How to make the climate change debate more effective.
 |
| The Climate Change Debate |
And the five myths that surround the subject
An active debate is taking place in the world about climate change. Many believe that because of fossil fuels use, carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas has been increasing steadily in the atmosphere, and this is leading to adverse climate changes that include an overall warming of the planet as also more frequent adverse climate extremes that are devastating for human habitations whenever they take place. As a result, the objective of limiting such emissions is being pursued by many organizations, governments and individuals. Carbon dioxide levels have gone up from around 0.02 percent (200ppm) in preceding centuries to around 0.04 percent(400 ppm) presently
The opponents to such
attempts on the other hand fall in two categories. First are those that say
that carbon dioxide levels are too miniscule in the atmosphere to make a
difference and in fact it is a good gas and we need more of it. The second
category of opponents are those that do not accept climate changes such as
global warming and extremes are taking place anymore than is a part of natural
and cyclical changes that have always taken place on the planet.
While it is healthy for a debate to take place on an issue
as important as climate that affects our lives daily, the debate can only lead
to good and relevant conclusions if it is a rational and healthy one that honors
logic, science and good human values. If the opposite happens, a good result
may not be achieved and much time may be wasted that may have been spent more
profitably on other urgent issues that plague the world such as rising economic inequalities, near
unsustainable populations increases and violence from wars that is displacing
millions from their homes into desperation even as this debate takes place.
Unfortunately parts of the climate change debate have become irrational and
many erroneous myths have developed around the topic. They are explained here
for the benefit of the average citizen so that he or she may participate in the
debate more effectively.
The First Myth: Those
who deny that carbon dioxide is leading to global warming are climate change
deniers or climate change skeptics.
This is a completely false assumption because there are
scientists who do believe and accept that climate change is in fact taking
place and that in all probability it is due to human action. In fact an
overwhelming majority of scientists have come to that conclusion but there are
some also who believe that carbon dioxide is not responsible for it;. That
there are other causes for these adverse climate changes. Therefore, denying
the role of carbon dioxide does not automatically imply climate change denial.
One might say that it is obvious that the cause has to be
carbon emissions what else could it be? For sure there are other human
activities that have been taking place that also have a significant impact on
climate. One is the expansion of concrete laid cities. Notice how much warmer
it gets inside cities than in the surrounding countryside; another is
deforestation, notice how much cooler it is inside a forest than in open land.
Forests also trap dust and slow down surface winds that could impact climate
extremes but the effect needs more detailed studies. Then there are other
causes that are not polite to mention because they concern unpleasant parts of
animal and cow anatomy.
The Second Myth: That
carbon dioxide is a harmful gas that we need to eliminate from the atmosphere
This is a dangerous assumption because if that happened then
all life as we know of would come to an end on the planet. Plants need carbon
dioxide just as we need oxygen and if there is no carbon dioxide around then
plant life would end and so would animals and humans because that is where our
food and oxygen comes from.
The Third Myth: That
some carbon dioxide is needed in the atmosphere but what we are getting now is
far too much for the health of plants and animals
That is not true either. We currently have around 400 ppm or
0.04 percent of CO2 in the atmosphere and numerous studies have proven that
plants thrive much more at higher levels i.e. up to 1000 ppm and we are still
very far away from that. It also seems that higher levels would be good for
human and animal health too as long as oxygen levels too remain high and levels
of up to hundred times this i.e. ten percent carbon dioxide has been used in
medical treatments of humans in the past. Read more about that here:
http://someitemshave.blogspot.in/2014/04/impact-of-increased-carbon-dioxide.html
http://someitemshave.blogspot.in/2014/04/impact-of-increased-carbon-dioxide.html
In fact a remote period of prehistory, the Cambrian period,
when carbon dioxide levels were much higher there was an explosion of life and
evolution on the planet.
The Fourth Myth:
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and we do not need any more of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere
If we eliminated all of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
we would still have lots of water vapor that is a stronger greenhouse gas and
has always been present in the atmosphere in much larger quantities. We would
not be able to survive without that either. The feedback theory of NASA regarding water vapor appears erroneous.
