Climate Change 400 Parts Per Million: Significant?
|
Image Courtesy: Juliet Solar
|
If you were talking levels of mercury contamination of water you drank daily then chances are you would be already be dead or at least you would probably be a vegetable. The FDA approved limit in drinking water is 1ppm. In fact, a level of 400ppm of mercury in your drinking water would cause panic in your neighborhood and a demand for immediate action to locate the source and put a stop to it.
In air, if you were talking carbon dioxide, it would mean little to your daily lives in terms of direct affects on your health. The difference is that, unlike mercury, elevated levels of carbon dioxide do not affect us in a way that causes panic . . . unless you happen to be faced with: rising sea levels, warming oceans, melting artic ice, floods, landslides, crop failure, out-migration of traditional food sources, absence of fish due to acidifying of oceans, failed water sources or fewer ski slopes to ski each winter.
Many, otherwise evidentially intelligent, people of my acquaintance think that 400ppm of carbon dioxide is nothing to panic about and, in some ways, they are correct because there is no immediate affect on their health or their livelihood, today. I hold a slightly different view.
I have been listening to scientists – the real ones, who actually know what they are talking about instead of the (self promoting, paid for controversial-opinion) Fox and CNN news pundits – for more than three decades now. Although their phrases have been modified to suit a perception of political acceptability (instead of “global warming” we now hear of “climate change”), they have been saying the same thing and their words have been borne out by subsequently measured results. If you have not been listening, or if you have blocked you brain to the undeniable, then you are in serious need of an epiphany.
The hardest argument thrown against my analysis of scientifically derived research is that the Earth is going through a “natural cycle” of warming, so there is nothing we can do about it. I have no answer to this counter statement because it may be true. However, ten years ago the counter statement to my analysis was that actually the Earth was heading for a “new ice age” and therefore the current warming trend would be reversed and would thus save mankind. Obviously, both counters to my analysis cannot be true as they are mutually exclusive.
My observation of the current counter to my analysis is that it now acknowledges that warming is taking place – we measure it in the oceans that occupy approximately 70% of the surface of the Earth, so it is undeniable. So here I am in my car at the top of the hill and sure enough if I do nothing (if I do not apply a brake) then the car will roll down the hill. However, I have two choices (to apply the accelerator or the brake) if I now put my foot the accelerator, the car will more rapidly go down the hill.
What we are seeing, through direct observation of the warming oceans, the melting icecaps and the frequency of more violent weather events (storms, droughts etc.) is that not only is there a warming trend but that the trend is accelerating, just as if I was putting my foot on the accelerator.
There is complete agreement amongst the real scientists that the accelerator (of the warming) is increased levels of carbon dioxide in the air and that the burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause. If you do not agree with this then you do not understand basic chemistry and physics.
So, the question may be expanded to ask, is the burning of fossil fuels the only mechanism that is accelerating the relative increase in carbon dioxide?
The answer is that there other accelerators. Mother Earth has evolved to turn carbon dioxide into something more solid (fossil Fuels) and less influential in the atmosphere. It has developed plants and trees that take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen. So, in the balance that existed before the discovery of oil and coal as sources of inexpensive, albeit wasteful, energy production, the trees and the plants balanced the atmospheric gases that allowed humans et al to evolve or, if you are still living in the dark ages, allowed the “created” life we see around us to exist on this planet.
So, if we remove the plants and the trees from the planet then we are removing that which could, potentially, maintain the balance of gases in the atmosphere. Is this what we are doing? Yes. We are removing plants and trees in volumes that also accelerate the increase of carbon dioxide because there are now fewer trees and plants to convert the carbon dioxide into oxygen.
Here you have it in a nutshell: Man, through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, coal and gas primarily), is increasing acceleration of carbon dioxide production and at the same time is reducing the balancing element (trees and plants) that have evolved to create the perfect conditions to support life on Earth as we know it. If you want to call it a double-whammy then you would be about right.
Fewer trees and plants to absorb and convert carbon dioxide to oxygen and more fossil fuels burned to increase the volume of carbon dioxide. If you did basic math at school then you can add up the two negatives and you will get a bigger negative.
The bottom line is that from two different angles we are screwing up the Earth that gives us life.
The result will be either, a new life where we are forced to pay for cooling services or, we will be forced to migrate farther North or South to cooler climates . . . and that is a bit of a problem the way countries with borders are somewhat protectionist about migration. Mother Nature has already shown us the latter in that many species of migratory birds and animals have, in the past few decades, altered their migratory paths to take account of the changing temperature.
The trick is that our food resources cannot simply migrate because they will run out of territory in which to thrive.
But wait! Even today we hear of an engineered wheat plant that can produce 30% greater yields, but we do not yet know whether it is more or less dependent on fertilizers, herbicides and insecticides. The problem is that even wheat needs somewhere to grow and if we run out of places for it to grow then the majority of humanity will find little value in a better performing wheat.
Are there real solutions to this problem available today to not only reduce the pressure on the accelerator but also to apply a brake?
Fortunately, there are solutions.
Our greatest use of fossil fuels is to produce energy for use by individuals and by industry, the lesser use (although the more visible) is to produce exotic plastics for packaging and components.
All can be replaced with sustainable and renewable alternatives. Today, if we so choose. And increasingly in the future. With the advent of new battery technology – the main stumbling block, we have been told – we will be able to not only harness more of Mother Nature’s energy, more efficiently and more cost effectively, but we will also have more, easier ways to store and transport that energy.
If we stop cutting forests and woodland to plant bio-energy crops (because we do not need them if we switch from combustion engine power to electric motor power) then we will have (a) more land to grow the more efficient feed-crops and (b) more plants and trees to absorb more carbon dioxide. Basic math again tells us that this is the intelligent thing to do.
If you are still a denier that either, (a) climate change is happening or, (b) burning fossil fuels is a significant part of the problem or, (c) stripping forests is counter productive or, (d) nothing can be done, then you lack the simplest intelligence.
If you still think that nothing can be done because big-oil holds all the cards and Republicans control Congress then listen to on US state governor who has an idea that will change you perspective: meet Jennifer Granholm.