When I first started on this blog I thought what a majority of Americans thought on the the topic, which was that greenhouse gases cause global warming. However, as I went through researching the topic, I found out that they are many different views on the topic. Since this is a science based topic, many researchers have their own thoughts on how greenhouse gases play into global warming through performing various experiments.
My first thought on why global warming was happening was that a rise in greenhouse gases causes the temperature to rise because of the greenhouse effect. This is what I had learned in high school in biology class and it seemed like an all-covering, but simple, explanation. However, as I learned to question things, I started looking at views that were different from the majority. I also researched viewpoints that were complex because one cannot answer a phenomena such as greenhouse gases in relationship to global warming in a simple statement. In addition, I thought the news never covered or gave substantially less time to the other side on this issue. As I learned the many different views held by scientists on this issue, I wanted to learn why there were only two political viewpoints on this issue. The answer lied in the two party system and the issue being divisive in society. There are many politicians that choose a simple viewpoint and strategy to show their view on greenhouse gases in relation to global warming. As some politicians think that greenhouse gases need to be reduced and others do not, there is no in-depth analysis of why that should be done. I then looked for solutions to this problem because there are many options to choose from and lowering greenhouse gases can be beneficial not only to the environment but to one's health.
Through doing this project, I have learned to question things and not just take an idea to be true. I have also learned that deep research into a topic is required to make a solid argument and have learned to look for logical fallacies to see whether an argument's points are reasonable. In dealing with my topic, I have learned to filter out political rhetoric on the issue and focus on the facts. In addition, I have learned to look for sources that are professional and unbiased to show credibility in my publishings. I have grown from one simple statement about greenhouse gases and their relationship to temperature to telling people to look for themselves all the ideas and facts about greenhouse gases and judge for themselves what they should do about it. Also, I encourage people to go out and be the change that makes the world a better place to live. I have learned to keep bias out of my judgment when I hear an idea that is different from my viewpoint. Overall, people should make judgments on topics and viewpoints objectively so to hear all the different ideas in an issue. On the topic I believe that the effect of greenhouse gases on climate is that it induces warming, but the warming is reduced as the amount of greenhouse gases increases as there is less energy absorbed by each molecule. The climate is also affected by the Earth's processes and the Sun. In addition, I think that a new source of energy needs to be found because fossil fuels pollute the air, harm our health and are inefficient.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Friday, October 26, 2007
What will happen?
Global warming is a heated debate today, but if nothing is done about this issue, the consequences could be dire. If this issue remains unsolved, the absence of consensus on this issue could result in no steps being taken to resolve the issue. The saying, "any action is better than no action at all" should be implemented in this issue to keep the possible effects from happening.
If the greenhouse gas levels keep rising in the atmosphere, most scientists say that the Earth will get warmer, resulting in changes in the way humans and animals live. The climate would change as weather would become extreme with cases of severe hurricanes and severe drought. There would also be more flooding, infectious disease, and lower water quality (http://www.net.org/warming/impacts.vtml). Other effects include a rise in sea level, flooding many coastal areas, loss and extinction of species and a change in the crop yield. All these effects are morose as nothing positive is expected as a result of temperature rise due to greenhouse gases. Some health effects of increased temperatures include more cases of heat exhaustion and heat stroke. Air and water pollution would also get worse as greenhouse gases increase in the air (http://epa.gov/climatechange/effects/health.html). All of this would affect the world as famine and poverty would get worse and the standard of living would decrease. People who do not want that to happen should be the change and alter their lifestyle to one that is environmentally friendly.
In addition to these environmental effects, there will be fiercer argumentation against both sides of the issue if it is not resolved. If the leaders of countries do not come up with a way to change how energy is obtained, many of these horrible effects listed above could happen. This will result in many countries fighting for resources that are scarce. However, the supplies of fossil fuels will eventually run out, thereby forcing new resources of energy to be used. These new resources will probably be much cleaner than fossil fuels, helping to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases put in the air. But the question is: will it be too late for this new resource to change the environmental effects of a warmer climate?
If the greenhouse gas levels keep rising in the atmosphere, most scientists say that the Earth will get warmer, resulting in changes in the way humans and animals live. The climate would change as weather would become extreme with cases of severe hurricanes and severe drought. There would also be more flooding, infectious disease, and lower water quality (http://www.net.org/warming/impacts.vtml). Other effects include a rise in sea level, flooding many coastal areas, loss and extinction of species and a change in the crop yield. All these effects are morose as nothing positive is expected as a result of temperature rise due to greenhouse gases. Some health effects of increased temperatures include more cases of heat exhaustion and heat stroke. Air and water pollution would also get worse as greenhouse gases increase in the air (http://epa.gov/climatechange/effects/health.html). All of this would affect the world as famine and poverty would get worse and the standard of living would decrease. People who do not want that to happen should be the change and alter their lifestyle to one that is environmentally friendly.
In addition to these environmental effects, there will be fiercer argumentation against both sides of the issue if it is not resolved. If the leaders of countries do not come up with a way to change how energy is obtained, many of these horrible effects listed above could happen. This will result in many countries fighting for resources that are scarce. However, the supplies of fossil fuels will eventually run out, thereby forcing new resources of energy to be used. These new resources will probably be much cleaner than fossil fuels, helping to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases put in the air. But the question is: will it be too late for this new resource to change the environmental effects of a warmer climate?
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Blogs worth Visiting
My English 101 class had to create blogs for our project on public issues and that is the reason this blog is here. People in the class chose a variety of issues ranging from abortion to Darfur. In this post I will discuss three of my classmates blogs that I enjoy to visit and read.
