The United States is feeling lonely these days when it comes to climate change. The newly elected prime minister of Australia has announced that his country will finally ratify the Kyoto Protocol. That makes the U.S. the only industrialized country in the world that still refuses to jump on board the Kyoto bandwagon. The U.S. has always had a problem with Kyoto’s mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions. Little has changed. The current administration remains committed to pursuing a voluntary approach to emissions reduction. The problem with this approach is that it assumes that the federal government will actually volunteer to reduce emissions at the level necessary to prevent climate change.
The U.S. position on Kyoto is particularly relevant in the context of the United Nations Climate Change Conference currently underway in Bali, Indonesia. The Bali conference marks the start of negotiations that will pave the way for a new international agreement on climate change. That agreement will replace the current phase of the Kyoto Protocol when it expires in 2012. All eyes are on the U.S. right now, waiting to see if it will play the role of obstructionist once again, or if it will remain open minded and committed to the process of negotiations.
The Bush administration has been supportive of the Bali process in terms of rhetoric. But the U.S. appears unwilling budge when it comes to its approach to emissions reductions. The position that the administration will maintain throughout the Bali process is that “Each nation should design its own separate strategies for making progress toward achieving this long-term goal.” The A.P. reported that Harlan Watson, the State Department’s lead negotiator at Bali, went so far as to outright reject the possibility that the U.S. might commit to mandatory caps at the UN conference.
One has to wonder what the point of an international treaty calling on countries to do whatever they want to do would be. The Kyoto Protocol is different because it requires countries to commit to meeting country specific targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. approach has been tried before at the international level and it failed to produce results. Climate change is a global problem. Any solution to this problem must be devised at the global level.
But the main reason the rest of the world should critical of the administration’s approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions is that it has not produced results within the United States. The House recently passed a visionary energy bill that would set new fuel efficiency standards for vehicles and provide unprecedented levels of funding to jumpstart the clean energy industry. But last week Republican members of the Senate succeeded in stalling the House energy bill. Even if the bill passes the Senate in its original form it is expected that the president will veto it. So much for voluntary action on climate change!
Why should the rest of the world place any trust at all in the voluntary approach to emissions reductions advocated by this administration? The Bush administration and its Republican partners in the Senate have shown the world that America is still not ready to take the issue of climate change seriously. When it comes to greenhouse gas reduction, this president is more of an obstructionist than a reductionist.
Our World is a weekly column by Gather political correspondent David Anderson. The column's focus is on the environmental issues facing our nation and our world. David is also a graduate student studying Political Science . See past editions of the column by clicking here.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 91
I have been counting the days for a long time now, and even though at my age, I should not be welcoming the passage of time, this next year will pass much too slowly for me.
administration's approach to emissions reductions is that it has not produced
results within the United States."
The United States claims a moral pre-eminance in the world, yet it does not understand the need to take a leadership role in environmental stewardship. We have many fine and dedicated researchers in this area who could make this role a reality if the US government would pay more attention.
Kyoto has flaws, but it is a start. You can't play the game if you don't enter the arena.
For my spin on the other shoe that dropped today on the climate front, see my article "Stand accountable to history" (or not). Thanks and keep it coming.
IF a democrat wins in 2008 and IF the democrats increase or even maintain their majority, we'll see.
I'm still waiting for the day when senators, representatives and the President can work together to address the issues of the country and the world.
Unfortunately, all I ever hear from either side is rhetoric -- mostly attacking the other party -- as a pathetic form of campaigning rather than doing his/her job.
The democrats' unrelenting attacks on Bush just for the sake of attacking are most embarassing, but unless both sides work together we're going to see the same crap that we've been getting out of Washington.
When you think about it, if nothing else, Bush is being consistant.....
Since it is obvious he puts the interests of big business way ahead of the welfare of the American people, why shouldn't he also put them well ahead of concerns for the planet.
We, as a country, need to wake up and realize exactly what our form of "capitalism" has really become....
How is it realistic for anyone to think that China is going to bite the bullet of cutting their CO2 while the USA continues to duck the question? Whenever anyone starts to grumble about Chinahem, they laugh gleefully and point at the USA and build another 50 coal fired electrical plants.
This process has reached utter absurdity. You could call it codependence, in an odd way. It's blame the other guy while he blames me so that we can both continue to misbehave.
