HOW TO PREPARE FOR GLOBAL WARMING
Andrea L. Sitler
Berkshire University
Abstract
Global Warming is a real issue that we face today. Preparation is our only method of
survival. For optimal results; the world
must work together to prepare for this inevitable consequence. No longer can we allow procrastination or
doomsayer to sway us from our tasks at hand.
Global unity is needed today for us to survive tomorrow.
HOW TO PREPARE FOR GLOBAL WARMING
"Meaningful
preparations can be made in advance of the probable world wide flooding
disaster which many of us alive today may experience in our older years. The
potential problems are immense no matter what we do." [1]
- Lawrence
Preparing for Global Warming is a
situation with many facets. Many agree
that something needs to be done but no one wishes to commit to a plan of
action. As Voltaire once wrote, "Doubt is an unpleasant situation but
certainty is absurd." Generally professional planners deal strictly with
facts. Planners must now look into the future, which is inherently uncertain
when preparing for Global Warming.
When I think of Global Warming
and the population of the world making preparations; I think of four groups of
people. Though not scientific
designations; here is how I envision the populace. You have the true believers, the trusting
souls, the doubting Thomases and the fanatics. Before we decide what we can do;
we need to address the groups of people and look at the situation through their
perspectives. Each of these groups of
people provides us with a myriad of possibilities for preparation.
First there are the believers who
agree that global warming is real and are willing to take action as a
group. The next group, the trusting souls
can be lead like sheep and will do or follow whatever the government tells
them. This same group has no real
opinion and simply believes the government will act in their best interest. They are uninvolved, uneducated in the matter
and basically apathetic. I must confess
that in my opinion the majority of the population falls into one of these first
two groups. The doubting Thomases still
do not believe that Global Warming is real.
They see it as a hoax and fail to take any steps or actions to reverse
the situation. In fact, many in this
group actually work against those preparing for Global Warming. The final group I see as a group of two
subdivisions. There are motivated and alarmist fanatics. The motivated fanatics
are motivated individualist who are aware of the effects of Global Warming and
are acting independently to save themselves and possibly the world from
destruction. The alarmist fanatics is a
group that I view as related to Chicken Little and run about crying "the
sky is falling". Despite their best
intentions, many in this group do more harm than good by their acts of exciting
and inciting the public in general.
However, from these four groups; we have the make up of the population
from which we can then discuss their actions of preparation for Global Warming.
The question on many minds is –
Should planners
begin to prepare for the consequences of the greenhouse effect? The need to
respond today depends on (1) the likelihood of global warming; (2) the
magnitude of the impacts; and (3) the potential for anticipatory measures to
reduce adverse impacts if sea level rises or climate changes as expected,
without imposing substantial costs if the changes do not unfold. Although the
literature on the first two factors is extensive, the latter issue has rarely
been mentioned. As a result, some people assume that it would be unwise to
prepare for global warming until its eventuality and consequences are firmly
established. [2]
Before beginning any journey or
preparation, we must ask ourselves is this real or fictional? There are large
groups of people on both sides of this coin when the issue is Global
Warming. In order to prepare; one must
decide which side they are on, if any, and then choose the means and method of
making their stand. The stand, in this
case, is how that individual chooses to prepare for the changes that are to
come. Preparation can be in the form of individual readiness, community
actions, statewide mandates, national legislation and global interactions. I wish to now discuss each of these possible
scenarios in detail and then show how we can all work together to prepare,
lessen and even reverse the effects and possibly avoid Global Warming.
"Human activities--including the burning of fossil fuels and wood, the cutting down of forests, and the intensification of agriculture are responsible for global warming."[3] Since us humans cause the situation then the first step is by making an individual commitment to become environmentally aware. Next is to educate yourselves on the issues and understand the consequences. "The fact that a particular problem will not require solutions for a few decades does not necessarily mean that society should not begin preparing. In some cases, the necessary solutions are decades away; in most cases, no one has systematically examined the costs and results of various options"[4] Then finally to take a stand to reverse and prepare for Global Warming. By practicing a lifestyle of environmentally friendly activities, i.e. recycling, conservation, use of Energy Star[5] appliance, homes designed with nature[6], re-forestation, environmentally safe cleaners and household supplies,[7] natural gardening[8] and rain barrel collection methods[9], etc…; you lead by example. Education is the means of preparation. Saving the Planet is accomplished one person at a time. Preparing for Global Warming is a series of individual steps that makes one ready for the reality of what is to come.
Efforts to prepare
for climate change can only be as enlightened as the people who must carry them
out. Education must be a critical component of any effort to address the
greenhouse effect because (1) there will be an increased need for personnel in
some professions, (2) people in other professions will need to routinely
consider the implications of global warming, and (3) an informed citizenry will
be necessary for the public to support the public expenditures and
institutional changes that may be required.[10]
Citizens take action. Communicate with your Congress people and let them know your point of view. You must show your leaders that you are educated, concerned and involved with preparations for Global Warming. This allows them to act on your behalf when writing and voting on legislation. One way to take such action is to become involved with the Environmental Defense Fund or by writing a letter on your own. A current topic of concern that involves Global Warming is how Global Warming is threatening the health of our oceans. If these changes are allowed to continue; our food supply as we now know it will be altered. Christopher Sabine of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration led the study, which was published in Science magazine from which this petition is based.
