Main Page Previous Page (What will happen to us?)
"Carry on?" Isn't that like, "do nothing?" No. One huge trend that seems to have been missed in the global warming debate is that, in recent decades, human emissions of CO2 have either completely plateaued, or nearly plateaued. Atmospheric concentrations of methane also seem to have plateaued, or nearly plateaued. (See discussion in "What will happen to us?"). These two trends mean that, unless the sun's output increases significantly in the 21st century, temperatures in 2100 are likely to be less than 1 degree Celsius warmer than present temperatures.
Why do worldwide emissions of CO2 seems to be plateauing, or have already plateaued? One major reason is that human population has stopped growing exponentially. In fact, human population has been growing slightly less than linearly, since about 1990. That is, in 1990, human population grew by Another reason that CO2 emissions are plateauing is that natural gas is beginning to replace coal and oil as a fuel. From 1990 to 2000, worldwide coal use declined by about 10%, while natural gas use increased by about 10%. Burning natural gas produces about 40% less CO2 per unit of energy than burning coal. In addition, the fact that natural gas burns very cleanly means that people are much more willing to have it near where they need the energy (many people heat their homes with natural gas, but few would want to use coal). Using natural gas right at the point where energy is needed allows for very high conversion of natural gas to useful tasks.
We should closely monitor the following key global warming trends: 1) atmospheric temperatures (as measured by satellites), 2) human emissions of CO2, and 3) atmospheric concentrations of methane?
We should monitor atmospheric temperatures as measured by satellites because, quite simply, the entire theory that human emissions of CO2, methane and other greenhouse gases are causing the measured increase in surface temperatures is dependent on the lower troposphere warming at least as fast, if not faster, than the surface. The people (e.g., the IPCC) that think that greenhouse gases are the cause of the measured rise in surface temperatures absolutely must demonstrate that the satellite data are wrong...or come up with some completely new theory about how greenhouse gases could warm the surface faster than the lower troposphere. Since it's very unlikely they'll be able to do the latter, they need to shoot down those satellite measurements.
Trends in human emissions of CO2 and atmospheric concentrations of methane need to be monitored because they will determine how much warming will occur...at least in the lower troposphere. If the present trends continue--if both human emissions of CO2 and atmospheric concentrations of methane have plateaued--virtually no case can be made for significant warming (say, more than 1 degree Celsius) in the 21st century.
This section diverges a bit from the global warming issue, but it addresses two pet peeves. First, it's a real shame how much money our federal government spends on building roads. When President James Madison (the "Father of the Constitution") received a bill from his Congress to provide federal funding for building roads, he vetoed it. His reasoning was that the Constitution doesn't allow the federal government to provide funds to build roads. This was the "Father of the Constitution" writing, so I think we can all assume he knew what he was talking about! Federal funding of roads encourages states and localities to build way more roads than they truly need. The "pot of gold" is there, and there's every incentive in the world to try to grab some gold for one's own state or locality. So let's get rid of federal funding for roads.
I worked in the nuclear power industry for a few years. If one is really concerned about global warming, it's hard to imagine how one can be against nuclear power. The record of nuclear power safety in this country (and in every country but the Ukraine, with Chernobyl) is pretty spectacular. There have been more than 1000 reactor-years of operation (i.e., 100 reactors, running 10+ years) in the United States, without an accident that caused any immediate fatalities. (I forget what the "official" estimate is for Three Mile Island, but it's something like 2 extra cancers caused by the accident in 1979.) Anyway, if you're really concerned about global warming, please don't also complain to me about nuclear power. Take your pick, be against one or the other, but it seems pretty hard to me to defend being really concerned about both.
I'll never forget going to an international environmental conference in Santiago, Chile, circa 1997. There were representatives from Canada and the U.S., as well as from Chile and other South American countries. For those who don't know about Chile, they pride themselves (justifiably, I think) as being "second world," not "third world." The idea is that they're just a step or two behind richer countries like Canada and the U.S. Anyway, at this conference, the Canadians (and some of the U.S. folks) were talking all the time about "global warming." The Chileans didn't talk about it at all. When they talked about environmental problems, they talked about the air pollution in Santiago. Santiago is surrounded by mountains, and thus has many of the lack-of-dispersion problems of Los Angeles. The point is that, to them, global warming wasn't really on their radar. They had more important environmental problems to worry about. The particulate air pollution, for example. And--I was shocked to learn this--Santiago, Chile, with a population of about 5 million, has NO sewage treatment of any kind. ALL the sewage is just dumped straight into the river. The point is that, even for this "second world" country, there are much more important things for them than global warming. So if we're attempting to make things better for people in less-developed countries, they care far more about other environmental issues than global warming.
Even in the United States, there are more important environmental issues than global warming. Here in North Carolina, for example, we have hog farms. Also, like everyone else, we have cars, with their attendant pollution. So even if we're addressing global warming to help developed countries, there are more pressing environmental problems to be dealt with.
Of course, one could say, "Well, fix global warming and fix all the other stuff, too." But the reality of economics is that there are only so many dollars to go around. You spend more on one thing (global warming) and you'll have to spend less on something else that may be more important.