Like John Boehner, I cannot claim to be an expert on climate science. But I strongly feel the great danger in the denial of global warming. I agree with James Powell, the MIT-trained scientist and former university professor, who states “On the one side, we have a mountain of scientific evidence, on the other, ideology and arm-waving… on that basis, we are endangering our grandchildren's future and pushing humanity toward the destruction of civilization.”
I care as well about the world in which my grandchildren and great-grandchildren will live. I often wonder: what is the downside for the human race to at least start to do something. What (or who) could it hurt? I remember how it was before air pollution began to be seriously addressed in California. Driving behind cars that weren’t equipped with catalytic converters and smelling that stinky exhaust, or walking out of the gym and not being even able to see across the street due to the smog.
Acknowledging that I am not an expert, I feel that my contribution to the conversation can be to research and provide quotes from the many articles and sources I have read. My aim is not to change the minds of people who call climate change or global warming a “hoax”. I am not naive. I know that reading this commentary is not likely to change their thinking. They will no doubt take issue with the articles and sources cited. They will point out that the sources and authors have a liberal bias. To that I would respond- what right-wing publications are going to take issue with global warming denialism? As I wrote in a previous commentary, facts are important and not partisan.
The subject is complex, therefore my commentary is long, and will be presented in four parts. I hope that the reader finds them to be useful.
What are the dangers inherent in global warming?
In researching the literature, I found that there were countless articles describing the effects of global warming. Rather that quote from many of them, I looked for one that was written fairly recently, and had as its emphasis the economic consequences.
Frederick Reese, in MintPress News in May 2014 wrote:
“Half of the United States is suffering through drought conditions — including all of California, which saw huge swaths of the San Diego area swept by raging wildfires this month. In the Midwest, major rainstorms and tornadoes inundated the Mississippi floodplain for days, causing millions of dollars in damage. In Baltimore, hurricane-intensity rain contributed to the collapse of a city street.
“It is the consensus of the scientific community that the Earth is sick. According to the National Climate Assessment, the world is currently experiencing the effects of climate change, or the shifting of the planet’s climate zones due to environmental factors.
“Carbon reflects heat, preventing infrared radiation from the sun from escaping back into space. With more than 400 parts per million of carbon-bearing gases in the air and with more than 80,000 chemicals having been released by man into the atmosphere, the mean temperature in the United States has risen between 1.3 and 1.9 degrees Fahrenheit since the end of the 19th century. It will likely rise another 2 to 4 degrees in the next 20 years, according to the report.
“This represents a major financial problem. As illustrated by data from the National Climatic Data Center, the number of ‘billion-dollar disasters’ — weather events that caused over $1 billion in real and personal property damage — spiked after 2004. There were seven ‘billion-dollar disasters’ in 2013 and 11 in 2012, compared to two in 2001 and just one in 2000.
“In light of such potential financial peril for both individuals and businesses, it’s hard to see how taking precautions toward mitigating the current severe weather patterns could be a partisan issue.
“In April 2013, Democratic Illinois Governor Pat Quinn declared a state of emergency for the state after a major deluge swamped most of Chicago. ‘After several days of rain, an overnight deluge overwhelmed Chicago’s underground labyrinth of aging sewers and giant tunnelsThursday, forcing a noxious mix of sewage and storm water into local waterways and Lake Michigan,’ the Chicago Tribune reported on April 19. The rainfall was so severe that many residents were forced to evacuate their homes, and the only reliable means of transportation for several days was a boat.
“In response to this, Farmers Insurance — on behalf of itself and other insurance companies and affected customers — has filed a suit against the city of Chicago and municipalities throughout Cook County for their failure to properly prepare for such weather eventualities in light of foreknowledge that such climate change-empowered storms may be possible. Farmers alleges that the city knew that its drainage systems were inadequate to handle a major infusion of floodwater, but did nothing to alleviate the situation. ‘During the past 40 years, climate change in Cook County has caused rains to be of greater volume, greater intensity and greater duration than pre-1970 rainfall history evidenced,” the class-action lawsuit alleges, citing Chicago’s 2008 Climate Action Plan, which acknowledges the link between climate change and increased rainfall.
“In terms of economic and ecological impacts, the effects of climate change are relatively minor in the short term and difficult to differentiate from normal climate fluctuations. However, the severity of the effects of climate change could escalate in a relatively short amount of time. In a recent report, the Union of Concerned Scientists forecast that many of the nation’s landmarks — including the Kennedy Space Center, Ellis Island, Jamestown Island and Cape Hatteras — may be lost under water by 2100 unless significant modifications are made to stem the effects of climate change.
“Ultimately, comprehensive efforts to protect from climate change may not come until it is too late. This may not be the result of greedy corporations or uneducated voters or compromised politicians, though — it could simply be because the world is run by humans.
“Lincoln Mitchell, a human rights adviser to Columbia University, wrote in a blog post for the Huffington Post, ‘climate change was not solely caused by evil polluters, but by a species that, in large part, has for centuries been deeply committed to making, buying and selling things. For much of the time we did those things, nobody thought about long-term environmental impact.’”
“Meanwhile, there are enough scientists on the fringe of the scientific community alleging that the rise in greenhouse gas emissions do not present an immediate threat and that the scientific models used by the scientific community to justify climate change are fundamentally flawed, so those seeking to justify their denial of climate change have apt sources to cite.”