Between 1800
and 1994 the oceans absorbed 118 billion metric tons of carbon -- equaling the
weight of 118 Billion small cars! What happens now? According to the study, the
increased carbon can affect the acidity of the oceans and slow the development
of coral reefs and shelled sea life -- creatures that represent the base of the
food chain. Such a disruption to the food chain can severely affect the balance
of ocean wildlife with potentially catastrophic results.[11]
Involvement does pay off.
Your one voice can make a difference in Congress.
Voters'
anxiety about climate change has also helped support what are now scores of
related bills on Capitol Hill. More than 70 proposals are pending on such
issues as fuel efficiency, power plant emissions, and a national strategy to
stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gas emissions.
The majority of these proposals reflect a much more acute
concern than does Bush's climate change action plan. But then so, it seems, do
an increasing number of mainstream American institutions.[12]
The American people have
evolved and come to accept Global Warming as a reality. In a recent article we read how Sister
Evelyn Mattern had two goals in mind as she stood vigil recently with a
Protestant colleague in a gas mask, singing, "This Air is My Air!" at
the
"Americans
have accepted that global warming is real and that we're contributing to
it," says the Rev. Sally Bingham,
a climate activist based in
"We'll
work with anyone involved in our issues," says Mattern, the
Religious
activism on climate issues has become increasingly common; in just the past two
years, a vigorous interfaith organization has sprung up, with chapters in 21
states supporting education, political action, and nitty-gritty greenhouse gas
reductions at members' congregations. In June 2001,
"In this case, the religious community has been led by
science," says Paul Gorman, who runs the New York-based National Religious
Partnership for the Environment. "And this is very noteworthy, considering
that these two communities have been so deeply at odds in the past."
In
recent months, a handful of philanthropic foundation officials have been
meeting to try to find ways to encourage such partnerships among the movement's
scattered forces. "There are lots of things the average Joe wants to
support," says Reid Detchon, a coordinator at the U.N. Foundation. Detchon
is working with funders to develop a new project -- the Energy Future Coalition
-- to bring together business, labor, annd nonprofits to address alternative
solutions to energy problems and to bolster campaigns such as
Scientists and environmental
activists are not sure what to expect but they agree that flooding is a major
concern. With these floods comes the
concern of disease. The new warmer temperatures will allow mosquitoes to thrive
in larger areas of the globe.
Dengue
fever, recently found in
This same article was published on
a NASA website in May 2004. It continues
by stating:
NCAR's (
Anything
you can do to slow down the rate at which we're changing the temperature is to
the good," said Michael Glantz, a senior scientist at NCAR, "because
it provides more time to understand how people are contributing to the changes
in temperature" and more time to prepare for the effects of those changes.[15]
Next we need to raise awareness in our communities and get every one involved.
Any organization
that makes decisions whose outcomes stretch over periods of thirty years or
longer should examine the implications of climate change. In many cases, these
studies can use existing analytical tools, and hence they are relatively
inexpensive. From the standpoint of economic efficiency, these assessments are
good investments. If they reveal that action today is worthwhile, the savings
from such action can be orders of magnitude greater than the cost of the study.
Even if they show that no action is necessary, many organizations will find it
useful to know that their projects are not vulnerable, and the studies will
contribute to society's understanding of the magnitude of the impacts of global
warming.[16]
Low lying areas with lands that
fall under 100 feet above sea level are in the greatest danger. These areas need to prepare for flooding
conditions and erosion. Other community
and local organizations need to take action.
One suggestion is:
Legislative
committees, National Academies of Sciences, nonprofit institutions, and
international organizations may have to conduct problem-oriented assessments
for problems that are explicitly the responsibility of no one while implicitly
the responsibility of several different groups. The combined impacts of farm
closures and forest dieback raise land-use questions that would be outside the
scope of any single organization. Water resource problems requiring the
participation of several groups would include potential impacts of increased
agricultural water demand on aquifers and the levels of the
Despite the Federal Government lack of involvement
in the Kyoto Protocol; many local organizations have chosen to take a stand.
Lacking
overall direction by professional environmentalists, the climate change
movement has been led from the ground up, by a strikingly diverse set of people
-- from 20-year-old Julian Dautremont-Smmith, a long-haired
Some of these grassroots activists are motivated by empathy
for the world's poor, who are likely to feel the first and worst impacts of
meteorological turmoil. Others are driven by the desire to stem the species
extinctions hastened by a warming Earth. Still others worry about their own
children's futures.
Scores of college campuses are following the same course,
completing greenhouse gas inventories and starting to cut fossil-fuel
consumption, in large part by upgrading their heating, lighting, and
air-conditioning systems. [Solar conversions are taking place at many campuses
across the globe.] The campus movement began in earnest in 1999, when
Secular
and religious activists alike say the relatively recent involvement of
faith-based groups has given the movement a powerful boost -- "a moral
voice and sign of long-term commitment," in Gorman's words. Indeed, not
since the anti-Apartheid movement have so many priests and rabbis so
concertedly urged their congregants to take political action, and nothing else
demonstrates so clearly that global warming has become a mainstream concern.[18].
