Ever since the Industrial Revolution began in Great Britain over two and a half centuries ago, humankind has been accelerating on a path toward global socioeconomic cohesion. From steam engines and steel mass production in the 1700s to ion thrusters and additive manufacturing in the 2000s, the capacity for human ingenuity seems to be limitless. However, with that limitless capacity for ingenuity comes the responsibility to not exceed a very real, limited carrying capacity of the planet itself. With a population of almost 7.5-billion people and counting[1], the impact of the human species on Earth’s ecology becomes more pronounced and irreparable by the day despite the increasingly popularized notion of some global warming conspiracy. While denial in the face of the evidence isn’t a novel idea, much of the recent upsurge of seeming irreverence for environmental preservation arose from the transition to the Trump administration. As recently as December, President Trump was mocking the idea on Twitter, saying, “In the East, it could be the COLDEST New Year’s Eve on record. Perhaps we could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming…”[2]
And it’s not the first time the leader of
the free world has taken to the social media platform to voice his opinion
on the topic. Back in November 2012, Trump tweeted, “The concept of global warming
was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing
non-competitive.”[3]
So it isn’t surprising that the United States began scaling back participation
in key international climate change legislation within six months of
inauguration, beginning with the Paris Climate Agreement in June 2017.[4]
According to National Geographic, “the EPA budget[5] suggests eliminating the
environmental agency's climate-change research program, which currently costs
the agency $16 million per year.”[6] As well, a number of NASA
missions designed to monitor various aspects of Earth--weather patterns,
vegetation, and CO2--are at risk, including the Deep Space Climate
Observatory currently in operation. Perilous as the situation might appear in a
sea of visceral misinformation, accusations and evidence of presidential
infidelities, press disparaging, and insistence on an arguably unnecessary,
multi-billion dollar border wall with Mexico, hope emerges from the bedrock of
scientific analysis and peer review. While the concept can be extended to
virtually any argument, objectively speaking, unsubstantiated opinions on the
matters of climate change and global warming are irrelevant at best. Plenty of evidence already exists indicating a
very clear, recently-induced human element in Earth’s climate. This paper will
attempt to present a cursory glance of some of the most argued-against pieces
of evidence regarding this issue. To begin, it is important to point out
the distinction, if any, between climate
change and global warming.
CLIMATE CHANGE OR GLOBAL WARMING?
In a paper
published in Environment and Behavior
in 2017, Daniel Benjamin, Han-Hui Por, and David Budesco presented the results
of testing a series of hypotheses on 533 participants regarding the terms climate change (CC) and global warming (GW).[7]
Setting up some historical context, Benjamin et al. explain:
The Charney Report (National Academy of Sciences, 1979) clearly
differentiated between wordings using GW to refer to the change in global
temperatures and climatic change to refer to other impacts, such as
precipitation and moisture, as well. Scientists today consider CC to be a
general term referring to sustained variations in conditions over time, whereas
GW refers only to “one aspect of climate change” (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 2013)—specific increases in air, surface, or ocean temperatures
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2013). (Benjamin et al. 2017, p. 2)
Despite
the almost universally easy access to the entirety of humankind’s knowledgebase
through the Internet, Americans today find the distinction one of the most
politically polarizing subjects yet to be fully addressed and resolved.
However, it turns out that those most affected by what are referred to as framing effects (i.e. referencing the
same aspects of phenomena) tend to identify as Independent. Furthermore, the
report indicates that the “key result is that those with partisan political
affiliations are least susceptible to framing effects in the climate change
context… It appears that framing effects have decreased over time for
Republicans… [and] tend to be minimal for Democrats” (Benjamin et al. 2017, p.
16).
