Take Action to Encourage Legislators to Reduce Global Warming
Global warming is a concern for us all, as these alarming facts illustrate. There is little doubt remaining that this is a major problem we all face together. Even if it were not, the cessation of pollution and carbon emissions is a goal we should all be able to support. Take action here to tell your legislators to get with the program.
Global Warming by the Numbers
Friday the 13th just got a little scarier. Here are 13 facts about the realities of global warming. Even Jason would be scared.
The numbers speak for themselves — we must make 2009 the showdown year for global warming action. There is no time to lose.
You can help by spreading the word any way you can — through email, Facebook, Twitter, blogs, whatever works for you.
35%
Increase in the global carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels since the Kyoto Protocol was signed in 1992.
388.57 ppm
Average concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in May 2008, a record high.
541 – 970 ppm
The projected concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by 2100 under a business as usual scenario where we don’t dramatically reduce global warming emissions.
260 – 280 ppm
Average concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere before industrial emissions.
50 – 200 years
Length of time carbon dioxide stays in the earth’s atmosphere before it is absorbed into carbon sinks.
1000 years
Length of time changes in the earth’s surface temperature, rainfall, and sea level will remain even after carbon dioxide emissions are completely stopped.
34%
Percentage that 2008′s Arctic seasonal sea ice melt outpaced normal levels.
70%
Increase in the rate of Greenland’s ice melt over the last five years.
1.7 days
Number of days earlier seasons are coming than 50 years ago.
1.5 million
Number of acres of forests in Colorado destroyed by the pine beetle, which is better able to survive warmer winters and is wrecking havoc in America’s western forests.
$427 million
Amount spent by the oil and coal industries in the first six months of 2008 in political contributions, lobbying expenditures and advertising to oppose climate action.
0
Number of global warming bills passed by the Senate.
0
Number of global warming bills passed by the House.
Thank you for your contribution.
While I think humans are a wasteful, messy lot, I would really like to see some references to the list you have here.
Funny how it was global cooling in the 70′s that got everyone in a twitter too….
Bear
Feel free to check the link, it cites sources. From the evidence I have seen (here and elsewhere), there is no doubt in my mind that we are altering the environment beyond our ability to reverse it, for better or worse. We owe it to future generations to clean up our messy, wasteful ways regardless of it’s perhaps unpredictable impact on climate change. I have yet to see a credible challenge to the science behind the global warming hypothesis. Yes, many twits in congress who’s elections hinge on influencing public perception of the companies who contribute to their campaigns oppose the idea that global warming has a scientific basis, as do many of their paid “experts” who invariably seem to represent institutes funded by industry interests. It wasn’t difficult for tobacco companies to find “experts” to assert that cigarettes weren’t harmful either. They were mere shills however, and I fear the same holds in this case. Regardless, we are massively changing the composition of the atmosphere and if we are responsible, we will make concerted efforts to reverse this trend. Complex systems such as the biosphere and weather are impossible to model to account for all possible outcomes, but we know if you stir the pot and add too many ingredients you will end up with something different from what you started with. Do you wish to take that risk? A global ice age will come at some point in the future, but I would rather not hasten it’s coming either.
I’m still sort of sitting on the fence myself. Ironic considering my namesake (Sagan was a proponent of the global warming hypothesis long before it became a fashionable).
I think the main thing I’m having trouble with is discerning the consequences of greenhouse gas emissions on the environment. In other words, we don’t seem to have a clear understanding of what will be in store for us as global mean temperatures continue to rise throughout this next century. The environment is just such a complex system.
Furthermore, something people seem to overlook is that the brunt of the cost for curbing global warming is going to hit the developing countries (e.g. China) the hardest . How can we convince developing countries to seek alternative energy sources (thereby hampering their economies for the foreseeable future) while we in the west built up massive economies on cheap oil?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/28/nasa_climate_theon/
The fact that a given scientist has come out against the theory does little to change the preponderance of scientists who do believe it. Our own EPA does not dismiss it:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html
Over 1700 scientists and economists recently endorsed a call for dramatic curtailment of greenhouse gas emissions:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/big_picture_solutions/scientists-and-economists.html
Further, the data, though it does show a warming trend for recorded history, is masked by the effects of global dimming, although this trend began to reverse in the nineties:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
The minority of naysayers in my opinion are using the fallacious argument that since we can’t precisely model the exact outcomes, we should not consider the hard data already collected over nearly a century. Bullshit. This is a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I could care less if we are ten degrees too hot to support the human population or twenty. The salient point is that we should prevent further degrading the situation and strive to correct the damage already done to whatever degree possible.
I agree that developing nations are being asked to accept a raw deal. Give up striving for an American standard of living before you’ve ever obtained it. Unfortunately the fact is that the earth cannot support billions of people living to our standard. The flaw in the American model is that it is predicated on perpetual growth. This is fantasy. We will have to give up some of the resource use we are accustomed to, and the developing world will need to consider how to grow responsibly and for the lowest input of resources possible.
The number one consideration however is cost competitive alternative energy. When clean energy is more cheaply available than petrofuels we won’t need to convince anybody of its merit. Development of new technology and innovation is a clear strength of American business, and we should strive to collectively foster this goal here so that we can create and sell such technology to the developing world. As I showed in a previous post, the potential is already there, and the Picken’s Plan is evidence of the economics of this.
http://alphadominance.com/?p=526