Our states need to take
action. Since no institution has the
responsibility to protect wetlands as sea level rises, a Congressional
committee assesses the entire problem, which leads to legislation.[19]
The EPA and Army Corp of Engineers have implemented many strategies under
various Acts but have recently seen their efforts shot down by higher
governmental influences. Bruce Boler[20], the former EPA representative to Southwest
Florida recently resigned because of the
undue influence of President Bush's actions. The Mississippi Delta required
governmental intervention for the clean up and restoration of the area. These are
all signs of the need for regulation and protections of our wetlands.
Wetland Loss in
River Deltas - In the
Whether or not sea
level rise accelerates, the majority of wetlands can only survive in the long
run if society restores the natural process by which the
Thus, if sea level
rise accelerates according [to] current projections, and a project is initiated
today, about half of the delta will remain when the project is complete, while
if is authorized in the year 2000, 60-70 percent might be lost before it comes
on line. By contrast, if sea level does not accelerate, the two implementation
dates might imply 25 and 35 percent losses of coastal wetlands. Because a delay
would not substantially reduce the costs of such a project, and because there
would be considerable benefits from an earlier implementation date even if sea
level rise does not accelerate, it would be more economically efficient to
authorize it today than ten [y]ears hence.
Elsewhere, the Nile
Delta is eroding rapidly as a result of the Aswan Dam (Broadus et al. 1986),
and the capital of
States need to decide upon a plan of action. They need to develop and implement a plan for preparing for Global Warming. That plan of action will be multi-faceted.
Will our response
[to Global Warming] be in agriculture to primarily develop [GMO] new crops to
grow on existing farmland (plant scientists) or to facilitate the migration of
farmers to newly productive areas (planners)? Will our response to coastal
wetland loss be to remove development from lowlands so that they can migrate
naturally (planners), or to maintain existing land uses and support existing
wetlands artificially (hydrologists and ecologists)?
Nevertheless, the
demand for coastal engineers will almost certainly increase as cities erect
levees and resorts pump sand onto their beaches. An unfortunate paradox is that
at the very moment when the public is becoming increasingly concerned about sea
level rise, and the need to develop new environmentally-sensitive responses,
the field's founding fathers are retiring and are not always being replaced. [22]
The incorporation of Global
Warming into long-term projects is an invaluable step for businesses, communities
and states to under take.
The rationale for
doing so is that the outcome of projects initiated today will be altered by the
effects of global warming. Modifying plans to consider global warming would
frequently be an "easy" solution: The cost of factoring climate
change will often be a small percentage of the total project cost; it is
"urgent" because once the project is under construction it will be
too late to incorporate climate change. Because a consideration of the
greenhouse effect would often ensure that projects are adequate to address
current climate variability, it would often prove to be a useful investment
even if the projected global warming does not materialize as expected. Two
examples follow:
Sewers and Drains - Titus et al. (1987) examined the replacement of a
century-old street drain in
Commercial
Forests - Because some commercial
tree species live as long as 70 years before being harvested, forest products
companies may want to reconsider location and types of species. For example,
some types of Douglas fir need at least a few weeks of cold winter temperatures
to produce seeds. Currently, companies concentrate planting efforts at the
bottoms of mountains, from which logs can be most readily transported;
considering future warming may lead them to plant further up the mountain or in
colder regions.
In some cases, an
"easy" solution may be to shift from long- lived species that are
vulnerable to climate change to those that are less vulnerable or have shorter
growing cycles. If two species are equally profitable today but one would fare
much better if climate changes, shifting to the latter species involves little
risk and might substantially help long-term profits. Shifting to a species with
a 20-year lifetime would enable harvests to take place before climate changes enough
to adversely affect growth, and would make it easier to respond to climate
change as it occurs. [23]
Through the undertaking of projects today because
of future climate changes we can protect ourselves despite the consequences of
the future.
In a few cases,
where authorities are already contemplating public works for which the economic
justification is marginal, the prospect of sea level rise or climate change
might convince decision makers to proceed. For example, a surge in the
Constructing a
project because of the greenhouse effect will rarely if ever be an
"easy" solution: It requires more certainty than incorporating
climate change into a project that would be undertaken anyway, because (1)
undertaking a new project requires the legislature or board of directors to
initiate major appropriations, rather than approve supplemental increases and
(2) the project can be delayed until there is more certainty. Even if future
impacts are certain, action is unnecessary unless the time it will take for the
impacts to occur is no greater than the time it will take to design, approve,
and build the project. Thus, only the near-term impacts and those whose
solution would take several decades to implement require remedial action today.[24]
Moreover,
local efforts to uphold the Kyoto Protocol are already under way.
Over the past 12 months, the list of U.S. Seattle Salt
Lake City
In San Francisco Boston
Five years
ago,
California
States have taken additional actions of their own behalf.