As consumers, we have the power to go "over their heads" on this one. Don't buy a new car unless it's at least partially motorized by something other than oil. Look for the "Made in USA" label; eventually, the big boys in America will be forced to start employing our own people to do the work, and cleaner than China. We certainly don't need the approval of our elected idiots to go forward on our own. We've received little "presiding" from this administration, and too much "now hear this".
It's time we ~ as individuals, as families, neighborhoods and communities ~ started realizing our needs, nor our desires. To hell with Bush.
Great article, thanks!
then you have to consider the public and how you would be affecting their right to basically do whatever they want to do, their being made to do something would cost them time and money both of which the american people have little of these days.
third you would have to actually sit down and find out what is a REAL enviormental issue, what is it exactly that WE can change, and what is just another enviormental- capitalist trick to make us spend more money.
The China/India factor - Yes. Both countries do have a lot of people. Yes. The U.S. has a much smaller population than either country. BUT the problem is one of consumption. China and India produce a lot of greenhouse gases - and they will produce more. But individual Americans produce far more than their Chinese and Indian counterparts.
The Kyoto Protocol was specifically aimed at the developed because they have the resources to do something. UN officials have emphasized the point that mandatory emissions caps can't be placed on a country like China or India - they would simple not work. But in a place like the US, where the necessary technology and expertise already available, it is simply a question of will rather than ability.
James Gray - It is entirely possible to integrate environmentally friendly policies and technologies into our economy without any major negative impact. As for your "environmental-capitalist" argument, it may be true that some people are just in this for the money. Many more are getting into the green marketplace because they care about the environment.
Environmentalists were once attacked for wanting to use fees and regulations to force industry to reduce pollution. "Let the market work," they were told. So now many environmentalists have put their proverbial sticks down and turned to the market, recognizing that their is a demand for their services. No surprise that their opponents are now eager to paint them as profiteers - propoganda, plain and simple.
Perhaps James can share exactly how producing and selling things like CFC lightbulbs or more fuel efficient vehicles is going to hurt the economy. These things help people save money, use less energy, and reduce their carbon footprint. More money in my pocket and I've helped the environment? Sounds like a win-win to me.
Now as it and other renewable methods begin to make inroads, it seems as though those same people who sneered when it wasn't cost effective are protesting that people are only in it for the money. It would have been faster and easier to go into fossil fuels, but (a) some people care about the repercussions of their actions and (b) there's not much future in fossil fuels.
Precisely why Bush gets such high marks when it comes to combating the faith based science of global warming.
Canada, under our former Liberal government, did sign on to the Kyoto protocol, but then wasted a decade and more in which they did absolutely nothing to try and achieve the targets set under that agreement. The current Conservative government has gone further, declaring Kyoto dead for Canada and refusing to sign any agreement that does not also require all other nations (read: India and China) to agree to reductions.
Basically, Stephen Harper the Prime Minister of Canada, is running interference for George W. Bush on this issue.
It is true that India and China have much larger populations than anyone else and that their rapidly growing economies are starting to crank out enormous greenhouse gases, they still produce less than the USA which is the world leader in that regard and has been for decades.
Even if China and India pass the USA in this regard, as they are bound to do, the responsibility for having helped create the problem over the past century still lies with the USA and other industrialized nations of North America and Europe. In other words, we made the mess we have the most responsibility for sacrificing to clean it up.
We will need China and India to get on board before long, but we can't afford to just let the problem get worse because we want to play a childish game of "you first". We can best lead by example.
It must be a lot of work to suspend all that disbelief 24/7.
Someone please, give me the facts that we are all going to die in less than 10 years. Please. THEN I MIGHT, just MIGHT get a crappy hybrid.
The issue isn't that we are "all going to die in less than 10 years" (nor have I ever heard any scientists suggest that happening); it's that our options and capability to reverse the trends (and there is overwhelming evidence of those trends to those observant) will go down drastically. Will people die as a result? Absolutely, even if we reverse everything today. Will it be you? Will it be innocents in Bangladesh swamped with an overwhelming tropical cyclone, or people downstream of the dwindling Himalayan glaciers who face permanent drought? Will it be folks living ten miles inland on the Gulf of Mexico or islanders in Manila who's lands disappear beneath their feet? No one know that.