While the researchers ultimately call for further studies,
the paper concludes, “The only unconditional recommendation one can offer is to
tailor communications to moderates, who are most receptive to subtle messaging,
and seek to touch on all facets of the problem to appeal to the largest
possible number of people and segments of the populations. The key to
influencing people’s intentions may lie in the communication of the details,
especially how rectifiable climate change is” (Benjamin et al. 2017, p. 21). So,
the aspect of framing often stifles
conversations outright between those with staunchly held beliefs, trading
honest discussion of facts for meaningless semantic debate. But if the
conversations are geared instead toward moderates that are more receptive to
opinion-changing information, then the impetus for global legislative and
cooperative action might become a focal point in society sooner rather than
never.
CARBON DIOXIDE AND OTHER
GREENHOUSE GASES
There is perhaps no
better example of a runaway greenhouse effect anywhere in the solar system than
Venus. On Earth, carbon dioxide is released into the environment by a number of
processes, including volcanic outgassing and corporate meetings in boardrooms;
on Venus, the gas—a vestige of this once geologically active world—is
responsible for an unforgiving atmosphere that not only contains sulfuric acid
layers but also maintains a surface temperature of nearly 500 degrees Celsius
and surface pressure around 90 atmospheres.[8]
But carbon dioxide is just one of many compounds that fall into the category of
greenhouse gases. Water vapor,
methane, and ozone are three others that each play an important role in
regulating a number of planetary systems on Earth. For thousands of millennia,
the carbon cycle, consisting of sources
and sinks that emit and absorb CO2,
respectively, along with active plate tectonics, have acted as a sort of
planetary thermostat. Only within the past two and a half centuries has the
natural dynamic equilibrium of climate change processes been shifted. In his
book Red Sky at Morning, James
Gustave Speth explains:
The scientists with the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program
concur: “The evidence is now overwhelming that [rising temperatures] are a
consequence of human activities… [W]e are now pushing the planet beyond
anything experienced naturally for many thousands of years. The records of the
past show that climate shifts can appear abruptly and be global in extent,
while archaeological and other data emphasize that such shifts have had
devastating consequences for human societies. In the past, therefore, lies a
lesson” (Speth p. 60).[9]
Furthermore,
in an article published in 2007 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) by Canadell et al., the
researchers showed:
Since 2000, a growing global economy, an increase in the carbon emissions
required to produce each unit of economic activity, and a decreasing efficiency
of carbon sinks on land and in oceans have combined to produce the most rapid
7-year increase in atmospheric CO2 since the beginning of continuous
atmospheric monitoring in 1959. This is also the most rapid increase since the
beginning of the industrial revolution. (Canadell et al., 2007)[10]
In
other words, the human species has become a giant carbon source while almost
systematically ignoring a required mechanism to act as the giant carbon sink
capturing the increasingly excess carbon released into the environment each
year. The three basic areas into which the carbon can be absorbed are the
atmosphere, the land, and the oceans. Fluctuations in the percentages of carbon
each area can absorb depend upon a number of factors but for the oceans in
particular temperature is crucial. Carbon dioxide dissolves in cold water much
more rapidly than in warm water. In fact, as the oceans warm, even by a few
degrees, their capacity for CO2 absorption diminishes significantly.
But the atmosphere has its own feedback loop and tends to increase in
temperature as CO2 concentration increases because greenhouse gases
trap heat that would normally be radiated away from the surface of Earth. Meanwhile
on land, the rates of carbon exchange appear to have remained stable, at least
 |
Figure 1:
Fraction of the total emissions (FFOSS + FLUC)
that
remains in the atmosphere (A), the land biosphere
(B), and the ocean (C).
(Canadell et al. 2007)
over the past sixty years or so. But even in the face of
this and other mounting evidence, denial has infiltrated the highest echelons
of American government codifying the notion of alternative facts in an almost dystopian narrative that would be no
surprise to George Orwell.
Former
Oklahoma attorney general and climate change denier Scott Pruitt is now the
administrator of an organization he previously sued more than a dozen times,
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)[11].
