What does ‘Global warming war’ look like?
(In the May 13) Lake Wylie Pilot commentary by James Werrell presented an interesting framework in explaining the connection between the droughts occurring, primarily in Texas, but also in California, for the increase price of fresh beef. How much the drought itself has directly affected the price increase in fresh beef is questionable and debatable, and not the focus of my writing.
What is confusing about the article is Mr. Werrell begins by talking about “climate change” and finishes his article by referencing “global warming.” At the end of the article he states: “We might find a lot more people enlisting in the war on global warming.” I wish Mr. Werrell would have explained what the “war” looks like and who/what are we fighting. I can only assume Mr. Werrell is referring to the global warming alarmists who claim its man-made CO2 that is causing global warming or climate change (whichever term they use these days).
Unfortunately, in several ways, this war on reducing mad-made CO2 is misdirected, and even if followed, would have no affect in preventing weather changes. I’m certainly not a scientist, but you probably remember from your high school science class that 99 percent of the earth’s atmosphere is comprised of nitrogen and oxygen. Of the remaining 1 percent of gases that form the earth’s atmosphere, a small trace are considered greenhouse gases that act to moderate the climate. Of these trace amount of gases that comprise greenhouse gases CO2 represents less that .05 percent (not 5 percent nor .5 percent), and of this amount over 95 percent is annually produced by nature (volcanoes, swamps, oceans, etc.). So if man-made CO2 represents such an insignificant amount of greenhouse gases, what is all the fuss and concern in trying to reduce them?
Well, unfortunately, it seems science has become globally politicized. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol was designed to reduce carbon dioxide and other gases in industrialized nations. By 2020, the Kyoto Protocol required a 25 percent to 50 percent reduction in CO2 reductions in countries such as Canada and the United States. Fortunately, the U.S. has not signed this agreement. In December 2009, the Copenhagen Accord (attended and supported by our president) was to further the cause of the global warming alarmists, but instead turned out as a political disaster from what is called the Climategate scandal. We still hear daily the push of the global warming alarmists, which our current administration is in strong support.
Yes, we should be concerned and responsible for our environment, but we should also focus on issues such as ground water contamination, de-forestation and development of third world countries. I encourage you to read up on this topic and question what our federal government presents to us.