Forgot Password?
Home arrow GreeniacsArticles arrow Global Warming arrow Climate Change Debate
Written by William Quinn   
Share |
Tuesday, 26 April 2011

Climate Change Debate

We all recognize the heated debate in this country surrounding climate change, aka “global warming .” Some say the earth is warming, some say it is cooling, and others concede that it is changing but insist that it is not due to human action. What is interesting is how different groups frame the climate change debate in a manner that furthers their own self-interests. Information can be a very strong political tool. Special interests or political groups may be selective with the data they present to the public, or silence the voices of opposition to further their cause, but at what cost to the public and our environment? I fear politics alters facts and the free exchange of information in such a way that the public looks to politicians and special interest proponents for guidance rather than scientific information. When word choice, i.e. “global warming” vs. “climate change,” becomes more important than supporting science, I think we have a problem on our hands.

Climate Change1


The Climate Change Debate: A major debate regarding climate change is whether it is natural in the Earth’s cycles or whether anthropogenic (man-made) factors are leading to a changing climate. Problems arise when people pick and choose which facts to publicize along with silencing the other side of the debate. This practice occurs on both sides of the political spectrum and is often tied in with big businesses that financially benefit from certain national policies.

We will hear former Vice President Al Gore talk about the “effects of global warming,” but some people feel he ignores the other side of the debate or even silences scientists that propose counter theories. In 1994, Al Gore contacted CBS News’ program 60 minutes in an effort to discredit a respected scientist who disagreed with some of his claims. Gore argued that “only raving ideologues and corporate mouthpieces could challenge his green gospel.”2 His strategy failed, and he was criticized for his politicization of the issues. Ted Koppel said at the time, “'There is some irony in the fact that Vice President Gore, one of the most scientifically literate men to sit in the White House in this century, that he is resorting to political means to achieve what should ultimately be resolved on a purely scientific basis.” 3

Another example is the Bush Administration in 2007 falsely claiming that the United States was doing better than Europe in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.4 The claim is only true if one looks at a single greenhouse gas over a narrow timeframe. As soon as more gasses are analyzed over a greater period, the trend completely reverses. Similarly, the Bush administration was also accused of “attempting to control which climate scientists could speak with reporters, as well as editing scientists' congressional testimony on climate science and key legal opinions,” according to a House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report.5

More recently we can look to Governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty (who is said to be considering running for President in 2012 under the Republican ticket), to blatantly ignore facts in favor of politics. Before considering a Presidential campaign, Pawlenty was by many metrics a very “green” Governor, who not only recognized climate change but wanted to fight it: “He called for Minnesota to lead on enacting a cap and trade system, so that other states and the US government might follow… He pioneered clean energy and green jobs programs.”6 Now he says he is unsure of what causes climate change and feels that national cap and trade programs would be “a disaster.”7 Dr. Joseph Romm, the Editor of the online publication of the nonprofit organization Center for American Progress Action Fund, went as far as to give Pawlenty the “gold medal for climate flip-flopping.”8 To see a strong Republican Presidential contender rescind his support of cap and trade and anthropogenic climate change is disheartening.

Climate Change Debate - Exxon 9


The Money: Discussing the politicization of climate change would not be complete without at least a brief nod towards the money which fuels much of the “debate” surrounding climate change and “global warming myths.” It is a shame that the world’s second most profitable corporation in the world, ExxonMobil, whose sales exceed $1 billion per day, makes the majority of its money from oil—the very substance carbon neutral economies are attempting to eliminate.10 Even worse is the fact that it is generally known that ExxonMobil aided the U.S. Government in its decision not to sign the Kyoto global warming treaty , although the company denies any involvement in the matter.11

Thanks to U.S. State Department papers obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by Greenpeace, we can see that the U.S. “rejected Kyoto in part based on input from the [Global Climate Coalition].”12 The Global Climate Coalition (GCC) was a group of mostly United States businesses that opposed immediate action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and ExxonMobil was an integral part of this coalition. The State Department papers “further state that the White House considered Exxon among the companies most actively and prominently opposed to binding approaches [like Kyoto] to cut greenhouse gas emissions’."13 ExxonMobil would not comment when these facts came to light, but it is clear from U.S. documents that they played an unfortunate role in the U.S. determination that signing such a climate treaty “would be unjustifiably drastic and premature.”14

I should further note that ExxonMobil has poured unknown sums of money into at least 124 organizations which all take a similar stance against climate change:15
These organizations take a consistent line on climate change: that the science is contradictory, the scientists are split, environmentalists are charlatans, liars or lunatics, and if governments took action to prevent global warming, they would be endangering the global economy for no good reason. The findings these organizations dislike are labeled ‘junk science.’ The findings they welcome are labeled ‘sound science.’16
This does not seem like the sort of company that should be consulting with the White House about whether the U.S. should sign the Kyoto Protocol—talk about conflicts of interest…

Climate Change Debate - Global Warming Research 17


The Power of Words: In a recent University of Michigan study, 2,267 U.S. adult participants were questioned about their certainty regarding whether global climate change was a problem. Half were asked these questions using the terminology “global warming,” while the other half were asked these questions using the terminology “climate change.” “Overall, 74 percent of people thought the problem was real when it was called climate change, while about 68 percent thought it was real when called global warming.”18 Somewhat unsurprisingly, when looking at political think tanks, “conservative think tanks tend to call the phenomenon global warming, while liberal think tanks call it climate change.19

The largest change in survey response due to word choice was seen in participants identifying as Republican. “While 60 percent of Republicans reported that they thought climate change was real, for example, only 44 percent said they believed in the reality of global warming.” “In contrast, about 86 percent of Democrats thought climate change was a serious problem, no matter what it was called.”20 This is an important realization that people should take into account when considering climate change.

