Web Site Contents
Custom Search
|
Climate Change And Environmental Issues - Scare Tactics Or True ConcernsScientific Integrity Is The Issue For SomeA good scientist is always skeptical, always asking the hard questions, disputing their own theories. It is the only way science can progress, come to new and better conclusions, and the right answers we all seek. When it comes to global warming and climate change, the media wants the general public to forget the role of the scientist - to discover the truth and then answer the questions of what to do about it. Scientists are not gods and do not have all the answers, but their findings have been exploited by one side or another to further particular agendas. This leaves the valid data researched debated by lay people who do not really understand what is going on and swayed here and there out of fear and the power of the cults of personality. The findings are conclusive and almost every credible scientist in the world agree on one thing - something is happening with the temperature of the global climate. Exactly what is happening and whether or not this is a natural, cyclical event is up for debate. On one side of the controversy are the greedy, big, corporations which depend on carbon based fuels to keep the economy going and make life better for everyone while they line their pockets. On the other side are the scaremongers who may or may not have ideals of a one-world government, anti-corporation, anti-meat, etc... but think it is better for everyone to make drastic cuts before it is too late to undo the damage. Then, there is everyone else trying to understand the big picture while being swayed by all the hype. Don't Blame Americans For Being Ignorant Without The FactsI know there are a lot of Brits, Europeans, Canadians...well most of the world, who would find lots of fault with the US. When it comes to global warming, climate changes, and environmental issues, the United States gets the most fingers wagged, even if China and India rank right up there with major polluters, but for the US to pump out as much waste than a really large country with a much small population is really saying something out the ability to pollute the environment. In spite of the findings of the recent committee on global warming featuring the findings of many of the top researchers from all over the world, the jury is still out in the minds of many. Before you judge too harshly, at least see how the typical American sees things and keep in mind, not all feel the same way. Not all Americans are agreed on the topic. A Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of 1,000 Likely Voters found that 45% consider Global Warming a "very serious" problem while another 28% say it is "somewhat serious." Forty-six percent (46%) of American voters believe that Global Warming is caused primarily by human activities. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it is the result of long-term planetary trends. Eight percent (8%) say there is some other cause while 11% are not sure. Most Americans (85 percent) believe global warming is happening now, more than half (60 percent) perceive global warming as a great threat to themselves, and even more (88 percent) believe global warming threatens future generations, according to a TIME magazine/ABC News/Stanford University poll. The April 7th Gallup Poll indicated that while 62 percent worry about global warming, only 36 percent think it will be a big deal during their lifetimes. The results of belief on the issue of global warming vary greatly depending on which group asks the questions and the group of people polled for the responses. However, it is clear that not all Americans agree with the findings of scientists, but that number is higher than most in the world suspect. In the US, scientists are not seen so much as the intellects who are researching and coming up with new things to make life better, but as much of an opportunist as are politicians and lobbysts. It is not a fair comparison of all scientists to opportunists, but there is a real history to point to this fact. Most of the Western world thinks of the US as that "Christian" country which still believes that the biblical creation is scientific fact. Of course they would roll their eyes at the thought of Americans not trusting scientists in matters the rest of the world agree. However, the US is not all religious and based on values from a biblical perspective. While there may be elements of a religious sect that would welcome global warming as a sign of end times, many Christians do stand up for environmental issues. And a famous American atheist, Penn Gillette, is a big critic when it comes to global warming. There are scientists who sold themselves out to groups who want to push their point of view on the mass public and have them slant the facts one way or another manipulating the data to prove a case. One week you could have a scientist prove that milk is an excellent part of your diet while another you could have another group of scientists claiming milk is one of the worst things a person can drink. Look at all the medications put out on the market backed by scientific research only to be pulled months later because other scientists have concluded they could kill or injure the people who take them. For the longest time, the tobacco industry had their scientists prove smoking