|
Help support AmericanEnergyIndependence.com Global Warming
During the last 365 days—one year—worldwide human activity has caused about 7 billion tons of carbon to be released into the atmosphere. This figure does not include carbon that is released by natural causes, such as volcanoes, forest fires or by naturally decomposing organic matter. The 7 billion tons of carbon produced by humans (Anthropogenic carbon) pours out of industrial smokestacks and vehicle tailpipes. The term anthropogenic is used to indicate the presumption of human influence. When renewable biofuels release carbon into the atmosphere the emissions are considered to be climate neutral because the carbon is continuously recycled. This is not true for fossil fuels. The carbon released by burning fossil fuels is not part of the natural cycle—because the excess carbon stays in the atmosphere. In contrast, carbon atoms released from the combustion of biofuels, such as biodiesel, ethanol or a hydrogen peroxide/sugar blend do not cause a net increase of carbon in the atmosphere because growing the crops takes an equal amount of carbon out of the atmosphere and releases oxygen back into the atmosphere. Modern Civilization will produce and release into the atmosphere about 25 billion tons of waste carbon dioxide (CO2) this year. How do we get 25 billion tons of CO2 from 7 billion tons of carbon? Annual global anthropogenic carbon released into the atmosphere is currently about 7 billion tons. When fossil fuels are burned, the carbon atoms from the fossil fuel combine with oxygen atoms from the air to form CO2. This is why oxygen must be present before fuel will burn—Removing oxygen from a flame is a very effective way to put out a fire.
One CO2 molecule weighs about 3.67 times more than a single carbon atom [Q#9]. Consequently, one ton of pure carbon combined with oxygen will produce 3.67 tons of CO2; and 7 billion tons of carbon emissions will create about 25 billion tons of CO2. This also means that 18 billion tons of oxygen will be removed from the atmosphere to combine with the carbon atoms to make the CO2—oxygen that would otherwise naturally be available for air breathing creatures to inhale. CO2 is a greenhouse gas (GHG) because excessive accumulation of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere will cause heat to remain in the atmosphere; heat that would otherwise dissipate into outer space. CO2 is only a problem when the total quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere becomes too much. How much is too much? When the average temperature of the planet's biosphere increases and begins to adversely effect the world's climate. As globalization and modernization spread throughout the world, fossil fuel consumption is continuing to grow, steadily increasing the volume of man-made CO2. Fears of Global Warming are focused on CO2. The Earth's natural systems can no longer absorb or recycle all of the CO2 that human civilization produces each year. The excess CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere increasing the greenhouse effect (trapping the sun's heat within the atmosphere). If too much heat is trapped the average temperature of the planet and the oceans will increase. An increase of only a few degrees can cause the earth's climate and weather conditions to change dramatically. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and in the ocean surface waters are always in equilibrium. As CO2 increases in the atmosphere more CO2 is forced into the ocean surface waters making the ocean more acidic. Ocean acidity, or acidification, is an environmental issue that may be more damaging than Global Warming. Ocean life forms: coral - plankton - and fish are sensitive to the PH conditions of the ocean. There is a limit to the acidity that they can live with. Experiments at Biosphere II have shown that acidity levels corresponding to twice the pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentrations stunt coral growth by about 1/3. Pre-industrial CO2 levels were about 280 ppm (parts per million), and we are now at about 370 ppm. If humanity continues to release non-renewable CO2 into the atmosphere, at the present rate, CO2 levels will reach 560 ppm by the middle of this century. Other than the acid effect on large bodies of water (and perhaps the acidification of soil), CO2 is not toxic, in fact, CO2 is a food for growing plants and trees. One of the arguments in favor of increased CO2 levels is made by those who claim that the increase of CO2 in the air will help farmers to produce more crops. Some arguments even claim that forests will grow faster and bigger because of the increased levels of CO2, and therefore will take more CO2 out of the atmosphere until a balance is reached. There is some truth to this. Some regions will benefit from increased CO2 levels. However, those benefits must be weighed against the evidence that global warming is contributing to the expansion of the world’s deserts. Heat and drought increase the amount of the Earth's land surface consumed by desertification (encroaching deserts). And, the increased warming will cause the Polar Ice Caps to melt. The projected long term problems are severe. The benefit of a few seasons of increased crop yield is far outweighed by the threat of expanding deserts and the expense of losing much of Florida and our costal beach cities to rising sea levels and storms. Evidence supports the prediction that global warming will continue until human civilization stops releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (and stops cutting down the world's forests). There is disagreement among scientists regarding global warming, but the dark side of the argument predicts ecological devastation. All scientists who have studied global warming now agree that the