Global Warming

There has been an increase in the earth's surface temperature in the last century, with much of this increase occurring in the last two decades. The National Academy of Sciences provides evidence that the warming is occurring as a result of the build-up of greenhouse gases. There isn't much debate as to the ability of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide to trap heat, nor is there debate that there are increasing levels of these gases present in our atmosphere. The impact of these increased levels on our atmosphere and the future response of nature are still discussed (In Depth: Planet under pressure, 2006).

The science behind global warming is strong, but the debate lingers on. The reasoning for this can best be explained by a quote from Milton Clark, a senior health and science advisor for the Environmental Protection Agency.

The media, trained to present both sides of any issue, still too often frames global warming as an on-going debate, even though there is no published, peer reviewed science that refutes the linkage between recent warming and greenhouse gas emissions. Given our training, even scientists with expertise in global warming will generally be very cautious and place undue emphasis on the uncertainties and need for further study. That leaves the serious issue of global warming, and what can be done about it, to those with less knowledge and sometimes questionable political agendas that may not serve society’s best interests (2006).

As a developed nation with technology and the information to recognize the impact that global warming is already having on the planet and will continue to have, it is our responsibility to take action, not only for the sake of our children, but also for the sake of the world.

ii. Temperature records.

The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has indicated an average increase globally of 0.6 degrees Fahrenheit (In Depth: Planet under pressure, 2006). While this might seem tiny, it has had effects on natural cycles, such as the marine ecosystem, which will be explored in more detail.

b. Current Situation

i. Levels of CO2

Monitoring sites were set up on Mauna Loa, Hawaii by Roger Revelle in 1956. This site was chosen, in an attempt to find a more accurate reading, so that it wasn't influenced by direct emissions. While there is fluctuations in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the overall net result from year to year showed an increase (Doney, 2006). These measurements are valuable, but are insufficient because they don't cover a long time span. Bubbles that were trapped in ice cores have shown that the atmospheric carbon concentrations were relatively constant up until the 1800's. These ice cores also give us a basis from which to measure the correlation between the temperature and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (Clark, 2006).

According to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the figures for the concentrations of carbon dioxide are measure at 379.1 parts per million. This is a 0.53% increase from a measurement in 2004 of 377.1 ppm. The levels of N20 (nitrous oxide) are steadily increasing at a rate of 0.2% per year (Green House Gases, 2006).

The question then becomes where does all this CO2 go? When Revelle started his measurements, there was argument as to whether it was even necessary to monitor the situation. There was doubt within the scientific community if in fact the gases would even be retained in the atmosphere, and most felt that the CO2 would be absorbed by the plants on land and the ocean as the carbon cycle demonstrates (Doney, 2006).

ii. Ocean Acidification

So, yes the ocean is absorbing some of the excess CO2 in our atmosphere. There was a study done by the French Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environment, that involved 27 marine biologists and chemists. This study used the current measurements of CO2 concentrations in ocean water to test the effect of increased concentrations on marine organisms (Parks, 2005). If, as scientists understand the carbon cycle, CO2 is naturally absorbed into the ocean, why is this being deemed a major concern? The difference now is the quantity. The ocean is more than just H2O. It is a solution. When the CO2 combines with H2O it forms a carbonic acid (H2CO3), bicarbonate ions (HCO3-1), carbonate ions (CO3-2) and a small amount remains as CO2. Carbonic acid is the same acid that is found in carbonated beverages, regularly consumed by humans. Acids, by definition, release hydrogen ions (H+) into solution. The measurement of these H+ ions is done by the pH scale. The pH scale is a logarithmic scale, and so a change in pH represents more change than the numerals would suggest. A change of one pH unit corresponds to a drop (if the number is smaller) or an increase (if the number is larger) of 10-fold. A pH of 7.0 is considered neutral, and is the measurement of pure water. Seawater, as stated earlier is a solution; the natural pH of seawater is more alkaline, registering in the 8 to 8.3 range (Doney, 2006).

The absorption of CO2 has already changed the pH of surface water. It is about 0.1 lower than historic averages, making it less alkaline and more acidic. This means the concentration of carbonate ions (CO3-2) is decreased. As a result of hydrogen ions, released by the CO2 dissolving with H2O, joining with the carbonate ions to form more bicarbonate. Marine organisms need these carbonate ions to form calcium carbonate, and bicarbonate is different enough chemically that they cannot utilize it. Therefore this will decrease the ability of these organisms to reproduce (Doney 2006). Not only that, but the study done by the French Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environment concluded that atmospheric concentrations of 600 ppm would start a process of dissolving shells and calcified materials in polar waters. In the experiments, only 2 days of exposure to the pH level that is predicted for the year 2100, dissolved the shell of swimming snails. These swimming snails are the food that fish and whales depend on. The lead author for the team, James Orr, stated "Unlike climate predictions, the uncertainties here are small." The loss of these small marine organisms would be detrimental to the health of the marine ecosystem, to say nothing of the impact on the fishing industry if the lowest level of the food chain dissolves (Parks, 2005).