was good for people. Distrust of scientists in general is not just based on a religious point of view. This is a sad thing as not all scientists have sold their souls to corporate backers and are actually trying to make life better for the rest of us. And then there is the misinformation campaign that leads to total burnout to face the issues at all. You have the extremists on both sides - the "scare you to death over the end of all life on earth" camp versus the "there is no problem, nothing to see lookie loos" camp both which have armed themselves with sensational scientific reports the average lay person will never understand and it becomes a cult of personality instead of a serious debate on what is real and what is not. On behalf of us centralist thinking people, I would like to present an easy to understand break down of this issue for both camps to try and come to an understanding so maybe we can get past the debate of "is it real or false" and move on towards solutions. What Is The Ozone?The heart of the debate for global warming is about the changes in the ozone layer. The ozone layer acts like a natural filter, blocking out most of the sun's harmful UV (ultraviolet) rays. Without the ozone layer, more people would get sunburns, skin cancer and cataracts. Plants and animals would also be affected. Ozone (O3) has three atoms of oxygen. The form of oxygen be breathe (O2) has two oxygen atoms. The "sharp" clean smell after a thunderstorm or the "electric" smell of a subway train, then you've smelled a bit of ozone gas. In larger amounts, ozone is unpleasant with a strong odour that irritates the eyes and lungs. The ozone layer contains almost all the ozone gas that exists. We need this ozone gas to stay in the atmosphere, 15 to 35 kilometres above the Earth's surface in the upper atmosphere or "stratosphere". This ozone layer protects us from the sun's UV rays. At ground level ozone also exists and this is not good. The ground level ozone is a result of emissions from toxic carbon based products burning to other harsh chemicals released into the air. During the summer, this ozone gas causes smog and acid rain. Chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs are the main culprit of what is eroding the ozone layer in the stratosphere. There needs to be a delicate balance between the two concentrations of ozone with more in the stratosphere than near where we live. We cannot move the lower ozone gas up to help the ozone layer. The best solution is to continue to reduce all sources of pollution affecting our atmosphere. What Is Meant By A "Hole In The Ozone"?Normally, the ozone layer is about 20 kilometres thick. A hole in the ozone is defined as an area in which total ozone amounts are less than 220 DU. At certain periods of the history of earth, this layer can be thicker or thinner than at other times, there is a cycle to it. The concern is over "manmade" pollution speeding up the process of thinning it out. Under normal conditions, the ozone is able to repair and balance itself to maintain life on earth. Speeding up the process causes depressions in certain areas where the ozone gas is being depleted too quickly when bonding with the toxic chemicals rising in the air. When CFCs bond in the water chains (clouds generate rain because they evaporate from the ground and they cycle repeats itself, ) anything in the water or the air that is toxic will rise with the evaporating water molecules where it bonds with the ozone and causes the ozone to fall with the rain bringing it more down to our level instead of up high where it belongs. As the ozone layer tends to rebalance itself, taxing its resources is hazardous because it cannot keep up with it. This causes the depressed spots in the ozone layer which is referred to as the hole in the ozone which is not an actual hole, but a layer of ozone that is thinner than it should be. Without this natural filter, it cannot block out the harmful UV rays and life on earth can become compromised. A hole in the ozone layer is a term that can give the wrong image into people's minds. There is no actual hole, but a thinning membrane area in this region. The ozone is normally very thin to begin with and there is some evidence that it has the means of self-repair. The issue is that by burning CO2 based fuels and other toxic pollutants makes it harder for it to repair itself. However, many other studies have shown that perhaps it is a cyclical thing which is something the global warming scaremongers don't even want to consider at all. Global Dimming Versus Global WarmingGlobal dimming creates a cooling effect that may have partially masked the effect of greenhouse gases on global warming. Global dimming is the gradual reduction in the amount of direct sunlight on the Earth's surface which has been observed since the beginning of systematic measurements in 1950s. Worldwide it is being recorded that there is a proven 4% reduction of sunlight measurements over the three decades from 1960 - 1990. Studies during this period of time have also shown the evaporation rates have slowed. Water should evaporate in order to complete the water cycle, but an element was undetermined as to why the levels of evaporation has become so slow until it was compared with results of measurements of decreased sunlight. Sunlight, pure rays of light from the sun, is a crucial element in