by John Schneeberger, Hamilton
The crisis of rapid climate change is a difficult one to tackle with politics. Realistic solutions are unlikely to provide an immediate benefit to voters. It is not like the housing issue which can be solved by more houses. It also can’t be solved by just taking personal responsibility for our carbon footprint. An individual could reduce their greenhouse gas contribution to zero by stepping in front of a speeding bus and it would make little difference.
It is also an easy issue to rally against. Opponents of action will have plenty of opportunities to portray those who are alarmed by the evidence as alarmists. The winters will still be cold and there will still be nice summer days. The long-range forecast for winter snowpack in our mountains shows steady decline. But there will be the usual oscillation between cold wet and warm dry winters. There may even be some great skiing in an unusually snowy year. These sporadic periods of favorable weather will provide the justification for inaction, perhaps by another politician who brings in a snowball during a legislative session to refute the need for the deliberations with a display of “common sense”.
But rapid climate change is coming for us, and it is as real as the smoke in the air. Those who are my age will only see the beginnings of the unraveling of ecosystems leading to profound blows to our economic and governmental structures. Our children will see a government response that mobilizes and adapts until it is overwhelmed. The Trump movement has already shown how susceptible societies are, when they start to unravel, to the toxic politics of authoritarianism. With business as usual, the consensus among the experts is that our democratic norms and institutions, upon which are our society is built, will crumble in this century. This future is not speculation. It is the best estimate of our scientific community, not just in the hard sciences, but also by those that study economics, population dynamics and civil society.
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions will mostly benefits those not alive today. The decarbonization of our economy will mean profound changes. The disruptions caused by this change will not show immediate results: it will not reduce the smoke in the air today, next year or even the next several years. The problems and challenges with converting to a new energy, food and manufacturing system will be many. Those with jobs or investments in the old ways will be severely impacted without robust policies to mitigate the damage.
I believe a strong government response, using market mechanisms, is the quickest and easiest way to make this transition but we will all need to engage on the solution, which may run counter to preconceived notions and ideologies. Any one for ramping up small scale nuclear power? How about more construction made from wood?
Politicians can’t honestly promise that the measures we need to take as a country will directly benefit you in this election cycle. Rapid climate change may not change the prospects for you and your family in the coming year or the next 5 years. But if we do too little, or nothing at all, we will lose the United States, democracy, and a future for grandchildren.
The solution is government action. For better or worse, our political system offers us only two choices. You can vote for Republicans, who have vowed to do as little as possible or nothing at all, or you can vote for Democrats who have delivered action and have promised more. You therefore must choose morality over short term personal gain. What will it be?
Bonnie Glasser says
In response to the October 5 letter from John Schneeberger, I find it interesting that he begins by stating that rapid climate change is difficult to tackle with politics yet ends by advocating government action and voting Democrat as the only solutions.
The 1972 Stockholm earth summit, followed by the UN climate talks from 1992 through 2021 resulted in few sustainable solutions. This November the 27th COP or Convention of Parties will be held in Egypt. It is called COP 27 because this is the 27th year they’ve been meeting. This UN Climate Change Conference has spanned the Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump administrations.
So in 50 years we’ve determined that fossil fuels are consistent but dirty and that renewables are clean but weather dependent. Experts say that it is safer to re-explore clean nuclear energy as a solution. Bjorn Lomberg and Michael Shellenberger, climate and environmental experts, have touted nuclear energy as the only clean sustainable solution. Elon Musk and Bill Gates agree. Advances in nuclear energy indicate that it is far safer than it’s reputation implies.
In 2021 61% of US electricity was generated from fossil fuels with renewables generating only 12.2%. Coal is the largest source of electricity globally. Coal power is estimated to kill around 350 times as many people per terawatt hour of energy produced, mostly from air pollution, compared to nuclear power. COP26 declared in 2021 goals to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050. How is that possible without reliable sources of energy? It takes fossil fuels to reliably produce electricity in order to heat homes, manufacture goods and fertilizer and to transport necessities for living. The US is not compact like Europe and most people must own and drive a car in order to make a living.
