Friday, April 20, 2012

The Case for Climate Change

April is awareness month for many things: autism, prostate cancer, and global warming.  Many networks are showing how green they can be during the month of April, but if they can do it, why not go green the whole year?  The following is a research paper I did on climate change.  It is meant to inform and to dispel misconceptions people have about global warming, however please keep in mind that this does not go into deep discussion about all of the causes of climate change, it just argues that global warming is not a myth.  Enjoy!


In 1974, it was discovered that our ozone layer-the part of our atmosphere that filters ultraviolet radiation-was being depleted and that the cause was chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which were found in aerosol cans, refrigerants and solvents (EPA, 2007).  After much research to study and observe the ozone (as well as to convince the public and lawmakers that we were directly contributing to the problem), the Montreal Protocol was made, which is a treaty that bans production and consumption of ozone depleting gasses (EPA).  Since then, the ozone depleting gasses have begun to decrease, and it is estimated that the largest hole-over Antarctica-will return to pre-1980s levels by 2075 (EPA).  Today, 191 countries are committed to the Montreal Protocol (EPA).  Despite this clear evidence that humans directly contribute to the breakdown of the environment (to our own detriment), many believe that global warming and climate change is a myth.  This paper will highlight both sides of the argument while ultimately providing irrefutable evidence that global warming is a real environmental danger.
The Dispute
            Aristotle said that all things which are made by nature are made for human beings (Mosser, 2010, sec. 2.4).  Many people have misinterpreted this as meaning that they can do with the Earth as they please (Mosser).  Others believe that the Earth should be cared for and maintained for our children (Mosser).  A Native American proverb says,
“Treat the Earth well. 
  It was not given to you by your parents,
  it was loaned to you by your children. 
 We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors,
 we borrow it from our children” (Mosser, sec. 2.4)
One Side of the Debate
            It is believed that the industrial age- the era that brought forth machinery, automobiles and power plants-is what started the increase in greenhouse gasses (Environmental Defense Fund, 2011).  Earth’s history shows that small percentages of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere can have a significant impact on the planet, and since the industrial age carbon dioxide levels have increased by forty percent (EDF).   Scientists estimate that if serious changes in the policies that control carbon dioxide emissions and the greenhouse effect are not made then the average global temperature could increase by as much as 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100 (EDF). 
            The trouble with carbon dioxide is that it has such a long half-life. It takes decades to dissipate, so making positive change is slow.  Carbon dioxide, while making up 80% of greenhouse gasses, is not the only gas we need to worry about (O’Harra, 2011).  Methane (CH4), nitric oxide (N2O2), dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC12)-better known as refrigerant- and trichlorofluoromethane (CFC14)-also a refrigerant- round out the top five gasses affecting our ozone (O’Harra).   The chart below of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) 2011 greenhouse gasses index shows how much carbon dioxide and methane make up our pollutants, as well as the steady increase in recent years.
           
            
                                                                  (NOAA, 2011)
     
            When people hear “methane”, they think of cows.  However, it is not the cows that are heating up our atmosphere.  According to the NOAA’s 2011 greenhouse gasses report, methane is 25 times more potent than CO2.  The other problem with methane is that the warmer the Earth gets, the more methane is released (O’Harra, 2011).  As the permafrost on the ocean floor gets warmer, there is a possibility that massive amounts of methane could be released into the atmosphere, which could in turn drastically increase the rate of global warming (O’Harra).        
            The increased gasses have not only increased the temperature of the earth, which has begun to melt the ice caps, but they have also changed the PH of the ocean, which is a threat to the ecosystems underwater (World Conservation Society, 2011).  The coral reefs are “bleaching”-or excreting the algae that makes them colorful- which is leaving the reefs white (WCS).  If the reefs are not stabilized, then all marine life-from sharks, to sea turtles to dolphins-will be affected.  The rising temperatures have also affected the migration patterns of multiple species of animals, making them search longer and farther for food and water (WCS). 

Heat causes coral to shed the algae, resulting in “bleaching.”
(Image retrieved from NOAA, 2011)
            If one is not an animal lover and does not care about animals and insects and their importance on the balance of the ecosystem, then they should consider how global warming affects them in a more obvious way.  Climate change has brought rising sea levels which are endangering islanders like those in the Bahamas, and has also brought an increase in serious hurricane activity (NAACP, 2011).  Global warming does not just mean that we will feel warmer weather; it means that all weather will be more extreme (Natural Resources Defense Council, n.d.).  The most obvious is drought and subsequent fires, but it is also contributing to more powerful hurricanes, a higher frequency of dangerous tornadoes, heavier rainfall and flooding, and more powerful snowstorms (NRDC). 
            A study commissioned by New York State Energy Research and Development Authority and conducted by scientists from New York State Universities, like Cornell and Columbia, was published November 2011, and it projects serious changes that could impact the state as soon as 2020 (Kaufman, 2011). The main concern is the rising sea levels (Kaufman).  As the ice caps melt, the sea level rises, endangering people who live near the shoreline.  The study estimates that nearly 96,000 people could be in danger of losing their homes (Kaufman). 
            Another concern is that drinking water could become contaminated as seawater enters the Hudson River (Kaufman, 2011).  As the temperature rises, even by a few degrees, the spruce and fir trees will die out due to fast growing weeds that thrive in the slightly warmer weather (Kaufman).  None of the state’s apples would survive, and the dairy farms will take a hit in production as cows feel the stress from the added heat (Kaufman).  The study concludes with recommendations that natural barriers be protected and building codes be changed now to reflect the future results of climate change (Kaufman).
Second Side of the Debate
            A professor at Cornell, Art DeGaetano argues that the New York State study can be interpreted in a positive way.  He points out that while many other areas of the country will suffer drought, New York will have a surplus of water, albeit at the expense of drinking water and loss of homes and other structures (Kaufman, 2011).  Kaufman (2011) quotes DeGaetano as saying, “It would be all bad if you wanted a static New York, with the same species of bird and the same crops” (para. 13).  DeGaetano goes on to say that New York can capitalize on the increasing droughts by selling their excess sea water (Kaufman, 2011).
            The American Policy Roundtable, a group that is trying to disprove global warming as fact or that it is a least blown out of proportion, uses old and inaccurate data to support their claims.  One such report is one done by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001, which states that the environment is extremely sensitive to change, and that can make it difficult to calculate how the climate will change in the future (APR, 2007).  The APR interprets this to mean that it is impossible to what or how the climate is affected by people.  However, a report by the IPCC published that very same year (2007) concluded in that people are a direct cause of climate change, and that the change is significant and will impact our lives (EDF, 2011).  The APR goes on to claim that global warming could even benefit us and allow us to inhabit different areas of the planet (APR).
            Other arguments claim that changing our lifestyle to reduce global warming is just too expensive (APR, 2007).  The estimate is that 2.4 million jobs would be lost and that the average annual household income would decrease by $2700 (APR).  There is no mention of the jobs created to make green products, the savings in the cost to operate greener appliances, or how they are able to calculate the reduction of income per household.  They also blatantly lie about the projections of the Earth’s temperature and how even minor changes can affect the ecosystem.
            Peter Glover, author of Energy and Climate Wars (2010), calls the current campaign against global warming “hysteria” (Glover, 2007).  Glover says that CO2 is not a pollutant, but necessary for life.  He fails to make the distinction between the CO2 expelled by breathing, and pollutants from factories, automobiles, and other sources.  He also does not point out that too much CO2 can cause headaches, tremors, unconsciousness (Pittsburgh Geological Society, n.d.).  Having too much CO2 in the atmosphere also leads to a greenhouse effect, or in other words, global warming (PGS).
             John Stossel claims that he does not believe global warming could be as catastrophic as they say, but yet be cured by driving a Prius (Chiu, 2008).  In a 2007 article entitled, “The Global Warming Myth?” Stossel actually suggests that nuclear energy would be more practical than wind or solar power, seemingly forgetting the inherent danger of nuclear power plants and Chernobyl (2007).  He calls the windmills used for wind energy “bird-killing Cuisinarts” (Stossel, p.2).  Stossel (2007) says that moving from fossil fuels to greener energy options would “decimate” the economy, yet he also says it would just be easier to “build dykes and move back from the coasts” and that farmers can simply move their crops north, or plant different ones (p.2).  It appears that to Stossel, it is better for millions of people’s lives to be ruined by doing nothing than to make a few adjustments now.  Oh, that’s right.  We can all just afford to abandon our homes, jobs and businesses and move.
            Stossel shares his belief with skeptic Walter Happer, a physics professor who denies that humans are contributing to global warming or that global warming is even occurring (Brusca, 2009).   Happer claims that scientists Stephen Pacala and Robert Socolow-the very ones who won the Nobel Prize for their research on stabilizing carbon dioxide gasses-are being paid by oil companies to push their “propaganda” (Brusca).  What Happer doesn’t say however, is that the Marshall Institute, the very one he is on the board of directors of, is funded by ExxonMobil (Brusca). 
What can we do?
            How can we help slow down global warming?  First, we need to educate ourselves on the realities of global warming and the impact it has.  The EPA suggests switching five of the most used light bulbs to energy efficient bulbs (2011).  It is estimated that if everyone did this, then the greenhouse gasses prevented would be equivalent to that of ten million cars taken off the road (EPA).  Plus, while the initial cost of the bulbs is more, they cost less to use and need to be replaced less often, saving you money in the long run.  Switch to energy efficient appliances when necessary (ie. when it is time for a new one)-many states or electric companies offer rebates on energy efficient appliances, and many of the new appliances cost less than $30/yr to operate.
             Use sustainable resources when available.  Use shredded denim for insulation and bamboo flooring on that new addition, or recycled glass countertops in that updated kitchen.  Consider solar energy.  It appears expensive on the surface, but it actually comes out cheaper.  Not only does it replace your electric bill, but often the panels put energy back into the meter, so that you get a refund from the electric company. 
            Repair leaky faucets and toilets immediately. One running toilet can waste as much as 200 gallons of water a day (EPA, 2011).  Reduce the water used on landscaping by watering in the early morning, giving the soil a chance to absorb it before the water gets evaporated by the heat later in the day.  Composting food and yard waste not only cuts back on trash taken to the landfill, but is also better fertilizer and chemical free. 
Conclusion
            The evidence of global warming and climate change is all around us. We cannot ignore what is happening before our eyes. Denying that global warming is occurring does not make it so. It is time to stop burying our heads and do something about it. We saw how we can make a difference when the hole in the ozone was discovered and environmental policies were changed. What we do directly impacts our environment and it is up to us to do so in a positive way.

              
The image on the left is the ozone hole over Antarctica in 2000, and on the right is the same ozone hole in 2006. The difference in size is visible. Scientists attribute this directly to the Montreal Protocol-proof that we can change the direction of climate change (EPA, 2007).  (Image retrieved Nov. 27, 2011 from http://news.cnet.com/2300-11395_3-6111282.html?tag=mncol )

References
American Policy Roundtable, (2007). Arguments against global warming, Retrieved Nov. 12, 2011 from http://www.aproundtable.org/tps30info/globalwarmup.html
Brusca, R., (2009, January). Professor denies global warming theory, The Daily Princetonian,       Retrieved Nov. 12, 2011 from http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/01/12/22506/
Chiu, L., (2008, June). Denying global warming with John Stossel, IwatchNews, Retrieved Nov. 12, 2011 from http://www.iwatchnews.org/2008/07/31/3088/denying-global-warming-john-stossel-gclid=CL_jntSHs6wCFQR9hwodz0IuvA
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), (2011). Basics of global warming, Retrieved Nov. 11, 2011             from http://www.edf.org/climate/basics-global-warming?s_src=ggad&s_subsrc=climatechange&gclid=CKPXza6zsKwCFQVihwodXjU28g
Environmental Protection Agency, (2011, April). Climate change-what you can do, Retrieved Nov. 27 from http://epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/home.html
Environmental Protection Agency, (2007). Montreal Protocol questions and answers, Retrieved Nov. 11, 2011 from http://www.epa.gov/ozone/downloads/MP20_QandA.pdf
Kaufman, L., (2011, November). From shore to forest, projecting effects of climate change, New York Times, Retrieved Nov. 27, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/nyregion/climate-change-to-affect-new-york-state-in-many-ways-study-says.html
Glover, P., (2007). Ten myths of global warming, Global warming hysteria (cooled), Retrieved Nov. 27, 2011 from http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/ten-myths-of-global-warming/
Mosser, K., (2010) Philosophy: A concise introduction, San Diego, Ca. USA: Bridgepoint             Education, Inc.
NAACP, (2011). Climate justice initiative, Retrieved Nov. 11, 2011 from           http://www.naacp.org/programs/entry/climate-justice?
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), (2011). NOAA annual greenhouse gases index (AGGI), Retrieved Nov. 26, 2011 from http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), (n.d.). The consequences of global warming on weather patterns, Retrieved Nov. 12, 2011 from http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/fcons/fcons1.asp
Pittsburgh Geological Society (PGS), (n.d.). Concentrated carbon dioxide in Western Pennsylvania, Retrieved Nov. 27, 2011 from http://www.pittsburghgeologicalsociety.org/carbondioxide.pdf
O’Harra, D., (2011, November). Methane a growing threat to Arctic’s changing climate, Alaska    Dispatch, Retrieved Nov. 12, 2011 from http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/methane-growing-threat-arctics-changing-climate
Stossel, J., (2007, April). The global warming myth? ABC 20/20, Retrieved Nov. 27, 2011 from             http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3061015&page=2
World Conservation Society, (2011). Climate change and wildlife, Retrieved Nov. 12, 2011 from             http://www.wcs.org/conservation-challenges/climate-change/climate-change-and-wildlife.aspx