evaporation. With a decrease in direct sunlight came a decreased ability for water to evaporate. Some scientists believe global dimming is due to the increased presence of aerosol particles [CFCs] in the atmosphere. Aerosol particles and other particulate pollutants absorb solar energy and reflect sunlight back into space. These pollutants can become nuclei for cloud droplets. [If you stare up at the sky on a bright day, you might notice bright white floating specks roaming around in the sky... those are particles of pollutants in the air.] The water droplets in clouds coalesce around the particles. The increased pollution results in more particulates that creates clouds consisting of a greater number of smaller droplets, which in turn makes them more reflective, therefore bouncing more sunlight back into space. Clouds pick up the heat from both the sun and the heat generated from Earth. The exact amount picked up vary in time, location and altitude. Usually during the daytime the interception of sunlight predominates, giving a cooling effect. At night the re-radiation of heat to the Earth slows the Earth's heat loss. In 2005 Wild et al. and Pinker et al. found that the "dimming" trend had reversed since about 1990 and confirmed this in 2006. The tragedy and aftermath of 9/11 lead to a shocking discovery in the trend of global dimming. As the planes were all grounded for several days, there was a remarkable increase in sunlight measurements. One source of accused pollutants was taken out of the skies and the sunlight increased. On the surface, it may seem like global dimming is the solution to stave off global warming. It is likely that at least some of this change, particularly over Europe, is due to decreases in pollution. Most governments of developed nations have done more to reduce aerosols released into the atmosphere, which helps reduce global dimming, more than to reduce CO2 emissions. Where there has been a reduction of these pollutants over the long term, the change in weather patterns have been dramatic. It is thought that it was global dimming is what has been shielding the Earth from the severe effect of global warming. It has been concluded by some scientists that the imbalance between global dimming and global warming at the surface leads to weaker turbulent heat fluxes to the atmosphere. This means globally reduced evaporation and hence precipitation occur in a dimmer and warmer world, which could ultimately lead to a more humid atmosphere in which it rains less. However, not all scientists are behind these theories. Why Is This A Bad Thing? What's The Big Picture?Where the patches of ozone gasses are thinning, UV rays are creating a situation that can create havoc on earth. The main concern is one of the biggest patches of thinning is happening over the Arctic Circle which is mostly a big patch of ice - it's melting pretty fast right now. It is one really huge chunk of ice. If that melts, we are looking at serious flooding that will never be corrected in many lifetimes to come. Depletion of the ozone goes hand in hand with climate change. While one takes place way up high, the other part of that equation takes place where we live. What Exactly Is There To Debate?Far from media outlets decrying that all credible scientists in the world agree that global warming is real, the actual controversy lies in the details of to what extent is this happening, is this a natural event that would happen anyway and to what degree is it amplified by modern human activity, what, if anything, should be done now, and what is the outlook if we do nothing. Scare tactics and hysteria aside, there are some legitimate things that need to be considered before we apply band-aid solutions based on fear...look how well that worked in Iraq! We owe it to ourselves to answer the following questions:
Climate Change - Natural Or Manmade?Climate scientists almost all are in total agreement that global warming is primarily anthropogenic [Caused by humans]. Other scientists and institutions are not 100% convinced by these findings, but the majority do concede something is happening. Those who dispute the mainstream findings debate whether global warming is due to the rising levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases or if the slightly elevated levels are a natural occurance of what should happen and will continue to happen with or without the presence of mankind. Correlation does not imply causation: that temperatures have risen since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution does not directly imply that Industrialisation has caused the change in temperature. In other words, while CO2 based products have been increased in everyday life since the Industrial Revolution, other events discovered and undiscovered may also have a contributing factor to the results. Let's say a 5 year old eats lots of candy everyday and never got a cavity in a year. A group of mothers see the results and allow their children to eat candy everyday and not one of them get a cavity, but in fact they have better teeth than other children who do not eat it. This fact is given to mothers around the world that it is probably a good idea to give their children to eat candy everyday. It works for awhile, but the formula of candy had changed over the year and more children are getting cavities. For awhile it is blamed on the candy formula