The problem is, pinpointing when and how and where the worst repercussions will come is almost impossible until we reach the point where preventing or reversing those repercussions have long been passed. There are groups of people, smoking three packs a day, who will find they have the will to throw them away when they discover they have lung cancer - but it will be too late then, while throwing them away decades before might have prevented the whole thing.
There are a number of us who don't want to live that way. We see what can happen and know that the steps taken now will be cheaper and a lot less painful than they will be 10-30 years down the line. We also know that today we can make a much bigger difference with that "lot less" today than with the "lot more" tomorrow.
Some people don't mind leaving yet another mess for our children to clean up after us. I'm not one of them.
Typhoons happen. Hurricanes happen. It's NOT the intensity of the storm that has changed, it's the population on the coasts that have grown that caused the casualties to go up. And gee......it's been 2 years since the US was hit. And now that winter is approaching the northern hemisphere, I wonder how much we'll hear about global warming. Meanwhile, it was 0 f at my house this morning, one of the coldest days yet on record. Not to mention the foot of snow I have. No prob, I love it.
The earth's temp has risen less than 1 degree F in the last 100 years. And we are STILL in an ICE AGE. Only 10,000 years ago NYC was under a mile of ice. The Polar caps have been receding for the last 10,000 years.
The 1300's were warmer than it is today. I don't think the knights were crusading with internal combustion machines.
The earth is dynamic, constantly changing. To say we can influence the weather is very arrogant. Can we stop tides? Can we stop a tornado? It's like trying to make a can of spotted paint. It's impossible.
I won't fall for the religion of global warming. I DO however live "green" I do it, like I've lived for over 20 years, because it's less expensive. I recycle everything, I have worms under my sink, I have compost, I only buy local and I have a garden, and even in the short growing season we have here in Maine, I can do quite well to be self sufficient. I hunt my own meat, so I know where it comes from. I live more "green" than my liberal Kerry voter neighbor. So, don't tell me I'm not "doing my part". I just refuse to accept the global warming myth and will not join the cult.
The problem with the call to "voluntary" actions is that each of us believe how we are living now is completely justified. Why would I volunteer to compost my food waste when my neighbors put out two toters of trash every week?
We live in a democratic society, so in one way, all the laws we write are voluntary. We call upon the better angels of our nature and write rules we want to live up to, then we hire people to keep us to them. That's a good thing. I think the rules we need today are the same kind of rules we had during World War II. A standard of how much gas you can use. An insistence that every recyclable product be recycled, and that not-recyclable products be changed to recyclable ones.
These kinds of rules would produce less waste and in turn would mean that individuals waste less money, which in turn would mean that obscene corporate profits would be cut.
This would be good for reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere... whether that leads to global warming or not. It would also improve our individual health and our financial health. It would put us as a country on more solid footing to speak about the ills of the world and would make us more secure.
1) Innefficiency cascades throughout a system, so improving a systems efficiency at the end point (where the energy is actually used, such as computers, refrigerators, air conditioners, etc) is much more effective than improving efficiency at the starting point (power plants). For example, if an energy grid is net 10% efficent, by reducing 1 kwh of energy at the end point would actually save 10 kwh of energy throughout the system.
2) Identifies several market failures which would explain why many efficiency steps haven't been taken. Uses the example that increasing wire size in a building by 1 size would pay itself back in 20 weeks, but isn't done because electricians don't pay for electricity, they do pay for wire, so there incentive would be to use smaller wire, even though it ends up costing the owner of the building a significant amount of money.
3) That capital costs can be reduced through energy efficiency because the effects are actually cascading. As an example, he cited how in construction, the amount of insulation put into a building is only considered by when the insulation will pay itself back in pure energy savings, but forget that the less heat is lost, the smaller the boiler can be, and the smaller the duct work can be, etc. People therefore underestimate the value of efficency because they didn't take the effect of that efficency on the system.
--Some examples of companies employing these effiecency measures in conjunction with RMI is Walmart, which plans to double the efficency of its trucks by 2015 (expected to save the company $300 million per year in fuel costs), put LED's in its refrigerators (which produce less heat, which means less energy is needed to refrigerate, which means compressors can be smaller, etc), and reduce packaging (less material to package, less shipping is needed, less waste to haul away, lower waste disposal costs, etc).
--Texas instruments consulted with RMI when building one of it's fabrication plants, and managed to reduce energy consumption 20%, water consumption 35%, and reduced capital costs by $100 million. Is expected to go futhur in terms of efficiency in the future because it saved so much money.
