Global Warming: A realist's view...
Global warming is risking itself more and more as a doomsday cause. It has become a kind of nature created by human; one that is not possible to trifle with. The barriers to solve it ironically come from humans ourselves.
The causes are simple: the first discovery of fossil fuels as a source of electrical energy. Then, there was Industrial Revolution in the 18th century which led to a snowballing dependence on that source of energy. Carbon dioxide, an arguably harmless greenhouse gas, saturated our atmosphere now at 380 p.p.m. and rising in unprecedented rates. Ignorance is another cause perhaps as we go through our daily lives overlooking what our actions have done to the other parts of the world. Stewardship to the Earth is now a foreign concept. Granted Mother Nature herself has had a part to play in this for example in releasing gallons of sulphur dioxide and methane through volcanic eruptions or spewing large volumes of carbon dioxide and methane in forest fires.
From the records dug out by scientists in the ice of
Climate models have been generated all citing that current trends will bring about only devastation. We are walking straight up to an impending doom and no miracle is going to take place. Consequences are very obvious. Beyond a certain point, there will be positive feedback loops and then, it will be too late. The loops occur when the carbon dioxide stores (kept in check by negative feedback loops previously) get released. For instance, the trees which will touch up due to the rising temperatures will let loose tons of stored carbon dioxide and methane. Another example would be the melting of polar ice caps into the oceans. They used to reflect 90% of the sun's energy but now they will absorb 90%. It will become a self-worsening process. Sea levels will rise and devour most of the low-lying areas but sadly they are usually not the ones responsible for the disaster. Hurricanes will be frequent as the climate shifts and eventually El Nino and La Nina will wield their prowess in turning our climate upside down.
There will be famines, droughts and floods. All of which will destroy completely Man's ways of life. Of course, the worst case scenarios would be: gigatonnes of CO2 released from melted permafrosts in
Are there solutions? Fortunately or unfortunately, there are. A simplest one would be to entirely remove the use of fossil fuels. Simplicity, it seems, does not tick with the world's functioning. Unless there is a discovery of a harmless and effective new source of energy, that solution is as good as no solutions because it would crash the global economy. Current alternatives are almost as devilish as fossil fuels (e.g. nuclear power), if not impossible to implement worldwide (e.g. wind, hydroelectricity, or geothermal). Even the best of all, solar energy, is as expensive (and ineffective) to harness as trying to suck up the atmosphere's carbon dioxide.
There are of course interim measures which can help ease the increase in concentrations of carbon dioxide. That involves making the current use of fossil fuel to be more effective such as upgrade fuel efficiency of cars by using hybrid cars. Also, we can try to store carbon dioxide under high pressure. However, there are too high costs involved for a temporary solution. More feasible solutions lie in collective recognition that the problem is a real one and has to be solved. The Kyoto Protocol is one such "realisation" but has been met with much failure and the targets of reducing greenhouse gases are about to be missed by the participating countries. The system works on the basis of credits of emitting greenhouse gases and companies are supposed to monitor their emission and pay for any excess or of course, sell their excess credits. This encourages positive work to be done on the issue.
That concept is a budding one and is still faced by the hard fact that Man is selfish. The solutions are failing because we do not feel the trouble that is descending upon us. As long as we cannot see the consequence as a tangible and painful one, it seems we will not budge with our current practices. It takes more than just one Hurricane Katrina for us to feel the pinch. Simply, the economic losses from “risking it” haven’t been seen to outweigh the benefits of doing so. Politicians are taking it easy so to say.
Environmentalists can prod their political counterparts but it seems it takes Mother Nature to show them what is about to happen through death and destruction for any serious ratification to happen. Yet, while some of the more conscious people wonder if it would be too late then, most of the rest wonder when they can save enough to buy that new car, property, apparel, gadget...
posted by synthesis @ 2:26 PM
2 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I agree with the fact that global warming is indeed a big headache that just would not go away. In any case, the majority of Earth's inhabitants do not even care about it, nor the the consequences it supposedly brings about.
In fact if one were to ask around, I can safely assure that the well informed people out there are a very rare and shy species. For they are little in number and they do not step up to help look for solutions to this problem. Thus we can see a problem already, that the masses are ill-informed and that perhaps might impede the course of action to perhaps put Earth back in a position where its inhabitants are not threatened with the occasional (or frequently occuring, which sounds more true) meteorological phenomena of droughts, storms, hurricanes etc.
Yet I would not say that a solution is particularly devilish, in that it requires more effort and care so that the world will not see another Chernobyl again. Correct me if I am wrong, but if the reactor rods are disposed of carefully, and the reactions are monitored closely, there would be no meltdown, there would not be any wide burst of radiation, then nuclear energy is safe to use. I foresee a world where most of the enrgy generated will be from nuclear power stations, even in countries which currently lack the ability to do so.
The Kyoto Protocol, sadly, is as what was claim, that it has met much failure. Perhaps it was the problem in the way this treatise was drafted, that the emphasis was more on industrialised economies to reduce their emission. Of course some big snob did not ratify this treatise, for fear that its giant economy will be affected.
Here comes the sefish part of human nature, which of course is so natural to kill off the rest while one progresses so that no other persons can come close to one.
But is it really natural? "Survival of the fittest?" How quaint. Then we shall see the last laugh when Earth crumbles and the big snobs also suffer with the rest of the world.
-law chong hui 12/05
Post a Comment
<< Home