Global Warming- The least we owe future generations is to try
It is good news that global warming finally gets the attention it deserves. However, the joy of the increased attention is partially overshadowed by the intentionally misleading information and reasoning present in the debate. Two recent columns, "Global Warming Consensus is a Myth" and "Global Warming in the Spotlight: Politics, agendasand the press" (Jan 31st, Feb 8th) constitute illustrations of this problem.
To begin with, let's state some facts. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is an organization formed by World Meteorological Organization United Nations Environment Programme in 1988. In the most recent report, which will be published later this year after six years of work, more than 800 leading climate scientists and some 2500 expert reviewers have contributed to the most comprehensive report on climate change up to date. So far, only the summary has been released in order to offer an overview of the findings. In contradiction to what was stated in "Global Warming in the spotlight", the summary is written by participating scientists, not bureaucrats. The Fraser Institute, which recently released a document criticizing the IPCC report and its conclusions, is not a scientific institute, but a right-wing Canada based think tank receiving funds from several corporations, including Exxon Mobile. The scientists of the Fraser institute consists of a mixed group of people where some have connections to various fossil fuel corporations and others are not even working in fields related to climatology (for more information and references, see www.desmogblog.com). Adding that the think tank American Enterprise Institute, as recently disclosed by the British newspaper The Guardian, offers a $10 000 reward for any scientists criticizing the IPCC report, should leave no doubts who should be considered more credible; the over 800 scientists behind the IPCC report or the 61 authors of the document by the Fraser Institute.
One common misunderstanding is that IPCC is not open to deviating views. In fact, one of the strengths of the IPCC reports are that they tend to be on the conservative side and are carefully formulated to express the least common denominator in the research community. Another misapprehension of the IPCC report is that it does not discuss natural explanation such as increased intensity of the sun radiation. As a matter of fact, variations in the sun activity as well the orbit of earth are discussed, but dismissed as explanations of the recent global warming.
The IPCC report summary, which can be found at www.ipcc.ch, states that the global warming measured over the last century to at least 90 percent certainty is induced by human activity where emission of carbon dioxide is the most significant contributor. It predicts a global warming ranging from app. 4 to 10 F if the current trend of increasing emissions continues. On a planet already under stress due to a growing population and an ever-increasing extraction of natural resources, a raise of the temperature of such magnitude will impose very severe consequences.
Instead of arguing about an issue already settled within the scientific community as well as outside the U.S, collective actions to decrease human impact needs to be taken immediately. As one of only two nations, the U.S has not signed the Kyoto agreement which maps out a route for decreasing emissions. As the country with the highest emission, both in total terms and per capita, an agreement without the U.S lacks the strength it would need. Equally important, the ignorance of the U.S, gives signals to raising industry nations such as China and India that climate change need not to be taken seriously.
It is not too late to take action on climate change. The IPCC summary shortly discusses different scenarios depending on how future emission will develop. In the thorough "Stern Review" written for the British government, renowned economist Sir Nicholas Stern shows that the cost of acting today is substantially lower than suffering severe future consequences of a passive climate policy. Sustainable development, of which Global warming is one aspect, is not called the greatest challenge of our time for no reason. Despite the difficulties, the least we owe future generations is to try our best.
Arvid Puranen
Senior, Mathematics
