Global Warming Impacts and Solutions
For the past fifty years or so, the human race has nearly tripled in population. The United States has doubled in the same time, to just over 300 million. Americans learned to build bigger and more powerful automobiles, massive shopping centers, commercial jet airliners, bigger and more comfortable homes with central air conditioning, and developed a culture of consumerism which drives the economic engine of the entire world. Americans consume a quarter of the world’s man-made energy production, represent a quarter of the world’s economy, but only have 3 of 70, about 4%, of the world’s people.
America is seen by the outside world as fat, lazy, and wasteful. Americans don’t care about anyone else. What is worse, other nations wish to emulate these wasteful, destructive ways. Unfortunately, Nature has begun to rebel. Soon, the rebellion may take its toll on our culture.
Oil was just discovered in the U.S. for commercial uses about 150 years ago, and in that time mankind has consumed about half of all the economically recoverable oil that has or will ever be found. Between the combustion of oil, gas, coal, and other fossil fuel derivatives, the carbon dioxide concentration in the air has increased more than 70% in the last 150 years. There is no question that man is the cause. Nature is unforgiving in its judgment and punishment of the offending culprit.
Nature’s solution to a world governed by man is to begin to overheat. This is global warming. Temperatures are on the rise. The poles are melting, the glaciers have nearly disappeared, the coral reefs are dying, and the cyclonic storms become more severe and more numerous. The sea levels rise, at first only ten meters in this century, but 50 meters in the next. Droughts will be longer, climates become more arid, and soil turns to dust and sand. Water sources dry up, food becomes scarce, and economies are wrecked. Foolish leaders, in a desperate attempt to steal from others that have better environments, foment wars of acquisition. Instead of fighting for means to solve the crises, nations fight for what’s left over in a dying human culture. It is Armageddon in our own time.
Human leaders are not unlike bacteria in a culture on a Petri dish. Merely place a few drops of sugar water on the dish, and watch the culture bloom around the resource. Times are good. Wait. Within hours or days, the bacteria farthest from the sugar die, and later, the entire culture is dead. No worries, just get another dish, some more sugar, and some more bacteria, then try again. The mark of pure genius, according to many human leaders, is to try the same thing over and over in hopes that there will be a different outcome. Scientists know this method. It is called blind faith. Scientists also know the outcome of these approaches. It is called death.
We are an intelligent species. We should be able to outperform bacteria.
Global warming is evidence that we are failing in this regard.
What do you think we need to do to adapt?
America is seen by the outside world as fat, lazy, and wasteful. Americans don’t care about anyone else. What is worse, other nations wish to emulate these wasteful, destructive ways. Unfortunately, Nature has begun to rebel. Soon, the rebellion may take its toll on our culture.
Oil was just discovered in the U.S. for commercial uses about 150 years ago, and in that time mankind has consumed about half of all the economically recoverable oil that has or will ever be found. Between the combustion of oil, gas, coal, and other fossil fuel derivatives, the carbon dioxide concentration in the air has increased more than 70% in the last 150 years. There is no question that man is the cause. Nature is unforgiving in its judgment and punishment of the offending culprit.
Nature’s solution to a world governed by man is to begin to overheat. This is global warming. Temperatures are on the rise. The poles are melting, the glaciers have nearly disappeared, the coral reefs are dying, and the cyclonic storms become more severe and more numerous. The sea levels rise, at first only ten meters in this century, but 50 meters in the next. Droughts will be longer, climates become more arid, and soil turns to dust and sand. Water sources dry up, food becomes scarce, and economies are wrecked. Foolish leaders, in a desperate attempt to steal from others that have better environments, foment wars of acquisition. Instead of fighting for means to solve the crises, nations fight for what’s left over in a dying human culture. It is Armageddon in our own time.
Human leaders are not unlike bacteria in a culture on a Petri dish. Merely place a few drops of sugar water on the dish, and watch the culture bloom around the resource. Times are good. Wait. Within hours or days, the bacteria farthest from the sugar die, and later, the entire culture is dead. No worries, just get another dish, some more sugar, and some more bacteria, then try again. The mark of pure genius, according to many human leaders, is to try the same thing over and over in hopes that there will be a different outcome. Scientists know this method. It is called blind faith. Scientists also know the outcome of these approaches. It is called death.
