We're working on a small exhibit about global climate change. And we want to know what issues people feel strongly about. Let us know what you're thinking, or post your own questions for people to respond to.
Is global warming really a problem?
Does the fact that scientists don't agree about how much humans are contributing to global warming make you skeptical of their predictions and recommendations?
Do you think that the U.S. should have signed on to the Kyoto Protocol, which aims to reduce the air pollution that scientists think is causing global warming?
Will the Kyoto Accords make any difference?
The Kyoto Protocol is estimated to cost the countries which signed it $600 billion over the next ten years. Is the cost worth the benefit?
Can we reduce greenhouse gases through technology, without changing anything about our lifestyles?
Could we just adapt to global warming, without doing anything to try to slow or stop it?
Some sources say that up to two-thirds of all greenhouse gas emissions are linked to cars and households. Knowing that:
Do you do anything special to reduce the amount of energy you use and waste you generate?
Would you be willing to pay more for electricity from low-carbon sources (like wind power or biomass energy) if it meant a reduction in greenhouse gases?
Would you consider buying a hybrid or fuel-cell car? Why or why not?
Do you use public transportation, walk, ride a bike, or carpool? Why or why not?
Wow, that is quite a mouthful of questions.
A) I own a hybrid and plan to buy another in the next year.
B)I love wind energy and I DO pay more or it through the electric company. One of the criticisms was that the huge turbines kill birds. I have not heard much on this recently.
c) did you cover the story about skin ash and organic debris being a much larger part of polution and greenhouse effect then previously expected?
Lastly, is there any truth to the statement that one big volcanic erruption puts out more CFCs than the history of mankind?
In regard to your last question Bart, exact measurements or even estimates of volcanic outputs (and many times this is true of human emissions as well) are very difficult...generally, scientists agree that volcanoes can produce significant amounts of aerosol sulfuric acids, at some times in history surpassing what human contributions are today...most scientists estimate that volcanoes also emit considerable carbon dioxide but that man made sources are probably triple the average yearly total of volcanic activity...volcanoes at plate tectonic borders can give off huge amounts of dust which affect weather and climate for years, volcanoes like those on Hawaii don't emit this dust and differ in the chemistry of gaseous emissions.
The following is an opinion piece that ran in The New York Times:
March 25, 2005
Coal in a Nice Shade of Green
By Thomas Homer-Dixon and S. Julio Friedmann
Thomas Homer-Dixon is director of the Center for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Toronto. S. Julio Friedmann directs the carbon sequestration project at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California.
Here's more on coal gasification as a "bridge technology" from today's New Scientist. It provides information on the carbon sequestration projects in Canada and Norway.
Excelsior Energy is planning to build an integrated gasification combined-cycle power plant near Hoyt Lakes, MN, on the site of a former taconite mine.
The plans have been somewhat controversial, as this article and and this one prove, but are moving forward.
A Yale University research survey shows that Americans overwhelmingly believe that the US is too dependent on foreign oil.
According to the poll, 93% of Americans want government to develop new energy technologies (including wind and solar power, as well as hydrogen cars) and require the auto industry to make cars and trucks that get better gas mileage.
Gus Speth, dean of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, says:
The poll also showed broad support for improving air and water quality, and growing discomfort with "environmentalists."
What do you think? Are we too dependent on foreign oil? How can we take care of our energy needs while still taking care of the environment?
A new study in Global Ecology and Biogeography documents the first real test of the outcome of models used to predict how species' geographic ranges will change in response to changing climate. The results? Not much better than flipping a coin.
To test the models, researchers in Oxford University's Biodiversity Research Group imagined it was the 1970s and they were trying to predict the geographic ranges of British birds in 1991. In this way, they were able to compare the predictions of the models with the actual events.
The Oxford researchers say that the accuracy of the predictions improves (to about 75%) when they use several models together to create a "consensus prediction."
Clearly, environmentalists and scientists who want to impact environmental policy making need to find further ways of improving prediction technology.
Dr. Ladle, one of the Oxford researchers, says:
I believe that global warming is occuring because many crazy things have happened during these past couple of years. Like the tsnami, hurricanes, and tornados in places where they don't even belong. I believe us humans due to our economy, our needs, and whatever else, we are the one's that cause mother nature to do this. I believe one day the continents will start taring apart and maybe parts of the United States will start drifting of into it's own little islands too. Anything is possible. It is us human beings that have caused this.....
Global warming has nothing to do with tsunamis, earthquakes or continents tearing apart. It has to do with climate and weather.
Some researchers who study hurricanes claim that the high number we've seen this year is not related to global warming, but part of a regular cycle that stretches back for decades.
And while there is little doubt that the globe is warming, there is considerable debate over what is causing this.
The United States will not sign the Kyoto Protocol because the economic welfare of its nation is of utmost importance. They are the number one polluter (as a nation) in the entire world. This makes it very difficult for other nations to sign this agreement which will cost everyone's economy while not costing the United States.
The next question is "What about developing Nations and the Kyoto Protocol". China is an emerging powerhouse economically. Should they commit to the Kyoto Protocol?
As far as scientists "thinking" about what is causing Global Warming... there is no doubt in the minds of scientists that humans have played a major role in the warming of this planet. Earth's atmospheric temperatures have risen drastically over the past 100 years... much much faster than "normally" should. They question scientists have is how much is global warming attributed to by humans and how much is natural warming.
So, not the Americans are saying scientists cannot prove conclusively - 100% - that global warming is caused by human actions. So, they take this fact and run with it. They use this as their argument against the Kyoto Protocol.
"Only after the last tree has been cut down, only after the last river has been poisoned, only after the last fish has been caught, only then will you find out that money cannot be eaten." - Cree Prophesy
As far as the cost of the Kyoto Protocol... the costs in 20, 40, 80 years down the road will be astronomical. How can we put a price on the welfare of future generations????
Depending on your world view.... I believe that there is no way we can reduce greenhouse gases through technology, without changing anything about our lifestyles. Technology got is into this mess... how can we solve it completely with technology?
Most humans in developed nations will be able to adapt to Global Warming, however, 90% of the rest of the human population, and every other specie on this planet will not! "The main reason we should fear the Sixth Extinction is that we ourselves stand a good chance of becoming one of it's victims" - Niles Eldridge.
Well, at least one scientist doubts that "humans have played a major role in the warming of this planet." Dr. Pilmer is a geologist, and as such tends to take a very long view of things.
This is verry interesting I can't wait to come back!
this was cool.And alsome.
Post new comment