Greenhouse Gases

On a recent Diane Rehm Show focused on the impacts of approaching Climate Change, the host was driven to ask "Why?" Why does a certain subset of individuals (and scientists) refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence that atmospheric carbon levels have surpassed the danger point and are affecting climate on a global scale?

The answer to that question doesn't lie in the scientific data, it's in our heads. Both psychological and sociological triggers come into play, and we'll take a look at each.

Sacrificing thousands to benefit the few:

Thousands of N.C. businesses could have to apply for permits to release carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, state environmental officials say, after a conservative think tank filed objections.

The agency ruled it would focus solely on the largest gas emitters, such as coal-fired power plants. The state Environmental Management Commission adopted the EPA rule. But objections, filed largely by the Raleigh-based John Locke Foundation, put a legal hold on them.

Proving (once again) that all that hooey about being on the side of "entrepreneurs" is just a smokescreen to obscure their whoring for the fossil fuel industry.

Skeptics and optimists could both be wrong:

In fact, as Dr. Alley reminds anyone who will listen, and as he recently told a Congressional committee, the estimate of 5 or 6 degrees is actually mildly optimistic. Computer programs used to forecast future climate show it as the most likely outcome from a doubling of carbon dioxide, but those programs also show substantial probabilities that the warming will be much greater.

The true worst case from doubled carbon dioxide is closer to 18 or 20 degrees of warming, Dr. Alley said — an addition of heat so radical that it would render the planet unrecognizable to its present-day inhabitants.

Well over half the species on our planet would be exctinct by that time, so they won't be around to "recognize" anything.

World Meteorological Organization shouts warning:

“Greenhouse gas concentrations have reached record levels despite the economic slowdown. They would have been even higher without the international action taken to reduce them,” said WMO Secretary-General Mr Michel Jarraud. “In addition, potential methane release from northern permafrost, and wetlands, under future climate change is of great concern and is becoming a focus of intensive research and observations.”

Unfortunately, due to the recent election's shift to the Right, the U.S. will probably be even less likely to become a strong partner (much less leader) in the global effort to reverse these trends.

As the arguments against the reality of global warming become less vociferous under the barrage of scientific data, and the certainty of carbon emissions being the main culprit is grudgingly accepted by even the most outspoken deniers, policy makers are (finally) gearing up to begin taking steps.

Seemingly across the board, experts and legislators alike are warming to the idea of adapting the same type of approach to reducing carbon emissions that became the core of the Kyoto Protocols, that being a system of Cap and Trade.

Not the war you're thinking about. Our state is taking steps in the battle against greenhouse gases. Granted, they are baby steps. Finally, it appears our state won't be trailing behind the rest of intelligent life on at least one issue.

According to Margaret Lillard of the AP via The Charlotte Observer:

As governments around the world look for ways to fight global warming, North Carolina lawmakers are eyeing a simple set of green guidelines that supporters hope will be the first steps in a successful war against greenhouse gases.

A blue-ribbon panel that has spent the past year discussing climate change is to meet Thursday to draw up an interim report for state lawmakers on possible actions North Carolina can take to address global warming.

According to the article, most of the measures will include actions that can be taken by energy consumers and providers.