IGNIFITE

Climate change – true or not?

A layman’s quest for the answer…

Climate change as a subject is the world’s issue for handling, you either agree or disagree that there is anything such as a significant climate change impacting lives and nature.

Greta Thunberg’s speech at the UN Climate summit recently may be old news but the subject only gets more and more relevant.

And so, since my future generations and I will be directly impacted concerning climate change, I thought I will embark on some research starting from an unbiased viewpoint till I arrive at my own conclusive viewpoint whether climate change could be real or not.

I researched numerous articles, blogs, reports and websites and almost 100% of the time came across the message that humans are responsible for the significant heating of the planet primarily by way of CO₂emissions.

Well how much is it?

- As per Jeff id blog it is minuscule. The blog is strongly worded but with no quantification or citations.

- The earth however, has been through hotter climates due to volcanic greenhouse gases, many ice ages for over a million years and several thousand years at a stretch, Oxygen crisis… this could well be a natural change in the 4.5 billion years of earths existence before the next ice age is expected an estimated 100,000 years later.

What’s at stake when a developed country accepts there is climate change?

- You will have to justify the 32 times more GHG (greenhouse gas) contribution as compared to that of developing nations

- Obsessive consumerism will have to be arrested. Thus meaning, people will have to embrace humbler lifestyles.

- Significantly compromise the meat industrialism

- Find equated alternatives to fossil fuel burning

- Slowdown deforestation and land use change

- Negotiate luxurious lifestyle

- Invest equitably (at the least) in global warming reversal initiatives such as Glacier

And while doing the above yet maintain a fast paced economy, progressive culture, supposedly satisfied citizens and maintain the dominant position creating dependencies for rest of the world. Sounds counter-intuitive isn’t it?

So what should one do to save face?

Just don’t accept anything explicitly because, owning the major stakes in 0.8^o C heating of the planet’s blame cannot be justified easily.

What’s counter-intuitive is that you can put faith in a space administration organization that put man on moon but don’t keep faith in the very same organization’s report on climate change.

Reference: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

We have been in a Progress trap (term coined by Daniel B O’Leary). We cannot just get off this train, yet what can be done is that the powerful nations can slowdown or prevent other nations from getting onto this train for the sake of the survival of humanity but without mentioning the plan.

In my opinion world leaders from developed nations can partially move the carbon footprint from their nations to developing nations in terms of production and processing thereby balancing out the carbon footprint equation, the developing nations wouldn’t come under the scanner as they are already way below average threshold. However, that doesn’t reduce the pressure on natural resources from this planet. This will then give rise to an economic balance as the economic opportunities will then shift geographically and reversing this will be no easy task. Hence, there seems to be a catch 22 here.

What can be done if the climate change is real?

- Perhaps withdraw from the Paris agreement for now

- Appoint EPAs that have been challenging the theory of anthropogenic impact on the environment (one of whom will be extremely corrupt). Be associated with the scientific leaders that oppose the views of scientific consensus on climate change

- Be selective about the reports even if they belong to the most credible scientific organizations within the country

- Be discreet about any actions at all. Assess how much of the world’s problem can be handled while in office and look at solving the immediate ones that can get you a better approval rating

- Let the successors deal with the subject

As per US Environmental Protection Agency the fossil fuel and industrial processing contributes to 65% of the CO₂emissions has been lobbying heavily to influence the policy makers. The political parties are beneficiaries from oil moguls. One can’t just hit brakes on or dismantle a $4.65 trillion industry and at the same time create new opportunities seamlessly in a new alternative industry.

Source: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-05/global_emissions_gas_2015.png

What if climate change is not real?

- Then it’s an attempt to create a new industry and new powers

- It could be an attempt to avoid from reaching the so called climate crisis sometime in the future

What are my hypothesis?

Since, there are 2 or more sides to the belief whether the climate change is real and mainly caused by humans, it is difficult for a non-specialist to determine the hypothesis.

There are mainly so many sides to the climate change skepticism:

1. Questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

2. Arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

3. Arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown

4. Arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences

5. Climate change consensus (Prominent organizations such as IPCC, UCS, NASA, EPA, NOAA feature here. 185 nations from the UNFCCC have ratified and acceded the Paris agreement)

If I go by point number 5, I see that there is a majority of the nations there defending their point of view. What is it that unites so many nations, is a point to wonder.

My Views:

Climate change is a complex subject and has strong arguments to both sides. However, if I as a layman have to exercise my opinion on the subject I would ask these basic questions to myself:

1. Since, natural resources are limited and takes millions of years to form, wouldn’t depletion of these natural resources hurt living things and the earth someday?

2. Why did the planet heat up steeply during the 2^nd(approx. 1870onward) and the 3^rd Industrial revolution? (approx. 1969onward)

https://archive.epa.gov/epa/sites/production/files/2016-07/ghgconc2000-large.jpg

3. Will renewable energy production and consumption hurt the environment or the humans?

4. Do we see a strong visible promotion and general public education on climate change skepticism as much as we see for climate change awareness?

5. Is climate change impacting the animal kingdom? Could it be better off?

After answering the above questions, it makes me believe that there is a strong correlation between human activities and climate change and whether reversing the climate change due to anthropogenic activities is really a need.

Conclusion:

I understand that no matter what the topic, the people of this world will always have a counter view. Unanimity is a myth.

I may not have a direct conclusion as the topic is complex and very scientific however, I now have a lot of awareness and most importantly no blind following of any one side.

I would be lot wiser tomorrow.

References:

1. https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/ten-global-warming-myths/

2. Progress trap (term coined by Daniel B O’Leary in his study The Progress Trap - Science, Humanity and Environment)

3. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

4. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/21/william-happer-trump-white-house-climate-crisis

5. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/26/trump-national-climate-assessment-dont-believe

6. https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

7. https://www.space.com/24854-how-old-is-earth.html

8. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data

9. https://drexel.edu/now/archive/2018/July/Report-Fossil-Fuel-Industries-Spent-Billions-on-Climate-Lobby/

10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming