Letters to the Editor
-
This is long overdue
It is about time for Congress to start to show interest in climate change.
"The scientific evidence is now overwhelming: climate change is a serious global threat, and it demands an urgent global response......Using the results from formal economic models, the Review estimates that if we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more. In contrast, the costs of action – reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change – can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year. The investment that takes place in the next 10-20 years will have a profound effect on the climate in the second half of this century and in the next."
- Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change (comissioned by the UK Government)
-
The System's the Thing Here
Dear Editor:
It is interesting to me how,suddenly, when cast as a "National Security" issue, Global Warming will be taken seriously in our country's political culture. Whereas before, Global Warming was a threat to humanity and a threat to human civilization as it exists on the planet now, now it is a threat to our "National Security" which means that it can now become a "mainstream" issue.
In our country's political culture, the fate of humanity, human lives or human civilization is not deemed important but threats to the nation's "security" are.
Earth being in the balance is unimportant but if it threatens us and our country, and is cast in military terms, it suddenly can become a important issue.
Sincerely yours,
Arthur C. Hurwitz
-
1) Hurwitz 2) 'Has come to consensus?'
Dear Saloners,
First, I really appreciate the sentiment from Arthur Hurwitz, who noted how sad it is that the American gov't (and people) only seem to get worked up over 'National Security' concerns--rather than human and natural tragedy. If we could have worried about the world, rather than the Nation, we'd also be in less trouble now.
Brings me to my second point: one slight inaccuracy I've seen (it seems to me) in recent coverage is to treat recent scientific announcements as evidence that the "scientific community has finally come to agreement." (paraphrase). Er, no, right? I mean, isn't it true that some broad consensus about greenhouse gases has existed for at least roughly a decade? I mean, why did Kyoto happen? It wasn't because a bunch of fringe scientists managed to stampede a few dozen gov'ts. It was because rational, humane polities wanted to do something about a clear danger.
What's happening now--taking into account the careful language that is always used in science--is that scientists are frothing at the mouth and jumping up and down trying to get the US to react. They see the cliff we're headed off, and are trying to wake the driver, finally screaming into his ear and yanking on the wheel. So this isn't the 'arrival' at consensus and I think that it misserves the public to remember it that way.
-
The climate is always changing
It's a good idea to do a NIE on the impact of global warming on the security of the US. However, this should not be construed as some method maintaining the status quo of the present climate, whatever that is. The climate is always changing, and a large and rich country like the US, which has a tremendous ability to do good science, should be preparing for change. The idea that whatever climate conditions presently exist should persist for all time is a delusion. If mankind had not done extensive deforestation for the last 10,000 years and more recently burnt vast amounts of fossil fuel, we would be well into another ice age. We might have "overdone" the fuel burning, and are promoting more rapid changes than are comfortable for many people. Knowing how these changes might affect us could be useful, but will having convincing proof that the Southwest is in a 100 year drought, or that the Gulf Coast will be inundated with Force 5 hurricanes frequently, change the behavior of developers or their clients. If it gives ammunition to Congress for changing the laws about recompensing people for losses, or allows insurance companies to charge for increased risk it might do some good. However, short term gain always trumps long term disaster, so I don't have much hope.
-
Won't make any difference
This won't make any difference. The people who have the largest effect on climate change are also the people who have the largest economic stake in the status quo. As was previously stated, the short term will always excrete all over the long term.
As for the estimate itself, it will be quite conservative. Any prediction of dire change will be shouted down, regardless of the science behind it. So the most extreme estimates will not be included, and whatever impact the report may have will be watered down.
Even the best case scenario, a serious warning of serious consequences, would do little. And we won't get that.
I guess it will give us something to snicker at 25 years from now.
-
Global Worming
Global Warming is a crock! Wait, not really. Yes the earth is warming, but these are NOT the hottest days. The Earth's temperatures are just returning to normal after the last mini ice age. Consider that the Vikings at one time farmed Greenland until the mini ice age erased their society. The UN managed to get a couple thousand scientists to sign on to global warming, yet another source has over 17,000 scientists saying otherwise.
See http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm and the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkvvEhLfPZw
Also, Carbon dioxide is not the leading greenhouse gas; water vapor is. Man is not the leading producer of CO2 or water vapor; the oceans claim that lead.
Global Warming is another power grab by those that can afford to pay for energy and want to deny the use of that energy to the rest of us. The rich get richer.