--http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E05-16_EnergyEndUseEff.pdf
One thing I have noticed time and time again, as long as people say "it's impossible" or come up with other rationales why the right thing to do can't be done, they make what they say the truth. Once they are up against the wall, and they have to do it anyway, it's astonishing how quickly overwhelming obstacles can be overcome. History, particularly recent history, is rife with examples.
Daniel, you had some excellent points, I thought. Something else to note, using larger wire also means that - gasp - if you ever need to get more from your house than you originally planned, you can do so without rewiring your house. Small steps early on can pay off quickly; retrofitting is almost always expensive and can take years to pay for itself. That same line of reasoning applies for global warming. In my opinion, even if I doubted the multitude of available evidence (sorry you don't believe it, Cindy), it would still make good sense to make better use of today's resources.
For me, it's a win-win situation vs. a lose-lose huge situation.
Hey, pillsberry dough boy, I don't deny the globe is warming, slightly.
I don't deny some of the ice that used to cover Greenland has melted. I understand the globe is warming; but I see no evidence this cannot be explained by normal, global cycles.
For instance, consider this:
We now are about 20,000 years into the most recent of the 100,000-year warming and cooling cycles. This one peaked about 10,000 years ago, and has since been cooling. These cycles are coincident with the earth's elliptical orbit around the Sun. As the orbit moves closest around the sun, there is an associated increase and then decrease of solar radiation hitting the earth. As the Earth cooled from its most recent peak to about 8500 B.C., an incipient Clovis civilization was snuffed out. However quite unexpectedly, about 5000 B.C. a new great surge of methane into the atmosphere reversed the cooling process. The renewed warming period was coincident with the beginning of civilization in the Nile, Euphrates, and Tigris River Valleys
Remarkably since then, each subsequent surge of greenhouse gases has also been coincident with a period of global warming, and also surprisingly, with the rise and decline of each of our major civilization.
In 1000 B.C. a 200 to 300-year surge of greenhouse gasses was coincident with the rise and decline of the Babylonian civilization. Five hundred years later in the next warming period, the Greek civilization rose and declined, and four hundred years after that, the Roman civilization became dominant and then declined. The rise of each civilization has been coincident with a warming period, perhaps because warming periods are conducive to longer growing seasons, and a much increased availability of food.
The Dark Ages followed over the next 1,000 years, during which no surges of carbon dioxide or warming periods were observed. However in 1000 A.D. the Medieval period was initiated by another great surge of greenhouse gasses, coincident with a period of global warming, (much warmer than now). During this period, the great cathedrals were built, and the arts flourished. But this period also was so warm that the ice and snow melted in Greenland, and for 200 years, the Danes farmed Greenland until it froze over again. (There are no reports of rising seas inundating sea ports during this period).
The next surge of Greenhouse gases occurred around 1500 A.D. coincident with the Renaissance in another warming period. Finally, the current 20th century warming period (five hundred years later), has been coincident both with the latest surge of greenhouse gasses, and also a sustained 100 year rise in solar radiation. Every surge of greenhouse gasses has been vastly greater than the amounts currently being generated by burning fossil fuels. --- SOURCE
So I have to ask, what's so bad about global warming really?
And even if it is a "bad thing," what do we think we could do, to alter the cycle that has been going on so long without us??
The Titanic hit an iceberg and sank just south off the Newfoudland coast, at roughly the same Latitude of Boston (Lat 42) , in April. Where people talking about global warming then? I do many transatlanic crossing throughout the year between Southampton, England and NYC, following the same course of the Titanic. Rarely, if at all, do we see any icebergs, no matter WHAT time of year.
Stephanie,,,,I'm also reminded that the SAME folks of "science" were telling us that we were all going to freeze to death in the 70's because of what we were doing to the planet. I've no respect for the gloom and doom of the global warming cult.
The total melt area for the same time period in 2005 is slightly lower than 2002 (0.6%) and 1991 (1.1%) as of September 25th. However, we expect a record total melt area for 2005 given the fact that the southern and western part of Greenland are still melting in late September, whereas 2002 and 1991 experienced almost no melt in late September and during October. The melt during October 2003 was 2.3 times that of 1991 and 4.3 times that of 2002. We expect the melt of 2005 to be equal or even larger. SOURCE
I can't say it if was the same scientists - I suspect it wasn't. Not all scientists do the same things or say the same thing (and I don't recall an actual consensus in the 70's) but I'm hearing a consensus now.