until further research would show that the first group and most in the newer groups made their children brush their teeth after eating candy while the ones with cavities did not. At first the candy is blamed until another element of the puzzle appears as the real cause of the problem. Of course there is no such experiment in real life. This is only an example of specious [Having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious] reasoning. Just because CO2 product usage has increased does not necessarily mean it is the sole cause of global warming and there may be other factors instead of or in conjunction with it causing the results. What is so wrong with wanting an answer to the question without accusations of ignorance? It deserves an answer because it does mean changing a lifestyle that so many people have grown to love and to make drastic changes on something that may have more than one cause can be detrimental to life in other ways. Studies of ice age temperature variations show carbon dioxide levels increasing after warming rather than before. There is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (Barnola et al. 1987). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows that the main trends of CO2 are similar for each glacial cycle. Major transitions from the lowest to the highest values are associated with glacial-interglacial transitions. During these transitions, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rises from 180 to 280-300 ppmv (Petit et al. 1999). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr. Pre-industrial Holocene levels (~280 ppmv) are found during all interglacials, with the highest values (~300 ppmv) found approximately 323 kyr BP. When the Vostok ice core data were compared with other ice core data (Delmas et al. 1980; Neftel et al. 1982) for the past 30,000 - 40,000 years, good agreement was found between the records: all show low CO2 values [~200 parts per million by volume (ppmv)] during the Last Glacial Maximum and increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations associated with the glacial-Holocene transition. According to Barnola et al. (1991) and Petit et al. (1999) these measurements indicate that, at the beginning of the deglaciations, the CO2 increase either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature, whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the glaciations. This assumes current climate changes are to be expected and similar to past climate changes. While most scientists agree with these prehistoric variations, they argue these are timed by astronomical forcing and current variations are timed by anthropogenic releases of CO2, or human CO2 emissions, not by natural causes. Between 1940 and 1970, global temperatures went down while carbon dioxide levels went up. To critics, they would argue that CO2 products have no effect on global temperatures, but those on the pro-global warming caused by CO2 camp attribute this to the cooling effect of sulphate aerosols. It is mostly thought that the Ordovician period on earth began with a reduction in CO2. And if this is the case, it was not a manmade increase of CO2 products that contributed to climate changes, but other factors were involved. It is also observed by opponents that the observed global warming may be explained by increased solar activity. Solanki of the Max Planck Institute in Germany in 2004 suggested that solar activity for the last 60 to 70 years may be at its highest level in 8,000 years. His research concludes that "solar activity reconstructions tell us that only a minor fraction of the recent global warming can be explained by the variable Sun. Solanki concluded based on their analysis that there is a 92% probability that solar activity will decrease over the next 50 years. Is Human And Industrial Activity Responsible For The Change?Imagine a greenhouse. A big structure with glass windows that shelter plants. The sun heats things up inside and protects the plants from the outside cold. Inside this greenhouse, whenever you water a plant, that water eventually evaporates. As it is contained within the greenhouse, it does not completely disappear into nothing, but stops at the top where it condenses and falls back down towards the plants. In fact, any element you would put into this greenhouse would be constantly recycled in this atmosphere the same way. The more toxic the elements, the more dangerous it becomes for the plants inside. If there was major damage done to the upper glass, the plants inside would be in danger from the outside elements from which it is supposed to be protected. Now imagine the earth as being one big greenhouse surrounded by a blanket of insulators such as the ozone which keeps the warm air inside and the cold air out. It serves as part of the water cycle where water that evaporates from the ground goes up and is stopped at a certain point before it condenses and falls back to earth. When those on the surface of the earth emit things into the air, it has to go somewhere. There can be no serious discussion without admitting to this point. Whatever is emitted goes somewhere. Before the Industrial Ages, energy sources included dependency on animals, man power, coal, and wood in order to make things better for life. All activity of humans involve a certain degree of waste. Waste does not disappear on its own. It