We need to look at “The debate on global warming, framed on one side by those who see a long-term gradual warming or global surface temperatures and on the other side by those who see only small and potentially beneficial changes…” (MacDonald 2001 51)
There seems to be no doubt that global warming is a man-made phenomenon. The major questions to be debated here are: (1) is it a logical outgrowth of population growth and industrial development, or (2) is it a preventable despoilment of the natural resources and atmosphere on Earth long before the advent of Man?
The very word “environment”, from the French environer, to surround, makes it obvious that every part of the land on which we stand, the air we breathe, and the vegetation on which we depend for sources of nourishment, are not just “surrounding” us, but interrelated. Changes in one usually affects the other, and so on.
Climate change, of course, has occurred throughout the Earth’s history. There is evidence, of course, of various Ice Ages, sea level fluctuations, and associated changes in plant and animal life because of these alterations in climate. But, these are natural occurrences. It was not until the late 19th century that some scientists reckoned that Man had some influence on climate changes. The Industrial revolution, for one, had brought the increasing use of coal and its carbon emissions into the atmosphere. It took nearly a century to begin to measure the beginning of what we now call “The Greenhouse Effect”. Gases, whether carbon dioxide, methane, or nitrous oxide, began to blanket the atmosphere, containing the heat radiating from the Earth, and causing an increasing warming of the Earth. Add to this effect the massive emissions from automobiles, the use of aerosol sprays world-wide, ever-spreading industrialization without rational planning, and the climate is no longer in the sole hands of “Mother Nature”. It is almost as if Mother had gone to a rest home, while her next generation of numbers-cruncher offspring have taken over.
ARGUMENT FOR GLOBAL WARMING AS A MAJOR PROBLEM:
Glaciers are receding. Oceans are rising. Alaska is thawing…”there is no question there is a climate change,’ says Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a foe of past efforts to combat global warming. ‘We’re beyond that debate.'” (Watson, Weisman 2001 1A)
Scientists ascribe some of the climatic warming to the growing expansion of the suburbs and enlargement of metropolitan areas, where concrete and stone and steel are replacing nature’s vegetation, sending off heat, rather than absorbing it. “Population growth, soil degradation, loss of biodiversity, changes in atmospheric chemistry, these are the major trends’ that humans have triggered, changing the character of the landscape, oceans, and atmosphere on time scales far faster than Earth’s processes alone typically operate…” (Spotts 2001 1)
Overall, whatever the reason, scientists have now proven that the average Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures have been greater during recent decades than at any time since 1400. Reduced daily temperature ranges are also part of the climatic change problem, with night time temperatures increasing. Recent scientific studies show that the minimum daily temperatures have typically increased by twice as much as maximum daily temperatures since the 1950s, which may well be one of the contributors to the various changes in rainfall and drought, severe heat, or cold,
Is this just a result of natural changes? Scientific organizations at the UN say that there is a discernible human influence on global climate- clearly ascribed to the 30% increase of carbon dioxide, the 145% increase of methane and the 15% increase of nitrous oxides in the air during the past century. All this adds up to faster warming than had been anticipated as little as five years ago. “A report of the intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change….warns that the average temperature could rise between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees Celsius over the next 100 years….If the new predictions come to pass it will mean that the Earth will be in the throes of the scale of climate change that prompted the Ice Age 20,,000 years ago.” (Anon 2001 1)
Man is supplanting Nature, therefore, as the creator of climatic problems, which are closely linked with soil and vegetation, and industrialization which is heating the atmosphere, and increasing that hole in the ozone layer which protects us from strong ultraviolet rays of the sun.
The fact that global warming is essentially man-made should come as no surprise, of course, except to the Bush White House which has refused to go along with many other nations in the s-called Kyoto Protocol, named after the city in Japan where the first standards for reducing emissions and controlling the atmosphere were first suggested. And yet, President Bush has now heard an alarming report from his own scientists. “Just six months after informing the White House that global warming is indeed real, largely the result of human activity and likely to cause adverse effects, the National Academy of Sciences issued an even more disturbing alert….Global warming, the academy reported, could trigger ‘large, abrupt and unwelcome climatic changes that could severely affect ecosystems and human society.” (McFarling 2001 A 30) It might be worthwhile to see if the winter-long drought in the Southeast and East Coast, which may see water rationing this summer and poorer crops, is the result of changes in the atmosphere.
One major problem, of course, is that taking steps to reduce global warming is expensive. Moreover, until the various nations who participated in the Kyoto global warming summit can agree to follow the standards set forth (The U.S., so far has refused to go along with the Protocol’s standards) nothing of a truly global nature will get started. “The protocol commits industrial countries to reduce their collective carbon-dioxide emissions by an average of 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012” (Spotts 2001 1) But, if this Kyoto protocol is to take effect, “the protocol must be ratified by 55 countries, including enough industrial countries to account for 55 percent of industrial-country emissions, Without the U.S., analysts say, the key countries and blocs to watch include Canada, Japan, the European Union and Russia. If any of these fail to ratify the protocol, it will not reach the 5055 threshold.” (Spotts 32001 2)
What is the worst-case scenario? “…climate change could lead to the sudden onset of prolonged droughts, extensive flooding and sudden temperature shifts. Predicting exactly when such changes might occur is even trickier.” (McFarling 2001 A30) There is no “best-case scenario” at this point in time, since the world’s nations are not in agreement about what to do, how to do it, and even when. Even the recalcitrant nations now realize that there is an urgency to do something, and not to hesitate too much longer. The future of our world may well be at stake.