One of my fellow classmates did her blog on the issue of universal health care discussing whether it was better to let the government run and provide health care to everyone or let private companies run the system. This blog, called Universal Health Care: Revamping the American Health Care System, is worth visiting because of all the information provided about the cost of health care in America versus that of other industrialized countries in the world. The stance that she takes is one that health care should be provided for all because it will result in the lowering of the average health care cost and will better the health of everyone. The graphs provided are indicative that universal health care is better than private health care. Many cases are brought up about how the rise in health care costs is decreasing the number of people who have health care, likely resulting in more health problems for people who cannot afford it. The site is visually appealing because of the soft blue background, which attracts readers. Soft colors are those used in health settings which also provides credence to this site.
Save or Destroy ANWR? is another blog I like visiting. This blog is about the issue of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refugee and the possible effects that could arise from it. It has an environmentalist stance on the issue and provides others ways to use energy instead of fossil fuels. The region is discussed in the blog and the possible advantages and disadvantages of drilling for oil are discussed. The blog talks about how the refugee will be affected by the drilling and the possible effects of an oil spill on the species in the area. The Exxon Valdez oil spill and the effects from that on the ecosystem of the Prince William Sound are discussed. This helps to further the point on the possible effects of drilling in ANWR. The overall tone of the blog is one of seriousness because of the possible effects of drilling for and reliance on oil to the environment. The background color, black, also reinforces the seriousness of the topic.
My favorite blog to read is This is why WE hot....global warming, because of the issue presented and the humor and vivacity the posts are written with. The blog deals with the publicity of global warming through politicians, music, television and film. The titles of the posts are very catchy with some including rap lyrics and others making fun of politicians. The posts send the message that something needs to be done about global warming and gives ways that it can be done. Some of those ways include such things as public service announcements and advertising slogans like "got green?" The bloggers name is fashionable tree hugger, and pictures of "green" clothing are shown and discussed in the post. The background color is a "hot" pink to symbolize both the warming that is occurring as well as the fashion aspect of the blog. The blog tries to persuade people to do environmentally friendly activities and tell others about spreading the word on global warming to save the Earth. The politics of global warming are also discussed in this post which shows this post to be more centered in the public community, instead of the science community like mine. Even though the issue is serious, the author tries to lighten the seriousness and make the posts informative and fun to read. The way the posts are written should attract many people to the blog and keep readers coming back to check on new posts.
All three of this blog are worth visiting because they have an effect on people's everyday lives and they are informing on each of their respective issues. Whatever your stance on these issues, these blogs will present the facts on the issue without trying to be biased.
One of my fellow classmates did her blog on the issue of universal health care discussing whether it was better to let the government run and provide health care to everyone or let private companies run the system. This blog, called Universal Health Care: Revamping the American Health Care System, is worth visiting because of all the information provided about the cost of health care in America versus that of other industrialized countries in the world. The stance that she takes is one that health care should be provided for all because it will result in the lowering of the average health care cost and will better the health of everyone. The graphs provided are indicative that universal health care is better than private health care. Many cases are brought up about how the rise in health care costs is decreasing the number of people who have health care, likely resulting in more health problems for people who cannot afford it. The site is visually appealing because of the soft blue background, which attracts readers. Soft colors are those used in health settings which also provides credence to this site.
Save or Destroy ANWR? is another blog I like visiting. This blog is about the issue of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refugee and the possible effects that could arise from it. It has an environmentalist stance on the issue and provides others ways to use energy instead of fossil fuels. The region is discussed in the blog and the possible advantages and disadvantages of drilling for oil are discussed. The blog talks about how the refugee will be affected by the drilling and the possible effects of an oil spill on the species in the area. The Exxon Valdez oil spill and the effects from that on the ecosystem of the Prince William Sound are discussed. This helps to further the point on the possible effects of drilling in ANWR. The overall tone of the blog is one of seriousness because of the possible effects of drilling for and reliance on oil to the environment. The background color, black, also reinforces the seriousness of the topic.
My favorite blog to read is This is why WE hot....global warming, because of the issue presented and the humor and vivacity the posts are written with. The blog deals with the publicity of global warming through politicians, music, television and film. The titles of the posts are very catchy with some including rap lyrics and others making fun of politicians. The posts send the message that something needs to be done about global warming and gives ways that it can be done. Some of those ways include such things as public service announcements and advertising slogans like "got green?" The bloggers name is fashionable tree hugger, and pictures of "green" clothing are shown and discussed in the post. The background color is a "hot" pink to symbolize both the warming that is occurring as well as the fashion aspect of the blog. The blog tries to persuade people to do environmentally friendly activities and tell others about spreading the word on global warming to save the Earth. The politics of global warming are also discussed in this post which shows this post to be more centered in the public community, instead of the science community like mine. Even though the issue is serious, the author tries to lighten the seriousness and make the posts informative and fun to read. The way the posts are written should attract many people to the blog and keep readers coming back to check on new posts.
All three of this blog are worth visiting because they have an effect on people's everyday lives and they are informing on each of their respective issues. Whatever your stance on these issues, these blogs will present the facts on the issue without trying to be biased.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Zero Emissions
This post should help tell people of renewable, emissions-free alternatives to coal as a source of power, which is the environment. Coal is the resource most power plants use as fuel to create electricity as more than fifty percent of all generated electricity come from coal-based power plants. The result of the coal burning from these power plants is the contribution of 40% of all carbon dioxide emissions in the United States in addition to many other greenhouse gases, pollutants and toxins. The use of coal for power plants is unreal for today as it has the highest carbon output of any fossil fuel and because of the heated debate on greenhouse gases and global warming. If coal burning is not stopped or stymied, greenhouse gases will only go up. This could result in a temperature increase and dirtier air, unless there is a change from coal to some other resource as a source of energy (http://www.sierraclub.org/cleanair/factsheets/power.asp).