Researchers at
The Alaska
Department of Transportation is testing ways of preserving permafrost under
roads to prevent the sudden formation of sinkholes. One idea, painting highways
white to reflect the sun's heat, failed because drivers had trouble with the
glare. [26]
Several states have invested in land purchases and limited development planning. Land purchases have allowed the protecting of a few strategic ecosystems. Protecting coastal wetlands would require buying most of the nation's coastal lowlands; and many types of terrestrial species would have to shift by hundreds of miles.
Purchasing Land - could keep options open for water resources
management and protecting ecosystems. In regions where climate becomes drier,
additional reservoirs may eventually be necessary. However, because accurate
forecasts of regional climate change are not yet possible, water managers in
most areas cannot yet be certain that they will need more dams. Even in areas
where earlier snow melt or sea level rise is expected to necessitate increased
storage--such as California (Williams et al. 1988) and Philadelphia/New York
(Hull and Titus 1986), respectively--the dams will not have to be built for
decades. Nevertheless, it may be wise to purchase the necessary land today;
otherwise, the most suitable sites may be developed, making future construction
more expensive and perhaps infeasible. A number of potential reservoir sites
have been protected by creation of parks and recreation areas, such as
The State of
Even though Delaware, New Jersey or any of the
other states affected by the Delaware River Basin have set no plan into action;
a joint assessment by the EPA and the Delaware River Basin Commission which
estimates the increased salinity that would result from a 2.4 or 8.2 foot rise
in relative sea level, examines the resulting impacts on surface and
groundwater supplies, and discusses possible ways of coping. This study is done to protect water supplies and wildlife.[29]
The
The
"Elevated
carbon dioxide can change any part of the ecosystem, the (food) producers like
green plants, the herbivores, the carnivores and decomposers like fungi and
bacteria," he said.
Even if limits on
greenhouse gases _ including nitrogen oxide, methane and water vapor as well as
carbon dioxide _ are imposed, the effect won't be seen for a long time, Teeri
said.
"Carbon dioxide
remains in the atmosphere for a long time," he said. "Carbon dioxide
will become an agent of evolution. Some plants will adapt, some will not."
Teeri is part of an
experiment at the
Although the forces
of global warming will not quickly be reversed, Teeri said the consensus of
most scientists is that something should be done now.
"We need to
look for alternate sources of energy," he said.
Teeri and other
scientists made their comments at the Great Lakes Environmental Journalism
Institute at
Anthony Socci, the chief
scientist on climate change for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, has
charts that dramatically show the increase in greenhouse gases and world
temperature since the year 1800, when humans began to extensively use coal, oil
and natural gas for fuel.
"The year 1998
was the warmest on record and the decade of the '90s was the warmest of the
millennium," Socci said.
"The last seven
years of record-setting warming exceeds anything in the last 1,000 years,"
Socci said. "Natural processes cannot explain it."
Peter Sousounis,
program director of a national project to assess the impact of climate change
on the
"Birch, yellow
pine and red pine may not grow except in the far north," Sousounis said.
"There will be a loss of migratory birds." [30]
Might Silent Spring come to life despite our best
efforts? Could have all these years of regulations
and change be for not? As we fend off the ill effects of one offender we open
the door to the ills of a million more.
New regulations in Southwestern states that allow people with an excess of water to sell that water to people with too little water are now coming into perspective. This has been considered an illegal practice in the past and has contributed too much water waste.
Many ways by which
the impact of climate change might be reduced are already being advocated in
order to address current climate variability: legalizing water markets;
curtailing federal subsidies which lead to waste by keeping prices artificially
low; and modifying allocation formulas. (Gibbons 1986; Bureau of Reclamation
1987).[31]
The federal government MUST become involved. The acceptance and support of the
Professionals in
various disciplines must be educated about global warming so that decision
makers can consider its implications. This process has proceeded farthest in
the case of sea level rise, where federal and state agencies have sponsored
several large conferences on the subject each year since 1983. This process is
now beginning to unfold in the fields of utility planning and water-resource
management, and may soon emerge in other fields.
With the exception
of universally-recognized crises such as war and disease, governments do not
usually take the lead in creating public awareness. In the short run, that
function is generally carried out by the news media; in the long run, it is
performed by school systems. Nevertheless, governments can support these
institutions by sponsoring public meetings and translating the results of
technical studies into brochures and reports that are accessible to reporters,
teachers, and the general public. [32]
The federal government needs to
ratify and join in the global efforts supported by the Kyoto Protocol. This protocol, which was
endorsed by President Clinton but subsequently abandoned by Bush, would have
required the U.S.
Bush, who has backed
away from the Kyoto Treaty which deals with global warming worldwide and
rescinded a campaign pledge to cap carbon dioxide levels, is now facing
criticism from European nations who support the treaty.[33]
Our current president seems to
think that the ostrich approach is the best course of action. It would appear
by this lack of action that our leader is convinced that if he ignores the
problem it will simply go away. This is
the approach of a kindergartener and not what is expected of our master and
chief. Even the officials in the Pentagon have taken exception to this style of
management and presented the President with a report on Global Warming. This report warns the US
Thanks to another
recent report commissioned by the Department of Defense, it is even harder now
for naysayers to hide in the sand or argue against taking action. This report
is in conjunction with the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act.
