Breaking News

McNaughton: Proof of climate change clear, but solution more than hazy

Column photo

By Angelique McNaughton

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

On March 28, people in more than 4,000 cities in 88 countries turned off their lights in honor of Earth Hour. Earth Hour is a campaign that began in Australia in 2007 to bring awareness to global climate issues. In spite of increased efforts during the past couple of decades, many still think of global warming as an exaggerated myth and some go as far as to call it “alarmism.”

Climate change is caused by an unnatural increase in green house gases and although the greenhouse effect is needed (without it the average temperature of the Earth would be 0 degrees Fahrenheit), moderation is key. The National Geographic Web site points out that, “through the burning of fossil fuels and other greenhouse gas emissions, humans are enhancing the greenhouse effect and are warming the Earth.” Because of this, the average temperature of the Earth has increased by about .74 degrees Celsius, according to the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Though skeptics exist, there has been a lot of scientific evidence supporting the claims. During the past couple of decades, thousands of years-old ice shelves the size of cities have been weakening and melting around the world, with the most extreme examples in the Arctic.

According to an April 6 article entitled “Arctic Ice Got Smaller, Thinner, Younger this Winter,” a “study used computer modeling and ice-level decline data to predict that most of the Arctic’s summer ice could be gone in 30 years.” The ice loss will directly affect sea levels, the freshwater count and the temperatures of our oceans.

All these examples illustrate the dire effects of climate change and although it may appear like an irreversible situation, there are ways to stop further damage. Bringing awareness to the urgency of the situation is important to educate the world. Many countries have become aware of their fossil fuel burning and have reduced emissions. Many agencies are also researching more energy-efficient practices to further aid in the reduction greenhouse gas emissions.

Our own government, under our new proactive president, has vowed to assist in the worldwide cause. There have been rumors that our government has been investigating and exploring the field of geoengineering, through which greenhouse gases would be reduced.

Geoengineering technologies would include artificial volcanoes, artificial trees to suck carbon dioxide out of the air, and even possibly shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays. Though these concepts and ideas are still in development, I applaud the Obama administration for understanding the urgency of the situation.

Gregory Rudnick, professor of astronomy, said climate change was “probably one of, if not the biggest, problems facing the world today. It is important to explore all possibilities and options. If nothing else, this discussion is important for creating awareness.”

Education, awareness and compliance could possibly prevent any further damage to Earth. And though it is important to have these discussions, it is also important to realize the gravity of the situation and the fact that people are being affected by it right now.

— McNaughton is a Topeka senior in English and journalism.

Comments

connerm (anonymous) says...

I was under the impression by the header in the Kansan yesterday that this would be an article addressing the concerns of climate skeptics, not a rehashing of the conventional wisdom. If I have time I'll try to write a letter to the editor citing a few concerns.

April 14, 2009 at 2:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Abita (anonymous) says...

I’m a global warming skeptic (I know you changed it to climate change in an attempt to avoid ridicule when your rallies are frozen over). Even so, I think we can all come to the conclusion that, as a whole, the world is emitting more carbon based pollution. I will also agree that the greatest contributors to this are coal power plants and automobile inspired burning of fossil fuels. Though personally, I don’t think these things are leading to calamity in the next 100 years, I think it can be beneficial for us to address them.

My problem is that as a nation we are adding too much urgency to finding quick fixes. In the end, we may be doing more harm than good. Not only could we do terrible damage to our economy, but we could also ultimately hamper global cleanliness. Coal plants keep electricity prices very low. One KW of power from a coal plant costs about 3 cents to produce. A nuclear plant costs nearly 10 times that to produce. Can you afford to multiply your electric bill several times over?

Also, even if we got rid of every coal plant in the US, China is on pace to replace them and then some in the next several years. We will not even slow the carbon buildup. Rather than mandating that we find clean sources of fuel, we should be pouring money by the fossil-fueled truck load into developing scrubbers and carbon traps that can make coal plants clean around the world. We have the know-how and now the momentum to do it like few other countries do.