Wind power uses the the wind to turn big turbines that turn gears to create electricity. The cost of wind power is competitive with that of coal and turbines can be used to power one's house as an alternative to buying electricity from the power companies. There are over 11,000 megawatts of power available to the United States through wind and that number will keep on rising as more wind turbines are built ((http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/).
Hydropower or hydroelectric power comes from the turning of turbines by water to create energy. This source of energy is the largest in the United States with over 80,000 megawatts of energy capacity. There are three types of hydroelectric plants of which the most common one involves using a dam and letting water through from one side to another to create energy. Most hydropower plants are created after the dam is made, and only 2,400 out of 80,000 dams in the US have hydropower plants (http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/).
Solar energy provided by the sun is a key energy resource people can use now and even more widely in the future. This type of energy uses photovoltaic(PV) energy systems to capture the energy from sunlight and convert it into electricity. There are many PV systems in the country and they are mostly in area that get a considerable amount of sunlight. The problem with PVs, however, is that they do not operate during night as the sun is not out. Solar energy is a major benefit to the economy, the environment, to our energy grid and to people. Even though PVs are not cost competitive with fossil fuels, the pay for themselves over time as the cost of fuel is nothing and the energy gotten from the PV goes to the energy grid, cutting down on utility costs. Also, the environmental is saved of 217,000 pounds of carbon dioxide and thousands of pounds of other gases for every kilowatt of energy produced by the PV, making solar energy very environmentally friendly (http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/).
Geothermal energy is gotten by taking heat from the Earth to create steam, which then turn a turbine to create energy. Geothermal energy is a constant source as heat radiates from the center of the Earth constantly. Many geothermal plats are on geysers or hot springs because the water is already steamy. This results in more energy produced than by taking heat to boil the water to turn the turbine. Geothermal energy is always on and it produces energy at five cents per kilowatt hour, which is the same rate as coal, making this economically efficient as well. Geothermal energy can also be used on a smaller scale as the heat from the ground can be used to heat one's home by installing pipes below ground. Geothermal energy can also be obtained through getting heat from magma, which is something to look forward to in the future. Geothermal energy involved digging into the Earth, but it is not a process that is dangerous to the environment as it gains back more in return with emission-free energy (http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/geothermal_basics.html).
With fossil fuels likely to run out in the future (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/beyond/) and the potential effects of increased greenhouse gases in the air, these methods for obtaining energy are the solution. These methods will help out the Earth immensely as the air quality will get better and the threat of global warming due to increased greenhouse gases will fade away.
Wind power uses the the wind to turn big turbines that turn gears to create electricity. The cost of wind power is competitive with that of coal and turbines can be used to power one's house as an alternative to buying electricity from the power companies. There are over 11,000 megawatts of power available to the United States through wind and that number will keep on rising as more wind turbines are built ((http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/).
Hydropower or hydroelectric power comes from the turning of turbines by water to create energy. This source of energy is the largest in the United States with over 80,000 megawatts of energy capacity. There are three types of hydroelectric plants of which the most common one involves using a dam and letting water through from one side to another to create energy. Most hydropower plants are created after the dam is made, and only 2,400 out of 80,000 dams in the US have hydropower plants (http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/).
Solar energy provided by the sun is a key energy resource people can use now and even more widely in the future. This type of energy uses photovoltaic(PV) energy systems to capture the energy from sunlight and convert it into electricity. There are many PV systems in the country and they are mostly in area that get a considerable amount of sunlight. The problem with PVs, however, is that they do not operate during night as the sun is not out. Solar energy is a major benefit to the economy, the environment, to our energy grid and to people. Even though PVs are not cost competitive with fossil fuels, the pay for themselves over time as the cost of fuel is nothing and the energy gotten from the PV goes to the energy grid, cutting down on utility costs. Also, the environmental is saved of 217,000 pounds of carbon dioxide and thousands of pounds of other gases for every kilowatt of energy produced by the PV, making solar energy very environmentally friendly (http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/).
Geothermal energy is gotten by taking heat from the Earth to create steam, which then turn a turbine to create energy. Geothermal energy is a constant source as heat radiates from the center of the Earth constantly. Many geothermal plats are on geysers or hot springs because the water is already steamy. This results in more energy produced than by taking heat to boil the water to turn the turbine. Geothermal energy is always on and it produces energy at five cents per kilowatt hour, which is the same rate as coal, making this economically efficient as well. Geothermal energy can also be used on a smaller scale as the heat from the ground can be used to heat one's home by installing pipes below ground. Geothermal energy can also be obtained through getting heat from magma, which is something to look forward to in the future. Geothermal energy involved digging into the Earth, but it is not a process that is dangerous to the environment as it gains back more in return with emission-free energy (http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/geothermal_basics.html).
With fossil fuels likely to run out in the future (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/beyond/) and the potential effects of increased greenhouse gases in the air, these methods for obtaining energy are the solution. These methods will help out the Earth immensely as the air quality will get better and the threat of global warming due to increased greenhouse gases will fade away.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Linking you to Global Warming
This post is dedicated to links that I believe can educate people about my topic and the different viewpoints within it. These links are from different places such as government websites, news organizations and publications, all trusted sources.
The Environmental Protection Agency's website (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/) provides a basic overview about global warming and greenhouse gases and is a valuable resource to people who want to find out about this topic. In addition to a basic overview, this website tells people about the health and environmental effects of climate change. Another section of this link includes a variety of things people can do to reduce their greenhouse gases. This website also has the policy of the United States on climate change and projections involving greenhouse gas emissions. A slew of other links are provided at to other sections of this site that deal with more specific issues and initiatives on the topic. Other websites like this are http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/ and http://www.globalwarming.org/.
