|
What About Global Warming?
by Most Rev. Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF (retired)
President, Institute for Space and Security Studies
INTRODUCTION
What about Global Warming? That’s a big question. It is convenient to break it down into eight somewhat more manageable questions:
(1) Is Global Warming real?
(2) Is human activity to blame?
(3) Does it matter? (How serious is it anyway?)
(4) Can anything be done about it?
(5) What should be the long-range objective?
(6) What can and should be done now?
(7) What obstacles must be overcome?
(8) So what do we, the people, do?
Each of these questions would be answered differently, depending on whom you asked. The coal industry, automobile manufacturers, and electric utilities are obviously coming up with answers that promote their own financial interests. Environmental groups have a different set of answers. The Clinton Administration has a third set, and various groups of nations still more. For the more contentious of the above questions, I will give some of their answers in order to indicate the range of opinions. And then, of course, I will give my own — not that my answer is always better than that given by others, but it is a privilege of authorship.
IS GLOBAL WARMING REAL?
Naturally, if I didn’t think it was real, I wouldn’t be writing this paper. But the polluters and their mouthpieces (like Rush Limbaugh) claim it’s just a bunch of hot air. Fred Palmer of the Western Fuels Association (a front for coal and other corporate interests), for example, says, "Known apocalyptic global warming advocates, in their zeal to convince the world that the holocaust will be upon us unless we curtail our use of fossil fuels, compose conclusions which ignore actual observations. ... Satellites, that measure the world’s temperature so accurately that they can detect when the moon is full, find no warming whatsoever in their entire 18-year record."
On the other hand, most of the world’s scientists, acting through the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have reached consensus on the fact that Global Warming is real and is already happening.
Dan Becker of the Sierra Club (a moderate environmental group) says, "Assertions that satellite records show no global warming are either misinformed or intentionally untrue. The reality is that the last 30 years have seen the warmest surface temperatures in recorded history, and they have been documented not by alarmists, but by responsible, unbiased scientists from NASA, NOAA, and countless universities and research institutions around the world. The average surface temperature of the first seven years of the 1990’s is already higher than the average for the entire decade of the 1980’s (the 1980’s had previously been the warmest decade in recorded history)."
J. W. Anderson of Resources for the Future (a non-profit research group with environmental leanings) agrees that surface temperatures have risen a full degree since reliable measurements began, and that recent decades are the warmest since at least 1400. (Little is known about the earth’s climate before that time.)
Over two thousand scientists have now concluded that global warming is already changing our climate. 1995 was the warmest year since humans began keeping accurate measurements of temperature. (Recent data indicates that it won’t hold that distinction for long — 1997 has been even hotter.) Scientists are documenting the rapid melting of glaciers. Snow cover is melting much earlier in the year. Ocean temperatures have warmed, sea levels have risen almost one foot, and the patterns of deep sea currents are shifting. Average surface temperatures in Antarctica have risen two degrees Fahrenheit since 1950. In 1994, warming temperatures caused a 48 by 22 mile chunk to break off from the Larsen ice shelf, exposing rocks that had been encased in ice for over 20,000 years. Permafrost in Alaska is thawing, threatening the oil pipeline, buckling highways, and causing other havoc. The ten hottest years in recorded history have all taken place since 1980!
With the Sierra Club, the Natural Resource Defense Council, and scientists around the world, ISSS believes that the evidence is indisputable. Global Warming is real.
IS HUMAN ACTIVITY TO BLAME?
The answer of Rush Limbaugh is "It isn’t happening, and if it is we’re not to blame." Ronald Reagan blamed it on methane gas from cows farting. Fred Palmer (Western Fuels) says it is a natural variation coming out of the "Little Ice Age in the 19th century."
But the vast majority of scientists have concluded that human activity (primarily the burning of fossil fuels) is the major driving factor in global warming.
For centuries, the production and absorption of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases was in balance. Humans and animals produce these gases by burning food in our bodies with the oxygen we breathe. Trees and other plants reverse the process with photosynthesis, turning carbon dioxide back into oxygen and vegetation which is food for us and the animals. The oceans help keep the concentrations in the atmosphere stable by absorbing small excesses in carbon dioxide.
But in the last century, human activity has overwhelmed the earth’s natural feedback mechanism. The burning of wood and all sorts of fuels, including cow dung ("buffalo chips") and whale oil greatly increased the amount of carbon dioxide produced. At the same time, clear-cutting of forests reduced the earth’s capacity to absorb it. The industrial revolution and the discovery and use of fossil fuels has enormously exacerbated the problem. The automobile has been the straw that broke the camel’s back. For every gallon of gasoline burned, 26 pounds of carbon dioxide is put into the air. There is just no way the plants and oceans can absorb the billions of tons of greenhouse gases produced by automobiles each year. More billions of tons are produced by power plants generating electricity.
