Climate Change
Climate Change
Global cooperation or total destruction of our Planet?
Some time ago I was watching the weather forecast on TV when at some point the news anchor asked a guest scientist about the increasing numbers of floods and whether this was linked to climate change. He responded that “If the theories of my fellow colleagues are correct, then I believe that climate change plays a role in extreme weather phenomena”. I was stunned! If a scientist talks about “theories” and not “facts”, i.e. he is not convinced himself that there is a close connection between human activities and the climate of the planet, then what position a simple person should support? How should s/he react to claims by some that something is going terribly wrong with the climate and their opponents claims that these are natural, circular fluctuations in the global climate that have nothing to do with our activities? Climate change might seem to be a distant, a remote issue, but it is increasingly affecting our everyday life and it is tightly coupled to our ethical views and beliefs.
I would like to emphasize two scientific facts, not theories; what makes the difference clear is that these two facts are undisputed, i.e. ALL scientists are in agreement without exception. We should keep them in mind and take them into account every time there is a dispute about climate issues. Now, before we discuss these facts, I would like to comment on two things. The first has to do with the claim that the climate changes we observe are just natural periodic phenomena in Earth’s climate. It is a fact that such periodic climate changes exist, and they are well documented in research. The only objection is that the period of these cycles is in the thousands or even hundreds of thousand years, whereas the climate changes we consider here started about a hundred years ago and their onset coincides with the industrial revolution and its massive use [burning] of coal and oil. The other comment is that in the initial scientific reports to the US president the word “fact” was used. This word was changed to “theory” by a president’s advisor with prior employment in oil companies. In all subsequent announcements, depending on political beliefs, this word was used to dilute and diminish the impact of undisputed, scientific evidence.
The first fact has to do with carbon dioxide (CO2) and its characterization as a greenhouse gas. The CO2 absorbs preferentially infrared light, which then re-emits randomly in all directions. Infrared radiation [heat] is produced when the sunlight hits the surface of Earth and warms it up. This radiation is then emitted back to space [albedo effect]. As it travels through the atmosphere the CO2 captures and re-emits it in all directions so about half of it is send back to the surface, i.e. it gets trapped/stored in the atmosphere, a phenomenon used in greenhouses where the plastic cover plays the role of the heat trap. It follows that more CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to more heat capture, or a warmer planet. There are other, more potent greenhouse gases, like methane, which is about 85 times more potent, but it is relatively small in quantities in the atmosphere and its contribution to heat capture constitutes just a small fraction of the total effect. The main greenhouse gas, which is CO2, is produced in huge quantities during the burning process of whatever burns, be it natural gas, coal, oil, wood etc. About 1/3 of it is produced in power plants [electricity], 1/3 in transportation and 1/3 in industry, house heating etc. Coal is producing twice the amount of CO2 compared to natural gas or oil per unit of energy produced. The CO2 quantity in the atmosphere is about twice of what it used to be before the industrial revolution. Here we see the need for alternative sources of electricity [wind, photovoltaics] and the use of electric or other cleaner means of transportation.
The second fact has to do with the effects of CO2 on climate and the ecosystem in general. These effects are diverse [e.g. acidity of ocean waters], but the most worrisome is the resulting increase of the mean temperature of earth’s atmosphere. A lot of studies using different methods have been done, even by non-believers of the climate change, and ALL have concluded that global warming is happening, and it is human made. Not all agree how fast it is happening, but most do agree that the trend is exponential, i.e. the temperature increase is happening with an increasing rate, i.e. faster and faster. A warmer atmosphere will have many consequences, beyond the polar ice melting and the more frequent extreme weather phenomena. It is not clear what will happen exactly and to what extent, since this is still under study, but the outlook is not optimistic.
Well, these are the scientific facts, the base. All of a sudden, we discovered that our planet is small and that our actions lead to certain global outcomes concerning this sensitive and well-tuned ecosystem. All this calls for collaborative action at a global level. All nations were asked to participate in the effort to control and minimize climate change and its dire consequences; the energy needs of each country need to be designed and coordinated according to a global plan.
Ideally, one would have expected swift and coordinated action from all nations on a common and agreed upon plan. But, as with other important issues, national priorities on energy policy take the first seat, thus delaying the agreement on a global action plan. For example, the United States current administration’s views on climate change have effectively halted any environment-protection actions and most of its new policies not only reverse earlier emission restrictions but also encourage coal and oil use. India keeps building coal-burning electricity plants with an increased rate. China is doing the same even though lately it has turned to more alternative, eco-friendly sources. Unfortunately, this turn was not driven by sensitivity to climate issues, but by the need to have a cleaner air in all big cities. China, USA and India are producing half the total CO2 emissions on the planet. All of them are using the need for “growth and development” as their main argument for their energy choices. But we know that many “developmental” ideas hide in them a poisonous arrow for earth’s heart, and many of them have a catastrophic environmental impact with a long term cost many times over the temporary gains.
A lot of progress has been achieved on both informing the people about the issues and reaching agreements at an international level, but we need more in both individual and national levels; otherwise the planet is going to react even more violently, with an increased cost in lives and expenses. We need to rise above our personal and/or national interests, reconsider and reinforce our place and role in what we call Humanity. We need to plan actions that are in harmony with the well-being of the planet as a whole. The idea of a unified Humanity living on our home, our planet emerges as a need now, not as a mere philosophical or political view. Let us hope that we will respond to this challenge wisely.