By Irwin Horowitz, 5-19-07
Idaho Gov. Butch Otter has signed an executive order to have the Department of Environmental Quality coordinate efforts by state agencies to track greenhouse gas emissions.
I applaud this effort by my governor. It’s a refreshing change of pace from the business as usual approach many Idaho political leaders have been taking on this critical issue.
Thursday’s Idaho Statesman contained an article by Rocky Barker outlining some of the details of this order and summarizing the impact that significant climate changes have made on Idaho.
Friday’s Statesman contained an op-ed piece congratulating our governor on taking a leadership position with regards to curbing the emission of these gases. I would like to think that the petitions that were dropped off last week at the governor’s office by my fellow Step It Up concert organizers may have played some small role in his decision.
Those of you who have read my comments elsewhere on New West know my position on this issue. It is one that I have come to after reviewing the scientific basis for anthropogenic climate change. Many out there are still skeptical, and that is an understandable position to take. The Earth’s atmosphere is a very complex system, with multiple forms of equilibria interacting simultaneously. However, there are a few things that are crystal clear to me. First, by examining the Keeling curve, which has measured the concentration of atmospheric CO2 since the late 1950s, it is clear that there has been a constant trend upwards over that time. It is rising at a rate of 1-2 ppm each year and has risen in absolute terms about 20% over the last four decades of the 20th century. If we also look at the paleological data (page 31 of linked PDF file) acquired from ice cores drilled in Antarctica, we see that the present day observed levels of the gas far exceed anything that has been naturally occurring over the past several hundred thousand years.
The only reasonable explanation for the current increase is that it is essentially due to human activity. We can observe the release of these gases in our power plants, in our automobiles, in our homes and buildings. Any natural release of the gas is being overwhelmed by these sources.
Now, how do we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Well, I can point out that while it is transparent to the visible light we receive from the Sun, it is an efficient absorber of a broad range of wavelengths of infrared radiation, which is precisely what the Earth emits in copious quantities. This heat is unable to escape back into space, and as a result, the planet and its atmosphere will get warmer. These gases act like a blanket, and we keep getting warmer and warmer underneath its smothering embrace. Water vapor is also a powerful greenhouse gas, however, its atmospheric concentration is primarily due to natural cycles we don’t control.
I could also point out the role played by CO2 on our sister planet Venus. Go outside tonight after sunset, look towards the west and marvel at the magnificent brilliance shining there. Then think about what the conditions are like on the surface of that world. Temperatures hot enough to melt lead. A poisonous atmosphere that consists almost exclusively of CO2. Surface pressure similar to what you would experience in a deep sea submersible nearly 1 kilometer below the water surface. What caused these conditions? Without any doubt, a runaway greenhouse effect is the culprit. Venus was probably much like the Earth when it formed over 4 billion years ago. There may even have been oceans of liquid water on its surface in its early existence. However, rising surface temperatures on the planet led to an increase in the presence of greenhouse gases like water vapor and CO2 and this in turn led to an increase in the temperature. This resulted in a positive feedback until all of the water boiled away, and none of the CO2 could be reabsorbed to form carbonate rocks. A new equilibrium formed, only this time the temperatures were over 700K and any chance of a viable biosphere forming was crushed under the weight of that atmosphere.
Certainly we need CO2 in our atmosphere, or else the Earth would become a frozen wasteland. However, we do not need the levels we have been spewing forth since the start of the industrial age. The rate at which the concentration is growing as well as the rate as which the average surface temperature is increasing are both without historical precedent. It is a trend that could lead to our own environmental catastrophe if we continue without making significant alterations in our lifestyles. Even if it doesn’t get as bad as it is on Venus, the effects of rising global temperatures have been discussed in numerous forums and are the basis of the four reports submitted by the IPCC this year to the United Nations.
Are there any solutions? Yes. Governor Otter’s decision this week is a big step in the right direction. What our planet needs in order to recover is time. The excess gases in our atmosphere will be reabsorbed and locked up in carbonate rocks or photosynthesizing plants, but these processes take centuries or millennia to achieve their ultimate results. If we immediately start to reduce the rate at which we are emitting these gases, then over time the natural carbon cycle will clean up the air for us. We don’t have to give up our economic competitiveness; in fact, we should embrace the new green economy as a vibrant source of wealth, national independence, security and environmental health.