The report -- titled
An
Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National
Security -- begins, "there is substantial evidence to indicate that
significant global warming will occur during the 21sth century." Without
mincing words, or overstating the case, it calls climate change a "U.S.
national security concern" and warns the Defense Department against going
forward without being prepared for severe climate consequences that could alter
the political and economic states of nations across the globe, destabilizing
regions and provoking conflict.
"Humans fight
when they outstrip the carrying capacity of their natural environment,"
the report paraphrases from Carrying Capacity, Harvard archaeologist
Steven Leblanc's new book about the relationship between the Earth's ability to
sustain human populations and warfare. "Every time there is a choice
between starving and raiding, humans raid."
In sum, the report
emphasizes being prepared and strategically planning for a situation that is
impossible to predict but is nevertheless not implausible. Climate change is
occurring, it reminds us, and not taking action now to prevent future
catastrophe could be a grave mistake.
The focus of the
report, though, is the potentially devastating "what if" scenario an
abrupt climate change could likely have on Earth and its human population.
Though such a scenario is completely uncertain, the report's resounding message
is clear: Be prepared for the worst because there are "potentially dire
consequences." Thus, the report concludes, the conversation around global
warming should be pushed beyond a "scientific debate to a
Perhaps President Bush is following
the advice of non-believers such as Monte
Hieb and Harrison Hieb[36]. In their 2002 article on global climate
cycles they encourage us to not waste monetary funds on thwarting the hoax of
Global Warming but rather to allocate our time and efforts into preparing for
global climate fluctuations of
both cooling and warming trends. They go
on to explain how the earth has natural cycles of warming and cooling. They support increased CO2
emissions by saying that such emissions provide the earth with a blanket of
protection against the cold of an upcoming ice age. Now this sounds like a junk science theory
that would interest our alustrious President and his big oil business
partnerships.
The authors of Strategies for Adapting to the Greenhouse Effect offer numerous
criteria for evaluating response strategies, and present several example
responses in detail. Although most of the examples involve the
Most of the
consequences of global warming would result from one of three physical changes:
sea level rise, higher local temperatures, and changes in rainfall patterns.
Sea level is generally expected to rise 50-200 cm in the next century (Dean et
al. 1987); such a rise would inundate 7,000 square miles of dry land in the
United States (an area the size of Massachusetts) and a similar amount of
coastal wetlands; erode recreational beaches 100-200 meters, exacerbate coastal
flooding; and increase the salinity of aquifers and estuaries (Titus 1989).
One of the most
fundamental issues facing decision makers is whether to implement responses
today or defer preparation until the impacts are better understood and more
close at hand. The fact that global warming might eventually necessitate a
particular action does not necessarily imply that the action should be taken
today. On the other hand, the likelihood of global warming is sufficiently
well-established and the time it takes to develop a response sufficiently long
that deferring all preparation could lead us to overlook opportunities to
inexpensively prepare ourselves.
In evaluating
potential responses to global warming, policy will have to consider a variety
of criteria:
o Economic
Efficiency: Will the initiative yield benefits substantially greater than
if the resources were applied elsewhere?
o Flexibility:
Is the strategy reasonable for the entire range of possible changes in
temperatures, precipitation, and sea level?
o Urgency:
Would the strategy be successful if implementation were delayed ten or twenty
years?
o Low
Cost: Does the strategy require minimal resources?
o Equity:
Does the strategy unfairly benefit some at the expense of other regions,
generations, or economic classes?
o Institutional
feasibility: Is the strategy acceptable to the public? Can it be
implemented with existing institutions under existing laws?
o Unique or
Critical Resources: Would the strategy decrease the risk of losing unique
environmental or cultural resources?
o Health and
Safety: Would the proposed strategy increase or decrease the risk of
disease or injury?
o Consistency:
Does the policy support other national state, community, or private goals?
o Private v.
Public Sector: Does the strategy minimize governmental interference with
decisions best made by the private sector?
Although planners
routinely consider these issues in addressing current problems, the nature of
global warming may alter their role in the planning process. (1) While urgency
usually means that a problem is imminent, in the context of the greenhouse
effect the question is whether the opportunity to solve the problem is likely
to vanish if no action is taken soon. (2) Equity may be easier to achieve:
solutions that take effect several decades hence, for example, are less likely
to be unfair since people have ample time to adjust. Finally, (3) because
current institutions were not designed with global warming in mind, they may be
unable to address the issue; on the other hand, the magnitude of the problem
may be great enough to compel legislators to change laws that planners usually
must accept as fixed.
Perhaps the greatest
difference, however, is the difficulty of weighing present versus future
benefits. Classical microeconomics provides a framework (e.g. cost-benefit
analysis) for reducing all the criteria to economic efficiency, except for
institutional feasibility and equity, and circumvents the latter problem by
proposing that winners compensate those who lose from a policy (this part of
the theory is often overlooked by practitioners). Unfortunately, most
governments can not simply establish a trust fund. Some people assume that the
analysis also indicates whether an action today is superior to no action; but
such an assumption implies indifference regarding how many unsolved problems we
pass on to future generations, since it equates no action with establishing a
trust fund.
