I had to write about global warming today for my environmental health class. I thought I would share and see what you guys think about the whole issue. I've generally been tired to death of the topic, but it apparently will become an issue affecting each and everyone of us if governmental policies are passed than restrict energy consumption or output of greenhouse gases. So, here's my opinion!
Global Warming
Ever since global warming hysteria pitched, Ive been skeptical of many of the claims that people on both sides of the issue have made. I think money may be influencing the debate. Big companies and those who emit large amount of CO2 probably are throwing their weight to support studies that dont find a link between CO2 and global warming, and all the people who are benefiting from campaigns and research are probably prone to supporting the global warming panic. For example, Al Gore has made a substantial amount of money from his books and movie, speeches, and investments in green energy policies (Broder, 2009). Critics say that, Mr. Gore is poised to become the worlds first carbon billionaire, profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in (Broder, 2009).
Here are the things I do think are true:
1) Levels of atmospheric CO2 have greatly increased since humans started pumping it in large amounts into the environment (Nadakavukaren, 2006, pg. 369).
2) The world has gotten slightly warming since we have started to record temperatures in 1860 (Nadakavukaren, 2006, pg. 381).
I do not think these two facts necessarily have a causal relationship. One of the big things in research and statistics is to understand that a relationship between two factors does not necessarily mean causation in either direction. I think other greenhouse gases are not focused on because they are not as politically viable. For example, methane is admitted in large amounts by cows, but no one is going to suggest that Americans cut back on beef to reduce global warming (especially those who are invested in the beef industry like Al Gore).
Even our book seemed to present conflicting data with the information presented on the impact of global warming. Researchers found that ocean temperatures off the coast of Africa had experienced wide, abrupt fluctuations roughly every 1,500 years (Nadakavukaren, 2006, pg. 380). Our current stable climate since recorded human history (about the past 10,000 years) is considered an anomaly, while frequent, quick changes in climate are the norm (Nadakavukaren, 2006, pg. 380). This data was presented in the context of the scenario that global warming could happen much faster than expected based on past changes. However, all those past environmental changes could not have been influenced by human hands. Climate change is normal, natural, and I think overall it is a great arrogance to think we could stop it.
The bigger issue for me here is that we should be finding more sustainable, less polluting energy sources with or without the threat of global warming hanging over our heads. We should voluntarily reduce our impact on the environment on all fronts for the health and sustainability of the entire planet, including our own species. I feel the whole argument about global warming is a bit of a mute point, and, certainly, shouldnt be the focus of environmental change. I think reducing poisons in our environment should take higher precedence. Focusing on cutting energy usage will not only save Americans money, but reduce both greenhouse gases and harmful chemical pollutants. There really isnt anything to lose by becoming greener. I think that is a point we can all agree on.
References
Border, J. (2009, November 2). Gores dual role: Advocate and investor. The New York Times. Retrieved on February 2, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/business/energy-environment/03gore.html
Nadakavukaren, A. (2006). Our global environment: a health perspective. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Global Warming
Ever since global warming hysteria pitched, Ive been skeptical of many of the claims that people on both sides of the issue have made. I think money may be influencing the debate. Big companies and those who emit large amount of CO2 probably are throwing their weight to support studies that dont find a link between CO2 and global warming, and all the people who are benefiting from campaigns and research are probably prone to supporting the global warming panic. For example, Al Gore has made a substantial amount of money from his books and movie, speeches, and investments in green energy policies (Broder, 2009). Critics say that, Mr. Gore is poised to become the worlds first carbon billionaire, profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in (Broder, 2009).
Here are the things I do think are true:
1) Levels of atmospheric CO2 have greatly increased since humans started pumping it in large amounts into the environment (Nadakavukaren, 2006, pg. 369).
2) The world has gotten slightly warming since we have started to record temperatures in 1860 (Nadakavukaren, 2006, pg. 381).
I do not think these two facts necessarily have a causal relationship. One of the big things in research and statistics is to understand that a relationship between two factors does not necessarily mean causation in either direction. I think other greenhouse gases are not focused on because they are not as politically viable. For example, methane is admitted in large amounts by cows, but no one is going to suggest that Americans cut back on beef to reduce global warming (especially those who are invested in the beef industry like Al Gore).
Even our book seemed to present conflicting data with the information presented on the impact of global warming. Researchers found that ocean temperatures off the coast of Africa had experienced wide, abrupt fluctuations roughly every 1,500 years (Nadakavukaren, 2006, pg. 380). Our current stable climate since recorded human history (about the past 10,000 years) is considered an anomaly, while frequent, quick changes in climate are the norm (Nadakavukaren, 2006, pg. 380). This data was presented in the context of the scenario that global warming could happen much faster than expected based on past changes. However, all those past environmental changes could not have been influenced by human hands. Climate change is normal, natural, and I think overall it is a great arrogance to think we could stop it.
The bigger issue for me here is that we should be finding more sustainable, less polluting energy sources with or without the threat of global warming hanging over our heads. We should voluntarily reduce our impact on the environment on all fronts for the health and sustainability of the entire planet, including our own species. I feel the whole argument about global warming is a bit of a mute point, and, certainly, shouldnt be the focus of environmental change. I think reducing poisons in our environment should take higher precedence. Focusing on cutting energy usage will not only save Americans money, but reduce both greenhouse gases and harmful chemical pollutants. There really isnt anything to lose by becoming greener. I think that is a point we can all agree on.
References
Border, J. (2009, November 2). Gores dual role: Advocate and investor. The New York Times. Retrieved on February 2, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/business/energy-environment/03gore.html
Nadakavukaren, A. (2006). Our global environment: a health perspective. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
VIEW 15 of 15 COMMENTS
It just doesn't make sense!