The current climate change agenda and fossil fuels regulations are premature and destroying the economy stealing billions from individuals’ 401(k)s and unfairly taxing US citizens through higher costs of most everything. How can the current administration justify the destruction of our entire economy without any solutions. Europe is now in a slow death spiral with rocketing energy costs the average citizen can’t afford all the while making Russia wealthy and stronger on the world stage while we gave up our energy independence. The citizens of Sri Lanka are starving due to their government banning fertilizers causing food prices to rise 80%.
This painfully complicated threat to our planet is real. For fifty years it has been politicized by activists thwarting any viable solutions like nuclear power.
Mr. Schneeburger’s statement that “Trump’s toxic politics of authoritarianism” is germane to the climate crisis is divisive and absurd in that a four year administration could hardly have a significant influence in this fifty year international puzzle. Mr. Schneeburger also writes that an “individual could not reduce their contribution to zero by stepping in front of a speeding bus”. I think an individual can make a difference by voting for candidates that research the issues and offer viable solutions.
MAH says
Chances are that those reading/commenting on this letter are sitting in what was once Glacial Lake Missoula. Climate changes. Forest fires in the past 10+/- years likely produced more particulate matter and CO2 than the leftist elitist crowd wants to portray. Severe Wild land fire isn’t new to the last decade or last 100 years. The prairies in the 1800’s burned thousands of acres and don’t forget the Big Burn of 1910 that burned over 3 million acres. Henny Penny, John Cary, Ducky Lucky and the rest of the left want you to believe the sky is falling. Be sure to your EV and be ready as the State of CA is doing. I think this more about control than science.
Mike Mercer says
All good answers but the question was how can it “trap heat” as it releases heat and cools the upper air from what I have read. I don’t see this as an issue to panic over, plan for yes, but not an emergency. Other factors to study and debate but not the boogie man…..yet.
Larry says
Mike, how it traps heat is pretty straightforward. CO2, and other greenhouse gases, are transparent to visible light but not infrared (heat). So, sunlight goes through, heats things up on the Earth, and the CO2 keeps the heat from radiating away into space. Just like how a greenhouse works, hence the name “greenhouse gas.”
Mike mercer says
Before he died in 2008, Climate scientist Dr. Reid Bryson compared CO2’s capacity to affect radiation to water vapor. While acknowledging that 80% of the heat radiated back from the surface “is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor, ” Bryson asserted that “eight hundredths of one percent” of this radiation is absorbed by CO2.
“You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.” Brysons comment, not mine.
Mike Mercer says
You do sound like a politician, unable to foresee any effect beyond their own rhetoric. Question, co2 is twice as heavy as O2 so how can it rise above O2 into the upper air and trap heat? What’s the science on that?
Bob Williams says
How come comparatively heavy CO2 rises upwards?
That’s a fair question!
Deserves a fair answer!
Like most gasses, released CO2 rapidly diffuses in different directions.
Then comes airflow, at surface, and at two, sometimes three, layers above us. We get Westerly air currents off of the Pacific Ocean. And Northerlies from Canada and the Polar region.
Turbulence occurs along the margin of air currents. Also when air currents get swirled by low pressure cells. When East flowing and South flowing atmospheric air current windstreams interact, CO2 gets spread around by turbulent mixing. Comparatively, there’s very tiny percentages of CO2, at differeny levels, up in our atmosphere. Roughly about the same percentages as the percentage of caffeine in an averaged cup of coffee.
Not much air current flow above our atmosphere. Every year, there is more and more measured CO2 throughout our atmosphere. Every year, globally recorded temperatures, and recorded sea levels, go up and up.
Ask questions. Seek answers.
Check this out:
https://www.quora.com/How-and-why-does-CO2-go-in-the-atmosphere-when-its-heavier-than-air
John Schneeberger says
The science of that is old and well understood. The atmosphere is well mixed because of diffusion and convection up to a height of 100 km. CO2 does not concentrate near the earth’s surface in a layer.
Larry says
Mike, I’ll assume that is a sincere question and commend your inquisitiveness. As John pointed out, this isn’t the least bit of a scientific mystery. You can find a huge number of interesting answers to your question with a quick search. And be glad that atmospheric gases do mix – otherwise you’d be asphyxiated by CO2 at the beach, and plants wouldn’t grow a few meters above sea level!