Concerning carbon dioxide, Pruitt, in an interview with CNBC, stated, “So no, I
would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we
see.”[12]
That means that the leader of the free
world and the leader of the most
influential environmental protection agency on the planet both think global
warming in one way or another is a hoax. Meanwhile the United States,
representing just 5% of the world’s population, consumes almost a quarter of
the world’s resources![13]
So, it shouldn’t be surprising when rich businessmen that might profit from
scaling back environmental regulations find themselves in powerful political
positions and begin doing just that.
The Efficacy of Long-Term Climate Models
While tourists sometimes visit the
continent to bear witness to its vast ice desert, Antarctica is host to a
number of scientific missions stemming from the Antarctic Treaty of 1959.
According to the Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty, “Since 1959, 41 countries
have acceded to the Treaty… [T]hey are entitled to participate in the
Consultative Meetings during such times as they demonstrate their interest in
Antarctica by “conducting substantial
research activity there”.”[14]
Much of this research has involved collecting extensive ice-core samples that
can be and have been used to build an atmospheric composition chronology.
Measuring the varying amounts of greenhouse gases trapped at different depths
of the drilled samples has given climate scientists an accurate picture of
Earth’s atmospheric changes up to 800,000 years into the past in some sites.[15]
As well, the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC), using
“mass-emission data…based on fossil-fuel consumption estimates” shows a clear
trend of consistent increases in carbon emissions from 2.55x106 metric
tonnes of carbon to 9233.63x106 metric tonnes of carbon between 1751
and 2013.[16]
The trillion dollar question is this: If carbon sources pushing billions of
metric tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere each year have been created in the
past two centuries, where are the carbon sinks pulling billions of metric
tonnes of carbon out of the
atmosphere each year? The short answer is that there aren’t any. At least, there aren’t any significant sinks that have been developed. And that’s a significant problem: Thinking that such
an incredible amount of anything can
released into the atmosphere without repercussion because intelligence, or gods, or whatever else, is the height of arrogance.
 |
Figure 2 - From
NASA, this graph shows Global Mean Estimates of Surface Air
Temperature Changes
from 1880 until present day.
The
ramifications of such a massive influx of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have
already begun to show. According to NASA, “The planet’s average surface temperature has risen
about 2 degrees Fahrenheit (a little more than 1 degree Celsius) during the
last century or so, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and
other human-made emissions into the atmosphere. Last year was the third
consecutive year in which global temperatures were more than 1.8 degrees
Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) above late nineteenth-century levels.”[17] The trend of rapid
increasing average temperature is pretty clear.[18] And it is unprecedented
in a way that makes a Venus-like runaway greenhouse effect a very real
possibility on Earth. Therefore, it is critical that governments, corporations,
and citizens alike strive for greenhouse gas reduction, promote so-called green technologies, fund solar, wind,
geothermal, wave, and tidal technologies, and use the power of voting to move
humankind to a path that is synergistic with natural processes as quickly as
possible.
CONCLUSION
The amount of
information accumulated each day in the age
of instant everything is staggering. The computers most Americans carry
around in their pockets every day have processors that are orders of magnitude
more powerful than those that landed astronauts on the Moon. The entirety of
humankind’s knowledgebase is available at the swipe of an OLED screen. Academic
journals, tutorials on just about anything, instant video communication,
millions of songs and movies, online classes, banking—nearly every facet of
modern society is now accessible from a device that even a child can use.
However, all of that technology only amounts to so many millions of tons of
useless junk if it isn’t used intelligently. In other words, if humans can
engineer technology that releases massive amounts of greenhouse gases into the
atmosphere, humans can certainly engineer technology that either extracts
massive amounts of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere at a comparable rate or
reduces greenhouse gas production altogether.
