 Consensus on Climate Change?
What was once an issue discussed only among groups of anxious scientists and meteorologists has now gained broad consensus. Within the U.S., all major scientific organizations have issued statements confirming that human activity does indeed play a role in climate change. Countless international groups, including the World Bank and the World Health Organization, have decreed global warming a manmade problem in need of immediate action.
Evidence?
It is true that earth’s temperatures and greenhouse gas levels have risen in the past, as the effects of repeating patterns in earth’s orbit every 100,000 years. Nevertheless, scientists worldwide have widely agreed that the recent climate changes are the direct byproducts of human activity. Evidence, from sources ranging from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to NASA, points to rising levels of atmospheric carbon (a 35 percent increase since 1750) and increasing temperatures (between 0.6°C and 0.9°C since 1906).
Why we should care
Although the idea of melting glaciers and extinct vegetation may not appear to have any immediate impact on our day-to-day lives, surging insurance costs and longer, more vicious heat waves might. Unchecked extraction and utilization of exhaustible resources has contributed to a problem whose worldwide damage costs financial institutions have estimated at $150 billion a year, a hefty burden whose weight would be shouldered by rich and poor alike. Climate change, then, is not only an environmental dilemma—the issue that has attracted the greatest attention—but also an economic and technological problem.
Can "Cosmic Ray Theory" Explain Global Warming? Scientists Say No.
A number of studies have been released within the past two years revealing that solar variation and volcanic activity cannot solely explain changes in our planet’s climate, without taking into account the effects of manmade greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Skeptics of manmade global warming have long advocated the so-called “cosmic ray theory, contending that changes in solar radiation affect cosmic ray cloud cover, and thus are responsible for the climate change we have been witnessing over the past several decades.
Nevertheless, prominent scientists have criticized the data from arguments in favor of cosmic ray hypothesis as being either outdated, imprecise, or both, and many remain unconvinced. A recent study from Britain’s Royal Society journal Proceedings A, authored by a number of European physicists, has concluded that, while solar radiation may have been responsible for some climate change in the first half of the twentieth century, it is not the primary reason for current and projected rises in earth’s temperature.
 Climate Change and the Future of Wine
For foodies and winemakers, climate change represents a very real, albeit far-off, threat.
It seems as if with each passing day a new report on the catastrophic effects of climate change is released, detailing scientific projections of increased hurricanes, longer droughts, and more inclement weather in general. For many of us, these reports are frightening yet distant, faraway predictions for faraway places.
What exactly does a 2-degree (Celsius) increase mean for someone with central air-conditioning at his fingertips? A July 2006 National Academy of Sciences study suggests that, over the long term, winemakers have a lot at stake.
According to the study, up to 81 percent of America's “potential premium wine grape production area could become untenable. As California has a $2.9 billion wine industry, despite the study’s seemingly alarmist figures, microclimate changes are not taken lightly. Not only Napa’s and Sonoma’s vineyards, but also those of Spain, southern France, and Italy could suffer from increased temperatures, although northern Europe and Canada would benefit initially from a warmer climate. While models cannot perfectly predict the wine industry’s future, current trends and model predictions have prompted industry leaders to assemble panels on global warming.
NPC Report: More of the Same? Or a Newly Turned Leaf?
Faced by numerous reports outlining the impact of manmade emissions on climate change, the oil industry has acknowledged the prudence of energy efficiency.
On July 18, 2007, the National Petroleum Council, an organization consisting of 175 oil authorities—including the heads of ExxonMobil, Shell, and Chevron—issued the draft of a full report detailing the future of oil. In the report, “Facing the Hard Truths About Energy, the NPC warned that demand for oil over the following two decades could create new challenges to energy security. “The world is not running out of energy resources, the NPC study states, “but many complex challenges could keep these diverse energy resources from becoming the sufficient, reliable, and economic energy supplies upon which people depend. It recommended clamping down on growth in oil demand, as well as doubling the fuel economy of new American cars by 2030, with the effect being a decrease in dependence on oil by a tremendous 3 to 5 million barrels per day until 2030.
The NPC report may initially appear to contain genuine concessions of the merits of resource conservation. However, the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas, and others, have criticized the NPC’s report for including over-optimistic forecasting of the future of global oil reserves, misleading graphs and timid policy proposals. Moreover, the NPC conclusion—that the solution to the problem is to extract even more oil and gas, despite more obstacles in doing so—is little more than support for a business as usual approach to climate change.
Nevertheless, an extensive report that recognizes an imminent shortage of gas and oil supply in the face of burgeoning demand—among the first of its kind for these industries—is evidence that even big oil has started to square with the realities of a changing world.
Climate change and alternative sources of energy
Zero-emissions technologies, like wind and solar power, are gaining in popularity and efficiency. What does this mean for climate change?
Nationwide, we get about 65 percent of our electricity from fossil fuels, such as petroleum and coal. And while the technology is cleaner and better than it was thirty years ago, fossil fuel combustion contributes to around 60 percent of carbon and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the United States.
As most of us are unlikely to abandon our comfortable homes in favor of off-the-grid mud huts with composting toilets, it is fortunate that low-emissions options depending on alternative resources abound. Solar, wind, biomass, and water-based energies are but a few of the sustainable sources available for consumption today. Among them, solar power leads the pack in growth. Most important, solar-power systems offer individuals the chance to lessen a reliance on coal and to help reduce the emissions that contribute to global climate change.
Climate Change
|
