Global Warming: The debate

By Jeff Hammersmark

for this column, I went over some

statistics about carbon dioxide and
invited readers to share with me their
reasons why they don’t believe that
humans are causing climate change. I
was lucky enough to find out that one
of the ladies I work with is married to a
gentleman who belongs to the side that
does not believe in anthropogenic climate
change. In a letter he wrote, there are a
lot of arguments made, as well as a few
accusations, but I’ll have to focus on just
one for now.

One of the questions Bruce asked in
his letter, which he also provided his own
answer to, was “What percentage of CO2
do humans produce? The correct answer is
that nature produces nearly all of it.” He is
absolutely correct. His implication is that
since human emissions are dwarfed by
those of nature, there is-no issue with the
levels of CO2 we are producing. What this
argument leaves out is the understanding

I: last week’s introductory article

 

that the Earth has a “carbon cycle”, where
carbon, including carbon dioxide, is kept
relatively in balance through a complex
system of production and absorption.
Animals and plants die, carbon dioxide
is released (decomposition). Trees grow,
carbon dioxide is absorbed (inhaling
carbon dioxide and converting it, via
photosynthesis, into carbon incorporated
in their mass). Volcanoes erupt, carbon
dioxide is released. Fish poop in the
ocean, carbon dioxide is absorbed (no
joke, look it up). This is the way it has
always worked with nature.

Humans are doing two major things
to upset this balance: We are liberating
billions of year’s worth of stored carbon
by burning fossil fuels, and we are
reducing the planet’s ability to absorb
these excess carbon emissions via massive
deforestation. If nature is to blame for
the huge increase in atmospheric CO2
levels, how is it that we are suddenly
seeing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere
not seen for millions of years? It is not
a coincidence that CO2 levels started to

 

increase dramatically during and after the
industrial revolution. To take the side of
Bruce’s argument would require that you
believe nature itself is somehow suddenly
producing all the CO2 required to increase
atmospheric lévels at this unprecedented
rate. The fact of the matter is, although
the planet’s carbon cycle processes much
more carbon than humans produce, we
are throwing off the balance by increasing
production and reducing absorption. The
very fact that we’ve been able to increase
atmospheric CO2 levels as much as we
have is a testament to the tremendous
power we have as a civilization to affect
such a large, complex system.

Bruce brings up the same concerns
many people share, using strong language
like “doomsday”, “hoax” and “Al Gore”.
I would argue that he is committing the
same offense that he is decrying: Using
emotion to manipulate an argument.

an &
ane
INIO

   
 

-P

Al Gore is just one man, and the IPCC
(who he also points the finger at) is just
one organization. Finding a fault with
either is not relevant to the argument.

If the discussion was about politics, or
economics, or perhaps personal motives,
then these things may carry more weight.
The discussion around anthropogenic
climate change must be about the
science, not people. Science in its raw
form does not suffer from bias. While I
am not a scientist, nor am I unbiased, I
will continue to have this conversation
with the reading public in the hopes that
people will recognize the problem and
do their part in correcting it, not only for
ourselves, but for our progeny.

Thank you to Bruce for providing me
with not only this week’s topic, but many
others which will be discussed in future
articles. Please send me your questions or
comments via e-mail.

 

 

 

250 Columbia St.

pee
is
STUDENT
NIGHT!

 

BROOKLYN PUB

WATERFRONT LOUNGE

604.517.2966 w ww.brooklyn.c Fi)

 

13