Richard Kaloust Greenhouse Effect on Earth

Climate Change – A Global Debate

Richard Kaloust Global Debate By James McAloon.

The above title will inspire a wide variety of emotions and opinions amongst and across diverse communities. Each and every person on this planet cannot escape the debate, so what I would like to achieve through this page, is an open debate about the topic. In the forthcoming paragraphs I shall outline the subject as I see it, which is by no means a testament of how it is, and then I hope that as many people as possible will comment showing their particular views, theories and critics of the issue. So please read on and reply.

To this point I am completely aware of the disagreements that exist among the scientific beliefs of the highly educated scientific elite across our planet. My particular opinion has been formed after reading and analysing a large, but actually significantly small amount, of the immense available information relating to the issue of climate change.

Greenhouse gases come in various forms, the most commonly and publicised of these being Carbon Dioxide CO2 and others less publicly demonised such as, Sulphur Hexafluoride SF6, Methane CH4, Nitrous Oxide N20, Hydro Fluorocarbons HFCs and Per Fluorocarbons PFCs, are all natural contributors to the greenhouse effect.

The simple science that underpins these gases is that without them our planet would be unable to sustain life, as it does currently. So actually we should all be extremely thankful for their existence. The math behind it shows that the above greenhouse gases make up 0.5% of the earth’s atmosphere and at these levels warm our earth by an additional 30°C. Imagine our planet being 30°C cooler.

The undeniable fact is that since the beginning of the industrial revolution in the early to mid 18th century, we as citizens of our planet employed new and increasingly technical means by which to achieve economic and industrial diversification, through which many of the world’s industrialised nations reaped the rewards. Through this natural development it became necessary to make use of natural resources such as coal, oil and its derivatives and natural gas. This was and remains a commendable use of the human intelligence and should in no way be vilified.

Throughout the industrial revolution and up to the very recent history, the possible adverse consequences of the industrial revolution were not fully considered or understood. It does however clearly correlate that due to the increased use of fossil fuels and the consequent release of previously absorbed greenhouse gases, such an increase in levels that was not present pre the industrial revolution, could have a detrimental effect upon the fine balance of 0.5% greenhouse gases present in the earth’s atmosphere.

Data shows that the concentration of Carbon Dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere currently stands at 387 parts per million, a 31% increase in the period 1750 to 2009. Subsequently the belief exists that such increases have led to a warmer planet.

Now it is clear that we cannot reverse the advancements of the industrial revolution and nor should we wish to. What I believe to be plainly obvious is that, we should not deny the possibility of the existence of global warming as a direct result of the release of excess levels of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere. However, I am not about to ignore the factual data showing that our planet has been far hotter, and has had levels of carbon dioxide that are far higher than they are currently; most notably in the time of the dinosaurs, when the CO2level was 2 to 4 times higher. Nevertheless we all know what happened to the dinosaurs, or at least we think we do. Nor should we ignore that the earth’s life cycle clearly shows higher and lower levels of ice due to the heating and cooling of the planet over time. However, we must remember that human history is relatively short in terms of the scientific data that supports a natural warming and cooling of the earth, and although there is a clear natural element to the warming and cooling of the earth, do we risk extinction in the wake of the result regardless?

It seems apparent that we simply have little control, so surely we should concentrate our efforts away from the ifs, buts or maybes, and move toward the positive impact that can be achieved through concerted and collective cooperation. Even the simplest of efforts can go a long way to reducing the excess release of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere and many of them are financially beneficial. Some simple steps include; general recycling, insulation of housing, walking or cycling rather than driving, buying organic produce and planting trees. The list is long and not exhaustive, continue the innovation. Ironically, although very difficult to quantify, the bureaucracy and lobbying that surrounds the climate change debate is most likely adding to the problem. With the carbon footprint of every climate conference impacted by; flights and travel, document printing, energy usage and so on.

Nonetheless, the intentions are positive, and through global state action our great nations can achieve a winning result for the greater good. Even if our efforts prove to have no effect on the natural warming and cooling of our earth cycle, we will have achieved great success due to progressive thought, development and involvement of industrialised and non-industrialised nations alike. What is this greater good? It is the positive impact on the future lives of millions of people with whom we share our planet.