Another website that provides a plethora of information on greenhouse gases and global warming is http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/. This site has a section that presents different views from many credible scientists on the effects of increased greenhouse gases on climate. Some of the scientists agree that the climate will get warmer as greenhouse gas concentrations increase, but others hotly detest that point. In addition to that, there are clips from a program on this issue that aired on PBS. Other things in this site include a study of ice cores and a prediction on what areas might become flooded if the warming continues. There is also a section on new energies that could be used in the future, which is part of an interview with Professor Martin Hoffert from New York University. This website is based on many interviews with researchers on this topic which makes it a good source to find out more about greenhouse gases and global warming.
There are also many sites to estimate the carbon output of one's self and his or her household. These sites can also provide ways of reducing the carbon output and put that in relation to how much money one can save. These websites include: http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/carboncalculator.asp#0, http://www.thegreenguide.com/doc/119/calculator, and http://www.nature.org/initiatives/climatechange/calculator/http://web.conservation.org/xp/CIWEB/programs/climatechange/carboncalculator.xml?ILC-calc0706&ATT=Redirect.
The National Geographic website, http://green.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-overview.html, covers the main points on global warming and lists all the articles published on this issue in their magazine. It also has videos that show things such as wind power and the state of fish because of warming. Other new websites like this include: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/, http://www.time.com/time/2001/globalwarming/splash.html, and http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier#.
The website for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (http://www.ipcc.ch/), which is the body appointed by the United Nations to research into climate change, is also a good website to visit. This website lists the reports and publications that IPCC has released including the most recent one, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. The site also has press material from interviews and meeting of the IPCC. This committee along with Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007, which gives them greater credibility and more coverage than before.
There are also many websites that say there is no correlation between greenhouse gases and global warming. These include: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20070315&articleId=5086, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192544,00.html and http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136254,00.html.
Hopefully this post and it's many links will help provide anyone the opportunity to go look for themselves the various viewpoints and the arguments backing up those viewpoints on the issue of greenhouse gases and their relationship to global warming.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Theory on Global Warming
There are two polarized to the issue of global warming and many people wonder how it became that. On one side there is people that argue there is global warming and it must be stopped and on the other are people that do not believe the science in global warming and say it is not occurring (http://www.nationalcenter.org/Z041707=global_warming_arguments.html). These two sides and the issue itself arose from political movements and the discovery by scientist that there would be a warming trend because of the continuous dumping of greenhouse gases into the air. The media helped put this issue where it is today because it stressed to take action against global warming or there could be horrible effects in the future such as severe drought, famine and loss of ecosystems. Some other media stressed of the uncertainty of the results obtained by the scientists on whether global warming was occurring and the uncertainty in the possible effects. In science all data has to be proven true through experiments because there is always doubt in scientific inquiry. This doubt can be applied to the global warming sides as some think that the hypothesis for warming is true while others think it is false (http://www.gfdl.gov/~gth/web_page/article/aree_page6.html).
What I think is needed to bring an end to polarized sides is an objective view of the subject that is being dealt with. If any subjectivity is put into a viewpoint, that point has some bias which allows for that view to become polarized as the person(s) with that viewpoint are less likely to hear all the fact that dispute their argument and more likely to only hear things that support it. All the fact on a certain subject need to be looked at as reasonable, and people should formulate stances on an issue through those facts. If this occurs, the viewpoints on contentious issues will become spread out over a spectrum allowing for many sides to an argument. Also, when people think they are right on a certain issue, they become locked in their stance and polarized on that issue. It is hard to not get into polarized sides because people want a simple yes or no answer to certain things but for polarized sides to end, people must use a sound reasoning method to judge an issue and choose their argument on that issue. That argument is not supposed to be a simple yes or no but it is to be nuanced and complex so there is always a difference in viewpoints not between a couple of people but many. This should allow for argument between two people that believe in most of the intricacies of an issue but disagree on a few points (http://www.thefigtree.org/oct07/wallis.html).
What I think is needed to bring an end to polarized sides is an objective view of the subject that is being dealt with. If any subjectivity is put into a viewpoint, that point has some bias which allows for that view to become polarized as the person(s) with that viewpoint are less likely to hear all the fact that dispute their argument and more likely to only hear things that support it. All the fact on a certain subject need to be looked at as reasonable, and people should formulate stances on an issue through those facts. If this occurs, the viewpoints on contentious issues will become spread out over a spectrum allowing for many sides to an argument. Also, when people think they are right on a certain issue, they become locked in their stance and polarized on that issue. It is hard to not get into polarized sides because people want a simple yes or no answer to certain things but for polarized sides to end, people must use a sound reasoning method to judge an issue and choose their argument on that issue. That argument is not supposed to be a simple yes or no but it is to be nuanced and complex so there is always a difference in viewpoints not between a couple of people but many. This should allow for argument between two people that believe in most of the intricacies of an issue but disagree on a few points (http://www.thefigtree.org/oct07/wallis.html).
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Analysis: Greenhouse Gases and Their Effect on Temperature
The issue that I am concerned with is the reducing of greenhouse gases and the effect of that on global warming. The definition of a greenhouse gas is a gas that contributes to the greenhouse effect, which is “the phenomenon whereby the earth's atmosphere traps solar radiation, caused by the presence in the atmosphere of gases such as carbon dioxide, water vapor, and methane that allow incoming sunlight to pass through but absorb heat radiated back from the earth's surface (http://www.answers.com/greenhouse+effect?cat=technology).” Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, the main one in the atmosphere, methane, nitrous oxide and fluorocarbons (http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm). The definition of global warming is “an increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change (http://www.answers.com/topic/global-warming?cat=technology).” This issue is very polarized in society today as some people think that nothing needs to be done to combat rising greenhouse gas levels as the temperature is not affected by that. These people also think that if climate change occurs people should adapt to it and not control it. Others think that global warming is occurring because of increased greenhouse gas levels. This causes them to be active in the fight against global warming by reducing their greenhouse gas emissions as much as possible. (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about_us/meet_us/roger_pielke/hp_roger/debate.html).