goes somewhere. Some waste is more toxic than others. Cast aside the issue of global warming for a minute and look at smaller pictures of what energy based waste can create. Acid Rain - a broad term referring to a mixture of wet and dry deposition (deposited material) from the atmosphere containing higher than normal amounts of nitric and sulfuric acids. The precursors, or chemical forerunners, of acid rain formation result from both natural sources, such as volcanoes and decaying vegetation, and man-made sources, primarily emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) resulting from fossil fuel combustion. If the acid chemicals in the air are blown into areas where the weather is wet, the acids can fall to the ground in the form of rain, snow, fog, or mist. In areas where the weather is dry, the acid chemicals may become incorporated into dust or smoke and fall to the ground through dry deposition, sticking to the ground, buildings, homes, cars, and trees. Dry deposited gases and particles can be washed from these surfaces by rainstorms, leading to increased runoff. This runoff water makes the resulting mixture more acidic. Acid rain causes acidification of lakes and streams and contributes to the damage of trees at high elevations (for example, red spruce trees above 2,000 feet) and many sensitive forest soils. In addition, acid rain accelerates the decay of building materials and paints, including irreplaceable buildings, statues, and sculptures that are part of our nation's cultural heritage. Prior to falling to the earth, sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) gases and their particulate matter derivatives - sulfates and nitrates - contribute to visibility degradation and harm public health. Smog (the brown cloud) - The term smog was first used in 1905 by Dr H A Des Voeux to describe the conditions of fog that had soot or smoke in it. Smog is a combination of various gases with water vapour and dust. A large part of the gases that form smog is produced when fuels are burnt. NASA scientists recently announced that a giant, smoggy atmospheric "brown cloud" that forms over South Asia and Indian Ocean has intercontinental reach, and has effects around the world. Smog is a mix of particles and unhealthy gases including ozone that linger in the lower atmosphere, or the troposphere. Water Pollution From Landfills - The toxic waste by-products of life that are not dissolved into the air because they are solids end up in some form of a landfill. Some are general landfills that accept normal, everyday garbage while others are specialised that take in highly dangerous items that would be bad if released into ground waters. If bad waste products are allowed to contaminate the water supply, not only does it pose an immediate risk to local people who rely on that water supply, but that water will evaporate and become part of the cycle that will mix into the air causing further pollution. Human activities have been indisputably attributed to those conditions described above. When laws were made to control these conditions in areas heavily affected by pollution, acid rain and smog has been eliminated or greatly reduced and water has become safer to drink. Now back to the bigger picture. Even if you do have an issue as to whether or not human activity is causing global warming, you would have to be hard-core on the opposite side to debate that human activity with toxic pollutants have no effect whatsoever on the environment in general. The conditions which contribute to smog and acid rain do have health and quality of life consequences if nothing is done about the problem. Some form of energy waste by-products are more toxic to the air than others, but all are toxic to one degree or another. Take a glass of water and some coloured dyes. Look at the glass of water at first and observe how clear it is. Now place a drop of any colour dye in it. Observe it for a moment. With a large amount of water, it disappears and melds right into the water and is microscopic, but still there. If there was an ever flowing supply of water with a self-cleaning element that would correct its own balance, over time that drop of dye would be out of the picture. Now start to add a few more drops of dye. Try different colours. What happens to the water? If you don't stir it around, it just settles to the bottom of the glass and pools with the other drops and eventually meld together in odd colours. If you were to simulate the atmosphere, swirl the water around a bit and notice a general change of the water colour. It is polluted with an unnatural colour that does not easily go away. The molecules of the coloured dye have blended in with the water molecules and created something that is water, but with extra bits of colour and no longer pure. Again, a self-cleaning element in the water cycle could correct some of the damage, but it would take a lot longer. Now completely soil this water environment by adding huge amounts of the different colours of dye. Swirl it around a bit. The water will really look weird. It is probably not something that looks like the kind of water you want to drink. Drinking small amounts of it may not cause serious harm, but if this was the only supply of water you had to drink and there were no fresh supplies to self-cleanse it, what is in the water would affect you. It would take a lot of