Some things to consider:

• 25% of world's energy comes from coal, 41% from petroleum; 90% of global commercial energy comes from fossil fuels
• There has been a 40% reduction in average thickness of arctic ice over last 40 years (not to mention the last two)--forget the numbers, this means the ice sheets on the poles are melting at alarming rates. And because polar region temperatures are increasing at the fastest rates, the process is accelerating--less snow means less reflection and re-radiation of heat, and more melting of ice because water retains heat, rather than reflecting it. And let's not even get into the CO2 trapped in the melting ice, released into the atmosphere. Or the methan (CH4) stored in melting permafrost.
• In the 1990s, world CO2 emissions increased 7.5% (they're going up, not down)
• U.S. carbon emissions increased 13% in the 1990s (it had pledged a 7% decrease by 2010 as a signatory of the Kyoto Protocols under the Clinton Administration, but President Bush pulled out of that treaty, and the Obama Administration hasn't sought to revive talks)
• CO2 emissions grew by 57% in last 5 years of decade in India. India and China effectively have about 1/3 of the world's population of humans (of 7billion or so). If they continue to increase fossil fuel consumption (fossil fuels are coal, oil and natural gas), these rates will grow, and oil reserves, which at current rates may last less than a century, will be depleted sooner. It's important to remember as well that the 'easy' oil has already been taken--what's left is deeper, or in inaccessible areas that will increase the costs of exploration and drilling. Ever heard of 'Peak oil?'
• The 20th century's 10 warmest years occurred during the last 15 years of the 20th century--this is unprecedented for at least as long as we have temperature records--around 1,000 years or so (based on various data--samples from ice cores, cores from ancient trees (we count the number and size of the rings), cores from coral reefs, sediment at the bottom of lakes in the Arctice region (we can measure the amount of annual silt and estimate how long the melting season was), etc.
• Sea level has risen 4-8 inches globally in last century (by conservative estimates). Major melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet could mean rises in sea level of up to 10 meters (30+ feet ...)
• The average global surface temperature has risen 1 degree fahrenheit in the last century. Estimates are that it could increase from 1 to 4.5 degrees (fahrenheit) over the next 50 years.

Some more things we know:

• In 1997, the U.S. emitted 1/5 of greenhouse gases contributed to the atmosphere by human activity. The three major greenhouse gases are CO2, methane and nitrous oxide. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, but water cycles through the atmosphere and planet's surface, so it behaves differently than the other three (CO2 can persist for 100 years in the atmosphere, methane over 20 years) .
• World CO2 emissions are increasing (Largest increase: Thailand, South Korea, Taiwan--these are development success stories … models of how countries are supposed to grow their economies. What does this suggest?)
• Windpower is the fastest growing energy source (30% increase in 2000), but still accounts for less than 1% of electricity. Other sources of renewable energy include geothermal, solar, water/hydropower (this has the potential to be renewable), and wood--the most common source of energy for most of the undeveloped, low income societies.
• U.S. auto fuel efficiency hasn't improved since the 1980s (mainly because of the growth in SUV, Sport Utility Vehicle, sales)
• Greenland's ice sheet alone, if it melted completely in the summer, could increase sea levels well over 20 feet, and displace 25% of the US population.

Impacts

Scientists' best estimates of impacts include:

