A while ago a Scientist named Wallace Broecker coined the term “Global Warming” to fairly accurately describe environmental effects occurring around the planet. Unfortunately that term immediately got used to “debunk” the theory by certain sets of conservatives. They grabbed a hold of the word “warming” and laughed as record breaking snow accumulated during the winter, despite the theory depicting how snow fall would break records.
So, someone who was a bit more media savvy came up with the term “Climate Change”. This innocuous term has been embraced by the environmental sciences community, but the original term is still regularly used by the naysayers, seemingly locked in an ideological battle. But is this term really better? Challengers to the theory point to the fact the Earth has gone through many cycles, including large shifts on its axis, which have affected the climate drastically. After all, most of the Northern Hemisphere was covered in ice little more than 15,000 years ago, which is a tiny blip on the planet’s time line. Before the ice age there were vast forests, plains, jungles and lakes. The fact that the glaciers are melting is just a natural part of the cycle.
The main point of Climate Change/Global Warming science is to point out how man has affected this cycle. Their evidence suggests the answer is yes. They have, in their arsenal, over 300 years worth of temperature recordings from England showing how quickly or slowly the climate has warmed; clue: as soon as the industrial age hit the temperature spiked dramatically. They know what Carbon Dioxide (CO2) does in the planet’s atmosphere (it heats it up) and they pretty much know how much CO2 humans have produced. The correlation is obvious.
But, let’s say the correlation isn’t so obvious. Perhaps there’s really no way to accurately measure the CO2 we’ve produced. If we were to throw out the two legs of Climate Change, as those conservatives have done, then the entire theory collapses. So, for the sake of argument, let’s say it’s a bunch of ballyhoo, malarkey, and baloney.
Even if the entire concept of Climate Change is somehow hooey, why would we want to continue polluting the atmosphere, our water supply, our land? Why would we wish to cut down all of our forests indiscriminately? The answer, of course, is money. In many cases the money I’m talking about is greed. Large, cold, corporate factories pumping heavy metals into a community’s water supply (like Texaco, now owned by Chevron, did to Ecuador) are not surprising to anyone. In other cases however, the problem is more complex.
In many parts of South and Central America, the rain forest is being slashed and burned, hundreds of acres daily. Not only does the smoke pollute the air, but the lack of vegetation reduces the amount of “CO2 scrubbers”. Plants take in CO2 and produce Oxygen, hence a lack of plants equals a lack of good air and an abundance of ‘bad air’. The forests are being cut, not by some greedy corporation, but by common folk looking to raise cattle. The cattle themselves require huge amounts of feed, water and space which really only worsens the problem. But no one can question the people’s need for food and money, especially in very poor locations. There are programs centered on steering these people to better forms of agriculture and industry, but one could question their efficacy.
Even if you are on the “other side” of the argument; a conservative who does not believe man is causing the rapid rise in global temperatures, I would ask you: why not recycle, use less of our resources, and curb pollution? None of us want to live in a garbage pit, and it’s very simple to see how throwing plastic into landfills only makes landfills bigger and bigger. Reusing materials makes such perfect sense, it seems strange to be against it. And really, who wants to be poisoned? If you find yourself doubting the whole Global Warming issue in general, doesn’t it make sense to still do these three simple things to help make your own life and that of your children cleaner, brighter and overall better?
I try to drive less and walk more. We could sell the car. Many people live without them. We live in Cleveland, though and I have to get around. I cannot run our business or even really get as much done in life without one. However, we drive a fuel efficient car. We try to walk more and shop locally. We combine trips and try to carpool when we can. I also bought us bikes, and hope to bike more. Being aware of the amount of gas we use is important and allows us to make decisions about when and where we will go. While not driving at all is the greenest thing, that is not going to happen. Buying a hybrid would be green, but using an old car that is still functioning and getting over 30 mpg and not having to build a new car just for us is even greener, in my opinion. When the car no longer gets decent gas mileage, or starts to fall apart, then we can make that decision.