There is some historical basis for being concerned, as during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (approximately 55 million years ago), many marine organisms died off as a result of increased CO2 concentrations. This also gives rise to some hope, that perhaps some of the marine organism would be able to adapt to the change in pH, although scientists fear that the change is too rapid. Leaving a inadequate amount of time for evolutionary adaptation (Doney, 2006).

iii. Global Temperatures

Ten of the hottest years were recorded during the last 14 years. This is just a touch of what the future climate could be like. As a result of overall warming, the ice is melting, and there has been a drastic reduction in the size of the glaciers and mountain snow caps. This has resulted in a change in the precipitation patterns across the globe. The warming has also lead to storms gathering much more force. When Katrina passed over Florida, it was classified as a category 1, but the warm air of the gulf quickly added strength. This isn't the only example; there have been more tornadoes, typhoons, and drought around the globe. Another example is the permafrost in Alaska. Engineering and development was planned and built with permafrost as the underlying foundation that would continue to be frozen. Now there are areas that the permafrost melts during the summer, this has had an impact on the oil pipe lines, in that the freezing and thawing adds increased pressure on the structure, and has led to significant leaks, adding to the pressure on the dependence on oil (Guggenheim, 2006).

II. Moral & Religious implications, governmental responses & individual opportunity

a. Moral & Religious implications

If we want there to be resources and a globe for future generations there isn't anyway way to avoid the necessity of being involved. As a nation we have information and technology and the power of influence in the world economy. Our use of resources has impacted other nations, so we should take responsibility for reducing the impact of the use of these resources.

Most religions have an aspect that encourages care for others, as well as for the world around us. If persons hold those beliefs then it does morally obligate them to do something.

b. Governmental Responses

i. Kyoto Treaty

"The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement setting targets for industrialized countries to cut their greenhouse gas emissions," states the BBC News Online. This was signed in 1997, and was based on the convention that had taken place in 1992. The target was to cut the emissions of industrialized countries below the levels in 1990 by 5% by 2008-2012. The treaty, to become binding, had to be ratified by at least 55 countries, and those countries needed to account for 55% of total emissions. Russia decided to sign the treaty after some deliberation, which was, at that point, critical to meeting the second requirement. So it was ratified on November 18, 2004, and the Protocol was effected on February 16, 2005 (Q&A: The Kyoto Protocol, 2005).

The overall emissions were cut from 1990 to 2000 by about 3%, which sounds great, except that the figure disguises the collapse of economies of former Soviet Union countries. The other industrialized countries actually increased emissions by 8%. The United States withdrew from the treaty in 2001, but even the countries that are still adhere to the Kyoto treaty don’t seem to have made much progress on meeting their goals. Of the European Union countries, The UK, France and Sweden have met their objectives, but Spain, Portugal and Ireland have not (Q&A: The Kyoto Protocol, 2005).

There is definitely concern as to the effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol. Most scientists warn that it is not enough; to be effective the emissions would need to be cut by about 60%, and sadly it appears that the nations won’t even make it to the 5% decrease agreed upon. This highlights a major problem; each country sets their emission reduction goals. The treaty also didn't include any of the developing nations, leaving two of the biggest emitters, China and India, without any restrictions. Both these countries have ratified the treaty, meaning they are reporting their emissions, but not obligated to decrease them. Many of the developing nations recognize that they are impacted by global warming, even though they haven't contributed to it. By signing it they agree to report their emissions and also work at developing national climate change mitigation (Q&A: The Kyoto Protocol, 2005).

The Kyoto treaty is not the perfect answer, and will not solve the problem. "This has lead to criticisms that the agreement is toothless, as well as being virtually obsolete without US support. But others say that its failure would be a disaster, despite its flaws, it sets out a framework for future negotiations which could take another decade to rebuild" (Q&A: The Kyoto Protocol, 2005). There are some positive outcomes. The protocol has resulted in new legislation in individual countries, states and the EU. This legislation will not disappear even if the Protocol itself is abandoned (Q&A: The Kyoto Protocol, 2005).

ii. National

1. Executive

The current administration withdrew the United States from the Kyoto Protocol, on the basis that it was 'fatally flawed' because it did not include the developing nations. Mr. Bush also stated that implementing it would hurt the US economy. Mr. Bush has stated that he backs the reduction of emissions through voluntary action and new energy technology (Q&A: The Kyoto Protocol, 2005).

2. Legislation

a. National

The executive branch isn't the only arm of government that makes decisions about policy. Congress is responsible for legislation. There aren't many people who would support destruction of the environment. "Instead, the politics of pollution is generally phrased in terms of what are acceptable trade-offs between environmental values and other values" (Peters, 2004). These other values are mostly economic, based on the perception that companies are moving to countries of less stringent requirements, taking jobs with them (Peters, 2004).

The Clean Air Act of 1970, was an important piece of legislation that gave the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the responsibility to develop and enforce standards primarily for public health and then for environmental protection. This Act has continued to be amended with the development of new technology (Peters, 2004). Some of the amendments of 1990 include; banning the use of CFC's in aerosol sprays, reduction of acid rain by halving emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides and greater regulation of fossil-fuel power plants, and emission requirements on automobiles and requiring oil companies to create cleaner-burning fuels (Peters, 2004).

b. State

As a result of the withdrawal of the United States from the Kyoto Protocol States are taking matters into their own hands. California has led the nation in much of this. This quote from the speech of Tom Graff, shows the frustration that persons feel with the situation in the Capital.