self-cleaning to correct the water to the way it is supposed to be. Elements of pollution that dissolve in the air are the same as elements of pollution that are dissolved in the water. It bonds with each particle of the air we breathe that is constantly recycled in the atmosphere. Some of these are more toxic than others. Trees and plant life serve as self-cleaning elements to some of this pollution and the ozone layer has its own elements of self-cleansing. Destroy either self-cleaning mechanisms or overload these systems and you risk a toxic backlash by our own pollution - global warming or not. What Is The Effect Of Predicted Depletion Of Oil Runs And People Turn To Coal?A world without oil in this modern society is a scary thought. We have grown used to our cars, boats, and planes. Whether we are consciously aware of it or not, oil allows modern industry and commerce to be as productive as it is. If oil were to disappear or even to become scarce, it would change life as we know it. That does not mean we would become a world of despots trying to loot everything in sight, but it does mean we would have to come up with a different way to cope with life. The jury is really out on the scenario on whether we are ever going to run out of oil. Doomsday people love to scare people on the idea that based on the environment and Middle East politics, we can no longer depend that the oil we need will always be there for us and it is not good for us. They claim if oil runs out, coal, which is more harmful to the environment, will be the fuel of choice. This argument is just too funny to debate in any serious manner. Whether the oil runs out or not is not the issue of global warming (or not). Life has gone on before the advent of gas to replace coal. Life has gone on before the big use of coal. Even if coal or gas were to run out or no longer be a viable means of running industry, other methods will be developed if we can get past the debate of global warming. New methods do need to be discovered for several reasons:
If you take away the politically charged debate on global warming, you find there are good reasons to consider alternative energy sources that do not rely on scare tactics. This is where the focus of the issue should center, not which scientist is right or wrong and spin our wheels in debate on whether something should be done, or not. How Effective Are The Policies To Reduce CO2 Emissions And Will This Halt Modern Life As We Know It?In order for policies to have any real, long term effect on climate change, all countries all over the world would have to commit. The Kyoto Protocol was an attempt to get all the countries of the world behind the idea of reducing toxic CO2 gasses. It was hoped all the major and influential Western countries would sign the agreement and lead by example so smaller countries would follow. That did not happen. The Kyoto Protocol is an agreement under which industrialised countries will reduce their collective emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2% compared to the year 1990. The goal is to lower overall emissions of six greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, HFCs, and PFCs - calculated as an average over the five-year period of 2008-12. National targets range from 8% reductions for the European Union and some others to 7% for the US, 6% for Japan, 0% for Russia, and permitted increases of 8% for Australia and 10% for Iceland. The two major countries who have signed the Protocol but are not intending to ratify it are the United States and Australia. Some public policy experts who are skeptical of global warming see Kyoto as a scheme to either slow the growth of the world's industrial democracies or to transfer wealth to the third world in what they claim is a global socialism initiative. Others argue the protocol does not go far enough to curb greenhouse emissions To major Western countries that have economies based on CO2 being induced in the atmosphere, the Kyoto Protocol would mean a lot more expenses in the beginning to convert to a world standard that may not be in the best interests of their country. It would mean a sudden increase in the cost of products, the cost of transportation and loss of jobs. This is the fear holding back many from embracing the concept, even without the element of global warming at bay. I don't think most countries really like to have outsiders come into their land and demand they follow along with the standards of the majority of the civilized world [Iraq doesn't seem to like it too much.] The idea that some panel of international politicians can dictate how we live our lives is not acceptable and behind the fear and paranoia of the agenda of those pushing the idea of global warming not being a threat. While many wealthy corporations might be able to afford to convert the ways they use CO2 wastes, often what happens is their expense is passed on to the little guys who cannot afford it meaning loss of job and loss of income with products that costs more. While there are many good ideas out there to conserve the waste of CO2 emissions, not all of these are perfect. The hybrid car is a good idea on the surface. If you can afford the price of a new car, maybe it is something you can consider. Many people cannot afford new cars and get by with 15 year or older cars. Others live in rugged areas that require more powerful