And, when I think scientist, I'm not thinking of Al Gore (though I respect his putting himself on the line on this issue). Nor do I count an economist masquerading as a scientist either.
1. the idea that we cannot trust the IPCC because "scientists were talking about a new ice age in the 1970s" is utter nonsense
2. the idea that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere due to fossil fuel burning could have no relationship whatsoever to the observed rise of one degree centigrade in recent decades is silly utter nonsense.
3. The idea that global warming is a sinister scam invented by a few thousand professional scientists in order to bring them more grant money is crazy utter nonsense. When you go to the doctor and he suggests a heart catheterization do you sneer at him that he "just wants to make money"?
I don't know why, there WILL be another ice age, sooner or later.
the idea that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere due to fossil fuel burning could have no relationship whatsoever to the observed rise of one degree centigrade in recent decades is silly utter nonsense
I don't know why, there were such rises long before mankind entered the scene.
The idea that global warming is a sinister scam invented by a few thousand professional scientists in order to bring them more grant money is crazy utter nonsense.
I don't know why, I'm sure if you look closely enough research dollars are being distributed among a mere handful of so called "experts in the field." I mean, after all, who else would be getting this money ??
When you go to the doctor and he suggests a heart catheterization do you sneer at him that he "just wants to make money"?
Well, it isn't quite the same thing is it? An apples and oranges analogy, wouldn't you say?
Such a condition would probably present itself in the patient, at the very least, as discomfort, or an inability to do, what one has always been able to do. There would be physical manifestations felt by the patient, and the doctor would have visual aids he could use to help explain to the patient, and even SHOW the paitent what is wrong, where the problem is, and what they would like to do about it.
The biggest flaw in the analogy however, is the patient must give consent.
A handful of so called "experts" are attempting to tell us all, we have no choice, they see the future, and as the visionaries, DEMAND we follow them.
I'm not sure I'm genetically encoded to allow that scenario, without some tangible PROOF they are correct, BEFORE we proceed down the path they suggest.
The debate is not over, obviously.
If they wanted grants from THIS country, they sure as hell wouldn't be telling the country what it doesn't want to hear. These scientists put their reputations on the line. Many skeptics in the scientific community have switched sides because of the overwhelming evidence coming faster than any of the worst naysayers worst fears.
I'm in safety and I know, when I stick my neck out (and I've done it and jeopardized my job more than once), I do it for the good of my conscience and the good of others. I don't have another motive because I always pay a price.
"Arctic ice shrinks, alarming scientists"- Recent measurements of the Greenland ice sheet indicate that it lost 19 billion tons more ice than it had at the previous high mark. Last year, two top scientists estimated that the arctic would become ice free in the summer of 2040. In the light of this summer's big melt, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally stated "at this rate, the Arctic ocean could be ice free at the summer of 2012, much faster than the previous prediction".
I am left in the embarrassing position of arguing that it is not too late to do something about climate change, when the evidence is starting to look like we will pay the price, rather than our great grandkids. But at least I am also in the position of saying "I told you"- instead of living in la la land like Jjack.
More stupidity.
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Greenland_Melt_Accelerating_999.html
The logic of corrupt scientists recommending steps being taken for "their own benefit" just slays me. If we do what they ask us to do and it WORKS, then history might very well go down as saying they were alarmists whose predictions came to nothing. The only incentive they have to keep pushing these changes is in hopes of being wrong.
Ironic, isn't it?
Thank you for your defense of scientists. I am one, so I appreciate it. No group of people get paid so little for doing so much for so little reward. The truth is that climatology is a difficult science, and there are still many unanswered questions (as in most fields). But I think we are missing the point. The weather is changing, everyone agrees. The issue is whether we can affect it. Reducing greenhouse emissions might have a positive effect at some point, but this is still uncertain. On the other hand there are many good reasons to limit our use of fossil fuels, including reducing pollution in general and reducing dependence on foreign oil. Should we resort to drastic measures that will severely impact our economy? Of course not, but very few people are suggesting that. We need to move into the next phase of alternative energy before the oil runs out, and we need to do it fast. Ironically this govt is lagging behind private industry in this area.
