Man made climate change is the biggest single issue of our time. Governments in the West have decided that carbon dioxide, caused by industrial man's actions, is warming up the planet, and that if we don't do something, we are going to destroy the planet. While the politicians may believe that the evidence is irrefutable, what is the actual evidence to back up this claim?
The global warming bandwagon has gathered such momentum that is it becoming nearly impossible to have a balanced discussion on the topic. A large and extremely powerful business sector has sprung up out of nowhere to serve the 'problem', and it will not take kindly to being told that it is surplus to requirements.
In addition, significant policy changes have been taking place to adopt the notion of man made global warming, the government taking the view that the evidence of the link is 'irrefutable'. A bold move indeed. These policies will influence social and fiscal policymaking and will be around many years to come, even as the 'truth' of the matter comes to light.
Those who supply products and services are being asked to equate their activities to a quantity of carbon dioxide, the lower the emissions, the better the classification. Companies may declare themselves 'carbon neutral' if they offset their emissions by planting trees which will absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. While everyone is focussed in on the question 'How can we reduce our carbon dioxide emissions?', shouldn't we be standing back a bit further and asking 'It is really something that we need to worry about?'. Is CO2 really an issue, or just a natural consequence of life on planet earth?
Cooling Tower by mattfoster
While the environmental press may have you convinced that the facts are undisputed, a quick look at the opinions of people who actually know what they're talking about may leave you in some doubt. A survey of all 530 of the world's climatologists was undertaken in 2003. They were asked whether they thought the scientific debate about climate change was over. 44% agreed, 46% disagreed and 10% were unsure. It seems the facts are not as undisputed as the environmental press would have you believe.[1]
Even so, in popular society, the climate change denier is very much like a small boy whistling in the dark. He has neither the support of the UK press, nor those who rely on it for their opinions. Is it possible that the global warming bandwagon has gathered such momentum that to deny that global warming is an issue (let alone man's work) is tantamount to global treason?
What is true is that there are millions of people employed in the field globally, who have a vested interest in the maintenance of the status quo; and if global warming became a non-issue overnight, many of these people would be out of work.
When you are looking at a subject as complicated and unpredictable as the weather, I don't think a consensus will ever be reached; there are too many variables. The split opinions of the climatologists is a case in point. I also suspect that they would be the first to tell you that it is more or a black art than a true science.
Like most economic bubbles, it is almost always easier to go with the flow than to struggle against the current and risk being sucked under. The issue of CO2 and global warming is founded on the precautionary principle, and if we had to put words to it, it would look something like this:
"If we are right about carbon dioxide warming up the planet, and that man is responsible for it, and we can successfully reduce our carbon dioxide emissions, and also persuade everyone else in the world to do the same, then it might make things better than they would have been had we not done anything."
Does this sound like well balanced judgement, good clear thinking, or scaremongering of the first degree? There are as many 'IF' statements, as many unknowns, as a climate model. The majority of these are speculation. People who take action from a place of fear will never produce good results. Furthermore, consider the expenditure allocated for this speculative case, and where it might be better spent.
But, I hear you cry, if we are screwing up the planet, surely doing something is better than doing nothing, regardless of how much it costs, I mean this is our planet we are talking about? Well, many UK citizens would agree with that statement, but it is a big IF, and not everyone has the luxury of such an insurance policy; many people are living day to day, and they want solutions now. Lets take the developing world, for example.
Trying to convince China, India and Africa to consider CO2 emissions will probably raise a laugh or two, but very little more. It would be unacceptable for us to stifle their expansion because we have a theory that is based largely on speculation and complex computer models of the future, which says that the world is being destroyed. These nations may be developing industrially, but I suspect their innate understanding of spirituality is considerably stronger than ours.
The UK can decide individually what it wants to do regarding CO2, but it cannot force anyone else to join it on its righteous quest to save the planet. If the UK decides to forge ahead with these carbon reforms, even though no definitive evidence exists (or will ever exist), then John Q. Taxpayer will have to pay this conscience tax. The revenue will be collected by governments in tax collecting schemes, and redistributed to organisations that work within the CO2 economy.