"Today California's leaders showed that global warming is so important that addressing it rises above personal differences, partisan politics and special interests," said Tom Graff, California regional director of Environmental Defense. "California is filling a void created by inaction and gridlock in Washington. Its bipartisan elected leaders struck a historic deal that will jump-start America's fight against global warming. Californians should be proud of Governor Schwarzenegger, Speaker Nùñez, Assemblywoman Pavley and Senate President Pro Tem Perata" (California's landmark, 2006).

This legislation is a goal to limit the state’s emissions, as called for in the Kyoto Protocol, to 1990 levels. California will mandate a reporting system with a goal of reduction by the year 2020. There are also economic incentives for businesses, so that it does not result in the loss of industry (California's landmark, 2006).

c. Individual Opportunity

How does this then play out into the average person's life? Here is a list of some things that consumers can do to change their lifestyle so as to decrease the amount of carbon that they are using.

Walk, Bike, Carpool, Use Mass Transit or Drive a Car With Higher Than Average Mileage.
Buy Energy-Efficient appliances, windows and Compact-Fluorescent Light-bulbs.
Turn off lights and unplug appliances and chargers when not in use.
Recycle - Reduce - Reuse.
Set Your Water Heater to 120 Degrees and Install Low-Flow Shower heads.
Wash your clothes in cold or warm water—not hot, and air-dry your clothes.
Adjust your thermostat—lower in the winter, higher in the summer.
Purchase Clean Power - Call Your Power Company Today.
Ask your utility company for a home energy audit to discover where your home is poorly-insulated or energy-inefficient.
Plant Trees. (Global Warming 101, 2006).

According to Bill Minter, Forest Resources professor at Goshen Collage, half of all new paper products are made from recycled paper (2006). This is a great incentive to recycle the paper that you use, decreasing the amount of trees that need to be cut, to fulfill the amount of paper product that is needed. These trees are then allowed to continue growing and absorbing and storing CO2 from the atmosphere. If products are recycled, then less of the raw material needs to be harvested from the natural resources. This shows the importance of being an educated and contentious consumer.

The economics are driven by demand, companies make what consumers demand. While at times it doesn't seem that an individual's dollar is significant, it is probably one of the best ways to support change. Think about what you want your dollars to support. Look for companies that are trying to be environmentally friendly, the internet provides valuable information as to what companies policies are, and there are many non-profit organizations that are keeping an eye on these corporations in order to better care for their environment.

III. Assessment of current direction and recommended changes.

Currently I believe there are some hopeful signs of increased awareness and action. The evidence for global warming is continuing to strengthen. The effects of a warmer planet are beginning to be felt, increased acidification of the sea, warmer weather, and greater intensity of weather patterns. Governments are now acknowledging the issues, and the Kyoto Protocol is an attempt to work towards a goal in emissions. There are some major issues with the need for greater change than the protocol currently calls for, and the fact that it doesn’t appear that even the protocol will be met. However, it is an effort that has allowed for work between governments, something that is very critical to being able to effectively address this issue.

As responsible citizens and persons of faith, we are called to respond to this issue. There are ways that we can initiate change; it does not need to, and should not wait until governmental regulations are passed. Individuals need to encourage recycling, reducing consumption and using our dollars to let industry know that consumer demand is concerned and will support an increase in energy efficiency and decrease in CO2 emissions.

References

California's Landmark Global Warming Legislation Poised for Passage. (2006, Aug 30). Environmental Defense. Retrieved Sept. 23, 2006 form http://www.environmentaldefense.org/pressrelease.cfm?ContentID=5419

Clark, Milton. Editorial: Taking Action on Global Warming. (2006, November 6). Retrieved November 5, 2006, from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=22832945&site=ehost-live

Doney, Scott C. (2006, March). The Dangers of Ocean Acidification. Scientific American, 294.3, 58-65. Retrieved September 11, 2006, from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=19600948&site=ehost-live

Global Warming 101: How far will you go to reduce global warming? The Will Steger Foundation. Retrieved November 13, 2006, from http://www.globalwarming101.com/content/view/6/89/lang,/

Green House Gases Hit Record High. (2006, November, 3). Retrieved November 6, 2006, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/6114250.stm

Guggenheim, Davis (Director). (2006). An Inconvenient Truth [video]. Paramount Classics.

In Depth: Planet under pressure. (2006, March 22). Retrieved September 19, 2006, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2004/planet/default.stm#

Parks, Noreen. ( 2005, September). Ocean Acidification Bad for Shells and Reefs. Science Now, 5-7. Retrieved September 11, 2006, from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=18427232&site=ehost-live

Peters, B. Guy, American Public Policy (Washington, D.C: A Division of Congressional Quarterly Inc, 2004), 374.

Q & A: The Kyoto Protocol. (2005, Feb. 16). BBC News. Retrieved September. 19, 2006 from http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4269921.stm