• rising sea levels (estimates are increasing, but several feet are the lower bounds), which could wipe out billions of dollars worth of coastal development, critical coastal ecosystems, and force the relocation of millions of people inland;
• a decline in soil moisture (as surface temperature increases, there is greater evaporation), which could radically alter the conditions under which we grow our food--though we produce enough food to feed the world currently, its distribution is skewed and over a billion people go to bed hungry.
• more severe storms, unpredictable climate change.
• Increased drought--there may be just as much rainfall, but its distribution will change, more may come in the form of violent storms, and the predictability of agriculture could be affected. Some areas and ecosystems may benefit, but the overall impacts for human habitation are troubling. On top of that, feeding 7 billion people depends heavily on fossil fuels (for fertilizer, mechanized agriculture, various other chemicals used in conjunction with high-yield varieties of grain, etc.)
• coral bleaching (this can cause the killing of coral reefs in tropical oceans, or less than that radically change the marine ecosystem and the plants and organisms dependent on it)
• Acidification of the oceans, possible changes in currents and the thermohaline circulation (that partly functions to distribute heat from the equator to the poles)
• All of these will affect food production both from fisheries and from agriculture.
• Species extinctions -- this makes sense--climate changes will change environments, change vegetation, and some species will not have the genetic diversity, or the time, to adapt to changing conditions, meaning either migration, or extinction. As habitats change, the mix of species that can survive in a given area changes.
• Spread of diseases -- some species will do better and adapt more quickly. Darwin would bet on critters with short life spans and high reproductive rates, some of which could be harmful bacteria, viruses and creepy crawlies like ticks, or noxious plants like poison ivy.
  

Okay, so things look pretty grim. But are the changes in climates, the threats of sea level rise and greater climate unpredictability the results of natural processes, or humans' activity? What societies might do could hinge on what they think are the causes of the climate changes.

Natural processes, phenomena to consider

Glaciation

We happen to be in an interglacial period--between ice ages. The earth's orbit is complex, and slight variations in its tilt can cause temperatures in the Northern hemisphere to decrease. The result, in terms of a global water cycle, is that more water freezes--a LOT more water. We're talking thousands of feet of ice under Canadian and Northern U.S. cities. If you've ever been on top of Eagle Cap peak, looking down the East Fork of the Lostine River drainage, you know what rivers of ice can do to the landscape. That means less water reaches the oceans, and ocean levels will drop. The current glacial period in the Northern Hemisphere began about 110,000 years ago, but for the last 12,000 years or so (coincidentally about when human civilizations began to spread and flourish), the planet has been in a glacial recession. When glaciers recede, more snow and ice melts, especially near the poles, and sea levels rise.

Solar radiation, greenhouse effect

The sun's rays, as they reach the earth's atmosphere, have short wavelengths, and most can penetrate. Some heat gets absorbed in the atmosphere, most rays reach the earth's surface--oceans and vegetation hold a lot of heat (deserts are often cold at night because they have so little heat-holding capacity). But what isn't absorbed by the earth's crust re-radiates--bounces off. The wavelengths are longer, though, and generally can't penetrate to leave the atmosphere, and are absorbed by greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. This is the way a greenhouse works--heat penetrates, but can't get back out of the greenhouse--the glass retains most of the heat--enought to keep plants from freezing. Without the greenhouse effect that holds heat in the atmosphere, the surface temperature of the earth would be 0 degrees fahrenheit--all water would be frozen, and we wouldn't see the frats and sororities from the big schools descending on Florida or Padre Island for Spring Break.

Energy and the first two laws of thermodynamics

There are two laws of thermodynamics that are important. First, energy can be neither created nor destroyed. That means it isn't really consumed--just transformed into some other form. We can't pull energy out of an empty hat, and we can't make it go away once we've used it. Like matter, we can merely transform it. Pollens fertilize. Flowers are produced, then fruits, then seeds. Seeds disperse. Some germinate, become seedlings, then saplings, then mature trees, they senesce, die, fall, and are decomposed by organisms, with much of their biomass being returned to the soil. But they don't go away, nor do they come from nothing. And they wouldn't grow without all the other resources necessary to permit it--soil with nutrients, rainfall, sunlight, etc.In the end the transformation is often heat (think of the heat given off by a light bulb).

