Anthropogenic Global Warming
First let's break down the concepts before we talk about why it's important and what makes it irrelevant. So what is anthropogenic global warming? In short, it is an average increase in global temperatures caused by human activities. This doesn't mean that an exceptionally hot summer or an exceptionally cold winter proves or disproves anything. The key word, often forgotten, is Global. If three quarters of the world is warmer than normal, it really doesn't matter that I'm currently shivering. (It does, however, make me hate them ever so slightly.) All told, this isn't really a difficult concept to understand, to relate it to a house, if you turn the heat on in 3 out of 4 rooms, the house is getting warmer even if the poor sucker in the guest bedroom is freezing.
So why is this controversial? The arguments generally come in three varieties: "Is it happening?", "Are we causing it?", and "Is it a bad thing, or how bad will it be?".
Is it happening?
Yes. That's really all I'm going to say on this one. You can argue about the causes; you can argue about the severity; you can argue about the effects; but this one really needs to be dropped.
Are we causing it?
Probably. Most of the prevailing science points that way and most of the counter arguments are coming from those with vested interests in proving that we aren't causing it or from people radically opposed to science in general. But more on this later.
Is it a bad thing or how bad will it be?
This gets complicated, but the best answer I can give is "probably" and "we're not sure". It's probably going to be a bad thing for much the same arguments as above, but also due to the fundamental principle that change in an environment is generally a bad thing for the things that are currently living in said environment. Nature, humanity included, does not adapt quickly to changes in their living conditions. Humans are amazingly resilient creatures, but we rely on technology to adapt our locations to our needs. Areas that rarely see snow are traumatized by even small amounts where areas that get multiple feet per year don't even blink. Similarly areas that are accustomed to and prepared for hurricanes or earthquakes or heat waves are more than capable of handling them, but areas that aren't can be shut down entirely by what would be considered a common occurrence elsewhere. As climates change more areas are going to have to adapt to more types of events, the only question is how much it will change and how severe those events will be.
How bad will it be then? That's decidedly less settled. Global climate models have come a long way in the last 20 years, but they're massively complex and still frequently wrong with their predictions. We've been left with the extremes of "we're all going to die" and "maybe it'll even be a good thing" neither of which seem particularly credible. The former incites unnecessary (though they would disagree with that) panic, while the latter implies that we should ignore it entirely and enjoy the warmer weather. As with most things, the answer is probably somewhere in the middle, more on a scale of "annoying" to "severely unpleasant".
Why this is all Irrelevant
Now that I've finally gotten the background out of the way, I can get to the point. None of it matters. Don't give me that look, yes I'm serious, and no I'm not crazy. I'm not trying to argue that Global Warming is irrelevant, just that the arguments about it are. The reason is simple. The things that we should be doing to stop Global Warming are things we should be doing anyway for much less controversial reasons.
Let's start at a personal level (for reference, the EPA actually has a site with a list of things individuals can do). First, using energy efficient bulbs and appliances. Regardless of one's views on climate change, there is a near universal acceptance that using less energy (and spending less money on it) is a good thing. New bulbs and new appliances use less energy, last longer, provide the same quality, and in the end cost less than the inefficient products that they replace. The same thing goes for heating, cooling, and insulation. Who cares if you don't believe in Global Warming when everyone believes in paying less in utilities. In transportation (and more on this in the next level up) mass transit should be a good idea because it's cheaper than commuting. Alternatively, for relatively short commutes, bicycling should be a good idea because it's better for our health. Growing our own fruits and vegetables should be a good idea, not because the transportation of produce is causing the ice caps to melt, but because they're cheaper (and in my opinion, more delicious) that way. Obviously most people don't have the time (or space) to grow enough food to be entirely self sufficient, but that isn't the point. There is plenty of room between every house having a white picket fence and 2.5 SUVs and an agrarian society and good, self-serving, reasons to take a few steps in that direction.
So after the personal comes the municipal. Towns and cities aren't making environmental policies on the grand scale; they don't set CAFE standards or set up cap and trade markets; but they do have impacts and motivations similar to the personal level. If we want to reduce vehicle emissions, then towns and cities need to give people non-car alternatives for feasible transportation. That means bike lanes and trails that go places that people want to get to (that also promote public health) and public transportation (that also saves on congestion, parking, and can be revenue generating). If we're worried about offsetting emissions with carbon sinks, they can promote parks and green spaces (which again, promote public health and community building), tree plantings (just to make an area look nicer, which can raise property values) or community gardens (which can brighten up downtrodden neighborhoods as well as provide under-served communities with much needed fresh produce for public health reasons).
I'll address the last two levels together, state and federal policy. A lot of this comes down to energy and transportation policy, though obviously they can also support green spaces and parks at a larger level as well for the same reasons as the cities and towns. So why should they support things like more efficient vehicles or alternative fuels or alternative energy sources if not to reduce greenhouse emissions and global warming? Simply because it's good policy. We have more people driving more, using more fuel, and using more energy than ever before. Regardless of your views on the impacts, these are all limited resources. Even if you believe that there's no urgent need for alternatives, we have people who are capable of doing the research now and, when or if they're successful, they may come up with a vehicle that meets all of our current needs in ways that are cheaper and easier for the consumers. The same goes for alternative energy. We should be researching solar and wind because it's there and because it gives us another option for generating energy. We should also be researching nuclear and cleaner coal and cleaner natural gas and anything else that comes along. The more options we have, the more secure, and less expensive, our energy becomes.
All told, this is the final point. We don't need to argue about Global Warming. Climatologist will continue to research it and other researchers will continue to figure out how to stop it. In the end, if it is truly so severe that we need direct action (here I'm referring to some of the more outlandish plans, like seeding the clouds to thicken them and cool the planet) it won't matter whether this is anthropogenic or natural, we'll take action to sustain society. In the meantime, we should all be taking steps to reduce our energy consumption; even if you don't believe we're affecting the climate, it's still a rational fiscal and health decision.
No comments:
Post a Comment