Don’t get so caught up in the hype about how cool it is to be green that we forget, the only reason we have the capacity to change carbon buildups is because we amassed huge fortunes using fossil fuels to build them. Fossil fuels, and their profits, aren’t the enemy. They can be the key to the solution.

April 14, 2009 at 4:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

em1 (anonymous) says...

I'll look forward to reading your letter Mr. Connor. I don't necessarily think the whole 'global warming' argument is hype. I do think there's some pretty big holes in the message however, especially when there are literally trillions of dollars at stake in how we approach this. Very interesting, especially when just a few years ago, most of the scientific community said we were due for a catastrophic cooling.

April 14, 2009 at 9:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

glenjamin (anonymous) says...

Once every thirty years, or so, the green(flat)-earthers come up with yet another doomsday scenario. In the 70s, we were due for the next ice age! Not surprisingly, humans were blamed. If only the GOVERNMENT could take control and regulate everything, THEN we'd be communi- uh, green! What a country!

What's to gain by putting ourselves on trial where we're guilty until proved innocent? Anyone who says the "science is in" is selling something, and it's not the newest fragrance from Avon.

All it takes to see through this farce is a little thirst for truth. Hmmm, I wonder if solar (sun spot) activity is directly correlated with the earth's mean temperature? It is? *gasp* That's a shocker. I sure hope hypocrites like Al Gore in his carbon-producing machine of a mansion don't get wind of this!

April 14, 2009 at 10:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

dchanay (anonymous) says...

seriously, if man made global warming was a 100% reality it would be a liberal's dream. what better way for the government to put a strangle hold on the private sector, then through the control of energy to avert some world wide calamity? transportation, manufacturing, energy; these things are the life blood of an economy. but you say what? you don't increased regulation? step aside denier! we're not about to let our children drown, because of your greedy excess!

April 15, 2009 at 12:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

dobermanmacleod (anonymous) says...

Any carbon diet strategy would be dependent upon clean coal:

"The vast majority of new power stations in China and India will be coal-fired; not "may be coal-fired"; will be. So developing carbon capture and storage technology is not optional, it is literally of the essence." --"Breaking the Climate Deadlock," Tony Blair, June 26, 2008

But, Vaclav Smil, an energy expert at the University of Manitoba, has estimated that capturing and burying just 10 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted over a year from coal-fire plants at current rates would require moving volumes of compressed carbon d ioxide greater than the total annual flow of oil worldwide -- a massive undertaking requiring decades and trillions of dollars. "Beware of the scale," he stressed."

"The alternative (to geoengineering) is the acceptance of a massive natural cull of humanity and a return to an Earth that freely regulates itself but in the hot state." --Dr James Lovelock, August 2008

April 15, 2009 at 3:03 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

part2 (anonymous) says...

The best info about how to talk to a climate skeptic: http://www.grist.org/article/series/s...

April 15, 2009 at 10:27 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

pantheon (anonymous) says...

part2, I am in no way disagreeing that global warming is an issue for anyone who cares about the continued existence of life as we know it, but you are aware that link reads like one of those "How to talk to an atheist" pamphlets, right?

April 15, 2009 at 1:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

dchanay (anonymous) says...

levels of sophistication? silly, naive? stages of denial? this website is creepy part2.

April 15, 2009 at 3:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

connerm (anonymous) says...

I looked at a few of the "responses" to arguments I would make and found they either set up a straw man or dodged the question. The web site you provided seems to be put together with the assumption that everyone who has concerns about the theory of anthropogenic catastrophic climate change, everyone who does not accept the consensus without debate, is unreasonable and not scientifically literate.

While I will admit that many climate change skeptics are not scientifically literate, I am yet to encounter many members of the climate change faithful who are.

April 15, 2009 at 6:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Advertisement