The second law helps explain what happens to the energy. Transformation as suggested is usually from a 'higher' to 'lower' quality of energy. For instance, cow eats grass, cougar eats cow--each time energy is concentrated. Humans can concentrate energy--this campus is a good example. But if we don't maintain it, it will fall apart in time. When we create order in one place (for instance, building a house--it's a pretty ordered structure), we create slightly more disorder somewhere else--in forests where we cut trees for lumber, mountains where we mined rock for concrete, etc. Imagine if humans evacuated a city for a year--think how quickly nature would reclaim it--weeds growing up through cracks in the street, rust, no electricity to power buildings, systems to provide drinking water, treat sewage, etc., in decay. It takes energy and resources to build that city, and to maintain it. The process of 'decay' is called entropy. Removing the resource inputs gives us a sense of just how much is necessary to create and maintain that level of order. But for that order to exist requires that we pull the resources from elsewhere, creating some level of disorganization in someone's backyard. So unlimited amounts of cheap energy don't really solve all our problems--they could create lots of heat, though.

CO2, nature and humans

Carbon sources, sinks

One of the most important greenhouse gases we talk about is CO2, carbon dioxide. There are natural sources of CO2, that means places where it is produced--animals exhale CO2, when plants respire they release CO2. There are many human sources of CO2--cars, trucks, factories, power plants, etc. There are a couple of important natural sinks of CO2--oceans and plants. Tropical forests are especially important sinks--that is, they can absorb and store lots of CO2. Oceans are the other main sink, mostly through plankton that fix the carbon (plants), the plankton then is eaten or dies, may take that carbon with it to the bottom of the ocean. One of the key questions is whether we've overburdened these sinks, leading to the release of more CO2 into the atmosphere, and more heat. If you think about fossil fuels as representing ancient forests millions of years old, and incredibly concentrated to boot, then we're releasing much more into the atmosphere than the earth's system may be capable of handling. And societies are clearing tropical forests at alarming rates.

The other two main greenhouse gases are methane and nitrous oxide. A key sink of methane has been permafrost, frozen soil in the arctic region. But in a warming climate, as the permafrost melts, it becomes a source of methane production. Other sources of methane are landfills and the waste from confined animal feed operations (CAFOs)--waste lagoons produce lots of methane. Nitrous oxide is produced by industrial agricultural activity, much through fertilizer production and use.

top of page

Where are the main sources for CO2? (see the images)

The U.S. is the biggest producer of CO2, pumping billions of tons into the atmosphere annually through various forms. Which might explain why the Bush Administration was opposed to reducing CO2 emissions--it would hurt the economy. From the rest of the world's point of view, though, if global warming is partly caused by humans, then the U.S. is the biggest culprit. The Kyoto Protocols was basically an international treaty, signed by President Clinton, designed to reduce greenhouse gases, and the U.S. under Clinton pledged a decrease of 7% by 2010. We have increased CO2 emissions by 13% since the early 1990s instead. From the rest of the world's point of view, they are being asked to reduce emissions, which will be costly, so the U.S. gets an economic advantage by not doing so. President Bush backed out of the Kyoto Treaty, an action which had been viewed quite harshly by many countries' governments around the world for this reason--why should they make reductions and pay the economic costs if the U.S., the biggest producer of CO2, isn't doing its share? The main human sources of methane, another greenhouse gas, include confined animal production (such as feedlots for cattle, factory farming of hogs, etc.), but also landfills and sewage treatment facilities. Sources of nitrous oxide include fossil fuel combustion, use of nitrogen fertilizer, and clearing of land. New scientific data suggest that melting in the arctic North may release large 'natural' amounts of methane as well.

Is it humans or nature?

Consider a few things: There is a great deal more CO2 and other greenhouse gases being emitted into the air since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Those fossil fuels were not 'free' (remember the first law of thermodynamics). They required energy from the sun, time, heat, compression--in other words, huge amounts of energy--to become usable for humans. The natural processes of millions of years yielded petroleum. Half of the known reserves have been used up in less than 200 years. Where did it all go?? So, using fossil fuels, if you pay attention to the first and second laws of thermodynamics, means they'll go somewhere, in some form less usable to humans. What we get are chemical compounds with amazing heat-holding capacity, stuck in our atmosphere for a century or more. Meaning, also, that what is produced today will have effects for generations to come.