We are an intelligent species. We should be able to outperform bacteria.
Global warming is evidence that we are failing in this regard.
What do you think we need to do to adapt?
Tags: biomass, carbon, credits, energy, environment, gas, geothermal, nuclear, ocean, oil, More…
Views: 8
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. Paul A. Curto on -
Jim Hansen from NASA has some interesting ideas. Here is a sample:
"Burning Wood In Place of Coal".
-
Permalink Reply by American in the D.R. on -
No one wants to hear this, so they don't listen and will not change... until it is too late.
www.cnn.com Sept. 15
Melting Arctic shows need for climate pact, group says
Story Highlights
Data shows Arctic sea ice may reach its lowest recorded level this summer
Worldwide Fund for Nature: Governments need to hold talks on a new climate pact
WWF: Arctic melting is a "catastrophic" trend that could threaten polar wildlife
Group hopes for a new deal at a U.N. summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, in 2009
OSLO, Norway (AP) -- Data showing Arctic sea ice may reach its lowest level on record this summer underscores the need for governments to speed up talks on a new climate pact, the Worldwide Fund for Nature said Monday.
The WWF said observations on ice coverage and thickness pointed toward a record low for the second year in a row, continuing a "catastrophic" trend that could threaten polar wildlife and accelerate global warming.
"If you take reduced ice thickness into account, there is probably less ice overall in the Arctic this year than in any other year since monitoring began," said Martin Sommerkorn, senior climate adviser of the WWF's Arctic program.
"This is also the first year that the Northwest Passage over the top of North America, and the Northeast Passage over the top of Russia, are both free of ice," he said.
The U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said earlier this month that Arctic sea ice coverage was the second lowest on record, and could break last year's low mark before the season is over. Satellite measurements began in 1979.
Last month, a scientist at Trent University in Ontario, Canada, reported that a chunk of ice shelf nearly the size of Manhattan broke away from Ellesmere Island in Canada's northern Arctic, another dramatic indication of how warmer temperatures are changing the polar frontier.
"There are already signs that species such as polar bears are experiencing negative effects as climate change erodes the ice platform on which they rely," Sommerkorn said. "These changes are also affecting the peoples of the Arctic whose traditional livelihoods depend on healthy ecosystems."
Arctic ice melts in summer and refreezes in winter. But over the years, more of the ice is lost to the sea with less of it recovered in winter. While ice reflects the sun's heat, the open ocean absorbs more heat and the melting accelerates warming in other parts of the world.
"As that ice goes, Arctic waters absorb more heat, adding to global warming," Sommerkorn said. "This is not just an Arctic problem, it is a global problem, and it demands a global response."
The WWF said governments must accelerate climate talks to ensure that a new deal to replace the Kyoto treaty on greenhouse gas emissions can be agreed on at a U.N. summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December 2009
-
Permalink Reply by J. Steven Furniss on -
Your statements are correct Dr. Curto. Humans are the bacteria and we're destroying the surface of the Earth, our home. We burn fossilf fuels simply becuase they are cheap and easy and most folks are not willing to make the sacrifices required to discover and implement alternatives. I would think just the simple fact that the energy we receive from the Sun is 6000 - 10000 times more than we require each day would make us look to it as a clean and limitless energy solution... Why hasn't it happened?
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. Paul A. Curto on
-
The Sierra Club provided this video which addresses what some believe is good common sense -- "eco-sense" in our daily decisions.
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. Paul A. Curto on
-
Here is what the local governments have planned for the next 40 years or so to address issues in Washington, DC, Maryland and Virginia.
-
Permalink Reply by michael maldonado on -
Well, I know some of us don't like politics. However, it seems every time someone tries to do something about "Global warming" A Conservative Republican Downplays every thing were trying to fix. Example: "There is no Global warming", "This is a normal cycle", "Drill baby Drill"
Perhaps we all have to get more aggresive?
It has been these same conservatives that told us to trust this economy, Trust the free market, Trust th trickle down. Look around you. Banks are going under, Insurance companys are going under, stock markets are crashing, 401-k's are being wiped out because we all trusted the Conservative Republicans to guide us.
I normaly don't get involved. Perhaps, That's part of the problem. I have had enough of this free market economy and "Just trust us"
It's time for CHANGE, Before the whole country goes under. Like Russia did. I will never listen to, or trust another Conservative Republican. Seriously folks.