In Part 2, I will cover the importance of global warming information.
D. Norman
I care as well about the world in which my grandchildren and great-grandchildren will live. I often wonder: what is the downside for the human race to at least start to do something. What (or who) could it hurt? I remember how it was before air pollution began to be seriously addressed in California. Driving behind cars that weren’t equipped with catalytic converters and smelling that stinky exhaust, or walking out of the gym and not being even able to see across the street due to the smog.
Acknowledging that I am not an expert, I feel that my contribution to the conversation can be to research and provide quotes from the many articles and sources I have read. My aim is not to change the minds of people who call climate change or global warming a “hoax”. I am not naive. I know that reading this commentary is not likely to change their thinking. They will no doubt take issue with the articles and sources cited. They will point out that the sources and authors have a liberal bias. To that I would respond- what right-wing publications are going to take issue with global warming denialism? As I wrote in a previous commentary, facts are important and not partisan.
The subject is complex, therefore my commentary is long, and will be presented in four parts. I hope that the reader finds them to be useful.
What are the dangers inherent in global warming?
In researching the literature, I found that there were countless articles describing the effects of global warming. Rather that quote from many of them, I looked for one that was written fairly recently, and had as its emphasis the economic consequences.
Frederick Reese, in MintPress News in May 2014 wrote:
“Half of the United States is suffering through drought conditions — including all of California, which saw huge swaths of the San Diego area swept by raging wildfires this month. In the Midwest, major rainstorms and tornadoes inundated the Mississippi floodplain for days, causing millions of dollars in damage. In Baltimore, hurricane-intensity rain contributed to the collapse of a city street.
“It is the consensus of the scientific community that the Earth is sick. According to the National Climate Assessment, the world is currently experiencing the effects of climate change, or the shifting of the planet’s climate zones due to environmental factors.
“Carbon reflects heat, preventing infrared radiation from the sun from escaping back into space. With more than 400 parts per million of carbon-bearing gases in the air and with more than 80,000 chemicals having been released by man into the atmosphere, the mean temperature in the United States has risen between 1.3 and 1.9 degrees Fahrenheit since the end of the 19th century. It will likely rise another 2 to 4 degrees in the next 20 years, according to the report.
“This represents a major financial problem. As illustrated by data from the National Climatic Data Center, the number of ‘billion-dollar disasters’ — weather events that caused over $1 billion in real and personal property damage — spiked after 2004. There were seven ‘billion-dollar disasters’ in 2013 and 11 in 2012, compared to two in 2001 and just one in 2000.
“In light of such potential financial peril for both individuals and businesses, it’s hard to see how taking precautions toward mitigating the current severe weather patterns could be a partisan issue.
“In April 2013, Democratic Illinois Governor Pat Quinn declared a state of emergency for the state after a major deluge swamped most of Chicago. ‘After several days of rain, an overnight deluge overwhelmed Chicago’s underground labyrinth of aging sewers and giant tunnelsThursday, forcing a noxious mix of sewage and storm water into local waterways and Lake Michigan,’ the Chicago Tribune reported on April 19. The rainfall was so severe that many residents were forced to evacuate their homes, and the only reliable means of transportation for several days was a boat.
“In response to this, Farmers Insurance — on behalf of itself and other insurance companies and affected customers — has filed a suit against the city of Chicago and municipalities throughout Cook County for their failure to properly prepare for such weather eventualities in light of foreknowledge that such climate change-empowered storms may be possible. Farmers alleges that the city knew that its drainage systems were inadequate to handle a major infusion of floodwater, but did nothing to alleviate the situation. ‘During the past 40 years, climate change in Cook County has caused rains to be of greater volume, greater intensity and greater duration than pre-1970 rainfall history evidenced,” the class-action lawsuit alleges, citing Chicago’s 2008 Climate Action Plan, which acknowledges the link between climate change and increased rainfall.
“In terms of economic and ecological impacts, the effects of climate change are relatively minor in the short term and difficult to differentiate from normal climate fluctuations. However, the severity of the effects of climate change could escalate in a relatively short amount of time. In a recent report, the Union of Concerned Scientists forecast that many of the nation’s landmarks — including the Kennedy Space Center, Ellis Island, Jamestown Island and Cape Hatteras — may be lost under water by 2100 unless significant modifications are made to stem the effects of climate change.
“Ultimately, comprehensive efforts to protect from climate change may not come until it is too late. This may not be the result of greedy corporations or uneducated voters or compromised politicians, though — it could simply be because the world is run by humans.
“Lincoln Mitchell, a human rights adviser to Columbia University, wrote in a blog post for the Huffington Post, ‘climate change was not solely caused by evil polluters, but by a species that, in large part, has for centuries been deeply committed to making, buying and selling things. For much of the time we did those things, nobody thought about long-term environmental impact.’”
“Meanwhile, there are enough scientists on the fringe of the scientific community alleging that the rise in greenhouse gas emissions do not present an immediate threat and that the scientific models used by the scientific community to justify climate change are fundamentally flawed, so those seeking to justify their denial of climate change have apt sources to cite.”
In Part 2, I will cover the importance of global warming information.
D. Norman
No comments:
Post a Comment