Since discovering concentrated forms of energy--the fossil fuels--humans have burned them at an increasing rate of consumption for over 200 years. Evidence suggests that average global temperatures have increased in the last hundred years, and that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen quite dramatically over the same period. Logic and observation suggest that humans are having an impact on the greenhouse effect--essentially putting more heat into the atmosphere. Oceans also have great heat holding capacity--they take up 3/4 of the earth's surface, and it doesn't take a large increase in temperature to create some major changes. Ice reflects sunlight, water absorbs the heat (and melts more ice).

NASA has a site separating natural and human impacts on global warming (go down the page a bit to the 'anthropogenic' sources). Other so-called 'skeptics' take a different approach (like the Cato Institute, ridiculing those calling for CO2 reductions by referring to carbon dioxide as a 'satanic gas').

There are scientists who contend that solar variation and long-term cycles may be playing out, but are masked by human activity. But the overwhelming evidence and research at this point suggests the causes are less exotic, and have more to do with human industrial activity.

top of page

Is it a social problem??

I'll leave you to use the ways we've learned to analyze social problems. Three things are clear: there is a greenhouse effect; the earth's average temperature has increased in the last 100 years, and; there will be impacts for human societies. There are clearly some very different views, or social constructions, going on. One says humans may be contributing to global warming, but the science is inconclusive (science is never totally conclusive--it can't prove things, only test ideas and disprove them). For instance, I've lived in La Grande for a six years, and never seen a flood. I could conclude, based on that evidence, that La Grande never floods. I could say I've never seen massive demonstrations in the streets against the war in Iraq. But La Grande could flood, and I might see a demonstration at some time in the future). The previous White House used this argument to pull out of the Kyoto Protocols, but has been roundly criticized for its own proposals. In addition, it has manipulated reports by its own agencies, including the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), and engaged in censorship, all of which create an impression that global warming may not be so important, according to the government (and news organizations like Fox), and that there is a lack of consensus as to the seriousness of the issue. Is this an effort to define the social problem in public, for instance as one of supply, of decreasing U.S. dependence on foreign oil and increasing supply, or not doing things that might hurt the economy? Just how dependent are we on fossil fuels? Do you drive (cars and their production)? On roads (where does tar come from)? Use electricity? Any plastics in the home? Synthetic fibers? Do you eat food (fertilizers and pesticides require massive amounts of fossil fuel, combines, trucks consume large amounts of fuel)? Buy things (they come from China quite often--how do you think they get to ports, and to the store)? Heat your home/apartment? Ever travel by air? Without fossil fuels, our economy comes to a grinding halt. Reducing our consumption of fossil fuels could hurt the economy, just like increased fuel prices would increase the price of practically everything we buy.

So, why does government policy support increased use, exploration and development of fossil fuel supplies? National and economic security, we're often told, and reduced dependence on 'foreign oil.' Then there's the war, occurring in the country with the second largest known petroleum reserves in the world. But there is more to it than that. There are large campaign contributions made in return for favors, and as we've discussed in class, winners in political campaigns are in over 95% of cases the candidates who spent the most money. And frankly it would be hard for any politician to tell people to consume less, pay more for gas, ride bicycles more, reduce, reuse and recycle, pay much more for using the landfill, etc.

As for the science being inconclusive, scientists say that the difficulty with this is that the effects of global warming may take several decades to manifest themselves. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for up to 100 years. Methane for much less time, but it absorbs much more heatl Nitrous oxide for less time, but it has much much higher heat-holding capacity than even methane. But CO2 is the big one. If societies don't address the problems now, it may be too late by the time sea levels have begun to rise, or extreme weather increase. The effects of what we do today may not show up for several decades, in other words. There is a lag time. Those opposing doing anything about global warming often call the scientific community 'alarmist' (see Chris Horner's background).