The end result is that UK products and services will become more expensive, especially when competing in a global market with others who do not share our less than optimistic outlook on life. More likely, Western industrialists interested in the bottom line will welcome the opportunity to move their production to countries which don't have such restrictive environmental legislation, thereby circumventing the legislation, avoiding carbon tax, and any reduction in carbon emissions. I doubt very much that the Chinese will be making use of our thriving carbon trading industry.
Meanwhile, politicians can do nothing but sit on the fence, being very aware of the apparent oxymoron of "CO2 friendly / Economic growth"; they are asked to stimulate economic growth on the one hand, and save the planet on the other. Economic growth means production, means motion, means carbon dioxide emissions which, they tell us, are destroying the planet. So what can governments do? Not a lot, it seems. Maybe raise a bit of revenue through taxation?
Grangemouth Refinery, by Scottog
I am not going to join in the global debate of what statistics might have been gathered to demonstrate one thing or another, there are enough reports and programmes for you to watch and make up your own minds (see below). Rather, I will try to take a slightly more philosophical, happy view of the situation to try and put things into perspective. I have never been a great believer of statistics; human beings have far more say in their lives than a collection of numbers, however well these might have been gathered, collected and analysed. What I find vexing is the very premise of the argument, which is fundamentally flawed.
If you stand back and ask the question, why are we here? I know this sounds barmy but bear with me here, folks. What gets you out of bed in the morning? What is it that you enjoy about life? What is it that you enjoy about being alive here on this planet? Life is in a constant state of evolution, (yes evolution is still happening, were not done yet!) and we human beings are evolving just like all of the other life forms around us. We are creating new wonderful technologies to make our lives better. We are running faster, jumping higher, we are expanding our knowledge, we are improving our techniques for living, and we are having fun creating things that have not been before.
This expansion is eternal, and will never cease to be. So if this joy of expansion is at the basis of life, then we aren't exactly going to down tools and accept that we've got the job done, and that its time to stop creating, that everything is as good as it ever will be, and we can go home now. Its a completely absurd idea. We will be constantly making more, creating new things and finding better ways of living life (including ways of living more in harmony with our wonderful resource-full planet).
So what we are seeing here in this CO2 debate is man doing what man does best; trying to make things better. The only thing is, he has forgotten the overwhelming well-being and stability of the 'third rock from the sun', and has jumped headlong into fear that things are going wrong, from which he is trying to act sensibly and failing miserably.
I do like the new technologies that will come out of the CO2 debate, however. Wars over oil, rising fuel prices caused by perceived shortages, pollution and a call for greener living, all contribute to the development and creation of new alternative technologies. These are more peaceful, cheaper, cleaner and more in keeping with the planet. Even so, our best efforts cannot destroy the earth, no matter how hard we try. It is a very large and stable rock that finds its own equilibrium, regardless of our activities.
Just consider for a moment how this planet spins in its orbit in perfect proximity to other planets. Consider how the sun rises every day, consider that there is an abundant clean water supply, and the air purifies itself. Consider that food grows on the planet year after year after year. We have an abundance of everything that we need from Mother Nature, more than enough for everyone on the planet. Yes, I believe that we will find more harmonious ways to live on this planet. But we shouldn't curse the wonderful resources provided by Mother Earth for the benefit of mankind.
Many people are starting to ask questions of the carbon crowd. Where is this global warming you all predicted? The planet seems to be fine, what's all the fuss about? Time will tell, of course, but for now the global warming budget is healthy and ready to be snapped up by eager enviro-capitalists who all want a slice of the pie. There are still those, however who staunchly disagree with the notion, so much so that they are prepared to forego the sweetness of the environmental honeypot. In March this year, the 2009 Conference on Climate Change was held in New York, and gathered together interested parties to discuss the agenda 'Global warming, was it ever an issue'. Some are discussing the global warming issue in the past tense.
George Bush Jr, ex-president of the USA resisted Kyoto and all of its unrealistic targets for as long as he could. You might say he was doing it for the US people, whose lives depend on infrastructure which relies heavily on oil. You might also consider that the Bush family have large interests in oil prospecting in Texas. At a time when the oil price was extremely healthy indeed, (1986, the average world price of oil was a measly $12.51), who can blame him. Meanwhile environmental crusader Albert Gore Jr, would-be-almost-ex-president made a movie about Global Warming called "An Inconvenient Truth", which conveniently netted him $49m at movie theatres worldwide.
I suspect, had he titled his film, "Global Warming, it might not be a problem", he wouldn't have motivated quite so many people into the movie theatres. Al Gore is, unsurprisingly, himself involved in a number of organisations which cater to the global warming business. One might consider his movie and book about global warming as a highly profitable sales pitch for his businesses.
I am not in any way suggesting that any of this is wrong. In fact it is quite natural, and totally understandable. People act out of self-interest, always. While it might appear that they are being altruistic, there is always something in it for them. This is how the world works. Relationships, Jobs, Religion, Politics, etc. Whats in it for me? Economics rules because people act out of self interest and they always want to thrive as much as possible.
Fortunately there are other offerings which add some well needed balance to the debate; programs such as Martin Durkin's 2007 polemic documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" which shows that not all of the worlds scientists agree with the established view, and still have the capacity to continually question evidence, as any good scientist should.
I expect in the years to come that some balance will be restored to the debate. It is currently extremely one sided, as those who report it, stand to gain from its continuation, and those who believe all is well have less air-time. Unfortunately a huge quantity of legislation is being produced which will be around for some time to come. Not all of this is bad however, and the majority of it is in line with the population's desire to coexist happily with our planet.
I care about this planet, and I want it to be as clean and as healthy as possible, and anything that we can do to make it better, we should. But when you start taking action from a massively flawed premise, I just cannot see how any good can come of it. People have become so brainwashed by this issue that they cannot see the wood for the trees. Many people want this to be an issue so they can benefit from it.
The new term Geo-Engineering is an interesting idea. Engineers believe that they have to act to do something about the global temperature rise. Some ideas touted have been, giant sailing ships spraying clouds of water vapour into the atmosphere, seeding the oceans with iron to promote algal blooms which trap CO2 and then sink to the ocean floor, and my personal favourite, the giant sun shades in space to reflect back the sun. I wouldn't want to live under one of those.
But seriously, the good news is, that the planet is fine. In fact it is evolving like all of the species that are living and thriving upon it. It was spinning quite merrily in its orbit for billions of years before man turned up, and it will be spinning quite happily in many billennia to come. Man's activities, however serious they might appear, are about as significant to this planet as a very small flea on the back of a very big dog.
[1] Heartland Institute Study 2003
About the Author
Andrew is a freelance spiritual writer and esoterics teacher. He writes regularly for HappyHappyHappyNews.com, the resource on the web for positive upbeat news articles. Follow the hyperlink for alternative tips on how to ride out the recession.
Article Source Earth Articles Green Directory
Carbon Emissions - Carbon dioxide traps the heat of the sun on the globe, much like a veritable balloon filled with warm air. On an average day, humans add to the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide in several ways, from power plants to vehicles. Air pollution from industrial plants is increasing at an alarming level despite steps taken to enforce environmentally friendly practices.
Weather Patterns - Apart from the wildfires caused by scorching hot and dry weather which burns millions of acres of land worldwide, the main cause for concern is drought - which also increases the risk of wildfires. Drought causes crops to fail, causing starvation and diseases in less developed countries where agriculture is the main source of food and income. Conversely, warm temperatures can also cause heavier rainfall and floods. More energy in the climatic system causes hurricanes and tsunamis. Balance of ecology is disturbed.
Health - Smog in certain parts of the world is causing allergies and asthmatic conditions to worsen. The poor air quality also results in weakened respiratory system. Droughts and other eco disruptions lead to the rapid spread of infectious diseases and food and waterborne illnesses such as malaria, cholera and dengue fever.
Stop Pollution! - Cutting down pollution from car emissions and power plants will decrease the rate of global warming to a great extent. Varied technologies for use of alternative energy have already been developed. And, more technology is being developed regularly. We need to continue to make use of current alternative energy resources like wind power and solar power, and we can adopt new technologies as they are developed.
Amendment on Legal System - As effects of global warming are getting the attention of the government, certain law and legislative actions were formulated to combat these dilemma. These laws are expected to regulate the manufacturing and usage of appliances and machines that may be harmful to atmosphere