How can it be that
in the face of the world’s foremost scientists studying this very topic,
political leaders scoff and seem to think that more debate is somehow the solution? Or that there is some kind of
global conspiracy involving China
that… Well, this is where it always goes off the rails. Anyway, it’s
irrelevant. The debates are over. The conspiracies are stupid. And this isn’t a
problem that can be framed in a Republican or Democratic way. (There isn’t a
Republican way to build an airplane. Engineers don’t vote on the shape of the
wings based upon their political leanings. If the vote on the shape of the
wings was based on a senator’s feelings,
would it fly?) As mentioned earlier, polarizing issues tend to increase the
divide between those with staunchly held, opposing views. So it might prove
futile—as it seems to have done so far—to attempt solving the environmental
degradation problem through political means. This is a human problem and that
requires human ingenuity—not some outmoded social control mechanism of
extorting countries into compliance that clearly isn’t working. Technology
already exists to dramatically reduce, and in some case eliminate entirely,
carbon emissions. In countries all around the globe, scientists have been and
continue developing technology that can revolutionize the world. But, the political
leaders in America appear more interested in bullying shooting victims, voting
against homosexual rights while getting caught having gay sex in their offices
or in public bathrooms, flying first class with public funds, threatening
nuclear war, gutting healthcare for millions of Americans, and riling up racist
rhetoric with the promotion of one of the most ridiculous wastes of money in
the history of the United States: a wall along the border of Mexico.
Unfortunately, this only proves that a sundial left in the dark is useless.
Works Cited
Keith Alverson et al., Environmental Variability and Climate Change,
International Geosphere-Biosphere Program Science Series No. 3, 2001.
Benjamin, Daniel, et
al. “Climate Change Versus Global Warming: Who is Susceptible to the Framing of
Climate Change?” SAGE Journals, SAGE
Publishing, 22 Sept. 2016, journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0013916516664382?journalCode=eaba.
Canadell, Joseph G., et al. “Contributions to
Accelerating Atmospheric CO2 Growth from Economic Activity, Carbon Intensity,
and Efficiency of Natural Sinks.” Proceedings
of the National Academy of Science, National Academy of Sciences, 20 Nov.
2007, www.pnas.org/content/104/47/18866.
Chiacu, Doina, and Valerie Volcovici. “EPA
Chief Pruitt Refuses to Link CO2 and Global Warming.” Scientific American, 10 Mar. 2017,
www.scientificamerican.com/article/epa-chief-pruitt-refuses-to-link-co2-and-global-warming/.
Greshko, Micahel, et al. “A Running List of How
Trump Is Changing the Environment.” National
Geographic, National Geographic Society, 28 Feb. 2018,
news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/03/how-trump-is-changing-science-environment/.
Jarmin, Ron. “U.S. and World Population Clock
Tell Us What You Think.” Population
Clock, 22 Mar. 2018, www.census.gov/popclock/,
Northon, Karen. “Long-Term Warming Trend
Continued in 2017: NASA, NOAA.” NASA,
NASA, 18 Jan. 2018, www.nasa.gov/press-release/long-term-warming-trend-continued-in-2017-nasa-noaa.
Speth, James Gustave. Red Sky at Morning: America and the Crisis of the Global Environment.
Yale University Press, 2008.
Vitali, Ali. “Trump Pulls U.S. Out of Paris
Climate Agreement.” NBC News, 1 June
2017, www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-pulls-u-s-out-paris-climate-agreement-n767066.
[1] https://www.census.gov/popclock/
[2]
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/946531657229701120
[3]
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385
[4]
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-pulls-u-s-out-paris-climate-agreement-n767066
[5]
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-02/documents/fy-2019-congressional-justification-all-tabs.pdf
[6]
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/03/how-trump-is-changing-science-environment/
[7]
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0013916516664382?journalCode=eaba
[9] Keith Alverson et al., Environmental Variability and Climate Change,
International Geosphere-Biosphere Program Science Series No. 3, 2001.
[11] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/epa-chief-pruitt-refuses-to-link-co2-and-global-warming/
[12] https://www.cnbc.com/video/2017/03/09/epa-chief-scott-pruitt-says-carbon-dioxide-is-not-a-primary-
contributor-to-global-warming.html
[13] https://public.wsu.edu/~mreed/380American%20Consumption.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment