Global Climate Change

About Global Climate Change

An article posted February 6, 2006. By Constitutional Rights Foundation Chicago Staff.

For more than 100 years, scientists have known about the "greenhouse effect." Basically, it works like this: radiation from the Sun passes through the Earth's atmosphere and strikes its surface. Instead of bouncing back into space, the radiation is trapped by the atmosphere and becomes heat. This process keeps our planet from becoming cold and hostile to life. But over the past few centuries, human activities have increased the concentration of the gases that trap the Sun's radiation. These gases include carbon dioxide (CO₂) and are often called "greenhouse gases."

The Evidence of Climate Change

In 1988, the United Nations established a panel on climate change. This panel found that (1) during the 20th century, the Earth warmed by about one degree Fahrenheit; (2) during the last 200 years (the era of the Industrial Revolution), levels of CO₂ in the atmosphere rose by about 30 percent; and (3) "...most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

The Earth can become warmer naturally. But scientists estimate that about 75 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions that are warming the atmosphere come from burning fossil fuels like coal and gasoline. Americans are responsible for 35 percent of greenhouse gases produced by humans.

Most of the remaining emissions result from the destruction of forests. Since 1855, humans have destroyed up to 20 percent of the world's rain forests in places like Brazil. The burning of forests - to clear land for farming, roads, and housing and commercial developments - injects large amounts of CO₂ into the atmosphere.

Some of the world's scientists disagree with the findings of the United Nations report. Environmental science scholar S. Fred Singer points out that there are many things scientists do not yet know, such as how much climate-altering CO₂ is absorbed by the ocean. Rather than assuming an environmental disaster will result from global warming, Singer identifies potential benefits, including longer growing seasons, an increase in timber, more water in some dry regions, and a decrease in the use of fossil fuels for heating as winters become more moderate.

Scientists who agree with Singer also identify cloud cover as a possible climate stabilizer. As the Earth warms, these scientists predict, ocean evaporation will increase, causing more high cirrus clouds to form. A greater global cloud cover could reflect more of the Sun's radiation back into space and actually cool the planet. Scientists who question the evidence for global climate change point out that the history of science is full of examples when the "most current research" proved to be wrong.

What If We Do Nothing?

What if global warming does prove to be destructive rather than beneficial? What if we do nothing about global warming? According to the United Nations climate change panel, concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will double by 2100. This will increase the Earth's temperature between 3.5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit.

Increasing temperatures will bring droughts. Crop yields will decline and poor countries will suffer famines. Insects will thrive and insect-borne diseases like malaria will expand. Increasingly violent storms, gathering additional energy from a warmer ocean, will threaten life. A melting Greenland ice cap could cause a rise in sea levels while shifting ocean currents could impact weather and commercial fishing.

Ecosystems unable to cope with the climate changes will be at risk. Up to 50 percent of the world's wetlands may be lost; animal, bird, and fish species will become extinct. A global warming study concluded that weather damage, crop losses, and other expenses will cost the world $300 billion per year. Most scientists believe, however, that homo sapiens will survive global warming.

What Should We Do About Global Climate Change?

In 1997, more than 160 nations met at Kyoto, Japan, to work out an agreement requiring reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. This agreement, called the Kyoto Treaty, included an exemption for all economically developing countries. They would not have to limit their emissions. These countries argued that such limits would severely weaken their economic development.

Despite opposition from the United States and other industrialized nations, the developing countries were exempted in the final treaty. The industrialized countries agreed to reduce by 2015 their greenhouse gas emissions by up to eight percent below 1990 levels. The overall goal was to stabilize the greenhouse effect and slow damage to the global environment.

Under the Kyoto Treaty, nations are given no set rules for reducing emissions. Instead, they must consider options such as limiting deforestation, requiring more fuel-efficient automobiles, or imposing a "carbon tax" on gasoline and other fossil fuels to discourage use. Relying more on solar, wind, and nuclear power would also reduce greenhouse gas emissions. To meet the treaty goals, 21st-century technologies would need to be developed. Supporters of the treaty believe corporations can find ways to meet the treaty goals and still be profitable. Critics argue that a treaty is too inflexible; relying on free trade and market innovations, they say, will produce better solutions.

In the United States, President William J. Clinton signed the Kyoto Treaty, but the U.S. Senate refused to ratify it because of the developing countries' exemption and possible threats to the American economy. In 2001, President George W. Bush withdrew the United States from the Kyoto Treaty. He argued that its call for greenhouse gas reductions would cost Americans millions of jobs. A few months later, 180 nations met without the United States to implement the treaty.

In 2002, President Bush came up with his own plan for reducing U.S. greenhouse gases. He proposed a mix of alternative fuel research and tax credits to encourage companies to reduce their emissions voluntarily over a 10-year period. This approach, Bush said, would lower emissions to levels comparable to those required by the Kyoto Treaty without damaging the American economy. Critics of President Bush's plan faulted his heavy reliance on voluntary action by companies and claimed that U.S. emissions would grow substantially. Critics such as Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) argued that Congress should set higher fuel-efficiency standards for automobile manufacturers. President Bush opposed this step, explaining that it might force manufacturers to produce smaller and more expensive vehicles.

The debate about global climate change will continue.

© 2005 Constitutional Rights Foundation Chicago. All Constitutional Rights Foundation protected by copyright. However, we hereby grant to all recipients a license to reproduce to students, other school site personnel, and district administrators.

Images