The end result has been an increase of more than 30% in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If we don’t change our ways, it is forecast to triple by 2100.
The energy coming into the earth system from the sun is mainly in the form of high-energy photons which pass through the atmosphere. They are largely unaffected by gases such as carbon dioxide. (We are fortunate that the most harmful UltraViolet rays are screened out by our ozone layer.) Heat energy being radiated outward by the earth is mostly in the form of low-energy photons with a frequency about a hundredth that of the incoming energy from the sun. These frequencies are absorbed and reflected back to earth by carbon dioxide molecules and other greenhouse gases. This is good. Without it, Earth would be as cold and lifeless as Mars. With our "greenhouse" reflecting back a portion of the heat, Earth’s temperature is just right. Thousands of years ago, an equilibrium was reached where the heat escaping out through the "greenhouse" and the energy coming in from the sun exactly balanced. So, for millenia the temperature of Earth has been stable. Minor fluctuations are brought back to normal by the self-correcting mechanism of a stable "greenhouse."
But now there is 30% more carbon dioxide in our "greenhouse." (The concentration in 1750 was 280 parts per million [ppm]. Now it is 363 ppm.) More of the heat energy is reflected back instead of escaping. If the current concentration were maintained indefinitely, a new equilibrium at a higher temperature would eventually be reached. If, however, concentrations continued to increase, so would warming, until a point is reached where the system becomes unstable. The result is a "runaway greenhouse effect" such as occurred at some time on Venus. That planet now has surface temperatures of thousands of degrees and is incapable of supporting life as we know it.
The mechanism of Global Warming is well understood. Recent computer models correctly predict the climate trends we are observing. The scientific community (with the exception of a handful of hired guns belonging to the polluters) is agreed. The observed Global Warming is being caused by human activity, in particular the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation of large areas of the Earth.
DOES IT MATTER? (HOW SERIOUS IS IT?)
The world’s scientists project that continued climate change could expand the ranges of tropical diseases such as malaria and dengue fever, produce a further significant rise in sea level, cause the intensity of hurricanes and other storms to be worse, cause widespread crop failures, and lead to the extinction of countless plant and animal species.
According to Dan Lashof of the Natural Resources Defense Council (a respected and effective environmental group), there will be other impacts as well. Coastal zones and small islands would be inundated. Storm damage would increase. Shoreline erosion would increase. Sources of fresh water would be contaminated with salt water. Coastal ecosystems (marshes, mangroves, wetlands, beaches, coral reefs and atolls, and river deltas) would be destroyed. The IPCC predicts that changing weather patterns could destroy a third of the world’s forests.
Delia Villagrasa of the Climate Action Network of Europe (an environmental group with branches around the globe) points out that desertification, shifting rainfall patterns, and crop failures would in turn lead to hunger and famine, increased migration, and associated stress on political and social systems.
On the other hand, Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute (right-wing, pro-industry) says that he would welcome Global Warming. It’s "benign." He and Fred Palmer (Western Fuels) say that increased levels of carbon dioxide will be good for crops, and warmer temperatures will improve life in North Dakota.
Of course, almost everyone agrees that a runaway greenhouse, turning Earth into another Venus would be undesirable — even for business.
Some scientists think that the temperature rise in the 21st century will be only a couple of degrees. Others say about six degrees (which is as big a change as we are now experiencing compared with the great Ice Age when glaciers a mile high covered most of North America).
The fact is, we just don’t know how bad it could be. But even if the optimists are correct, and the temperature rise and sea level rise are at the low end of predictions, it would still be serious. Vast areas of Earth would turn to desert. Millions of people would die from storms, flooding, disease, and heat.
Just how bad does it have to be before we do something about it? Evidently, it’s that bad, because every government on earth (even our own) now says something must be done. But what? What can be done?
CAN ANYTHING BE DONE ABOUT IT?
Fortunately, there are lots of things that can be done. (The far more difficult question, which we will defer to later, is "Will they be done?")
We get a good idea about how best to cut emissions of greenhouse gases by looking at where they’re coming from. The largest source is electric power generation. The emissions from power plants can be reduced in three ways: (1) reducing the amount of electricity used, (2) improving the efficiency of power plants, and (3) generating electricity using renewable energy sources instead of fossil fuels. Let’s look at each of these in turn.