The issue of climate change in relation to greenhouse gases is much nuanced as many scientists have their own, thought out and complicated idea on what is happening (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/). They do much research in the field and try to find out what is going to happen in the future related to the climate. Many people are led to believe there are only two sides of the global warming debate when, in fact, there are many because of all the factors that go into climate and the possible scale of severity of the warming (http://www.reason.com/news/show/34939.html). Furthermore, many people are misled to think that there is a scientific agreement that global warming is happening now, because of the level of greenhouse gases in the air, and must be stymied (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4674).
Some people think that even though greenhouse gases are rising in the atmosphere, they have no influence on the temperature of the Earth. They stress that greenhouse gases need to be in the atmosphere or else the temperature on Earth would be 54 degrees F colder (http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/greenhouse.htm). These people say that even if there is a rise in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, each individual molecule would absorb less energy resulting in less heat given off per greenhouse gas molecule. Eventually there would be so many greenhouse gas molecules in the air that the temperature change would be minimal or none. They point out the temperature change from the beginning of the Industrial revolution to now is between .5 and 1.5 degrees Centigrade, which is not much when compared to some other measurements that say that temperature would change that much in the next fifty years (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192544,00.html). One point they bring up is the more carbon dioxide there is in the atmosphere, the better it will be for life because plants use them as a resource in producing glucose for themselves and releasing oxygen into the air by the process of photosynthesis (http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookPS.html). This results in the growth of plants, an increase in agricultural output and more biodiversity. They say the best thing to do is to adapt to changes in temperature like our ancestors in the Ice Age 125,000 years ago. Also, these people point out a warming of the planet is better than a cooling because growth of plants and economy is possible during warmer weather. In addition to that, they also point out that the carbon dioxide levels were twenty times as much 600 million years ago, during which life flourished. Even though greenhouse gas levels are high today, the Earth has not had ill effects from high greenhouse gas concentrations. It is also pointed out that the surface temperatures are skewed because of the urban heat island effect (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html). When confronted with the issue of why the average temperature is rising, people with this viewpoint say that the warming is part of the natural cycle of the Earth and has nothing to do with greenhouse gases. Dr. Akasofu, an Arctic researcher, says there has been a consistent rise in global temperature since the Little Ice Age (1400-1800) according to data as far back as 1660. He says the Earth is still recovering from that ice age and there is no acceleration in temperature change due to global warming. He also points out that the Earth cooled from 1940-1975 before it started getting warmer again and that some places have cooled while others have gotten warmer recently. This shows that the warming is a natural process and not a man-made one because of the randomness of all the changes that are occurring. If it was man-made, there would be a linear temperature rise. (http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?risb=21_T2272174331&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T2272174334&cisb=22_T2272174333&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=10882&docNo=5).
However, most people believe that greenhouse gases cause global warming and the only way to stop the warming is to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the air. These people have various ideas on what will happen if something is not done about the level of greenhouse gases in the air as some think the Earth will become uninhabitable for many species and others think that the Earth will get warmer but the consequences will be bearable. They believe that the warming is man-made because of the amount of greenhouse gases people emit everyday, which leads to a stronger greenhouse effect. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a body created by the United Nations to study and predict what will happen to the climate because the climate plays a role in almost all the activities that happen around the world such as transportation and agriculture. In their latest report, they said that the chance that the warming trend is because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions is 90% (http://www.ipcc.ch/). Time magazine says that the thinning of ice, warm and wild weather, and the decline of the population of colder climate species can be attributed to global warming. All of these effects are bad for biodiversity and the ecosystem as pieces of the food chain are lost (http://www.time.com/time/2001/globalwarming/a.html). This side of the argument also stresses that most of the hottest years on record have come in the past ten years. The people who choose this side of the argument believe that the rise of temperature might be between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees Celsius by the end of the century (http://www.livescience.com/globalwarming/). That could result in the rise of seas, flooding many coastal cities, loss of many Arctic species, an increase in infectious disease and severe weather such as drought and floods in many areas. That in turn could lead to famine as the agricultural output would be lower than needed (http://www.net.org/warming/impacts.vtml). In order to combat the potential effects of global warming, these people stress that lifestyles change and new energy resources be found to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions. This could include public transportation, lowering energy usage in one’s home (see:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175273,00.html) and finding a clean alternative to coal-burning power plants, the number one emitter of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. These people want to prevent the worst effects of global warming from happening and are taking a proactive approach in doing that (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_33/b3896001_mz001.htm).
There are two main political positions centered on the debate of if global warming is decreased by decreasing greenhouse gases. One such position is that greenhouse gases have a direct effect on temperatures and global warming. This position taken by many prominent politicians who are “Green” and others that think global warming is occurring and must be stopped. Many of these people are on the left of the political spectrum. Al Gore is the main such politician, devoting his life after politics to educating people about steps that can be done to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and global warming (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/12/nobel.gore/index.html). These politicians are varied in how deeply they want to implement their policies as some want laws to be enacted so that the average greenhouse gas emission per capita does not pass a certain rate and also want a new energy policy in place as soon as possible (http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/01/13/doe-reprint/). Others, mostly in the middle and right of the political spectrum, rely on voluntary action by the people to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions rewarding tax cuts and other incentives for their cooperation. George Bushes policy on greenhouse gas emissions reductions is like this as he stresses that research is done to come up with a new way of using energy and also encourages industry to try and lower their emissions. However, Bush has undermined some other carbon reduction policies like the Kyoto Protocol and has wanted to drill for oil in wildlife refugees. The Bush policy is non-binding, which is the opposite of what the “Green” politicians want (http://topics.nytimes.com/2004/09/14/politics/campaign/14enviro.html?_r=1&oref=slogin).
