If forced to take a side, I would join the ranks of global
warming skeptics.
I’d argue that historical temperature measurements don’t go
back far enough and that we might be in the midst of a natural warmer cycle. I’d
contend that man-made carbon dioxide is just a tiny fraction of what our planet
produces naturally with volcanoes, cows, etc. I’d say global warming proponents
sometimes use misleading statistics to make their case and ignore contradictory
data.
But there’s a gaping hole in my position, and it’s not in
the ozone layer. My conflict is that I love glaciers, and they are
disappearing.
Three years ago I spent two days hiking in Glacier National
Park and was awed by its beauty. I enjoyed it so much I’m returning next summer
for a weeklong visit. According to some experts, my timing is good because all
of the park’s glaciers could be gone in 10 years.
I've viewed decades-apart photos of the park’s retreating
glaciers. The vast shrinkage is disturbing, and it’s happening worldwide. To
view “climate change” images from around the globe,
click here.
I was all set to slam the global “climate change” meetings
in Copenhagen
as over-the-top and filled with political and personal agendas. And what about
the folly of the Environmental Protection Agency declaring that carbon dioxide
is a public danger?
But now I am torn. There’s no doubt we need to be better
caretakers of the earth’s resources, to work and live “green” and leave the
planet in good condition for our kids and grandkids.
But at what cost? How do we pay for better environmental
practices without succumbing to the doomsday hype of zealots? I sure don’t want
businesses to absorb indiscriminate “climate change” taxes.
Rather than tax businesses, which would trigger higher costs
for goods and services, let’s reward those who help the planet. Simultaneously,
let’s do a better job of holding accountable (i.e., big fines) those companies
that violate current EPA guidelines for clean air, water and emissions.
One way to reward businesses is with better tax credits for
provable environmental and energy-saving accomplishments. Let’s provide deeper
breaks for those companies that design, build and rent environmentally
efficient buildings.
This week I received an email from reader
Chris Thorman.
Chris shared a blog that highlights the use of green and red glowing eggs to
demonstrate a building’s operating efficiency.
Click
Here to learn how
sustainability consultant Global Knowledge is connecting human behavior with
efficient building management.
Chris’ blog demonstrates one of thousands of initiatives
worldwide that help everyone make the transition to a more sustainable future.
I think we can build, live, work and play in a more
environmentally friendly manner without resorting to drastic legislation,
political death matches and more taxes.
Based on free market principles, I believe architects,
contractors, engineers, building owners and a wide range of other pros will
provide innovative solutions to our environmental challenges--without the need
for massive government intervention. Just give these pros a little support and
recognition, and they’ll do the rest.
Am I wrong?
By: Clyde Fleming
Posted: December 14, 2009 4:23 AM
By: Emil Kleinfeld
Posted: December 14, 2009 3:29 PM
By: Tommy Sullivan
Posted: December 15, 2009 6:41 AM
By: Jim Olsztynski
Posted: December 17, 2009 10:00 AM
The concluding chapter of "Superfreakonomics" discusses some intriguing ideas along these lines by some of the planet's most brilliant thinkers.
By: Herman Swan
Posted: December 20, 2009 11:44 AM
You are abosolutely right. The data represented to vast audience is full of misleading information. E.g. the man-made CO2 is much less part then the natural CO2.
The main thing I am worried about global warming is that glaciers are fastly disappearing and I love to enjoy the beauty of them.
- Herman Swan
Trade Plumbing Supplies
By: Mark F
Posted: December 28, 2009 6:25 PM
The only proof seems to be that glaciers are shrinking, at an alarming rate. While i have no desire to hike the glaciers, i am concerned what is this going to mean to all of us in the long run?
We need to take care of our home. Just like a house. you party, get fat and dumb, you die early in a huble.
It just cant be wrong to want to make improvements, calm calculated improvements.
Mark
By: Glenn Bradley
Posted: December 30, 2009 10:58 AM
It also takes only a minute to search Wikipedia for ‘scientific opinion on climate change’. It lists the academies of science, research councils, universities, geological societies, etc and their opinions on climate change.
It’s simple. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Levels have been increasing at a high rate since the industrial revolution. Mostly through burning fossil fuels.
Again to say that you are a global warming skeptic is to only show your political tendencies. It would take one hour to read up on the issues from a non-partisan viewpoint. But I know you’re not going to do that.
By: Tim Fausch
Posted: January 6, 2010 12:40 PM
My question is how much of these changes are cyclical, taking into account thousands of years, not just the last 150 years? And how much of what is taking place is caused naturally, not by man-made products? And what about recent trends that show some decrease in temperatures (i.e. the worst cold snap in England since the 1980s - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34706351/ns/world_news-europe)?
I remain open to learning from a variety of sources.
By: Vincent
Posted: January 10, 2010 1:07 AM
I do agree with you and want to add that the media can play a vital role in saving the human beige from the global warming. It is not about "save earth" we should rather say "save our self"
- Vincent T.
beds
FL
By: Forrest
Posted: January 23, 2010 6:35 PM
Tim: I live in northern Montana near Glacier Park. I have seen and read about the shrinking glaciers countless times. The misleading part of the pictures and articles that you saw in the park are that the earliest pictures taken were just after the end of the "little ice age" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age . Since then the glaciers have been retreating as per natural cycle, starting well before 1940 and the onset of modern fossil fuel usage. One thing that you do not read is that the snowpack of the last 3 years has negated about 50 years of glacial shrinking.
I can go on and on, but I will save you all from a boring lecture such as Al Gore's. I just wish it would quit snowing so I could quarry some fieldstone!
By: UNHAPPYIN BOSTON
Posted: January 28, 2010 2:33 PM
By: Neeraj
Posted: January 31, 2010 8:03 AM
Ie somebody knows the ans of it then please make me too familiar of it.