The China/India Dodge
Last week was Earth Day. I couldn't make my post then, because I was in Huntington doing what I could to help a couple of good candidates get elected to office in the WV Young Democrats. However, it is better late than never and I thought that now was the time to get to it on this vital issue. Anyone who is being honest and not simply making political arguments with their ideological predisposition trumping their senses knows that there is something seriously wrong with the current trajectory of our climate. As Former Vice President (and hopefully future President) Al Gore noted in An Inconvenient Truth, in scientific peer-reviewed articles, none mentioned any doubts about the existence of global warming, but 53% of all stories in popular media questioned the reality of global warming. Then again, corporate shills such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute (with its infamous "Some people call it pollution, we call it life" commercials from last year) know that the best chance for inaction on the pending climate crisis is to spread seeds of doubt in the public mind.
Even when that seems to fail, as it seems that we may finally getting to the threshold where people realize that action must be taken, the latest tactic of the flat earthers is to insist that, even if global warming is real, the real problem isn't the United States, but China and India, which are rapidly transitioning to an industrial society. They argue that within the next few years, China is on pace to become the world's largest producers of CO2 emissions. Unfortunately, they are just as wrong on this one as they are on the question of global warming's reality.
First, let's look at the question of whether or not global warming is real. The global temperature of 58 degrees Fahreheit (14 1/2 Celsius) is the highest the earth's temperature has been recorded in over 100,000 years (Before the last major Ice Age and the last time there was no polar ice caps.) and over the last 650,000, CO2 concentration never exceeded 280 ppm before the Industrial Revolution. In 1958, when Roger Revelle began measuring the CO2 levels in the atmosphere, it was at 315 ppm. When Earth in the Balance was published in 1992, CO2 had already risen to 355 ppm, and we are currently at 381 ppm, with an expected CO2 concentration of over 600 ppm expected by 2050, or even more depending on whether the Siberian ice shelf completely melts in that time, releasing CO2 trapped in the shelf. With the global temperatures expected to rise by 3 degrees Celsius (5 1/2 Fahrenheit) by the end of the century, the sea level is expected to rise by at least three feet, and several island countries in the Southern Hemisphere have already had to evacuate to New Zealand because their homes have been reclaimed by the ocean. And this is if temperature rises by the lowest estimates over the next 50 years, leading to a potential refugee crisis in the tens of milions, if not hundreds of millions. Considering the evidence, I think it is safe to say that the planet is heating up, and the consequences will be very bad for the planet and its inhabitants.
Now, let's look at the China/India Dodge. Do they produce more CO2 than the United States? Not even close. The United States is responsible for 30% of greenshouse gas emissions, with Southeast Asia (including China and India) contributing only 12%. Let us not forget that China and India combined have seven times the population of the United States. In terms of carbon dioxide, the United States is responsible for roughly 12,000 pounds per person, while China produces 1000 and India produces roughly half that per person. When these countries are listed based on total contribution, the US more than doubles China's CO2 emissions and sextuples India's. So, I don't think that it is their fault. As a matter of fact, while China has a potential problem with its rising use of dirty coal, they have at least pushed their fuel efficiency to 36 mpg, dwarfing our 24 mpg.
There are steps that can be made that will actually create lots of new wealth (and West Virginia is ripe for wind and tidal energy, and this will benefit individual West Virginians if we lease the rights to the and used for these forms of energy, instead of selling it dirt cheap like the Republicans of the 1860's did in this state) and save people money. For example, I switched only two of my lightbulbs in my apartment to compact fluorescents and, even though the $7 I paid for them was more than the $1.50 or so I would have paid for incandescents, I have saved $4/month since, thus more than paying for themselves. Also, on days I am off work, I don't turn my lights on when natural light is sufficient to see, and this has saved money as well as having the added bonus of the tranition to natural light being less harsh when I go outside. I have also started trying to drive at the 65 mph range on the interstate rather than 70, and my gas mileage has improved 3 mpg since doing so, saving 10% at the pump. I have also started unplugging my computer when I am not using it, and this has led to a very tiny uptick in my electric bills of less than $1 a month, while my bill went down $2 a month when my last computer died. In other words, doing the right thing for the environment has saved money, and I haven't really taken any drastic steps. These are things everyone can do, and if everyone does them, it will lead to a significant reduction of CO2 emissions, which is a vital first step considering that we will need to reduce our CO2 emissions by at least 50% in the next 50 years to have the low-range effects of global warming and 80% to halt them completely. The technology is there, but the question is whether we have the will to do so.
