On Wednesdays, this blog site generally reverts to the original reason for its existence: Saving Planet Earth and Humanity, best summarized in two of my books. There is a third: Simple Solution Essays, a compilation of my earlier Huffington Post articles.
Global warming was covered in the Planet Earth edition, including a chapter on the Venus Syndrome, a worst case scenario tripping over the tipping point. That third book above includes easily read articles on this subject (note that these were published a decade and more ago):
- The Carbon Dioxide Credit Program (30July2009)
- Evolution, Global Warming, Doomsday and the Afterlife (2March2009)
- Geoengineering of Climate Change (7September 2008)
- The Venus Syndrome (Part One) (17June2008)
- The Venus Syndrome (Part Two) (18June2008)
In this blog I've regularly included global warming postings, and the right column emphasized the importance of this issue. Three recent ones were (click on each to read the actual post):
I've been collecting headlines about global warming:
- Adding 1 Trillion Trees is Best Bet Against Warming
- New York to Approve One of the World's Most Ambitious Climate Plans
- Climate-Friendly Capitalism, May 2019 issue of Scientific American
I have a lot more, but let me comment only on those above three:
- According to Tom Crowther (right) of ETH Zurich, it will only cost $300 billion to plant a trillion trees. This comes from Science, the most eminent publication of science. It would take 1.4 billion hectares of land, about the size of the USA. Trees supposedly already cover 3.4 billion HA. First, this "best bet" is not realistic. Read Mother Jones. It's true that you buy some time when you grow more trees. However, most of them die in a few decades. Then they give back all the carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and, under certain circumstances, a good amount of this "wood" actually becomes methane, which is 25-30 times more calamitous than carbon dioxide for the Greenhouse Effect. And worse of all, trees, while growing, also emanate methane. We really need to re-think the matter of trees. Of course, don't de-forest, but add more? Not sure.
- There are states like New York and California heading the pack to reduce carbon emissions. Some counties, like Honolulu, also seem progressive. Frankly, that sounds nice, but at a cost. Any entity that reduces carbon dioxide production effectively penalizes its economy. Companies pay more to produce their products, homeowners suffer the higher cost of gasoline, electricity and other energy sources. These governing units over time lose competitiveness. THE WORLD CAN ONLY FAIRLY REDUCE GLOBAL WARMING IF EVERY COUNTRY AGREES TO DO THIS! The Paris Agreement is an attempt for some global unity. However, President Donald Trump has said the U.S. will pull out. These agreement negotiators, however, are not totally dumb, for in the language is a clause that no signing country can quit until the end of 2020. Guess when Trump gets booted from the White House?
- The Scientific American board indicated that investors are making companies act on global warming, but they can do more. Again, responsible thinking, but not financially smart. Companies attempt to maximize profits while maintaining favorable public relations. Stockholders are important, but like in the above circumstance, do they really understand that profits can be affected? IF EVERY COMPANY EQUITABLY PARTICIPATES IN THIS MATTER OF GLOBAL CONSEQUENCE, THEN, OF COURSE, PROCEED. But until that happens, industries will maintain the course with a lot of lip service.
Wait a minute! Am I becoming a global warming skeptic? Oh, I believe something terrible is happening, but good intentions sometimes are counterproductive for the local good.
For one, don't confuse global warming with severe air pollution. Los Angeles, for one, and Bangkok too, have reduced horrible traffic smog because it was affecting the health of the people. Of course you need to do something now. China and India are only now beginning to get serious.
But most county mayors and state governors are merely taking advantage of voters who have more recently become concerned about the environment. These individuals don't understand nor appreciate the downsides of seeming to be responsible. Who really can grasp the intricacies of externalities anyway, and there too are those who will take advantage of good citizens. This is a warning that a superficial attempt to save Planet Earth should only proceed for sound reasons.
Then, of course, on the other end of this responsibility spectrum is our very own Donald Trump. As long as he remains our PUS (President of the United States), there will be no progress on global warming. Earlier this week he argued that he has made America an environmental leader and that the environment has been a top priority since the start of his administration, despite moving to gut dozens of rules meant to safeguard clean air and water, and cutting the climate change budget. Rumor has it that his supporters are now worried that his environmental stance is hurting him, and could affect the 2020 vote, as I indicated above. Really, how can he say what he said with a straight face, but:
He claimed the environment has been a top priority since the start of his administration. “We want the cleanest air. We want crystal clean water, and that’s what we’re doing and that’s what we’re working on so hard,” he said.
Read what PBS NewsHour says about his speech.
So back to HOW SERIOUS IS GLOBAL WARMING? Here is a list of 197 answers to what skeptics like Donald Trump say in doubt about climate change, courtesy of Skeptical Science, a blog created in 2007 analyzing the merit of arguments put forth by those who oppose the mainstream scientific opinion on this subject. Click on any of just ten below to learn more:
-
Tropical Storm Barry has popped up in the Gulf of Mexico, will become a Category 1 hurricane, and make landfall Saturday over Louisiana, somewhere between Lake Charles and New Orleans.
-
No comments:
Post a Comment