(1) The amount of electricity used can be reduced by improving the efficiency of appliances, addition of insulation (heating and cooling use more electricity than anything else), setting thermostats closer to the outside temperature, and a host of conservation measures. Such actions are already being promoted by the government, but much more could be done to reward conservation and punish waste.
(2) The efficiency of power plants can be improved markedly by switching from antiquated coal-burning plants to modern natural gas plants. Over half the electricity used in the U.S. is generated by digging lumps of coal out of the ground, transporting it by rail, barge, and truck to huge powerplants where it is burned to boil water and generate steam, which is used to turn large turbines to create electric power which flows through miles of transmission lines so that the lights turn on when the switch is flicked. Replacing these coal-fired power plants with natural gas generators would reduce yearly emissions by nearly a billion tons of carbon dioxide — better than a 50% reduction. It would have the added benefit of practically eliminating the 10 million tons of sulfur dioxide, 8 million tons of nitrogen oxides, and 55 tons of mercury spewed out by coal-fired plants.
(3) Of course, much greater reductions can be achieved by replacing those power plants with renewable sources such as wind turbines, fuel cells, and photovoltaic solar cells. The government should find a way to get power companies to make the switch. The most effective way would be to tax emissions enough that replacing old power plants would be cheaper than continuing to use them.
The second largest source of greenhouse gases is transportation. Every gallon of gasoline burned puts 26 pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards haven’t been raised in a decade. Current technology would allow the standard for cars to go from 27.5 mpg to 45 mpg. Reasonable standards can also be set for light trucks, mini-vans, and sport utility vehicles. Doing so would save three million barrels of oil ... a day! That would reduce CO2 emissions by 150 million tons per year.
Electric cars, hydrogen fuel cell cars, and hybrid vehicles would, of course, save even more. These vehicles could be mass-produced now, with existing technology. The demand would be there if the federal government didn’t subsidize gasoline so heavily. Most nations tax gasoline at three or four dollars a gallon to recoup the social costs of its use. The receipts of such a tax could be distributed back to the people, eliminating any hardship while retaining the incentives for non-polluting transportation.
An appropriate carbon tax applied to power plants and vehicles could reduce emissions by more than the 60% which is needed to stabilize CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
WHAT SHOULD BE THE LONG-RANGE GOAL?
At Rio in 1992, the international community set a goal of stabilizing emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. This goal will not be met. Binding agreements must be reached which will ensure that emissions are stabilized and then reduced to a level 60% below 1990. At that point the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will stabilize at 130% of normal. After that, further reductions in emissions, to perhaps 10% of 1990 levels will allow the atmosphere to return to normal over a period of a few hundred years.
The technology is available now to achieve these goals. It would not mean giving up our cars. It would not mean rationing of electricity. It would not mean shutting down industry. It would not mean a shrinking economy. It would mean doing things better, and putting people to work building the infrastructure to support a non-polluting society. Would it put coal miners out of work? Not necessarily. It would put them out of the mines and into other jobs. There is more money to be made and more jobs to be created building a clean economy than continuing the suicidal plunge of the old one. How many years it takes to implement the changes depends only on our priorities. When people and governments decide that investing in the environment is more important than buying more B-2 bombers, the transition to a non-polluting society can be made quite rapidly.
WHAT SHOULD BE DONE NOW?
The industrialized nations of the world agreed in Germany to replace the voluntary restraints of Rio with binding goals to reduce emissions below 1990 levels. The idea was that we who account for most of the emissions would act first, then bring in the developing nations, allowing them to industrialize using the new non-polluting technologies we develop. The agreement, under negotiation for two years, was supposed to be signed this month (Dec 97) in Kyoto, Japan.
But America’s corporate polluters got Congress to pass a resolution (95-0) telling the president not to sign a treaty limiting emissions unless the developing world was included. President Clinton, needing Senate ratification for any agreement reached in Kyoto, caved in. The U.S. position is now that we will agree to reduce our emissions to 1990 levels (not below) by 2012, but only if all nations participate in some way, and only if permit trading and borrowing is allowed.
The European nations want to reduce emissions to 15% below 1990 levels by 2010. The small island nations want the cutback to reach 20% below 1990 levels, and to do it by 2005. Environmentalists say the plans are too timid — too little and too late. The coal industry, auto makers, and other foot-draggers think Clinton is going too far as it is. They don’t want any binding limits at all.