vehicles that the hybrid car cannot handle, such as rural and mountainous regions. And for those who can afford a hybrid, what happens when the battery stops working? They are quite expensive and the old things go into landfills, another environmental problem. Hydrogen fuel also another good idea on the surface, but then the issue of how can the working class and poor afford to buy a new car. Also, how will this hydrogen be produced without causing further pollution? Hydrogen would be a cleaner gas to release in the air, but it can also be highly explosive and temperamental. Corn oil fuel could be a good substitute, but the land area to produce enough fuel would be astronomical and can be an environmental disaster in the long run to harvest vast fields for the sole production of fuel. Nuclear energy is clean for the air, but what of its waste by-products. It has to go somewhere and the waste does not dissolve into something benign. Not to mention this waste can be stolen by people with nefarious intentions to do harm to the public at large. This also leaves natural elements of sun, wind, and water, all of which are readily accessible by most people in the world, but the technology needs to be developed further to make it useful with all areas where we need it to run. Of course the technologically planned obsolescence of products which create new jobs because of the market demand of new products is creating part of the problem of waste. Take the video game systems as an example. It is hyped about the latest game system that one must have and come with a large collection of must have games and accessories. In another 5 years it is obsolete and replaced by yet another must have game system. The old one cannot be upgraded and the chances to repair become harder and harder. Thus it eventually becomes a pile in the landfills. Without newer products or technology to replace the old ones, jobs are lost and the economy becomes stagnate, but at the expense of what we put in the ground. Recycling is a good intentioned, wasteful effort where applied in many areas. In order to be really effective, it must be consistent and it must actually recycle all the material it brings in without creating more pollution than it is intended to save. Most recycling efforts fail on one or more parts of making it a good idea. It could be a good idea, but the way it is carried out often falls short of the benefits. What Will Massive Changes Do To Life As We Know It?Even with those who acknowledge some form of global warming, there is debate as to whether this is a good or a bad thing. On one side, researchers predict a warming of 3.6 - 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit (2 - 4.5 Celsius) that will happen sometime within the 21st century unless strong, early mitigation measures [involves taking actions aimed at reducing the extent or likelihood of global warming] are taken. They claim doing nothing will destabilise the weather patterns creating more hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, tsunamis, and other harsh storms. It would also melt the polar ice cap enough where the meltdown will increase the worldwide water levels making lower elevated places permanently go underwater. It would also create more droughts in other parts of the world and create a scarcity of land where people can live, grow and raise food. Other researchers claim the warming will be there, but only a mere 2.7 degrees Fahrenheith (2.7 Celsius) and this would increase crop yields and stabilize weather. No one knows for sure what will happen if we do nothing about CO2 going out of control, but any reasoning person can tell abuse of any toxic substance in the environment over a long period of time is not a good thing. The doomsday group really love to scare people in end of the world scenarios, but rarely do people who predict such doom ever live long enough to see it come to pass. In fact, most who predict the most awful things state it to be a certain fate, one that would be many decades after their deaths. [I was raised in a religion that has predicted the end of the world would come in our generation and named several dates for it to happen and it never did, so excuse me if I am skeptical about gloom and doom predictions as such.] If we take a knee-jerk reaction and want to ban all forms of CO2 emissions at once without a reliable backup in place to keep the life as we know it going, this will result in a loss of production, higher costs, loss of jobs, and the trickle-down effect will lead to death from starvation, disease, and death. A more reasonable approach would be to come up with a solution that everyone in the world can implement on their own terms. What Is A Reasonable Course Of Action To Take?Little changes to control all forms of environmental waste does not have to uproot life as we know it. Even on the small scale, acts like remembering to turn off electric units when not in use help some. Checking your car and making repairs to reduce toxic emissions help. Caulking around windows, doors and cracks, adequate insulation, energy efficient glass panes help. Walking short distances instead of taking a car. Riding a bike. Car pools. Taking public transportation where it is available and reliable (this is not the case everywhere). On the bigger scale, governments could reward research projects coming up with better energy