I also think Micky makes an important point, which I have addressed at length elsewhere. There have been many predictions of doom in the past that did not occur. (Ozone hole, water pollution from phosphates etc.) However the reason they did not occur was because actions were taken to prevent the disaster. That is where we stand now with respect to climate change.
Despite the initial hue and cry ("it's would be economically devastating to get rid of them!"), CFCs were curtailed in a surprisingly short time. What do you know, the hole got better (it's not quite gone yet - it's seasonal) and the cancer didn't happen.
Lesson to be learned there.
But none of them could be proven, as in the example of the heart surgury.
Greenland Stephanie, was farmland before it froze over.
The Dark Ages followed over the next 1,000 years, during which no surges of carbon dioxide or warming periods were observed. However in 1000 A.D. the Medieval period was initiated by another great surge of greenhouse gasses, coincident with a period of global warming, (much warmer than now). During this period, the great cathedrals were built, and the arts flourished. But this period also was so warm that the ice and snow melted in Greenland, and for 200 years, the Danes farmed Greenland until it froze over again. (There are no reports of rising seas inundating sea ports during this period). SOURCE
the thawing of Alaska with vastly expanded wildfires, the beginning of the melting of the Greenland ice cap, and the reduction of the summer arctic sea ice were all predicted and all happened.
So what ??? That didn't cause the planet to go into distress, it didn't cause millions to day, so.... so what ???
The point of no return will be reached within 10 years, the former vice president says, and we cannot wait any longer to solve the crisis. He blames a focus on instant gratification for the "exclusion of long-term consequences in our decisions and policies" and writes about his "mission of solving the climate crisis". His Oscar-winning documentary on climate change, An Inconvenient Truth, became the surprise box-office hit of 2006.
Mr Gore claims that concerns over the environment formed his "principal agenda for eight years in the White House". But he is light on details of what he did while in office, beyond a brief mention of his work with the Kyoto treaty (which was never ratified by Congress).
During his tenure as vice president, America's carbon dioxide emissions shot up far faster than at any time in modern history - by 15 per cent, compared to just 1.65 per cent during President Bush's first term. SOURCE
Is it REALLY "past the point of no return?"
Should we resort to drastic measures that will severely impact our economy? Of course not, but very few people are suggesting that
Wrong, KYOTO did JUST THAT.
However the reason they did not occur was because actions were taken to prevent the disaster.
Okay, tell me one thing the world has done to "prevent" a SPECIFIC "global warming" disaster from occuring. *chuckle*
Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it so.
You make me tired, is all.
No wonder you're forced to call me names, now go to sleep teenie weenie inadequate peenie boy *chuckle*
jJack, what's the point of explaining anything to you if you don't hear. We haven't prevented anything yet. I believe that, if we had done things at the right time, we definitely could have done something to make this better. Now, I'm not as sure. With attitudes like yours, we won't even try.
The most ironic thing is the same people who accuse scientists of being Chicken Little, scream bloody murder when their house is burning because of drought-fed fire or losing their mansions on the Gulf Coast to inland flooding. "If you scientists were so smart, why didn't you try harder to stop this!" These sorts won't worry until death is knocking on the door and no options remain - then, they'll be the first to point fingers at everyone but themselves.
It's pathetic really, but it's the generations that follow that will pay most heavily for our dragging feet. Not that I expect you to believe anything, jJack.
I also think Micky makes an important point, which I have addressed at length elsewhere. There have been many predictions of doom in the past that did not occur. (Ozone hole, water pollution from phosphates etc.) However the reason they did not occur was because actions were taken to prevent the disaster. That is where we stand now with respect to climate change.
Now who do I believe, you or Sy ??? *ROFL*
Why would anyone blame a Scientist for an arson started wildfire ??? That's stupid.
Also, a "drought-fed" fire is not synonomous with an arson-started fire.
I can't force you to believe anything. I don't even expect you to believe anything. But what you believe or don't believe, what I believe or don't believe has no bearing on reality which just is.
Reality is all that stuff that doesn't care if you believe in it or not.
--Solomon Short
Oh really ?? That's not what the so called "experts" say. Now we know you're an idiot.
Green House Gases from Air Pollution
Is global warming connected to the hole in the ozone layer?
Also, a "drought-fed" fire is not synonomous with an arson-started fire.
Who said it was ??? The fact is, arson is the "usual suspect" when these fires start up UNEXPECTEDLY as they did this year.
