[Forum]We are all aware of the current excitement over climate change, but it seems that there is little substance to the ill-informed hoo-hah.
The climate is simply the daily weather averaged over some extended timeframe. Yes, the climate is changing, the current trend to a warming period started 14,000 years ago, and the current acceleration began before the start of the Industrial Revolution (1800).
There have been lapses in increasing temperature over in the last 14,000 years, notably the Younger Dryas and decades long cold spells in the 16th and 18th centuries, when the Thames River froze. Today we blame the temperature rise on increased CO2 emission, a convenient hat rack.
We see calls for curbing CO2 emissions but won’t look at the root cause.
Taken as a whole, industrial activity is undoubtedly the major influencer on increasing global average temperature in the near term. The mean today is not unusual for earth, nor are current sea levels, long term.
Production of cement alone accounts for a very significant CO2 input.
If cement production facilities worldwide were taken as a country, it would be the third or fourth largest emitter, with steel not far behind.
Added to that are the CO2 emissions of plastics and glass production, basically, every energy intensive activity.
Calls for decreased dependence on “fossil fuels” are not realistic as an International Energy Commission report indicates that the use of fossil fuels will increase for the foreseeable future.
Why is that?
The developed world seems intent on the opposite track.
The demand for more goods and energy use is caused by an ever increasing population. Everyone, even from their huts, can see the “Good Life” on the TV, so the “I want that” starts.
Couple that with cultural/religious pressures for large families and medical innovations that extend life. Thomas Malthus warned about population outstripping resources in the 18th century and here we are today.
Who is willing to give up concrete, plastics and steel?
Or any of the other items of progress, say air-conditioning or computers?
The inconvenient fact is, nobody.
Unless population growth is controlled and the expansion reversed by an enlightened world community, nature will act to limit mankind, just a Malthus and others predicted.
That is an inconvenient fact. Problems are solved not by arm waving and unrealistic band aids, but by addressing the root cause of a problem, in this case population, on a global scale.
Email, Feb 3
Tim Bard, Tascott