Download Document

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.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091221073725.htm
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.“
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100506141551.htm
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.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,667626,00
.html
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?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870
3939404574567423917025400.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?