California officials raised a bounty ($150,000.00) Thursday in an effort to find suspects behind the biggest in a string of deadly wildfires still burning out of control that are responsible for at least 10 deaths, more than 1,500 destroyed homes and nearly half a million scorched acres. SOURCE
You'd better stay on the porch dearie, and let the big dogs run.
BALI, Indonesia - The UN climate conference met strong opposition Thursday from a team of over 100 prominent international scientists, who warned the UN, that attempting to control the Earth's climate was "ultimately futile."
The scientists, many of whom are current and former UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientists, sent an open letter to the UN Secretary-General questioning the scientific basis for climate fears and the UN's so-called "solutions."
"Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems," the letter signed by the scientists read. The December 13 letter was released to the public late Thursday.
"It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables," the scientists wrote.
"In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is 'settled,' significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming," the open letter added.
The scientists' letter continued: "The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions."
"The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts," the letter added.
The letter was signed by renowned scientists such as Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists; Dr. Reid Bryson, dubbed the "Father of Meteorology"; Atmospheric pioneer Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, formerly of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; Award winning physicist Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu of the International Arctic Research Center, who has twice named one of the "1000 Most Cited Scientists"; Award winning MIT atmospheric scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen; UN IPCC scientist Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand; French climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux of the University Jean Moulin; World authority on sea level Dr. Nils-Axel Morner of Stockholm University; Physicist Dr. Freeman Dyson of Princeton University; Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Poland; Paleoclimatologist Dr. Robert M. Carter of Australia; Former UN IPCC reviewer Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum in Norway; and Dr. Edward J. Wegman, of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
SOURCE
You do understand the difference between methane and CFCs though they both affect ozone, don't you? Methane is a greenhouse gas as well more effective than carbon dioxide.
Oversimplification of complex systems is fraught with error. If you take sound bites and base your position on that, you'll miss the big picture.
The CFCs were developed because they were because they were stable (actually nonreactive) and they generally are but when, by osmosis, they filter up above the ozone layer, they broken up by UV light, leaving a chlorine ion, which is very very reactive. Not only is it reactive, particularly oxygen, but the process by which it changes ozone to O2 leaves a free chlorine atom to do it again - a catalyst. That's why the hole hasn't completely gone away.
The process was identified more than 30 years ago. Proof came afterwards (after, I might point out, it was hailed as "fiction" and a "fairy tale" by the manufacturers).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_hole#Observations
It's actually a fascinating story of scientists working, unsupported, to identify dangers even when dismissed - and finding it.
--Arthur Schopenhauer
The "hole" has always been with us according to everything I've read. It just changes in size. I recognize that it might be possible for extended exposure to the sun's radiation to destabilize the CFCs sufficiently that they might break up and the free chlorine would immediately combine with the unstable ozone and take it's extra oxygen atom, thereby destroying the ozone.
If this did happen in large quantities it would be possible. However, no one that I am aware of has lightened the heavier than air CFC molecule so it could rise above our oxygen atmosphere to the very edge of it and remain there for a sufficient length of time for all this to take place!
Theories abound, and they have no requirement for the test of reasonable. I'm not at all sure that the label of "fiction" and "fairy tale" are not, in fact, appropriate. We, in the refrigeration business, were told at one time that this process takes ten years. But never did they say when it becomes lighter than air and quits puddling on the surface of the earth.
I'm very familiar with these type of things taking on a life all their own without a solid real cause or explanation, someone says "what would happen if" and it just goes from there. We are still using a lot of CFC refrigerant and there are many more sources of chlorine in the atmosphere than just CFC refrigerants. In fact, we put chlorine in swimming pools, drinking water and other uses which could send the actual chlorine molecule directly out to do the damage! Osmosis is not a process of making CFCs lighter than air.
Chlorine rises from the oceans is another source of chlorine. They were claiming a "cure" from outlawing CFCs when they couldn't possibly be the reason for any change. And remember, there are still many cars running around with R12 refrigerant as well as home freezers, air conditioning, etc.
My whole point was that the global warming is real and unlike the CFC thing it is documented and provable. Not necessarily at the rate some feel it is warming but I was taught in the nineteen forties that the world was warming, for sure.
People, including scientists, will certainly find "dangers" anywhere they are convinced of the danger. If they can convince enough people it will rise to the point of "crisis" in the minds of all who are involved.
