true, it means that people must move inland to escape the slowly rising water. Leaving their homes behind. Of course if in the USA, most the shoreline is not single family homes, its, yes, condos, apartments, luxury resorts, and the like, plus “X”.
Again, being wise, you may say- We’ll just blow up those buildings and use the rubble to build the walls!!!!!
Hmmmm . Are we talking Global WARMING here, from the massive consumption of ENERGY??? Think so,
so we expend the explosives, AND have to build new structures to house those whose homes have been gobbled up by water.
Bummer!?
Hey we forgot about Industry!!! (Thats the x) How much of it is built on the lowlands- especially gas and oil facilities. Gotta move that too??? More energy used, and the beat goes on.
You know My Fellow Americans (and the rest of the world) when China becomes concerned about Global Warming and land loss and new intense droughts and other climate changes, we outta KNOW there is a problelm.
The good news I won’t be here to see all this chaos, having lived my three score and ten years. The rest of you had better pray hard, work hard, and get ready for Megachange. Lotsa Luck, y’all!!!! L.
We don’t have the fourth IPCC report yet, but we do have the “Summary for Policymakers,” which we can only hope is an accurate portrayal of the hundreds of pages of data collected since the last report in 2001. This is the IPCC’s PR version. The scientific report is due out in May. I wonder what’s happening to the science in the meantime? If anyone cares to read the 21-page political summary, go for it:
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
Of course, the media hyped the statement the IPCC hoped it would – that the panel is now more certain than ever that humans are the cause of the latest warming. Here’s what the media missed:
1) The top of the IPCC’s range for projected sea level rise by 2100 is now just 17 inches, with a low end of seven inches. That’s barely half what the IPCC was projecting in its third report. And any climatologist can tell you the average sea level rise since the last ice age has been about seven inches per century.
2) It’s not getting warmer in Antarctica. Yep, there it is Matthew Carroll, at the bottom of page 6, “no statistically significant average trends” in Antarctic sea ice, “consistent with the LACK OF WARMING reflected in atmospheric temperatures averaged across the region.” And on page 13, ohmygosh, “the Antarctic ice sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting, and is expected to GAIN IN MASS due to increased snowfall.”
3) Computer models failed to predict the cooling of the oceans that has occurred since 2003, yet the IPCC still argues that we will see an increase in the intensity of hurricanes attributable to “global warming.” Huh? Don’t hurricanes need warm water?
4) You know what else is missing? Any mention of the positive aspects of global warming. Did anyone notice the big freeze in California or the snowfall in Phoenix? Anyone noticed the bitter chill currently gripping the country from the Northern Plains to New England? Imagine the tremendous amount of fossil fuels being burned to heat the homes and offices. Would a milder winter be such a bad thing?
5) The report failed to identify where the greatest increases in CO2 emissions are originating – China and India. China is adding another 500 megawatt or larger coal burning power plant about once every 10 days. Environmentalists are fond of pointing out that China is a developing country and that per capita energy consumption in the USA far exceeds that of China. True, but what they don’t tell you is that our economy uses energy four times more efficiently. America produces $1.00 of GDP (gross domestic product) for every 9,500 BTU’s of energy consumed. In China, the figure is 35,000 BTU’s for a dollar’s worth of goods.
America is doing its part by developing new technology that will one day free the world of its dependence on fossil fuels. We have nothing to feel guilty about. And I see no urgency to hammer our economy with useless carbon contraints while other major CO2 emitters do nothing.