MIKE
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. Paul A. Curto on
-
Liberals and conservatives in America are indeed bacterial in their response to global issues. This is not a Pub or Dem issue, This is a blame everybody else but me issue.
Example: Isn't it odd that Gore has the audacity to claim that global warming is his issue? We watched for eight years while he was in a position of great power and influence and did nothing.
I sat on a panel of scientists 30 years ago where global warming was discussed. We proposed solutions then, and worked to make them happen. It was Reagan then who killed all of the renewables.
The blame belongs to both "sides".
The responsibility, however, is ours as citizens to crush any politician who stands in the way of human survival Do not allow anyone to come to power who opposes the necessary change in direction for our Nation and the world.
-
Permalink Reply by Robert E. Goetsch on -
WOUNDERFULL! So don't trust Conservatives!However, what does that have to do with our need for ENERGY? NOT ONLY THE EVIL ECONOMY, but your life and my life causes us to need energy.
Where is your CLEAN alternative to our energy needs? Many progressives want us off of all fosil feul in 10 years. That would be fine. HOW DO WE DO THAT? SOLAR ONLY?
-
Permalink Reply by W. Dan Chance on -
Hi Paul, I could not have said it better. I like your style. I completely agree with your warnings. If we succeed in this Pickens Plan we can begin to have an effect on the outcome. Maybe delay it enough so more people can come to their senses. Come visit my page, you may see a blog post you like or meet other friends.
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. Paul A. Curto on
-
In the interests of fair and balanced discussion, here is the Washington Post's editorial on the subject.
'Snake Oil'
Debunking three 'truths' about offshore drilling
Tuesday, August 12, 2008; A12
THE NATURAL Resources Defense Council Action Fund has taken out full-page ads in this newspaper and others to decry offshore drilling for oil as "George W. Bush's Gasoline Price Elixir" that is "100% Snake Oil." The environmental group calls on supporters "to stop the giveaway of our coasts." It is urging visitors to its Web site to send a pre-written letter to their members of Congress that says, "I am not buying the lie . . . that sacrificing the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and America's coastal waters to oil drilling would make a real difference in gas prices -- either today or twenty years from today!" And the missive adds, "With just three percent of the world's oil reserves, our nation simply doesn't have enough oil to impact the global market or drill our way to lower prices at the pump."
The NRDC's arguments above neatly encapsulate the position taken by environmentalists and other opponents of offshore drilling. And they include a couple of good points. Contrary to the baldly political suggestions regarding lower gasoline prices by President Bush and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), drilling would make no impact on today's pain at the pump because it would be years before any oil flowed from the Outer Continental Shelf. We agree that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, with its varied and sensitive ecosystems, should be preserved. In the quest for new sources of energy, there are trade-offs. That pristine area must remain off-limits. But there are three "truths" masquerading as fact among drilling opponents that need to be challenged:
· Drilling is pointless because the United States has only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. This is a misleading because it refers only to known oil reserves. According to the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service (MMS), while there are an estimated 18 billion barrels of oil in the off-limits portions of the OCS, those estimates were made using old data from now-outdated seismic equipment. In the case of the Atlantic Ocean, the data were collected before Congress imposed a moratorium on offshore drilling in 1981. In 1987, the MMS estimated that there were 9 billion barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico. By 2006, after major advances in seismic technology and deepwater drilling techniques, the MMS resource estimate for that area had ballooned to 45 billion barrels. In short, there could be much more oil under the sea than previously known. The demand for energy is going up, not down. And for a long time, even as alternative sources of energy are developed, more oil will be needed.
· The oil companies aren't using the leases they already have. According to the MMS, there were 7,457 active leases as of June 8. Of those, only 1,877 were classified as "producing." As we pointed out in a previous editorial, the five leases that have made up the Shell Perdido project off Galveston since 1996 are not classified as producing. Only when it starts pumping the equivalent of an estimated 130,000 barrels of oil a day at the end of the decade will it be deemed "active." Since 1996, Shell has paid rent on the leases; filed and had approved numerous reports with the MMS, including an environmentally sensitive resource development plan and an oil spill recovery plan that is subject to unannounced practice runs by the MMS; drilled several wells to explore the area at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars; and started constructing the necessary infrastructure to bring the oil to market. The notion that oil companies are just sitting on oil leases is a myth. With oil prices still above $100 a barrel, that charge never made sense.
