Unit 5 Seminar Climate and Pollution

Climate Debate Climate Debate: What's Warming Us Up? Human Activity or Mother Nature? ScienceDaily (Dec. 21, 2009) — Chemical & Engineering News (C&EN) has published a major analysis of the divisive issues at the heart of the debate over global warming and climate change. The article appears at the conclusion of the much-publicized United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, which sought to seal a comprehensive international agreement on dealing with global warming.

There is Agreement C&EN's cover story notes that global warming believers and skeptics actually agree on a cluster of core points: Earth's atmospheric load of carbon dioxide -- the main greenhouse gas -- has increased since the Industrial Revolution began in the late 1700s. Carbon dioxide bloat results largely from burning of coal and other fossil fuels. Average global temperatures have risen since 1850, with most of the warming occurring since 1970.

We Agree to Disagree "But here is where the cordial agreements stop," writes Stephen K. Ritter, a senior correspondent for C&EN. "At the heart of the global warming debate is whether warming is directly the result of increasing anthropogenic (human) CO2 levels, or if it is simply part of Earth's natural climatic variation."

The Verdict Is In Most climate scientists maintain that it is happening and research results appear in peer-reviewed reports over the past 20 years by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an entity established by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization.

Al Who? Two hundred fifty-five members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, including 11 Nobel Prize laureates, have joined together to defend the rigor and objectivity of climate science. Their statement, "Climate Change and the Integrity of Science," was published in the journal Science on May 7, 2010 as the Lead Letter, along with a supporting editorial. Scientists from 53 different disciplines, like environmental sciences and ecology, chemistry, geology, geophysics, plant and microbial biology, and more, all members of the National Academy of Sciences but signing on as individuals, came together in agreement to reiterate an urgent call to action: "Society has two choices: we can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively.“

Worldwide Resistance If there is strong evidence indicating that CO2 levels contribute to global warming, why is there opposition to reductions? Copenhagen Climate Conference in 12/09 failed to adopt the Copenhagen Accord which would have legally required worldwide reductions in CO2.

What Went Wrong? The United Nation’s climate chief, Yvo de Boer's stated, “It was meant to be simple. "The Americans want the Chinese to do more and the Chinese want the Americans to do more." "So why don't both just do more?" He was talking about reducing CO2 emissions, of course. The goal is to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius.

Easier Said Than Done Many say the conference was a waste of time. Money was pledged, but it has to be raised. No legally binding resolution was passed. Is there a fair method globally to reduce CO2 emissions?

What Climate Change? Is there any science supporting those who do not wish to reduce fossil fuel CO2 emissions? Richard Linzden of MIT is a scientist who disagrees that CO2 causes global warming. Did you find any scientific research that concluded global warming is not happening, and that humas are not contributing to the problem? html

Renewable Energy If we choose to reduce fossil fuel emissions significantly, how might we do so in a way that does not damage our economy?

Are We Running Out Of Time? If we decide to wait until the climate is clearly too warm for the human species, is there a technological quick fix?