Global Climate Change

We’ve all been told that the Climactic Research Unit at East Anglia has been recording steadily rising temperatures in the last 1,000 years, and NASA is monitoring the Earth’s ice mass, CO2 distribution, sea level, and global air temperature via satellites continuously surveying the globe. What have they found? The global sea level rose about 17 centimeters in the last century. The first 2,300 feet of our oceans have warmed 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.Greenland has lost 36-60 cubic miles of ice between 2002 and 2006. Antarctica has lost 36 cubic miles between 2002 and 2005. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layers of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year. What does that mean? Global surface temperatures are steadily rising. Some people accept this conclusion. Others don’t. And ultimately, this doesn’t really matter. We are just wasting precious time by debating over whether Global Climate Change is really happening or not. Why have we been floundering about within this contiguous debate for years? Politics.

How should politics find itself muddled with the findings of scientific research? Two reasons: money and… well, money. It’s going to cost us money to implement the policies necessary to counter the effects of this supposed Global Climate Change. These changes in energy policy internationally would severely and negatively affect investment portfolios. They would curtail the use of oil, phase out all internal combustion engines, and drive up the cost of electricity by means of wind and solar energy. As a result, utility stocks would become useless and third-world factories would become less cost-effective. One environmental skeptic, Christopher Booker, claims that these energy policies we are beginning to embark on could “be one of the most expensive, destructive, and foolish mistakes the human race has ever made.” He has also supported his claims by refuting the credibility of science. Assuming the science is plausible, let us evaluate this statement by examining all of our options regarding the issue of Global Climate Change.

We can roughly organize the fate of our world into four dichotomies (as suggested by Greg Craven). We can choose to take action, or not to take action. And let us assume for a moment, that we have no idea whether Global Climate Change will happen or not—a 50/50 chance. Say we choose “yes”, to act upon the possibility of the adverse consequences of Global Climate Change. Global Climate Change ended up being false. What risk did we take? Cost is the main issue. And looking at this from the most extreme perspective possible, this could possibly result in increased taxation, layoffs, and unnecessary government regulation. This cataclysmic reaction spirals us into global economic depression. What if Global Warming ended up being true? Well, cost is still an issue. But hey, the human race is still alive and well in a livable world.

Suppose we choose “no”, and do not take action. If Global Climate Change ended up being false, we made the right choice. There is no cost to us, the economy, or to our environment. But if it ended up being true, and the doom-sayers were right, what risk did we take? Well, assuming we consider this result on the same extreme as the previous consequences our problems look a little something like this:
• Economic, political, social, environmental, and public health catastrophes on a global scale
• The sea level rising 10-20 feet
• Coastal countries disappearing altogether
• Hundreds of millions of displaced individuals crowding in on each other
• Widespread warfare over resources and long-standing hatreds
• Excessive drought, floods, and famine
• Widespread disease epidemics
• Massive tropical storms/hurricanes (something we’re already seeing more of)
• And global economic collapse

What do we do about this? We can argue for a few more years, and make a guess if Global Climate Change is real or not, or we can choose whether to act on the supposition of Global Climate Change. But the problem with the former option is the fact that we may not have much longer than a few years to make our decision. The impending crisis of Global Climate Change could strike within the next 10-20 years.

Ultimately, the consequences of not acting far outweigh the risk of acting. We must come to a consensus and choose to act. We must eliminate the possibility of what would happen if Global Climate Change is real and we do not take action.

Politics aside, science shows that Global Climate Change is a serious threat to life on this planet. As spoken by Mr. Craven, “… We only get to play this game once. Think it won’t happen? Maybe. How lucky do you feel?”