· Drilling is environmentally dangerous. Opposition to offshore drilling goes back to 1969, when 80,000 barrels of oil from an offshore oil well blowout washed up on the beaches of Santa Barbara. In 1971, the Interior Department instituted a host of reporting requirements (such as the resource development and oil spill recovery plans mentioned above) and stringent safety measures. Chief among them is a requirement for each well to have an automatic shut-off valve beneath the ocean floor that can also be operated manually. According to the MMS, between 1993 and 2007, there were 651 spills of all sizes at OCS facilities (in federal waters three miles or more offshore) that released 47,800 barrels of oil. With 7.5 billion barrels of oil produced in that time, that equates to 1 barrel of oil spilled per 156,900 barrels produced. That's not to minimize the danger. But no form of energy is perfect or without trade-offs. Besides, if it is acceptable to drill in the Caspian Sea and in developing countries such as Nigeria where environmental concerns are equally important, it's hard to explain why the United States should rule out drilling off its own coasts.
The strongest argument against drilling is that it could distract the country from a pursuit of alternative sources of energy. There's no question that the administration has been lax on that front. True leadership would emphasize both alternative sources and rational approaches to developing oil and natural gas. No, the United States cannot drill its way to energy independence. But with the roaring economies of China and India gobbling up oil in the two countries' latter-day industrial revolutions, the United States can no longer afford to turn its back on finding all the sources of fuel necessary to maintain its economy and its standard of living. What's required is a long-term, comprehensive plan that includes wind, solar, geothermal, biofuels and nuclear -- and that acknowledges that oil and gas will be instrumental to the U.S. economy for many years to come.
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. Paul A. Curto on
-
I wrote an angry reply to the editor of the Washington Post on its editorial "Snake Oil". Here is what I said:
I assume that your editorial is trying to make the point that offshore drilling comprises the centerpiece of your energy policy for our Nation.
Well, you make some cogent points, none of which is relevant to ensuring our Nation's future. We have a real thirst for oil and gas, and have yet to switch to anything else.
We are like heroin addicts. All that is offered by our suppliers is yet another narcotic, and the government offers methadone as the fix.
Again, you conveniently forget that the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere has already significantly exceeded those levels that allowed a balance in the past. Good bye to the arctic ice and to 100 trillion dollars worth of coastal real estate. So long Eastern Shore, Baltimore, Norfolk, New York, Boston, New Orleans, Miami, and San Francisco. The Post does not seem to care.
Maybe all those NASA scientists are wrong. Just like Madagascar, which cut down its rain forests: Instant desert! Nobody listens to the warnings until it's all gone.
Petroleum is a limited resource. Even if we were to dig enough holes, we will only derive another trillion barrels of oil from the earth, about what we have already discovered. Every new find is at a more difficult depth and in a more difficult environmental situation demanding even more ingenuity in extracting the gold. Gold that we consumed all but half of in less than 150 years. Gold that even our grandchildren may never share because we used it.
Only , it's not gold: It's heroin.
Now, what is the answer? Do we listen to your advice, and just keep on digging? Place another needle in our arm?
Isn't it time we went to rehab instead?
I know that your readers will not accept another viewpoint without distaste, but there are better ways to permanently solve the energy, environment, food, and water problems that beset mankind.
First, let me say that there will be no transportation vehicles in 30 years that will burn any form of fossil fuel, ethanol, or any carbon-based combustible. No electricity will be generated with such fuels, either. We will either fulfill our destiny in balance with Nature, or Nature will fulfill its balance without us.
Will the Post accept its responsibility to explain to our people what the right balance is all about?
The secret to our success in providing transportable, environmentally and ecologically balanced fuels involves Nitrogen -- not Carbon. The best of these alternatives involves anhydrous ammonia.
I will post more on the solution if there is interest.
I utterly reject your arguments in support of offshore drilling as illogical, counterproductive, genocidal, and suicidal. You should print a retraction.
-
Permalink Reply by James Tracy on -
Paul would you agree that the Hydrogen economy is now possible, and that we need to push that way?
© 2013 Created by PickensPlan.
Powered by
Badges | Community Guidelines | Report an Issue | Terms of Service
