CHRIS SEGAL
Perspectives Editor
Scientists agree the amount of minor greenhouse gases released in the atmosphere is increasing. Theoretically, these gases could trap more heat in the atmosphere and cause Earth’s atmosphere to gradually warm. There are two mainstream theories surrounding global warming, and they are both catastrophic.
One theory is that carbon dioxide and methane gases will cause a hole to form in our atmosphere and all of Earth will burn from solar radiation. The alternative is that the gases will be trapped, causing the earth to warm and the icebergs in the polar regions to melt. This would cause massive flooding and ultimately, millions of deaths.
Hence, global warming is a big deal to millions of people. There will be no pro/cons written about global warming. No one supports global warming. That doesn’t mean there isn’t opposition to global warming. One fact remains, there is no overwhelming proof that global warming can be attributed to greenhouse gases, or that it will be catastrophic.
Background
The United Nations created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the mid-1990s to serve as a leading source of scientific advice on global warming. The IPCC released “Climate Change 1995,” which serves as the leading source of advice that forms U.N. policy, an important source.
Dr. Frederick Seitz, president emeritus of Rockefeller University and past president of the National Academy of Sciences publicly denounced the report saying, “I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.”
In a June 2, 1997 debate, the IPCC chairman explained why the process was corrupt. Dr. Bert Bolin said, “The climate issue is not settled; it is both uncertain and incomplete.”
A conclusion was drawn based on generalities, not hard data.
There have been many studies in the years to follow, but still no concrete evidence exists that global warming can be attributed to greenhouse gases. Scientists are looking at global warming and trying to determine how to prevent a theoretical catastrophe. There is not enough data available to determine weather global warming is a danger to all life on Earth or just a part of Earth’s life cycle.
Still, there is large dissent among scientists, as 2,600 scientists have signed a petition that calls for immediate actions to prevent global warming. This should not be ignored, but neither should the opposing petition that says, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of Earth’s climate.” Seventeen-thousand scientists signed that petition.
Hurricanes
Hurricanes are intense low pressure areas that form over warm ocean waters in the summer and early fall. In the aftermath of Katrina and Rita, media pundits are speculating that global warming is responsible for the hurricanes. No individual or even group of events can be attributed to climate change.
The warming and cooling of the water comes in cycles and has nothing to do with global warming, according to the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration. The NOAA also reported that the strong African winds and strong wind shear produce hurricanes and that those tropical patterns last for 20 to 30 years at a time.
“The increasing frequency of hurricane activity in the Caribbean and Gulf since 1995 is due to a natural, multidecadal shift in the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation (THC), the oceanic ‘conveyor belt’ that pulls warm water from the tropics northward to the British Isles,” wrote Mario Lewis, a senior fellow of the Competitive Enterprise Institute in a letter to the editor to USA Today on Sept. 28.
When the THC shifts into its strong phase, the North Atlantic warms and generates more hurricanes, as it did in the mid 1990s, according to Lewis.
Kyoto Treaty
The international community gathered in December 1997 to create a framework for dealing with the issue of global warming. The objective of the treaty is the “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”
Anthropogenic refers to a pollutant to the environment that originates from human activity.
The goal of the treaty is to diminish the amount of greenhouse gas emissions from countries back to the level of 1990, which was less than 10 percent. It is predicted that if the guidelines of the Kyoto Protocol are followed, there will an average global rise in temperature between 0.02 and 0.28 degrees-Celsius. That is compared to the predicted 1.4 to 5.8 degree-Celsius raise if nothing changes.
The Protocol left several issues to be decided later by the Conference of Parties (COP). COP6 attempted to resolve the open issues at the Hague in 2000, but no consensus was reached. The European Union wanted tougher standards, while the United States, Canada, Japan and Australia wanted more flexible requirements. Other conflicts arose from the roles that different nations would have regarding the treaty.