This is the one that can be frustrating in our current political climate. The last US President to ask us to make sacrifices was Jimmy Carter, and Republicans still mock him for wearing a sweater in the White House in an effort to save energy costs. However, we put a man on the moon, won two world wars and became the leader in the world. I am sick and tired of having to motivate people for fuel independency by saying "If Brazil can do it, we can too."
Even when that seems to fail, as it seems that we may finally getting to the threshold where people realize that action must be taken, the latest tactic of the flat earthers is to insist that, even if global warming is real, the real problem isn't the United States, but China and India, which are rapidly transitioning to an industrial society. They argue that within the next few years, China is on pace to become the world's largest producers of CO2 emissions. Unfortunately, they are just as wrong on this one as they are on the question of global warming's reality.
First, let's look at the question of whether or not global warming is real. The global temperature of 58 degrees Fahreheit (14 1/2 Celsius) is the highest the earth's temperature has been recorded in over 100,000 years (Before the last major Ice Age and the last time there was no polar ice caps.) and over the last 650,000, CO2 concentration never exceeded 280 ppm before the Industrial Revolution. In 1958, when Roger Revelle began measuring the CO2 levels in the atmosphere, it was at 315 ppm. When Earth in the Balance was published in 1992, CO2 had already risen to 355 ppm, and we are currently at 381 ppm, with an expected CO2 concentration of over 600 ppm expected by 2050, or even more depending on whether the Siberian ice shelf completely melts in that time, releasing CO2 trapped in the shelf. With the global temperatures expected to rise by 3 degrees Celsius (5 1/2 Fahrenheit) by the end of the century, the sea level is expected to rise by at least three feet, and several island countries in the Southern Hemisphere have already had to evacuate to New Zealand because their homes have been reclaimed by the ocean. And this is if temperature rises by the lowest estimates over the next 50 years, leading to a potential refugee crisis in the tens of milions, if not hundreds of millions. Considering the evidence, I think it is safe to say that the planet is heating up, and the consequences will be very bad for the planet and its inhabitants.
Now, let's look at the China/India Dodge. Do they produce more CO2 than the United States? Not even close. The United States is responsible for 30% of greenshouse gas emissions, with Southeast Asia (including China and India) contributing only 12%. Let us not forget that China and India combined have seven times the population of the United States. In terms of carbon dioxide, the United States is responsible for roughly 12,000 pounds per person, while China produces 1000 and India produces roughly half that per person. When these countries are listed based on total contribution, the US more than doubles China's CO2 emissions and sextuples India's. So, I don't think that it is their fault. As a matter of fact, while China has a potential problem with its rising use of dirty coal, they have at least pushed their fuel efficiency to 36 mpg, dwarfing our 24 mpg.
There are steps that can be made that will actually create lots of new wealth (and West Virginia is ripe for wind and tidal energy, and this will benefit individual West Virginians if we lease the rights to the and used for these forms of energy, instead of selling it dirt cheap like the Republicans of the 1860's did in this state) and save people money. For example, I switched only two of my lightbulbs in my apartment to compact fluorescents and, even though the $7 I paid for them was more than the $1.50 or so I would have paid for incandescents, I have saved $4/month since, thus more than paying for themselves. Also, on days I am off work, I don't turn my lights on when natural light is sufficient to see, and this has saved money as well as having the added bonus of the tranition to natural light being less harsh when I go outside. I have also started trying to drive at the 65 mph range on the interstate rather than 70, and my gas mileage has improved 3 mpg since doing so, saving 10% at the pump. I have also started unplugging my computer when I am not using it, and this has led to a very tiny uptick in my electric bills of less than $1 a month, while my bill went down $2 a month when my last computer died. In other words, doing the right thing for the environment has saved money, and I haven't really taken any drastic steps. These are things everyone can do, and if everyone does them, it will lead to a significant reduction of CO2 emissions, which is a vital first step considering that we will need to reduce our CO2 emissions by at least 50% in the next 50 years to have the low-range effects of global warming and 80% to halt them completely. The technology is there, but the question is whether we have the will to do so.
This is the one that can be frustrating in our current political climate. The last US President to ask us to make sacrifices was Jimmy Carter, and Republicans still mock him for wearing a sweater in the White House in an effort to save energy costs. However, we put a man on the moon, won two world wars and became the leader in the world. I am sick and tired of having to motivate people for fuel independency by saying "If Brazil can do it, we can too."
posted by Albert McStephenson at 6:05 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home