There has been concern over climate change caused by humans for a long time, but it is only recently that a strong scientific consensus has brought it to the forefront of societal concerns. "Global Warming" sounds kind of pleasant -- but what we are talking about are major changes in regional climates that will have major effects on ecosystems and economies. We aren't talking about the end of the world, but we are facing tremendous human suffering and economic costs unless we take strong action now. Strong action now will actually be an economic stimulus as we make investments in new technologies and upgrade inefficient buildings, factories, and processes. Waiting will benefit the oil and coal companies, perhaps, but not our society. On the other hand, we must not let hysteria blind us to negative unintended consequences or attempts to manipulate our concern for profit. We must educate outselves, and keep our wits about us.
Here are several links that can provide a good overview of the climate change crisis that society must confront, followed by links to some news sites focused on climate change and environmental issues. Finally, you should acquaint yourself with the activities of certain corporations and organizations which are using rather sophisticated tactics to "muddy the water", hoping to stall society's shift to efficiency and clean energy in order to maintain their profits and political power.
Is there still a controversy over whether the climate crisis is real?
We humans are burning a lot of fossil fuels, but the energy released by that combustion is small compared to the heat the Earth gets from the Sun every day. So how can our puny fires be warming the planet? The "greenhouse effect" due to increasing CO2, methane and other "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere is well explained by the various links above, and the overwhelming majority of scientists around the world have reached a consensus that the climate crisis is real, and will have severe ecological, social and economic impacts if we don't act now and act aggressively. But the science is complex, and the concept that we can affect the weather goes against hundreds of thousands of years of social experience. There are powerful economic and political interests that would rather society did nothing to kick it's addiction to burning ever greater quantities of fossil fuels. Companies like ExxonMobil contribute hundreds of millions of dollars each year to political action committees, consultancies, and universities, and they use their purchased influence to keep alive a false "controversy" about climate change. A few scientists find that by taking a "contrary" position about the seriousness of climate change, they can gain a celebrity that would otherwise not be likely, and perhaps gain speaking fees from "thinktanks" and conferences sponsored by the fossil fuel industry.
Like the tobacco companies before them, some fossil fuel companies (most notably ExxonMobile) have engaged in ever more clever mechanisms to keep the public uncertain of the truth. This includes sponsoring "green business" conferences, "environmental" and "global warming" websites, and "green" newsletters that seed climate-change denial in with other environmental news of real significance and interest. A rather transparently "contrary" website and conference is sponsored by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Heartland Institute is at globalwarming.org. A more sophisticated website is ecoworld.com. The latter puts in lots of links to genuine environmental efforts, information on green business investments, re-foresting and rainforest protection, etc. This comes across as a genuine environmentalist website that happens to take a critical view of climate change "alarmists". But a closer investigation reveals a very biased editorial acceptance of climate crisis naysayers, and criticism of the majority scientific opinion. Legitimate concerns that some "global warming solutions" are having negative unintended consequences are played up, and then it is suggested that CO2 reduction zealots are ignoring other pollution concerns, when in fact the opposite is true: CO2 reduction efforts go hand-in-hand with pollution reduction efforts.
The Legitimate Controversy: Costs and Benefits of Climate Protection Policies
For those who want to delve into the legitimate scientific debate over the social, environmental and economic costs and benefits of climate change policies, see
IPCC Overview.pdf
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.