The other political position on greenhouse gases in relation global warming says that there is no such thing as global warming. They support the view that greenhouse gases can be freely emitted into the air without an effect on the climate. They have policies that try to maximize energy output with as little cost as possible. They worry that “Green” politics will have a negative impact on the economy. Some of these people also think that a change must be made to get a new source of energy since fossil fuels supplies are being depleted (http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/01/13/doe-reprint/).
One recent breakthrough in the debate about whether greenhouse gases play a role in global warming is the research of the fossil record allowing scientists to see how much carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, was in the air 400 million years ago. Mostly, the research for greenhouse gas concentrations had looked at records since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The results they found were that the carbon dioxide levels were sixteen times higher than today and that the carbon levels in the ice ages of 440 million years ago and 150 million years ago had very high carbon dioxide levels. These results force the scientists to think outside the Earth and hypothesize what factors outside are planet influence temperature. The factors could be a change in the amount of heat given off by the sun, and the hitting of the Earth by cosmic rays. This puts into question the ratio of increasing global temperatures with increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Also, the water and wind currents play a major role in temperature regulation, which means they could have been changing over time resulting in temperature fluctuations (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/science/earth/07co2.html?pagewanted=3&ref=science). New insight to this issue on the other side is that by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, people will be able to breathe in less polluted air, which can give major health benefits. The rate of heat-related illness will go down and people will not only be able to live better, they will live smarter (http://www.cana.net.au/report5.pdf). Some other insight include the economic effects of lower greenhouse emissions as there would be more resources to use for energy and less competition around the world for fossil fuels (http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2006/2006-11-15-insann.asp).
These two arguments on whether greenhouse gases affect global warming have the same data but draw different results from that data, which requires ordinary people to use their knowledge to decide what side they stand on. Each side has its strong points and its weak points. The strong points of the side that says greenhouse gases have no effect on temperature are that the climate cycles of the Earth are unpredictable and climate has many factors that are hard to point out. One of its weak points is a vague description of why there have been such high temperatures over the past years. The side that believes greenhouse gases have an effect on global warming has strong points in the arena of the specificity of effects that could arise if the issue remains unsolved. This side’s weak point includes not looking at the data from hundreds of million years ago and making such a bold prediction about the future that might not be true.
This issue is a very divisive one in society as people’s ways of life and the Earth’s ecosystems might be at risk, but it is up to the people to decide what action to take, if any, in order to protect the Earth.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
The Problem with Hybrids
I believe that hybrid cars can reduce the output of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, if made properly, but I also believe that they are not the final answer to all the global warming problems related to automobiles. The problem with hybrid cars today is that the auto makers gear them towards horsepower and not gas efficiency. This seems ludicrous as the talk about the need to reduce carbon emissions has never been higher (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0808_050808_hybrid_cars.html). In fact gas efficiency in 2005 was 1.3 miles per gallon lower than gas efficiency in 1987, mostly contributing to the increase in bigger vehicles like pick-ups and SUVs (http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/AFDB2D1A-F8F5-44EF-A967-14BAEBD033DF/0/FutureVisionsPaper.pdf). To combat this problem, there needs to be a car that emits no carbon dioxide such as a solar or hydrogen powered car. Also, to reduce carbon emissions, there need to be fewer cars on the road and more public transportation.
The problem with hybrid cars and really with global warming is that the car companies and the US are only after profit. The US is still reluctant to go away from oil because of the money they attain from it, even though that profit is decreasing because of lower oil supplies around the world. The car companies want to gear hybrids towards marketing and saleability and not environmental friendliness. By doing the aforementioned, they increase horsepower and decrease gas mileage. The difference in gas mileage from an Honda Accord hybrid and a gas-only Accord is two miles per gallon and in addition,the gas powered Toyota Corolla is more fuel efficient than the Accord Hybrid, something that is not expected when hearing that a certain car is hybrid. The people who believe that hybrids are the answer to global warming are wrong because hybrids only get marginally better mileage and there are other sources of carbon emissions such as power plants that also emit greenhouse gases on the level of cars. The truth is hybrids can be made to have far more gas mileage than currently are and but for that to happen something needs to be done. The price on a hybrid is thousands of dollars more than that of a gas-only model of the same car and those dollars should get a vehicle that reduces carbon emissions greatly, not marginally, to help slow down global warming (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0808_050808_hybrid_cars.html).
The carbon output of a gallon of gas is 19.4 pounds, of which millions are used per day, (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/420f05001.htm) and the output of carbon dioxide from transport vehicles rose 25% between 1990 and 2006 (http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/05/eia_us_co2_emis.html). This shows that something needs to be done about the rise through things such as public transportation and a new, "clean" source of fuel. If something is not done, the effects of global warming could become more severe as the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will get higher and higher.
The problem with hybrid cars and really with global warming is that the car companies and the US are only after profit. The US is still reluctant to go away from oil because of the money they attain from it, even though that profit is decreasing because of lower oil supplies around the world. The car companies want to gear hybrids towards marketing and saleability and not environmental friendliness. By doing the aforementioned, they increase horsepower and decrease gas mileage. The difference in gas mileage from an Honda Accord hybrid and a gas-only Accord is two miles per gallon and in addition,the gas powered Toyota Corolla is more fuel efficient than the Accord Hybrid, something that is not expected when hearing that a certain car is hybrid. The people who believe that hybrids are the answer to global warming are wrong because hybrids only get marginally better mileage and there are other sources of carbon emissions such as power plants that also emit greenhouse gases on the level of cars. The truth is hybrids can be made to have far more gas mileage than currently are and but for that to happen something needs to be done. The price on a hybrid is thousands of dollars more than that of a gas-only model of the same car and those dollars should get a vehicle that reduces carbon emissions greatly, not marginally, to help slow down global warming (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0808_050808_hybrid_cars.html).
The carbon output of a gallon of gas is 19.4 pounds, of which millions are used per day, (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/420f05001.htm) and the output of carbon dioxide from transport vehicles rose 25% between 1990 and 2006 (http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/05/eia_us_co2_emis.html). This shows that something needs to be done about the rise through things such as public transportation and a new, "clean" source of fuel. If something is not done, the effects of global warming could become more severe as the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will get higher and higher.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Why reducing carbon dioxide emissions is for you (even if you do not believe in global warming)
This is for everyone who is looking to make a change in the worldwide epidemic of wasteful living, of which one if it's effects is a warming of the Earth. In the last post, lowering carbon emissions was discussed, and the conclusion was reached that lowering carbon emissions will help stop the warming trend that has occurred recently. To further that point, I believe everyone should try to lower their carbon emissions, even if they do not believe in global warming, because of the benefits that arise for the Earth and them through the process.
The reduction of one's carbon emissions can save that person more than one thousand dollars per year. He or she can do that by a variety of ways, all of which do not take away from the fun of life. For example reducing the heater's temperature by two degrees or raising the air conditioner's temperature by two degrees can save a person about $100 annually. In addition to that, replacing one's air condition filter can save him or her $150 a year. Water usage accounts for much of a person's bills and reducing water usage by taking shorter showers, using a low-flow showerhead and only using the dishwasher for full loads can save him or her around $300 on their water bill. The energy used to heat water is also high. You can cut down on that energy usage by insulating your hot water heater and reducing the temperature of it. This can save a person $50 - $70 a year. All of these methods mentioned save a good amount of money but it is nothing compared to how much a person can save if they change their transportation habits. For example, if one regularly checks and inflates his or her tires, it can save him or her $840 a year. Also, checking and replacing one's air filter in his or her car can save him or her 140 dollars a year (http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/carboncalculator.asp#0). The switch from driving to public transport will reduce a person's cost and carbon emissions immensely because of the high cost and carbon output of gas. Another way to save some money and the Earth is not forgetting to turn off appliances when they are not in use. All of these methods listed can reduce a person's carbon output by about 7500 pounds or 3.5 metric tons. These methods can lower carbon emissions greatly if they are carried out worldwide, helping to slow down the warming trend, while new ways of using energy that are environmentally friendly are thought of (http://www.thegreenguide.com/doc/119/calculator).
The increase of carbon dioxide in the air can potentially harm the Earth but it can also harm the health of many people. An example of this is a government study done to show the dangers of increasing carbon emissions in China and to show the health benefits of reducing the emissions. The effects of air pollution due to carbon emissions had a disastrous toll in 1995 China with 178,00 premature deaths and 4.5 million deaths because of pollution related sicknesses. The damages that occurred from health sickness and death to pollution was the same as 5% of China's gross domestic product. The projected values for the health effects due to carbon emissions in 2020 is even worse than the 1995 values. There are a projected nine million people dying from pollution related sickness with over twenty-five million people getting sick. All this shows is that there is another reason to decrease one's carbon emissions as it also decreases the amount of harmful substances that person emits. The report also states that a ten percent reduction in carbon emissions might initially slow down the economy but over the long term the economy would generate more income. The lowering in carbon emissions would also make it less likely to perpetuate the cycle of carbon emissions by using more coal. The lowering of coal usage would make the price of coal higher resulting in a lower chance of coal being used in the future (http://www.pnl.gov/aisu/pubs/AppC15-RG.pdf).
So if you are looking to save some money and trying to improve your health, think about lowering your carbon emissions. It is of minimal cost and it has benefits that are immeasurable if carried out on a global scale. In reference to the last post, the need to reduce carbon emissions drastically can only be done if carried put on a global scale and this can be a start to that process.
The reduction of one's carbon emissions can save that person more than one thousand dollars per year. He or she can do that by a variety of ways, all of which do not take away from the fun of life. For example reducing the heater's temperature by two degrees or raising the air conditioner's temperature by two degrees can save a person about $100 annually. In addition to that, replacing one's air condition filter can save him or her $150 a year. Water usage accounts for much of a person's bills and reducing water usage by taking shorter showers, using a low-flow showerhead and only using the dishwasher for full loads can save him or her around $300 on their water bill. The energy used to heat water is also high. You can cut down on that energy usage by insulating your hot water heater and reducing the temperature of it. This can save a person $50 - $70 a year. All of these methods mentioned save a good amount of money but it is nothing compared to how much a person can save if they change their transportation habits. For example, if one regularly checks and inflates his or her tires, it can save him or her $840 a year. Also, checking and replacing one's air filter in his or her car can save him or her 140 dollars a year (http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/carboncalculator.asp#0). The switch from driving to public transport will reduce a person's cost and carbon emissions immensely because of the high cost and carbon output of gas. Another way to save some money and the Earth is not forgetting to turn off appliances when they are not in use. All of these methods listed can reduce a person's carbon output by about 7500 pounds or 3.5 metric tons. These methods can lower carbon emissions greatly if they are carried out worldwide, helping to slow down the warming trend, while new ways of using energy that are environmentally friendly are thought of (http://www.thegreenguide.com/doc/119/calculator).
The increase of carbon dioxide in the air can potentially harm the Earth but it can also harm the health of many people. An example of this is a government study done to show the dangers of increasing carbon emissions in China and to show the health benefits of reducing the emissions. The effects of air pollution due to carbon emissions had a disastrous toll in 1995 China with 178,00 premature deaths and 4.5 million deaths because of pollution related sicknesses. The damages that occurred from health sickness and death to pollution was the same as 5% of China's gross domestic product. The projected values for the health effects due to carbon emissions in 2020 is even worse than the 1995 values. There are a projected nine million people dying from pollution related sickness with over twenty-five million people getting sick. All this shows is that there is another reason to decrease one's carbon emissions as it also decreases the amount of harmful substances that person emits. The report also states that a ten percent reduction in carbon emissions might initially slow down the economy but over the long term the economy would generate more income. The lowering in carbon emissions would also make it less likely to perpetuate the cycle of carbon emissions by using more coal. The lowering of coal usage would make the price of coal higher resulting in a lower chance of coal being used in the future (http://www.pnl.gov/aisu/pubs/AppC15-RG.pdf).
So if you are looking to save some money and trying to improve your health, think about lowering your carbon emissions. It is of minimal cost and it has benefits that are immeasurable if carried out on a global scale. In reference to the last post, the need to reduce carbon emissions drastically can only be done if carried put on a global scale and this can be a start to that process.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Will reducing carbon dioxide emissions help stop global warming?
Welcome to the first post on Global Warming: Yes or No?
I take the stance that reducing carbon dioxide emissions will help stop global warming only if they are drastically reduced by 50% or more. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, which means that it traps the infrared radiation from the sun as it is reflected back from the Earth. This means that the more greenhouse gases there are in the atmosphere, the more heat will be trapped by them resulting in higher temperatures. The people who say that global warming is not happening must look at the facts that there have been more and more greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere, resulting in more heat trapped by them and therefore an increase in the overall temperature (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html). Carbon Dioxide levels are at an all-time high according to Mauna Loa Observatory based in Hawaii meaning that something needs to be done to reduce those levels (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/20/tech/main607629.shtml).
The current set of guidelines for lowering greenhouse gas emissions is the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol calls for a 5% lowering of greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels in the period of 2008-2012 (http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol /items/2830.php). The Kyoto Protocol is flawed
because the requirements will not really affect the total amount of greenhouse gases in the air as those levels will rise anyway. In addition, the Kyoto Protocol is non-binding to countries that did not ratify it, like the United States. This shows that there needs to be some steps taken to force countries to bind to a strategy to slow down or even reverse global warming (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/20/tech/main607629.shtml).
What needs to be done is to change the way carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have been rising since the start of the Industrial Revolution around 1850. The graph to the left shows the exponential rise in carbon dioxide levels since 1850. There are about 6.1 million metric tones of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere every year and only about 2.9 million metric tons of it are absorbed by plants resulting in the addition of 3.2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide every year (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html). If the world was able to cut carbon dioxide emissions to only 2.9 million metric tons per year, the levels of the gas will stay about the same, but if the world is able to release less than 2.9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide the effects of increased greenhouse gases will be eventually diminished resulting in the reversal of global warming.
Even if global warming does not exist reducing carbon emissions would be beneficial to everyone in the world as they would start breathing in cleaner air. They would also switch from a wasteful and inefficient lifestyle to an efficient lifestyle that helps not only themselves but other people, plants, animals and the world.
I take the stance that reducing carbon dioxide emissions will help stop global warming only if they are drastically reduced by 50% or more. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, which means that it traps the infrared radiation from the sun as it is reflected back from the Earth. This means that the more greenhouse gases there are in the atmosphere, the more heat will be trapped by them resulting in higher temperatures. The people who say that global warming is not happening must look at the facts that there have been more and more greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere, resulting in more heat trapped by them and therefore an increase in the overall temperature (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html). Carbon Dioxide levels are at an all-time high according to Mauna Loa Observatory based in Hawaii meaning that something needs to be done to reduce those levels (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/20/tech/main607629.shtml).
The current set of guidelines for lowering greenhouse gas emissions is the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol calls for a 5% lowering of greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels in the period of 2008-2012 (http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol /items/2830.php). The Kyoto Protocol is flawed
because the requirements will not really affect the total amount of greenhouse gases in the air as those levels will rise anyway. In addition, the Kyoto Protocol is non-binding to countries that did not ratify it, like the United States. This shows that there needs to be some steps taken to force countries to bind to a strategy to slow down or even reverse global warming (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/20/tech/main607629.shtml).What needs to be done is to change the way carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have been rising since the start of the Industrial Revolution around 1850. The graph to the left shows the exponential rise in carbon dioxide levels since 1850. There are about 6.1 million metric tones of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere every year and only about 2.9 million metric tons of it are absorbed by plants resulting in the addition of 3.2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide every year (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html). If the world was able to cut carbon dioxide emissions to only 2.9 million metric tons per year, the levels of the gas will stay about the same, but if the world is able to release less than 2.9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide the effects of increased greenhouse gases will be eventually diminished resulting in the reversal of global warming.
Even if global warming does not exist reducing carbon emissions would be beneficial to everyone in the world as they would start breathing in cleaner air. They would also switch from a wasteful and inefficient lifestyle to an efficient lifestyle that helps not only themselves but other people, plants, animals and the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