earth is warming. The only disagreement remaining pertains to the question of why the earth is warming; but all agree that the earth is warming. The threat of global ecological devastation is too serious to ignore. If you are someone who still holds the belief that there is no proof of global warming please take a few minutes and read the speech given by Eileen Claussen, President The Pew Center on Global Climate Change, titled: Climate Change: Myths and Realities July 17, 2002. Compare modern civilization's dilemma of CO2, and other man-made toxins and greenhouse gases, with primitive civilization's dilemma of human sewage. Primitive societies allowed human sewage to flow alongside their city streets, which is believed to have contributed to the 14th century plague that spread across Asia, Europe and Great Britain with such virulence that the course of human history changed forever. Modern civilization is partly defined by its extensive sewage systems. We who benefit from modern, publicly mandated, sewage systems should be grateful to the city planners who had the foresight and political will to build them. Modern civilization must stop using the atmosphere, rivers, lakes and oceans of the world for disposal of man-made waste, just as primitive societies had to stop using their city streets for sewage disposal. Public planners need to be given the authority to plan for 50 years from now, not just for the next election. Politicians and Corporate CEO's invest in the next election or business cycle, rather than investing in the best course for future generations. The United States of America needs a public institution that is insulated from short-term cycles defined by elections and corporate profits. America needs a public representative that will act in the selfish interest of future generations. Global Warming vs. Energy Independence Environmental issues are not Energy Independence issues, yet they are often presented as one and the same. The green movement has always been anti-hydrocarbon and anti-nuclear. The goal of the green movement is to replace hydrocarbon energy sources with wind and biomass and other renewables for the purpose of eliminating hydrocarbon pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. However, renewables will not increase energy production if they only replace fossil fuels instead of adding additional resources. Renewables alone will not give us the energy we need unless we, as a society, dramatically change our lifestyles. So, it must be recognized that the green movement is a lifestyle movement. Americans are concerned about the environment, and the issue of global warming does have the attention of the general public—However, the majority of Americans will not change their lifestyle unless they are offered affordable and reasonable choices at their local gas station, and at their automobile dealership. If America wants energy independence, then the vast hydrocarbon resources within the USA (coal and oil shale) must be developed, and Americans must support nuclear energy as a source of clean electrical power. America needs to look to technology to make hydrocarbons clean and nuclear safe. The way to do that is to think at the molecular and atomic level of chemistry. With the help of new advanced technology, biomass and hydrocarbon resources can be chemically processed together to create synthetic Ch4 and other synthetic fuels. Carbon-free nuclear energy can provide hydrogen and heat for the process. CO2 recycling and sequestration technology is under development now. The American Energy Independence movement is not a green movement; it is a technology movement that sees all natural resources as alternatives for the production of sustainable clean fuels. To help us understand this, we need to ask: “Independence from what?” What is the real issue? Are we talking about independence from hydrocarbons? That is what the green movement is talking about. Or, are we talking about freedom from dependence on foreign oil? Most Americans believe energy independence means freedom from the political and economic insecurity that comes with being dependent on oil imported from hostile governments. America produces about 40 percent of its oil domestically. The other 60 percent is imported. Oil is a global commodity, which means that the price of oil is about the same for everyone around the world. The Middle East provides over 40 percent of the world oil supply. Middle East oil revenue finances oppressive Islamic theocracies, and funds terrorist organizations! One way to separate these two issues: Oil independence vs. Hydrocarbon independence, is by keeping the environment issue separate from the national security issue. Perhaps the term “sustainable” should be used to define the environmental issues — and the term “independence” used only to define the security issues. The issue of sustainability can further be divided into resource and pollution issues. The USA has several centuries’ worth of domestic hydrocarbon resources that will keep our modern economy supplied with energy, but only if we apply advanced technology to convert USA coal and oil shale to synthetic fuels and other refined products. We know the domestic hydrocarbon resource is sustainable for a period of time that is long enough to allow the development of affordable non-carbon, or carbon-neutral, energy technology to gradually replace hydrocarbons but until then, can our atmosphere and rivers, lakes and oceans continue to absorb the pollution from hydrocarbon mining, refining and consumption? The pollution itself is not sustainable, unless government policy insures that technology “cleans” the pollution in a “sustainable” way (mimics natures recycling). The American Energy Independence movement is not a green movement; it is a technology movement.