A second framing of the problem (in other words, some groups' efforts to define the problem in public) says these are natural processes. Climate changes, the earth is a dynamic place, humans contribute only about 5% of the total amount of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, and therefore we shouldn't hurt economies that depend on fossil fuels, because they're not responsible for the current problems. Addressing this one is tricky--do we just assume that Mother Nature bats last, and make no effort to address the melting of ice caps or changing climates? They will have drastic effects on human populations. At the least, we should be planning for a possible increase in sea level, or climate changes that make it more difficult for agriculture in some places. The CATO Institute is a conservative think tank that has researchers working on global warming (but to be quite honest, their research doesn't appear in rigorously peer-reviewed scientific journals, and is financed by heavy corporate backing). The Competitive Enterprise Institute calls CO2 'earth's organic fertilizer.' But we know what greenhouse gases do once in the atmosphere, we know humans are producing billions of tons of them annually, mostly through industrial activity, and we know that we can't defy the laws of thermodynamics.

A third framing is that global warming may in fact be occurring, and that humans have played an important role in changing the balance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. True, the science can't 'prove' it. But the logic is compelling, as is the evidence of increased global average temperatures. Over 95% of the scientific community agrees that global warming is occurring, and that humans are playing a central role in this process. Humans have emitted trillions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and have deforested large areas of the earth's surface as well, especially in the tropics in the last 3 or 4 decades--meaning more CO2 in the atmosphere, and less trees to fix and absorb all that carbon. Evidence from average global temperature records also suggest substantial increases since the beginning of the 18th century, when industrializing societies began using coal-fired steam engines.

As for the business community, not very many executives of large companies see global warming as a priority, at least in 2008. So in terms of framing among a group with lots of resources to influence the public, we wouldn't expect much (and perhaps one might expect some counter propaganda to dismiss or minimize those trying to highlight the urgency of the problem). However, this is changing, and think tanks like the Apollo Alliance work on policies that will stike a balance between environment and economy.

The politics are pretty straightforward--economy or ecology? Where do societies strike a balance? Should we curb greenhouse gas emissions, even though those countries most dependent on fossil fuels will pay the heaviest price? What if the price of gasoline doubled, tripled, quadrupled? Would people change their habits? Who could afford to buy scarce petroleum? How many people can afford to drive less? Our cities and surburbs are set up for automobiles. Will it just mean less money for some, who have no choice but to drive to work? Will people carpool more? Will cities develop better mass transit systems? The price of gasoline in Europe is 3-4 times what it is here in the States. Why is it so cheap here? Who benefits from inexpensive gasoline, whose price doesn't reflect some of the problems it causes (pollution, more health problems for people in cities, urban congestion, etc.)? Or should we dismiss the science and keep increasing our use of petroleum? Humans have been on the planet over 150,000 years, according to the fossil record. The earth is close to 6 billion years old. There are no guarantees for species survival . . . Some of the social problems we discuss in class may pale in comparison to this one in the long run. As economist John Maynard Keynes said, 'in the long run, we'll all dead . . . ' If the climate changes, and food production becomes an uncertain proposition for the close to 7 billion humans, then some of the other issuse we discuss in class may seem like window dressing.

. . . Okay, that's pretty gloomy. My point is, this is one of those problems where the possible consequences of ignoring it could be catastrophic. Compare this to the economic consequences of taking action. Some people, especially technological optimists, say that humans will figure all of this out before it is too late--humans are ingenious, and will always come up with some way, sometimes at the last minute, to save the day. Technology is progress--how could it be leading to the sorts of catastrophic events being predicted? Somehow, science and logic and observation isn't good enough for them, but technological optimism, which is grounded in pretty flimsy whims about human nature, works just fine! So . . . as with the other things we've discussed, be able to go through this one and discuss it. If it isn't a social problem according to you, back up what you say with some logic or evidence. That's the key--show that you understand something about the problem, and that you can think about it as a social problem with all of the things we've discussed related to social problems.