alternatives that would be practical for general usage. Grants and tax breaks could be given to those who implement measures in their homes or work to use alternative power sources. Engineers, electricians and other scientists can come up with long term solutions for transportation, heating/cooling, and production. Even a device similar to a catalytic converter in cars to be used in airplanes may help. Or better yet, a different way to fuel the planes without diesel. Instead of using fear as a motive to force people into compliance, a system is made better with good incentives. People resent force, but are encouraged into thinking in new ways when there are rewards at the end. It should not be something thought of as a punishment or penance for our "sins against the earth", but as a challenge to meet the better 21st Century. Ronald Bailey, Richard Branson, Gregg Easterbrook, John Howard, Frank Luntz, Rupert Murdoch, Pat Robertson, and Michael Shermer used to be adamant critics of global warming, but now have accepted it as a fact, however, not all are in agreement to the degree of severity of the problem and what needs to be done about it. Richard Branson has taken steps to research new ways to make his fleet of Virgin planes more safe for the environment, something that other airline companies are watching very closely. Carbon FootprintA carbon footprint is a measure of the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted through the combustion of fossil fuels. The carbon footprint of businesses is measured as part of their everyday operations. The household or individual carbon footprint is measured as part of their daily lives. The carbon footprint of a product or commodity is measured by how it reaches the market. There are many "carbon footprint calculators" if you care to do a search, but take it with a grain of salt. Not all are in agreement as to the extent of the results and how they really affect the atmosphere in the long run. Certain activities affect the carbon footprint of individuals such as car/air/boat transportation that depends on any motor, electricity usage and source, home heating usage and source, your diet along with the food miles to bring it to you, products you buy, and even the appliances used in your home and how they are used. PETA loves to rally around the environmental issue as a reason why people should not eat meat. Food miles is an expression for the concept that the mileage of food before it reaches the consumer. Critics will cite that the same factors to produce meat for the masses can also be used on fruit and vegetables. In the end, to make severe cut backs might help the environment, but could lead to higher food costs which do not help the poor who will have to go without eating. Not everyone lives on or near a farm or have easy access to farmer's markets, nor can they readily grow their own food. Despite its good intentioned public facade, PETA is an elitist organisation that passively supports eco-terrorists. Despite food miles being supported by a group with dubious intentions, there are things to consider that can be cut without making life more miserable for those lower on the socio-economic level. When a person has to take a car and travel several different places in order to gather groceries for the week, that creates a problem that can be solved if that place were kept to a convenient centralised location. A series of trucks going to deliver the goods to these locations is better than many, many vehicles traveling greater distances than the trucks in total. It used to be a great concept of the mom and pop stores, the fresh fruit and vegetable stands, the stores that specialised in certain items. All of which has been replaced by the superstore that has not only sold out these places and replaced them with low waged jobs for fewer people. None of this really helps the economy, but it does save an element of travel and emitting CO2 wastes in order to get what you need. However, the methods used in these mega giant stores create questionable benefits to the environment at all. Not to mention how many have been proven to destroy whole communities. Rooftop and community gardens in big cities could help by allowing neighborhood people a place to grow their own food without too much expense on poor families. Family farms should be encouraged to do more business with local stores instead of being frozen out by big corporations. Closer farms have shorter distances to bring the products into the areas. It often assures a better product on the market. What does it hurt to cut back on wastes and pollution? It certainly helped with some controls used to rid big cities of the "brown cloud" problem and acid rain. It wouldn't hurt if more people who could afford it used solar panels. Recycling water helps. Just little things really do make a big difference when it comes to local pollution. If you want to believe the worst case of global warming or not, why not try to aim for a goal of less waste? While there may be cyclical implications, the conference on global warming have come to the conclusion that there are reasons of concern. This issue is not as some have claimed, "proven beyond reasonable doubt" because there are still many unanswered questions. Still there are two sides to every story and here are some food for thought links for you to come to your own conclusions:
|