We need to demand greater efficiency and reduced energy consumption.
We need a greater emphasis on generating our electrical energy needs using fuel sources other than carbon-based fossil fuel.
We should use solar…wind…geothermal…hydro… nuclear power - whatever it takes to eliminate the choking fumes ejected from coal fired power plants.
We need to insist that automobile manufacturers place greater emphasis on designing hybrid and electric powered vehicles, and making them accessible to more than the wealthy.
We need to remove energy-sucking incandescent light bulbs and replace them with more efficient compact florescent light bulbs.
We should all turn up the thermostat in the summer and turn it down in the winter to ensure lower energy consumption. If you don’t already have them, look to replace inefficient appliances with Energy Star qualified products.
And most of all, we need to recycle. Recycle plastics…aluminum and tin cans… old papers… hazardous material like motor oil and paint cans...any materials that your local recycling center will collect. And if they don’t collect items that should be recycled, call on local authorities and demand that they include those items as well.
These are some of the many steps we can undertake right now to have both an immediate as well as a long-term impact on our world. Failure to do so, and impeding others from doing so, is in my opinion an act of sabotage against the human race and of the planet which is our home.
Publisher’s note: Dr. Horowitz has six college degrees and is a real rocket scientist. We think he’s a reasonably bright fellow.
Irwin, a very excellent explanation. I saw the following interview of Bjorn Lomborg by PBS. I offer it for the mill to grind into dust (or is that dark matter?). http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/jan-june07/adaptation_04-25.html
>>>>>>>>
And, Professor, you've called spending several hundred billion dollars a year to combat global warming a bad deal for the people of the planet. How would you spend the money differently?
BJORN LOMBORG, Director, Copenhagen Consensus Center: Well, basically, Ray, the point is to say, we don't care particularly about climate change, per se. We care about, what are its impacts? We care about the people who are going to get more risk in flooding, the people who are going to get more exposed to malaria, the people who are going to die more because of heat waves. And those are the people we actually want to help.
So the question is: Can we do better? And my argument is simply, if you look, for instance, at the Kyoto Protocol, even if everybody did the Kyoto Protocol, including the U.S., it would have very little impact. It would basically postpone global warming by about five years at the end of the century, at a cost, as you mentioned, of about $180 billion a year.
Now, if you look at some of the other things, you could do great good in the world. You could actually do amazing amounts of good to many of the people who are going to get hardest hit by climate change through focusing on HIV-AIDS, malaria, malnutrition, free trade, agricultural research.
And that's actually what we've done at the Copenhagen Consensus Center, where we have some of the world's top economists, including four Nobel laureates. Look at all the great things you can do in the world, and they put all of those things I just mentioned up at the very top of where you can do the most bang for the buck. And they said, climate change, through Kyoto Protocol, is actually a bad investment. Simply for every dollar you invest, you only end up doing about 30 cents worth of good.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Excellent description of what is happening on earth and Venus. For non-scientific types the rocks containing carbonate and sulfate on Venus have been heated and the the CO2 and sulfate released setting up a new equlibrium in the run away greenhouse that exists there. Valuble suggestions are discussed on what we as indiviuals can do but we on earth must in the end confront the population problem. Maybe Irwin would discuss the problem of exxponential growth and where that will finally lead us.
Comment By Irwin Horowitz, 5-20-07Good ol' Malthus, huh Charles? Yeah, I would tend to agree that we are growing past the ability of our planet to sustain us (at least to the level we're accustomed to here in the west). But there are only two solutions to the population explosion. More people dying or fewer being born. I am kind of not too in favor of the first solution, and unfortunately too many folks are not too in favor of the second (for the record, I myself am single and have no kids...though that is more by circumstance than by choice :-).
As an aside, about a decade ago, I had an idea for a novel about just this issue, in which a group of reproductive biologists develop a pair of viruses that make the normal path to conception impossible, and as a result the number of children born would drop dramatically (in vitro would be the only means to conceive). Never really pursued it, and of course last year the film "Children of Men" came out with a marginally similar theme, so who knows if it'll ever be written. Would have been interesting to examine the effects on society, both good and bad, under that kind of situation.