The Fifth Myth: That the
world must limit global temperature rise to two degree centigrade by positive
action
Unfortunately that is impossible and even ridiculous to
think that humans can do that even if they wished to and all agreed to it.
There is not an air conditioner large enough that humans can build to do that
as they can to bring down the temperature of an enclosed space.
When you hear even a scientist say that what he is really
saying is that we should limit carbon dioxide to levels that he thinks would
lead to a two degree rise but it is only his thought and assumption as to how
much carbon dioxide leads to how much temperature rise. The precise calculation
is difficult and the estimate is based on statistical correlations, i.e. an
analysis of trends of pieces of data and these may be regarded as just guesses
or estimates and not precise science. For example if one calculated the trend
of global warming against other data like the number of Chinese food
restaurants in the world or the length of the skirt of women one would find
trends too.
On the other hand some may say that while obviously the
length of a skirt has nothing to do with climate change, carbon dioxide has
because it is a greenhouse gas. Herein is the trap that may have misled many in
the world because even at 400 ppm or 0.04 percent the carbon dioxide levels may
be too miniscule to make any significant difference. A good and relevant correlation emerges when global temperature changes are correlated with forestation levels on the planet that even explains some recent dips. However, this is a matter
for more detailed studies.
Conclusions
If you read so far and understood the myths that have
developed around the subject in the mind of the average citizen, you would then
be able to participate in the climate debate much more rationally, whichever
position you take.
While the climate debate would continue in to the future, it
is possible that mankind may finally decide that carbon dioxide emissions must
be limited. The question then is what is the most rational, just and feasible
ways to do that. Certainly the use of renewable energy such as that from the
sun and wind does not add carbon emissions to the atmosphere and that is the
route mankind would eventually take when energy from fossil fuels becomes more
expensive as they become exhausted. But that is something that will be despite
the climate debate, not because of it and the time for that has not come yet as
new discoveries are still being made.
The other way in the meantime is to reduce and cap carbon
emissions globally since this is a global issue that affects all. Here too one
must see how that can be done. The obvious and simple way to do that is as
follows:
- Decide how much annual release of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is acceptable globally. This is not a difficult calculation.
- Divide the permissible emission by the population of the world and multiply it by the population of different countries to arrive at the quota for each country.
- Countries that are in excess of this quota, may be asked to switch to renewable energies over a certain number of years to come within their quota and in the meantime pay a contribution to a global pool that would be employed for mitigation measures such as forestation, research into renewable energies, subsidizing the same etc.
1. Find out the per capita emission (PCE) of each country and the average PCE for all countries.2. All countries may make efforts to reduce these emission but while it would be voluntary for those who are below the average PCE it may be made either mandatory for those above the average PCE, or, in the very least they could contribute to a global fund for mitigation measures such as forestation, research into renewable energies, subsidizing the same etc. It also so happens that countries with higher than average per capita emission are also higher than average GDP nations better equipped to make such contributions.
It must be mentioned that estimates of human waste and emissions only make sense on a per capita basis rather than country basis just as estimates of food, water and energy consumption make sense on a per capita basis not on per country basis. If the reader would pardon the language, the more the humans the more the shit produced and comparing the total amount of shit produced in China and Monaco and then trying to limit it in China is not only absurd, it is perhaps equivalent to an attempt to eliminate the Chinese. Even if the world completely eliminated fossil fuel burning, China will always emit far more carbon dioxide than those in Monaco simply because they have more humans breathing it out every moment of their lives.
Just as all carbon dioxide breathed out by humans is carbon neutral provided enough food is grown, because that carbon came from food in the first place; all carbon dioxide by burning fossil fuels is carbon neutral provided enough trees are grown because that carbon came form tree in the first place
If any Reader, scientist, expert or lay person, finds any statement in this note as incorrect, in need of improvement or erroneous, please do record that in comments and any necessary correction will be made.The absence of any so far has only strengthened whatever has been stated in this note. The issue is an important one that affects all of us and any such comment will be sincerely appreciated and contribute to a better planet and better life for all that dwell upon it.
Comments