 |
Temperatures have certainly increased over the past one hundred years, but it's important to also realize that we got out of a period called the Little Ice Age when global temperatures were colder than usual. I think this is an important point because one of the big questions is whether mankind is responsible for this temperature increase. I think it is certainly possible due to all of the pollution we pump into the air, but I think it is also possible that a lot of the temperature increase could be purely natural. Skeptics point to solar and volcanic activity as possibilities, and global warming advocates will denounce them. Whatever may be causing climate change, something definitely caused Earth to warm a thousand years ago and then cool down considerably a few centuries later.
The Debate
Let me first start off by expressing my frustration with the term "climate denier" and the relabeling of 'global warming' with 'climate change'. If someone is a skeptic of global warming, then calling those people a "climate denier" is just plain dumb. It doesn't accurately describe their beliefs because no one is denying climate. Second, relabeling 'global warming' to 'climate change' feels like it was a reaction to people mocking global warming when we had really bad snow storms. Clearly, the problem is that the world is warming, so purposely obfuscating the terminology just seems very suspect and very agenda driven.
How Big is the Problem?
Compared to global cooling, global warming is much better for survival. Crops can grow more and longer, and life is more prosperous. Obviously, you'll need more water to keep cool, but it is much preferred to the cold where crops will have a very short growing season.As of today, the worst case models (another issue that skeptics have) only have the world increasing by a degree or two centigrade. People like Al Gore may predict gloom and doom, but there's really no evidence to suggest that weather will be more extreme or that coastal cities will sink. Talking worst case scenario, sea levels will rise over a hundred years, and people will adapt or move very much like Venice, Italy. There will not be a sudden rise which would be devastating. However, if these trends continue, then this could be a serious problem for future generations and this is where many environmentalists point. Warming may be better than cooling, but if it gets too hot, that can be a very bad problem. There are also issues of ocean acidification and pollution. Aside from the environment, there's also the fear of peak oil.
I'll also take this time to point out that one of the reasons why fossil fuels are so much better than solar, wind, and other green technologies is energy storage. Despite how good our batteries are, nothing compares to the energy storage of hydrocarbons. Ironically, even our best batteries for green technologies can be more damaging to the environment than fossil fuels. You don't need all of the power from a solar power plant, so a lot of that power is wasted and thus money is lost.
What's the Solution?
The obvious solution to all of these problems would be to discontinue fossil fuels and move on to green energy. I also believe that fear mongering of a distant problem is not a compelling argument for a lot of people. Whether you believe it or not, global warming is debatable. You know what isn't? Wanting clean air and clean water. I think if the message focuses on more immediate effects, then the argument is more compelling. No one wants to live near a lot of pollution.
We can try and do things individually, but how do we solve the problem as a society? Throwing tax
dollars at promising technologies is a huge gamble, and most likely will stifle actual solutions. The push for ethanol seemed more political than environmental because it was a huge boon for farmers. I advocate a free market solution. Green technologies need to be allowed to grow naturally. The best way to do this? Let gas prices grow. The push for ethanol also came at a time when gas prices were quite expensive. The obvious problem is that the government would hurt the economy in the short term if it raised gas taxes but in the long term would solve the fossil fuel problem. I'd be curious if a lot of environmentalists would be happy with that sacrifice especially when everything including food would get dramatically more expensive. Don't forget that all transportation is done by fossil fuels.
I don't know if there is anything we can do immediately to solve the problem, but aside from transitioning from fossil fuels, improving our recycling system needs to happen. Huge heaps of garbage will never disappear if recycling is so complicated compared to simply throwing trash away. In Washington, we have a recycling system called commingle recycling. It's not perfect, but it does simplify most recycling. The main problem is that it can't accept plastic bags and other soft plastics which is some of the worst pollutants because they don't decompose. If the commingle system can be improved to accept more types of trash, then we may have a solution.Moving Forward
One way or another, I am confident that mankind will persevere through this problem. It may get worse before it gets better, but mankind has endured much worse. But don't think you are part of the solution simply by complaining about other people polluting the world. There are reasons why they are polluting. It could be simply laziness. It could be they are trying to make a living. It could also be that they are trying to keep you safe and healthy. The best solution is be creative and actually figure out ways to move away from fossil fuels and producing less pollution instead of waiting and hoping for someone else to figure it out.
