Getting Serious About Global Warming

For all of the talk about the Kyoto Protocols, they will do nothing to stop Global Warming (assuming that human-induced Global Warming is even happening). When politicians and scientists will admit this they add that Kyoto is only the first step. If they are really serious about stopping Global Warming then there are several things that need to be answered:

If Kyoto is only the first step, what is the second step? Do politicians really think that we can roll back emissions to 1900 levels? How about 1800 levels? It would take that to do any real good. Considering the population increase over the last couple of centuries, that would mean a tiny carbon allowance per person. Is this even possible? Remember that anything less than this will not stop global warming, only slow it slightly.

One of the big flaws of Kyoto is that it imposes limits only on the developed nations. China and India have no limitations and can even sell credits to the developed nations. Are they willing to buy into Kyoto II? Again, if they are not then there is no point to the entire exercise.

Everyone is fixated on carbon dioxide. This is only one greenhouse gas. There are others. Some of them absorb much more heat than carbon dioxide and are easier to eliminate. Methane is an example. Why are these being ignored completely?

There are also gases that have a reverse-greenhouse effect. Sulfur dioxide is one. It s produced by burning high-sulfur coal. Sulfur dioxide emissions were nearly eliminated by legislation passed in 1990 is response to acid rain. The most comprehensive study on acid rain, which was released later that year, sad that it was not the problem that environmentalists made it out to be. Most examples of lakes and ponds turning acid were the result of pine forests regrowing after being cut down early in the 20th century. It is seldom recognised but the US has more forests now than it had 100 years ago. The few lakes that actually were becoming acidic due to acid rain could easily be treated with lime as a fraction of the cost of reducing sulfur emissions.

Keeping this in mind, if we went back to burning high-sulfur coal without expensive scrubbers we could offset the effects of carbon dioxide.

Can we have a real assessment of the effects of Global Warming? I remember reading one that the Department of Defense did in the mid-1990s. (I'm going from memory here so I might have the wrong department.) The projected effects on the US would be an increased growing season and fewer frosts. Some farmers would need to adjust their crops, adopting crops currently grown by farmers a few hundred miles south of them. Some animals might migrate north. A few forests might be adversely affected since forests spread slowly. The overall effect on the US of a temperature increase of 5% was projected to be an economic growth.

Environmentalists had a fit over this report. Their immediate response was to focus on the forests that would be affected. When this failed to motivate people, they started making stuff up. Warming suddenly became the worst thing that could happen. Disease and pests would follow. Considering how many people move to the Sunbelt for the warmth. I never heard of anyone moving to Ohio from Florida because they wanted to get away from the bugs and disease.

It gets worse. The Day After Tomorrow, last summer's bomb of a movie was based on a real theory that enough fresh water from the melting poles would shut down the ocean currents causing an ice age. Could this happen? Not likely. The currents are caused by gravitational forces.

What about other weather phenomena? We are told that we will have more hurricanes, tornados, etc. Will we? No one has any idea. Hurricanes feed on warm ocean currents but they are disrupted by el Ninos.

The real likely effects are beneficial to most of the planet's population. Not only that but numerous studies have shown that a higher concentration of carbon dioxide causes plants to grow faster and be generally healthier.

So, we need an honest appraisal of Global Warming, good or bad? You will not get this from the Greens. Any change is bad and, as I pointed out in my last post, they are using the issue to gain control over people's choices.

So we should be looking at alternatives, both by reducing gases that hold in heat and by increasing the gases that allow heat to escape. We need to be honest about the reductions actually needed and the effect on the world's population by meeting these goals, and we need to appraise the effects of warming, both good and bad.

Instead we have European countries buying credits from the third world for a zero net effect on carbon emissions and politicians patting themselves on the back for making the world a better place.