The biggest argument is over whether the developing nations, particularly China, have to be included. Those who favor that (mostly industry) say that any agreement that isn’t global is useless and unfair. They say any cutbacks we make will only be offset by increases in emissions by those not bound by the treaty. Opponents of this approach (mostly environmentalists) say that it is unfair and unrealistic to make developing nations cut their emissions as we do, because their emissions and energy usage per capita is a tiny fraction of ours. They are just beginning to industrialize, and must be allowed to do so. Moreover, they cannot afford the investment in new equipment that we can. If the industrial nations show that they are serious about dealing with the problem, then the developing nations will join in as they are able, and will industrialize using the new cleaner technologies we develop.
The ISSS position on this difficult issue is that the industrialized nations (who create two thirds of the CO2) should accept binding limits first, and bring in the other nations later. The United States by itself produces 25% of the world’s CO2 emissions. We produce eight times as much per person as they do in China, and twenty times as much as in India. The front groups for the polluters (who put out those TV ads) know better. They know that requiring the same reductions from India would doom them to perpetual poverty. These groups demand the impossible in order to prevent anything from being done.
The Kyoto conference is underway as we go to press, with little hint of resolution of this conflict. What should happen (but may well not) is a compromise in which the United States agrees to cuts in emissions somewhat deeper than in our negotiating position (say to 5% below 1990 levels by 2010, with further reductions beyond that). The developing nations would promise to join the accords after the first reductions have been achieved, and to use restraint in the meantime.
Whether or not an agreement can be worked out and signed in Kyoto, the United States should take action unilaterally. Policies should be put in place which will promote efficiency, cleaner electric power plants, better gas mileage, and the development of new technologies which will enable the entire world to reach the long-range goal of returning the atmosphere to normal. And we shouldn’t wait for the Senate to ratify a treaty. It’s much easier to get 51% and pass a law than to get 67% to ratify a treaty. And much can be done without even going to Congress. Come on, President Clinton. Get some backbone. Put people first, like you promised to do. Issue some executive orders. Let’s get started. Let’s lead, for once, instead of throwing up roadblocks, dragging our heels, and finally get forced (kicking and screaming all the way) into doing the right thing.
WHAT OBSTACLES MUST BE OVERCOME?
The obstacle is the connection between money and power. Multinational corporations and polluting industries have billions of dollars to spend on television advertising twisting the facts and clouding the issues. They have many millions more available to buy up politicians or at least intimidate them. Unless there is a major natural disaster with "Global Warming" written all over it, there is unlikely to be vigorous action taken by our government.
Here’s just one example of the type of manipulation being done. TV ads show foreign smokestacks belching dirty, sooty stuff into the air in Mexico or China or somewhere, and get the American people to think, "They’re worse polluters than we are. Why not limit their pollution too?"
But that is not the kind of pollution causing Global Warming. The black stuff coming out of those smokestacks probably causes serious health problems to the people living in that area. But it does not cause Global Warming. The greenhouse gases are the seemingly "clean" stuff you can’t see. If the soot has any effect at all on climate, it would tend to make it cooler, because those dark particles prevent the sun’s energy from getting in. That’s why there are temporary coolings after volcanic eruptions.
The same with cars. It’s not the foul-smelling black stuff coming out the tailpipe that causes Global Warming. It’s the invisible, odorless carbon dioxide — 26 pounds of it for every gallon of gasoline used — in even the cleanest of engines. The black stuff contributes to smog, but not to Global Warming.
In the United States, in order to make our cities nicer to live in, we have invested in smog control devices for our cars and scrubbers for our smokestacks. And that’s good. But it doesn’t help slow down Global Warming. It might even be making it a little worse, for those smog control devices decrease gas mileage, so the "clean" exhaust contains even more carbon dioxide than it did without the device.
The visible pollution is an immediate local nuisance and health hazard. The invisible pollution is a long-term global menace. The visible pollution goes away whenever a cold front comes through. If we quit producing it, the effects disappear in days. But the invisible pollution of CO2 stays almost forever. If we quit producing greenhouse gases tomorrow, it would take the atmosphere a hundred years to recover from what we’ve already done.
The third world countries have a horrible problem with the visible pollution of soot. But they only emit a tiny fraction of the invisible greenhouse gases we do.
The industry hacks know all this. But they don’t want the people to understand. They like them being confused. And they are spending millions blowing smoke to add to the misunderstanding of the issues.
SO WHAT DO WE, THE PEOPLE, DO?
Obviously, we must continue our attempt to sever the connection between money and power. That means drastic campaign finance reform and reregulation of media ownership.
At the same time, we should work within the existing system as best we can, e-mailing the president and our legislators, sending letters to the editors, and promoting sane views. (You might consider circulating copies of this newsletter.)
Finally, we do what we can to reduce the 40,000 pounds of CO2 each of us puts into the atmosphere each year. That and pray. Global Warming is real. We must do something!
Top of Page
|