Truth may pass through stages but if it is truth it remains truth. Myth can pass through the same set of criteria, and frequently does.
What you claim is a mystery was predicted and seen. The ozone hole is a phenomena limited to the last few decades according to the data I've seen.
CFCs do not occur in nature. Free chlorine ions/atoms rarely can make it up to because they are so reactive here and often become precipitates or interact with other materials. CFCs, because they are not reactive, can keep the chlorine intact and airborne.
I recognize that what I've said is diametrically opposite to what has generally been published. But I'm still waiting for a logical reason for CFCs, which are extremely stable, and which are heavier than the atmosphere, to rise to the level of the ozone layer! No one has been able to give me that reason, as yet. Perhaps it is there and I'll believe it if it can be logically explained, but until then I feel it was a terrible hoax, probably unintentional on the part of the purveyors, foisted off on the worlds citizens.
The link you provided contains a lot of information about the ozone but fails to actually address the fact that CFCs are heavier than air. It jumps right around this problem and states that the role of CFCs in destroying ozone are well known. Sure, if you can get the ozone on the ground! It then jumps to the Montreal protocol and from there you are into the self perpetuating myth originating out of "My God, what do you suppose would happen if?" Fear fed and rumor lubricated, it spread faster than a California wild fire and we had "cures" lined up without establishing the nature of the problem. Then, we had "improvement" in the situation before the applied "cures" could have possibly been responsible, that is unless the whole thing had acquired a life in the minds of fearful perpetrators!
Ozone is a very unstable substance. If you leave it in nature long enough it will disappear on its own. It is not natural for an oxygen molecule to hold three oxygen atoms so all they need to resolve back to O2 is just about any excuse. CFCs, on the other hand are predictable, stable and very much heavier than air!
Thanks, I appreciated the link!
I went back and looked again and somehow that question simply was overlooked in this otherwise comprehensive rush to the Montreal protocol!
It does explain the process in some detail but unfortunately, fails totally to address how CFCs ever get lighter than air and go into the stratosphere! No such explanation is even attempted, it is simply passed by like the question never came up. And it probably didn't!
It is a moot question today as we've made major changes in refrigeration for this purpose and we are not returning, period! However, I'd love to have someone show me where this has been addressed. It is one of the mistakes of the past from which we can learn and not allow fear and haste to repeat in another application.
Halon, for example, is very heavy and, in a relatively still room (like indoors) it will form a gas blanket and put out a fire. Use it outside on a windy day, and it's effects are far less useful. Over time and with mixing, it homogenizes throughout the air blanket, eventually reaching high up.
Interestingly enough, the ozone layer is very high up. If weight were all that determined where in the atmosphere you were, it would be down here killing us (it's poisonous) since it's heavier than regular oxygen.
Just because you don't understand the process of homogenation of air (and I can't explain it fully myself), doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We've measured it at various altitudes and, even if we don't understand the mechanisms (and someone very well might), it still exists even so high up. Nature doesn't care if we believe her or not. She just is.
To say that, because we sit in our armchairs and it doesn't make sense to us is fallacious (even if you are an atmospheric scientist and, no offense, I don't think you are; neither am I). As Galileo said when they disbelieved him on gravity, "It still moves."
Very good explanation, in fact, the best I've seen! however, I know from experience that freon (CFCs) do not blend into the atmosphere when released from a container in the same manner as does O2 or various other gasses. Instead, it pools at the lowest level possible! It does not, according to what I've seen, "homogenize" with the atmosphere. If it did, I'd certainly accept that as a reasonable explanation.
Wind, and the movement of air in general, tend to be negated by the fact that if the wind blows it out there, it also blow the ozone away and the CRC's would not be left in one place long enough to allow the resultant solar radiation to do the dirty deed! Besides, we all know that if ozone is left alone long enough it will revert to O2 naturally. It is simply an unstable form of the element Oxygen. If all air "homogenized" all scents would be present at all times everywhere. There are gasses which don't blend including hydrocarbons.
No offense taken, I'm not an atmospheric scientist. Just a guy who thinks CFC's got a bum rap in the whole process and mankind lost a valuable friend! Perhaps you are totally right about this but I would not compare it to global warming as there has never been the "proof" I feel necessary. The article of your link did not give the detailed explanation you just offered, so Thanks!