MSNBC video interview: Is nuclear power green?
Is global warming a threat to world peace and security?
Plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may create other problems —Plan to import biofuels threatens rainforest. “In a bid to solve one problem, we risk creating another, and making things worse. Rainforest destruction is a major contributory factor in global warming and it would be ludicrous to promote this loss to slake our thirst for fuel.” Chris Davies, British Member of Parliament. A
number of scientists continue to reject the idea that global warming
is influenced by CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere A rebuttal to the theory that global warming
is caused by a natural increase in solar irradiance accompanied by a
related increase in atmospheric water vapor levels: Increasingly, the data confirms global warming: Remember Global
Cooling? —Why scientists find climate change so hard to predict Health warning issued for global warming —Climate change could bring more smog, floods, drought NASA puts its weight behind warming signs —Press release on ice sheet survey follows internal changes Could Global Warming Become a Runaway Train? —Scientists say warm weather adds to global warming because of “feedback loops.” In a feedback loop, the rising temperature on the Earth changes the environment in ways that then create even more heat. Scientists consider feedback loops the single-biggest threat to civilization from global warming. Past a certain point — the tipping point, they say — there may be no stopping the changes.
How
climate change could ruin the economy —climate
change is likely to be abrupt and cataclysmic—and sudden
shifts could cripple national economies. China triggers alarm
on melting glaciers —Report warns of
worse droughts, sandstorms as plateau warms up Oceans to acid—Oceans act as giant sponges for CO2 - but what eases global warming harms marine life. Probe into rising ocean acidity—The UK's Royal Society has launched an investigation into the rising acidity of the world's oceans due to pollution from the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. The change could have catastrophic consequences for marine life. Climate warning from the deep— Strange things are happening in the North Sea. Cod stocks are slumping faster than over-fishing can account for, and Mediterranean species like red mullet are migrating north. Acid oceans spell doom for coral—The increasing acidity of the world's oceans could banish all coral by 2065, a leading marine expert has warned. Think
it's hot now? Just wait until 2009—Temperatures are
expected to top 1998's record on a regular basis. The next
decade will be a hot one, according to scientists unveiling the first
10-year
projection of global warming. The projection spans 2006
to 2015. “At least half of the years after 2009 are predicted to
be warmer than 1998, the warmest year currently on record,” the researchers
say in their report. Globally, that means a typical year will be about
half a degree warmer than in the previous 10 years...
The decade covering 1996 to 2006 contained the warmest years ever recorded, with
temperatures peaking in 1998 and nearly reaching that height in 2005. The significance
of the new study is that over the last century, global warming has contributed
to about a one-degree rise in average temperatures.
The new projection suggests that in a short time — just one-tenth
of that time span — the average temperature will be another half a
degree higher still. The Prophet of Climate Change: James Lovelock — One of the most eminent scientists of our time says that global warming is irreversible — and that more than 6 billion people will perish by the end of the century References:
Recommended reading: Help support AmericanEnergyIndependence.com |
|
Copyright © 2003-2008 Ron Bengtson. Boise, Idaho USA |
Al Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize
