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
No comments:
Post a Comment