Moreover, financial
theory shows that the appropriate discount rate equals the return on risk free
investments (e.g. Treasury Bonds) plus a risk premium reflecting the
correlation between the return on the investment and the overall success of the
investor's portfolio. In the 1980s, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget
required federal agencies to use a 10% discount rate, effectively assuming that
benefits from federal policies are highly correlated with the stock market and
society's overall well-being. However, strategies to prepare for the greenhouse
effect would help the most if the consequences are severe; hence these policies
can be viewed as insurance, which implies that the appropriate discount rate is
less than the (real) return on Treasury bonds and may even be less than zero,
which produces nonsensical results if an analysis is extended into the indefinite
future.
Given the
limitations of cost-benefit analysis, we suggest that planners first
concentrate on the "easy" solutions, that is, those that are low
cost; reasonable for the entire range of likely changes in climate;
institutionally feasible; urgent; and equitable. In mature fields of endeavor,
the easy solutions have already been implemented; but preparing for global
warming is a new field.[37]
Upholding
these Global Protocols is a good first step to global interaction. Our nation's leaders also need to look into
many other feasible methods of preparation. The first step may be to put a
President in office with the preservation of the environment and the protection
of his people as his first priority instead of retaining one who's main concern
is the padding of his rear pocket through special interest contributions.
Many countries have seen Global Warming as a real
threat. They are taking preparatory actions. John Prescott, the Deputy
Prime Minister of
[Mr. Prescott] said there was growing evidence
that the weather around the world was "increasingly stormy and
extreme". As a first step, the Government has issued new guidance that
housing should not be built on flood plains where there was a risk to
properties.
His warning was underlined by a draft United Nations
report yesterday predicting that the Earth could warm by up to 6°C over the
next century as a result of man's emissions of greenhouse gases. The maximum
average global temperature rise now predicted by climate scientists is twice
previous estimates.[38]
Other nations have raised their
level of awareness and taken actions to prepare for Global Warming.
In the
By all the nations acting locally, they feed the cause globally. The Kyoto Protocol is a wonderful piece of paper. But is a piece of paper set into motion to "prove to developing countries that the big rich guys would do something"[40]. The actions and efforts behind this protocol is what counts.
The world has begun global actions at local levels.
David Schimel, senior scientist at NCAR, acknowledges that "because it is
going to take some effects to motivate changes. And because we're close to the
thresholds for negative effects already in some regions, it may not be long
before we see significant consequences."
Even without a
ratified international agreement, many countries have begun, or at least are
beginning to plan, cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
Cutting emissions isn't the only answer. Scientists are also working the other half of the equation: increasing the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed on earth. Plants perform this task, growing faster when there is more carbon dioxide in the air. Oceans absorb it, slowly taking it in until they store two orders of magnitude more than the atmosphere. Various schemes have been suggested to increase storage, like feeding iron into the oceans, so that algae that absorb carbon dioxide proliferate.[41]
As nations around the globe are currently planning
ways to adapt to changes; the type of changes that climate shift might bring is
presented as a kind of domino theory hypothetical situation that challenges
easy adaptation. The Semper
Paratus report sanctioned by the US Department of Defense addresses
some of these preparations.
In the gradual
change scenario, less rainfall, for instance, in Australia could mean a 15
percent drop in grazing grass, which could translate to a reduction in the
average weight of cattle and ultimately compromise supplies of beef. With a
lowered weight, milk production is also likely to decrease.
And although
projections show that areas in Northern Europe, Russia and North America will
likely benefit agriculturally because of longer growing seasons, places like
southern Europe, Africa, and Central and South America will likely experience
negative effects such as "increased dryness, heat, water shortages, and
reduced [agriculture] production."
Worse, if this
gradual warming were to slow down the ocean's thermohaline conveyor, a potent
ocean current encircling the Earth, even this better case scenario could be
devastating and usher in an Ice Age. Scientific evidence shows that this is
precisely how two previous ice ages occurred.
"This report pretty
much restates what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (an
international scientific body tasked with assessing information surrounding
global warming) has been saying all along: that even with a middle-of-the-road
projection for global warming, there will be increases in heat waves, droughts,
floods, and sea level, with serious economic and ecological impacts. All this
is likely to happen regardless of whether or not the oceanic circulation grinds
to a halt," said Dr. James Wang, an atmospheric scientist for
Environmental Defense.[42]
The U.N. General Assembly has answered the call to
action by creating an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to develop a
plan for decreasing worldwide emissions.
The
Canada Canada
Global warming cannot be stopped but governments
must decide whether they will try to mitigate the damage or whether they will
try to reshape social and economic structures to adapt to the changes it causes,
he said.
Mr. Miller attacked those who try to put off any
decision on how to deal with global warming by denying the phenomenon exists. "What's
muddling this is all these reports coming out recently, over the last few
months in the media, suggesting that the science is somehow unsound. That's not
the case," he said. "The science is sound. Now we have to make a
decision. Do we do something about it? Or do we not?"
Mr. Miller would not endorse the Kyoto Protocol, which
is supported by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. Nor would he back the so-called made-in-Canada
solutions favoured by Ontario Premier Ernie Eves and Alberta Premier Ralph
Klein.
