Sunday, May 6, 2012

Charting climate change



Global surface temperature, ocean heat, and atmospheric CO2 levels have all risen since 1960.

A study published in The Economist seems to bear this out.  Carbon-dioxide levels were first monitored by the Scripps Institute of Oceanography in 1959.   Every year has shown in a rise in the CO2 content in the atmosphere, thus leading to a greater greenhouse effect.  However, CO2 is not the sole culprit in climate change as additional human pollution and volcanic eruptions likewise contribute.

These findings are contentious to say the least.  Seems that there is more and more backlash against Global Warming every day.  Figures.  The majority of solutions proposed for stemming the rise of global temperatures all entail regulations and prohibitions.  Translated, people losing money.  There appears to be little else that humans love as much as money and losing it is an untenable situation.

In their defense, reversing the trend of Global Warming is a daunting challenge, not to mention an expensive one.  It will be a herculean undertaking entailing a fair amount of sacrifice just to break even.  Proactive measures will need to be formulated in a way that will be not at all based on who profits the most but upon what makes the most sense as well as what will preserve the greatest number of people and natural resources.  Not only that, but an imbalance of resources and a dramatic change in climate are a recipe for war.  I've referenced this before. 

Again, it all comes down to what we're willing to do about it.  Judging by the amount of trash one can see discarded along roadsides or in community parks, I have to question the level of commitment we might all share worldwide.  Another indicator of apathy that I see is how little Global Warming and the environment as a whole are being discussed during the current presidential election.  I can understand that both the U.S. economy and the need for jobs are taking center stage but I'm waiting for just one of these guys to be a mensch and even broach the subject.  I'd settle for just one brief description of a plan that is halfway feasible on economic, political, and fiscal levels.  I don't think I ask for much, do I?  Your sarcasm meters should be red-lining.

Who am I kidding?  It's going to take an enormous environmental disaster for society as a whole to seriously consider any of this threat.  By then, I'm hoping it won't be too late to do something about it.

Then again, something tells me we won't have to wait that long to find out.


Follow me on Twitter: @Jntweets

No comments:

Post a Comment