THINK ARGUMENTS CON: GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT THE DANGER SOME PEOPLE.
“Debate in the causes of predicted global warming usually revolves around climate models constructed by researchers…The science altogether is unsettled, but we know for sure that the models that make thee predictions into the future are exaggerating the warmth.” (Glassman 2001 20) Some scientists are skeptical of the current models because they claim that the sun itself is a variable which cannot properly be “modeled” to an exact prediction.
Scientists who go back in history, having recorded the Earth’s temperatures, don’t seem to be alarmed about “global warming”. There was a very long protracted cooling that began in the 14th century that continued to the mid-19th century- a 500-year relative cold spell called The Little Ice Age. Before that, 800 or 1,000 years ago…the temperature was even higher than today.” (Glassman 2001 20)
Of course, as scientific discovery continues, there are new ways in which global warming can be retarded. For example, “Bacteria smaller than a speck are identified as food for plankton plants which break down carbon dioxide” (Cowen 2001 1) This may help slow down global warming, because this discovery is as important for climate scientists as it is for marine biologists. “The ocean’s ability to remove atmospheric carbon dioxide has been poorly known, because the biological cycle hasn’t been fully explained.” (Cowen 2001 1)
It is obvious that global warming exists. However, efforts are underway to slow it down by whatever means possible, far beyond the discoveries of new bacteria in the oceans. For example, an international panel of scientists recently released an 800-page report which states “that efforts to stem heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions caused by the burning of oil, gas, and coal can result in additional benefits including less pollution, forest conservation and energy security.” (Knight 2001 1)
Men are doing something to answer the call for solutions to global warning. Another UN report says, for example, that “geothermal, small-scale hydropower, solar, biomass and wind technologies have grown proportionately faster than any other electricity supply technology.” (Knight 2001 1)
In other words, science and technology are not standing pat.
CONCLUSION:
Despite some industrial and technological advances that can reduce emissions to increase the greenhouse effect, most see a sort of doomsday event within the next century. Those who, like ostriches, prefer to stick their heads in the san and pretend that everything will work out for the best (“Nature usually takes care of things”, they are likely to believe) are simply wasting time and delaying the inevitable. More action needs to be taken to reduce emissions, to limit use of aerosol sprays and unrefined gasoline. More must be done to keep waters from becoming, as Jacques Cousteau once said, the world’s trash basket.
What some people may not realize, thinking that one or two degrees warmer doesn’t really make that much of a difference, is that “tropical diseases such as malaria and dengue may extend their ranges as the world warms- and that disrupted storm of rainfall patterns may raise threats of everything from crop failures to cholera…” (Agnew 2-1 1090).
Politics should not play a role in slowing down global warming. Neither should economics. If President Bush, no supporter of environmental controls to begin with, feels that the “power” of the U.S. would be threatened by agreeing to the Kyoto Protocols, he is gambling with the lives of future generations. It should be science, not politicians, who need to make policy decisions. The fact that “Federal agencies have been unwilling to spend the estimated $10 million to $15 million needed (for a reliable climate monitoring system)” (McFarling 2001 A30) should not be forgotten, come election time.
CITATIONS:
Agnew, B.: “Planet Earth, Getting Too Hot for Health?”
Bethesda, MD: World Health Organization, Nov. 2001, pp 1090-1092
Cowen, R.C.: “Scientists Fit Another Piece of Global-
Warming Puzzle” Boston MA: Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 9, 2001, n.p.
Glassman, J.: “Harvard Expert Debunks Global Warming Models” Washington D.C.: Consumers Research Magazine, May 2001
Pp 20-23
Knight, D.: “Global Warming a Solvable Problem. Says Report” Inter Press Service, March 5, 2001, n.p.
MacDonald, A.E.: “The Wild Card in the Climate Change Debate” Richardson TX: Issues in Science and Technology, Vol XVII No. 4, Summer, 2002, pp 51-56
McFarling, U. L.: “Scientists Now fear ‘Abrupt’ Global Warming Changes” Los Angeles Times, Dec. 12, 2001, p. A 30
Spotts, P.: “How Warm Will It Get?” Boston MA: Christian Science Monitor, Dec. 27, 2001 n.p.
Watson, T. and Weisman, J.: “6 Ways to Combat Global Warming” Arlington VA: USA TODAY, July 16, 2001, p. 1A-2A
No author listed: “Global Warming Occurring Faster than Predicted Five Years Ago: Scientists” Toronto Canada: Canadian Press, Jan 22, 2001 n.p.