Doing nothing to mitigate global warming is yet
another option, he said. "It is a valid choice to say, 'We're going to do
nothing about it, we're just going to adapt.' Some people out there in the
public debate are advancing that."
Mr. Eves accepted the risks of global warming,
saying: "I think that all governments should be doing what they can to
reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. . . . I'm sure that every government could be
doing more."
Mr.
Miller argued that whatever governments choose to do, they cannot ignore global
warming.
"We have to incorporate the coming effects of
climate change into our socioeconomic environmental decision-making and
planning."
He explained: "Our whole economy has grown up based
on a climate regime that we've come to adapt to. Our whole society, in the last
150 years that we've really become an industrialized society, has been based on
presumptions about the pattern of climate."
Mr. Miller added: "If climate is changing, it
will radically change that basic, underlying way we do business. . . . Now some
of it will be positive, there's no question. But some of it will be strongly negative.
"It will be warmer. The summers will be subject
to more droughts. And there will be heavier, stronger rainfall events.
"Some people have said that is good for
agriculture. Warmer, more heat units mean we can grow corn and richer crops
further north. That's probably true. But midsummer droughts counter that.
"We had a midsummer drought this year and we
lost a good portion of the corn crop from various parts of Ontario
Similarly, Mr. Miller said: "Some people have
said we will get more forest productivity in the north. We may very well. . . .
But also droughts may produce worse fires. What is the good of having higher productivity
of forests if it countervails with forest fires?"[43]
These efforts need to be followed
up with positive global actions to aid in the preparation and preservation of
this great earth upon which we live.
Even Jesus had a nemesis; a doubting Thomas within
his circle of workers. How then can we
mere mortals expect any less? For those who are the doubting Thomases or
doomest, we see your actions as counter productive. A comment from David Schimel of NCAR tells comments
upon this in one approach to Global Warming.
One could simply do
nothing to stop global warming. On a pessimistic day, it's not hard to imagine
that we'll just take the easy way out, use fossil fuel indiscriminately, and
buy a lot of air conditioning. That scenario leads you to carbon dioxide levels
of a thousand parts per million and global mean temperatures up many degrees
from today.[44]
However he continues on to tell us this is not a
realistic approach. Hope is again offered by Kevin Trenberth, head of the
climate analysis section for the
The good news is
that on most days scientists are cautiously optimistic. Kevin Trenberth, said,
"Maybe we can't make the problem go away, but we can certainly make
scientific advances, we can slow down the rate of warming, and we can gain
enough time to allow us to adapt." [45]
The articles and people saying Global Warming is a
hoax and no action is needed; I only have to say to you, "your actions are
killing us all". Former U.S. President
William Clinton responded to this issue in his 1997 address to the United
Nations by saying, "In the United States...we have to first convince the
American People and the Congress that the climate problem is real."
Just recently Christine Stewart, Minister of the
Environment of Canada was quoted in the Calgary Herald as saying "No matter if
the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits....
Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and
equality in the world." Here is a
real chance to turn negativity into positive energy. With this line of thought,
even the doubting Thomases can be combated.
The motivated fanatics provide us
with leadership from their organizers.
The alarmist fanatics or Chicken Littles are a negative action. The fear
that they incite only instills panic. Education
of the public and working as a unit is a valuable quality that this motivated
group offers the world.
An example of the actions of the
alarmist fanatic is seen in the following article as a Chicken Little approach
to the problem. Here we encounter
believers in Global Warming but by other than conventional means. In their
article subtitled "Why CO2 is caused by global warming and not
by mankind."
Global warming is a fact. The cause is
quite unlike the popular conception. Global warming is causing melting of the
polar ice. The most recent loss is the collapse of the
Greenhouse effect is controlled by water vapor and water in the form of clouds,
NOT CO2. This has been clearly stated by the UN Website in
Global warming will eventually cause catastrophic global flooding as polar ice
melts. The only question is not IF but how much flooding there will be. NOVA
"Warnings from the Ice" should have awakened alarm. The lowest
estimates involve 35 meters ocean rise, but that is unrealistically low.
Another estimate of 75 meters missed melting permafrost. The current best
estimates run from 60 to 110 meters flooding. In any case we will loose
virtually all coastal cities, and displace billions of people. We will loose
irreplaceable bio-diversity as species become extinct. The reason most people
don't know the facts is that the press and most politicians are not trained in
the Scientific Method, and depend on hearsay, or on groups that have their own
political agendas, such as the well meaning Greenpeace and other Green and
leftist Groups.
Weather is changing, and the weather
changes will continue in spite of anything we try to do. Our planet has gone
through many warming and cooling fluctuations during the last hundreds of
millions of years, and our human activities have none or hardly any influence.
The whole debate about greenhouse gasses is a total waste of time. Instead, we
should today start making plans to eventually evacuate coastal areas and low
laying cities, and plan on living on higher ground.
