Tough question. I'll admit, before last year (when I ran across a National Geographic article on the carbon cycle...telling of carbon staying in the atmosphere rather than completing the cycle as it should, and the warming effect this has on the Earth) I hadn't really given it a thought. And I don't understand all the factors, but I do get the idea that more "greenhouse" gasses and more carbon in the atmosphere has a blanketing effect that makes the planet's overall mean temperatures rise. And that can lead to some bad things.
The experts seem to think so, too (from NOAA):
An implication of these studies is that if the frequency of tropical cyclones remains the same over the coming century, a greenhouse-gas induced warming may lead to a gradually increasing risk in the occurrence of highly destructive category-5 storms.
Not a 100% prediction, but these things never are. But it's a safe bet to say that if we didn't have warmer temperatures (and warmer water) we'd not have so many really powerful hurricanes. I saw on the TV news a day or two ago an expert on hurricanes mention that two Category 4/5 storms in one season was rare, especially coming so close behind one another. Seems having four in a row like Florida did last year (five if you count being subjected to a presidential debate) is equally rare, and those storms (while not Category 4 or 5 monsters like Katrina and Rita) weren't exactly small potatoes.
It's clear that the increased dumping of gasses and carbon in the atmosphere has an effect. A blanketing effect. And where is the majority of this stuff coming from?
C and CO2 from coal. CO2 from cars, trucks, planes, power plants. To a lesser degree methane, nitrous oxide, deforestation, and some natural sources. The largest contributors are the burning of coal and petroleum fuels.
Short answer...it's coming from us. The cars we drive and the electricity we use, mainly.
Now, we have other incentives to cut fuel usage. Price is a big one, supply (ever heard the term "peak oil"?) is another. We should have learned those lessons in the late 70's...we apparently didn't.
But the big reason...we're doing some really crappy things to our planet. Like making the Gulf of Mexico warmer, so it churns out bigger, more devastating hurricanes.
Now one would think "conservative" and "conservation" would go hand in hand...but tell a "conservative" we need to start getting off the oil teat, that global warming may well be a major problem (that we may well have caused), and that we need to work toward sustainability without fossil fuels, and they get really pissy. Many don't even believe in global warming (and I'll grant you the experts acknowlege that there could well be other factors in it we don't understand). But here's a concept we should all be able to agree on...depending on oil, especially foreign oil, is a bad long-term policy.
Right?
Well, here's where the global warming skepticism and the whole oil thing collide. See, oil is big business. Cutting emissions (like the Kyoto protocols would have done) is a hostile concept to a Republican administration that is deep in bed with big oil. Cutting oil use (thus emissions) cuts into big oil profits, which pisses off big oil, and they don't flow nearly the money into the GOP coffers. So there you have a grand motive for denial of global warming, and even the widespread scoffing at conservation. Conservatives like to scoff at the peak oil concept, too. Again, same motive...money. They say "jobs" and "economy", but it translates into their bottom line, or that of their special interest buddies.
Pessimistic? Well, I am about conservatives. See, I'd think that even if one didn't believe in global warming, one would want to cut pollution (look at the sky over Los Angeles and tell me if the conservative version of God would be happy), and cut the amount of money spent at the gas pump and on the heating oil in winter. Even if you don't buy the whole "liberal myth" of global warming, doesn't it just make good sense to put us in a position where we could thumb our nose at OPEC and fuel up the good 'ol SUV for half the price?
I certainly think so. But I don't have special interest lobbyists banging down my door, either.
Now, hurricanes...that's where we started this rant. Here's a simple formula...warmer water makes for stronger hurricanes, warmer Earth means warmer water, thus warmer Earth equals stronger hurricanes. Which means if global warming is a reality (as I believe it is), we are asking for some really nasty hurricane seasons in the future.
I'd think conservatives, for reasons of thumbing the nose at OPEC and being safe rather than sorry on the hurricane/climate change front, would be championing the global warming argument. (Then again, given the extreme religious bent of some, it's no surprise that some of them are saying it's divine retribution.)
I suppose they have a token supporter of the idea. Maybe he'll be the 2008 nominee.
Me, I'll take the opinions of experts. Guys with PhD's.
Global warming is one of our most critical environmental problems, but it is surely the most misunderstood. There is a lot of misinformation out there, and there has also been a disinformation campaign by some special interests who want to protect their short-term profits by preventing us from solving the problem. Unfortunately, some conservative organizations and publications have participated in this disinformation campaign.
There is no justification for this, just as there is nothing conservative about denying scientific evidence.
And me, I'd rather not start dodging category 5 hurricanes out here in the Pacific, either. I'll err on the side of caution, believe the experts, and start saving money by riding a bike.
PBU39
0 comments:
Post a Comment