Politics aside, I frankly think the term “global climate change” is more accurate, since some geographic regions will see more rain while other will see less, some areas will get hotter, but others will experience more extreme weather patterns. A complex climatic shift is affecting the globe, and “global warming” seems like an over simplification, but then again I am a believer in the effects of global warming … so maybe I’m just trying to convince you too!

Browse all Greeniacs Articles Browse all Greeniacs Guides        Browse all Greeniacs Articles
_______________________________________________________________________________

1 http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/02/22/climate-change-not-a-matter-of-faith/
2 http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/06/gores_grave_new_world.html
3 http://www.marshall.org/category.php?id=7
4 http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/
case_studies/selective_use_climate_update.pdf

5 http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1212/p03s03-uspo.html
6 http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/02/great-politicization-climate-change.php
7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJ6s2CTA8kg&feature=player_embedded#at=37
8 http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/22/the-gold-medal-global
-warming-flip-flop-calls-cap-and-trade-a-disaster/

9 http://ugaliberal.blogspot.com/
10 http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2010/performers/companies/profits/
11 http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2005/jun/08/usnews.climatechange
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Id.
15 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2
16 Id.
17 http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/images/si/2008-6-500.jpg
18 http://ur.umich.edu/1011/Mar14_11/2137-its-all-in
19 Id.
20 Id.



Add your comment
RSS comments

Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.

Click here to Register.  Click here to login.

Last Updated ( Wednesday, 20 June 2012 )

SEARCH GREENIACS.COM

Green Facts

  • One recycled aluminum can will save enough energy to run a 100-watt bulb for 20 hours, a computer for 3 hours, or a TV for 2 hours.

  • States with bottle deposit laws have 35-40% less litter by volume.

  • Recycling 100 million cell phones can save enough energy to power 18,500 homes in the U.S. for a year.

  • American workers spend an average of 47 hours per year commuting through rush hour traffic. This adds up to 23 billion gallons of gas wasted in traffic each year.

  • You will save 100 pounds of carbon for each incandescent bulb that you replace with a compact fluorescent bulb (CFL), over the life of the bulb.

  • In the United States, automobiles produce over 20 percent of total carbon emissions. Walk or bike and you'll save one pound of carbon for every mile you travel.

  • Shaving 10 miles off of your weekly driving pattern can eliminate about 500 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions a year.

  • 77% of people who commute to work by car drive alone.

  • Recycling aluminum saves 95% of the energy used to make the material from scratch.

  • A single quart of motor oil, if disposed of improperly, can contaminate up to 2,000,000 gallons of fresh water.

  • You’ll save two pounds of carbon for every 20 glass bottles that you recycle.

  • Current sea ice levels are at least 47% lower than they were in 1979.

  • In California homes, about 10% of energy usage is related to TVs, DVRs, cable and satellite boxes, and DVD players.

  • 82 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. come from burning fossil fuels.

  • Plastic bags and other plastic garbage thrown into the ocean kill as many as 1,000,000 sea creatures every year.

  • It takes 6,000,000 trees to make 1 year's worth of tissues for the world.

  • A laptop consumes five times less electricity than a desktop computer.

  • Rainforests are being cut down at the rate of 100 acres per minute.

  • If every U.S. household turned the thermostat down by 10 degrees for seven hours each night during the cold months, and seven hours each weekday, it would prevent nearly gas emissions.

  • Americans use 100 million tin and steel cans every day.

  • Refrigerators built in 1975 used 4 times more energy than current models.

  • Turning off the tap when brushing your teeth can save as much as 10 gallons a day per person.

  • Americans throw away more than 120 million cell phones each year, which contribute 60,000 tons of waste to landfills annually.

  • Every week about 20 species of plants and animals become extinct.

  • Recycling 1 million laptop computers can save the amount of energy used by 3,657 homes in the U.S. over the course of a year.

  • The World Health Organization estimates that 2 million people die prematurely worldwide every year due to air pollution.

  • Americans throw away enough aluminum to rebuild our entire commercial fleet of airplanes every 3 months

  • Bamboo absorbs 35% more carbon dioxide than equivalent stands of trees.

  • For every 38,000 bills consumers pay online instead of by mail, 5,058 pounds of greenhouse gases are avoided and two tons of trees are preserved.

  • Due to tiger poaching, habitat destruction, and other human-tiger conflicts, tigers now number around 3,200—a decrease in population by about 70% from 100 years ago.

  • Nudge your thermostat up two degrees in the summer and down two degrees in the winter to prevent 2,000 pounds of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere.

  • Less than 1% of electricity in the United States is generated from solar power.

  • A tree that provides a home with shade from the sun can reduce the energy required to run the air conditioner and save an additional 200 to 2,000 pounds of carbon over its lifetime.

  • Glass can be recycled over and over again without ever wearing down.

  • A steel mill using recycled scrap reduces related water pollution, air pollution, and mining wastes by about 70%.

  • Recycling for one year at Stanford University saved the equivalent of 33,913 trees and the need for 636 tons of iron ore, coal, and limestone.

  • Washing your clothes in cold or warm instead of hot water saves 500 pounds of carbon dioxide a year, and drying your clothes on a clothesline six months out of the year would save another 700 pounds.

  • You will save 300 pounds of carbon dioxide for every 10,000 miles you drive if you always keep your car’s tires fully inflated.

  • An aluminum can that is thrown away instead of recycled will still be a can 500 years from now!