Even that will not solve the long term problem, because following global
warming; we're in for a change in the
Humans didn't cause global warming, and humans can t stop
it. All we can do is prepare for it, study it, and gather our resources, and do
the best we can. Forewarned is forearmed.[46]
A more motivated fanatic has authored a humorous but
straight forward approach to Global Warming preparations. Stewart
Adcock[47],
being a poor swimmer (talk about self preservation at its finest) prepared a
list of practical advice in case of rising sea levels. This helpful list of
preparations is a suggestion for everybody living within 140 miles of the
current sea level. Mr. Adcock warms, "Don't leave your preparations
to the last moment."
1.
Find things
that float -- Things around my house
which float include footballs, polystyrene packing material, unopened bags of
noodles, space hoppers, tractor wheel inner tubes and used diapers in sandwich
bags.
2.
Water-proof
your mobile phone -- The
communication satellites should be safe, at their altitude, for quite a few
years. Make sure that at least one friend also water-proofs their phone.
Otherwise, you'll have to call chat lines all of the time, and that will still
be sad after global warming has occurred.
3.
Buy a wetsuit -- Hey, surf's up, dude.
4.
Buy lots of
KY-jelly -- It makes a good sealant,
urm... apparently. It does, erm, a friend told me. He did, a friend said.
5.
Take swimming
lessons -- but not too many. That
would be a waste of time because all of the swimming pools will be flooded.
6.
Get permits
for
7.
Float -- Need I say more?
The world's populace unit of
apathy has to be reached. Preparations
from the active parties need to reach out to this group and motivate them though
educated and a call to action. It is
time to realize that now is a time for reality.
We must face acceptance and adaptation for there is more at risk than
just monetary losses. It is time for action. How can we achieve
this? One way to raise awareness is
through the words of Annie Petsonk, attorney for Environmental Defense[48].
"No amount of adaptation will enable us to deal
with the kinds of catastrophic storms and sea level rise that are predicted to
occur if we do not get control of greenhouse gas emissions in the relatively
near future. Some areas or some countries simply cannot adapt - such as small
island nations whose economies are dependent on tourism and fishing, and whose
fisheries depend on coral reefs. If they lose the coral reefs, those are gone forever -- they
cannot adapt to that!"
By the joined efforts of each and
every citizen of planet earth; we can make a difference. When we all prepare for Global Warming as a
planet, we can help save each other and the earth that we call home. Finances must not be the controlling issue
but the preservation of our species and our plant. Through thorough preparations this can be
accomplished. Global Warming can only be thwarted by combined efforts taken on
everyone's part beginning today.
REFERENCES
Adcock, Stewart (2004, May 22) Rising Sea Levels Retrieved on
Boler, R.B.
(2003, October 22) Resignation
Statement of Bruce Boler EPA leaving Southwest
Bongiorno, Lori (2004 August)
Ease Up on Fossil Fuels with Green Refrigerators, Air Conditioners and Power
Green Guide 103 Retrieved on
Bureau of Reclamation. (1987) A New Direction for the Bureau of
Reclamation.
Clean
Air Gardening: Environmentally friendly lawn and garden supplies (n.d.) Retrieved on
Dean et al. (1987) Responding to Changes in Sea Level.
Dempsey, Dale (2001, June 17) Scientists Prepare for Effects of Global
Warming Cox News Service Retrieved on
Ellison, Katherine (2002, July 31)
Gibbons, D.C. (1986) the Economic Value of Water.
Global
Warming (2004) Environmental
Defense Retrieved on
Global Warming Threatens Health of World's Oceans (2004, July 22) Retrieved
on
Greenhouse
Effect and Sea Level Rise: America July 17, 2004 from: http://users.erols.com/jtitus/index.html
Hieb, M., and Hieb, H. (2002) Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective Retrieved on
Jones, G.,
Leffler, Merrill
(2002, June 04)
Mackie, Richard (2002, November 20)Ontario Urged to Prepare for Global-Warming Shocks National News – Metro Dateline Retrieved on July 21, 2004 from: http://www.web.net/~aen/news/news021118/gw-nov18q.txt
The
Natural Gardening Company (n.d.)
Retrieved on
New Report on Climate Change: Semper Paratus (2004, July 22) Retrieved on
Perry,
Tekla (2002, January) Predicting and preparing for the effects of global
warming
Capturing Climate Change Spectrum
Online Retrieved on
Perry, Tekla
(2004, May 12) Predicting and preparing for the effects of global
warming
Capturing Climate Change Retrieved on
Petsonk, Annie (2002, November 15) After COP-8 and the Midterm Elections: What
Now? Environmental Defense Retrieved on
Rodale,
Maria (2004) Designing Our Dream Green House Green Guide 103 Retrieved on
Schwartz,
P., and Randall, D. (2004). An
Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National
Security [Electronic Format]
Retrieved on
Stiers,
Strategies for Adapting to the
Greenhouse Effect (2000, January) Environmental
Protection Agency Retrieved on
Titus,
J.G. (1989) (draft). Sea Level Rise.
In Smith, J. and D.
Titus,
James G. (1990) Strategies
for Adapting to the Greenhouse Effect Journal of the American
Planning Association, Summer:
311-323 Retrieved on
Williams, Robyn (1999, December
5) Antarctic Records of Past Climate Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved on