For those who are not politically correct, there is no such thing as a Third World country and a First World country. The proper designation is developed, a.k.a. the United States and the United Kingdom, and developing which is almost every other country. This is significant to note because the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Control agreed to set “common but differentiated responsibilities” for developed and developing countries. The treaty stipulates that the largest share of historical and current global emissions originated in developed countries, per capita emissions in developing countries are relatively low and the share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet their social and development needs.
This means that countries such as China and India are exempt from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol because they were not responsible for contribution of greenhouse gases during the industrialization period. No wonder the United States is not one of the 155 countries that has ratified the treaty. Those other countries are exempt from the treaty the signed. Talk about a double standard.
Advocates for the protocol still claim that reducing the emission of carbon dioxide is crucial and that the countries that contribute the most must do the most to rectify the situation. Despite the U.S. position of opposition, there is a grassroots movement here for the treaty. As of June 22, 2005, 165 U.S. cities, representing 35 million Americans support the protocol, including Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Jose.
The major opposition for the treaty comes from the American and Australian governments.
Politics
The issue of global warming has become more than a noble quest to save the planet from a theoretical danger. It has become political.
On paper, preventing global warming and ratifying the Kyoto Protocol all sound good. As many probably know, or at least should know, the United States is a signatory of the treaty but for it to go into effect, the Senate must vote on the treaty. Since the treaty’s creation, it has never gone to the Senate for a vote.
Before the Kyoto conference was held, the U.S. Senate passed a resolution 95 to 0 in June of 1997. The resolution determined the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include timetables and binding targets for developing nations as well as industrial nations or that would result in serious harm to the U.S. economy. Fast-forward to Nov. 12, 1998 when Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. For Gore to sign the protocol in good faith, that would mean the administration believed that the protocol posed no damage to the nation’s economy. Score one for Gore the environmentalist, but wait, the Clinton administration never even submitted the treaty to the Senate because it knew that the treaty would not pass and that it went against the Senate’s previous resolution. Just look at the environmental record of the Clinton administration before you criticize based on rhetoric. U.S. greenhouse emissions were 14 percent higher than the 1990 level when Clinton left office in 2001.
Then comes President Bush, by no means an environmentalist. He has the ranch in Crawford, Texas, full of trees that he likes to be seen cutting down in front of the press. Blaming Bush for not ratifying the treaty is ridiculous. It’s a bad treaty that the previous administration knew was bad but left it on the table for the next guy. Don’t get me wrong, Bush could be doing plenty of other things for the environment, but the Kyoto Protocol is not a good option.
The Kyoto Protocol is even facing opposition now from Tony Blair, once a firm supporter. On the first day of the Clinton Global Initiative in New York, Blair said, “We have got to start from the brutal honesty about the politics of how we deal with it. The truth is, no country is going to cut its growth or consumption substantially in light of a long-term environmental problem. What countries are prepared to do is to try to work together cooperatively to deal with this problem in a way that allows us to develop the science and technology in a beneficial way.”
Solar Output
Two Duke University physicists released a report last week that said 10 to 30 percent of global warming from 1980 to 2002 could be attributed to increased solar output. The study does not discount that greenhouse gases have a part in global warming, but it’s not as strong as previously thought.
The new study has found major flaws in the methods used to collect data about global warming in the past 20 years. According to Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West, the authors, after the 2003 Columbia shuttle disaster the sub-observing satellites were replaced by less accurate data from other satellites. The main problem comes from the lack of standardized testing of solar output.
By using records of sunspot activity, a new theory that the solar output has been raising slightly for the past 100 years has surfaced, according to Scafetta. This new data shows that all research done on global warming up to this recent report is inaccurate at best.
Global warming is over-hyped in our politically divided country. Is it important to bring about an end to global warming? Not really. No one can prove there is such a thing. The fact remains that the environment is important to everyone. In light of this information, do not trade in your Toyota Prius for a old clunker diesel Mercedes. Instead, be aware of the world we all share and don’t just buy into the hype.
10-06-2005