Pic of a glacier I took in Alaska in 2004.
OK, lets start this by identifying a few “knowns:”
- global climate is changing, and it is getting warmer.
- there is such a thing as the greenhouse effect. It is required to maintain our atmosphere and way of life.
- the gasses that cause the greenhouse effect have been altered by activities by all of us.
- our current way of life affects the air – we live in it, we breathe it, we need it.
- our current way of life has the potential to cause huge political conflicts in the future. Think that H2 has high emissions? Try mass destruction.
My first write-up on global warming hinted towards solar activity as one of the contributors of global warming. There are scientific arguments both for and against it. While I agree in theory that he 11 year cycle of the sun changing its distance from the earth in our orbit does not greatly affect global climate, it is less clear that the level of activity of the sun has no effect. However, if a naturally occurring huge ball of gas can run constantly at a bazillion BTU’s with no variation, that would be pretty cool. Or hot (I know that’s dumb, but I couldn’t resist). But I just don’t see it. However, that isn’t what this one is about.
Nor will I get into the argument of the overall affects of what our additions have done to the greenhouse effect. That is what my previously cited article was about, claiming that there is not enough scientific evidence to support that this climate change has been caused by man made emissions.
Then there’s this to complicate things: 95% of all greenhouse gas is water vapor – so man’s addition of carbon to the atmosphere, lets call it 30% (I don’t know what it is off of the top of my head nor will I research it, because this is not where I’m going) is merely 30% of CO2’s share of the 5% of total greenhouse gas – this isn’t just a whole lot. However, we must also take into account that not all greenhouse gasses are the same. Methane, for example, is 25x as powerful of a greenhouse gas as CO2 (methane comments is supported in the MIT article below). I didn’t know the impacts of methane until I saw and posted this TED talk by Mark Bittman, which I found almost a year ago. I do not know how H2O vs. CO2 vs. Methane vs. everything else is weighted. Form my hobbyist research I have not found this yet. Methane is a huge emission from farming. Nobody on NPR talks about this, most media sticks to cars and how the Prius will save the planet. Here’s an example making fun of green=status. I’ll admit while I only have a smart car and not a Prius, I too carry a canvas bag.
MIT released an article over a year ago that has gotten almost no recognition, indicating findings that methane gas had a huge global change in 2007. I just found this article via Digg.com, which actually pointed to another article which drew its own conclusions. However, fortunately, it had the link to the original MIT authored work. Its findings indicated that the global spike in methane gas does not appear to be related to emissions, but more related to a compound (OH) which naturally breaks down methane in the atmosphere which varies naturally. Honestly, they don’t really know. The fact that this happened globally so quickly makes it difficult, however, to attribute this to man made emissions, which are not evenly spread out all over the globe.
The first article I read had the following headline: “Is Global Warming Part of Earth’s Natural Cycle: MIT Team Says “Yes”.” I didn’t see that at all in the original text and I’m curious to know who many people read the original article. The comments also include statements such as “well documented” claims that CO2 is directly related to climate change, but, of course, no one has references. I’m not an expert and I will not claim to be. I’m not a scientist, I am a person who is interested in this. But with all of my digging there is very little straight talk. The issue of climate change is not black and white, and the information isn’t entirely available to the public for debate. The overall embrace of cars and CO2 being the root of all climate change drives me nuts. The USGBC now claims that from 2008 data, 39% of CO2 emissions come from buildings – the built environment is #1 in CO2 emissions, followed by transportation, then Industry. But what does that really mean in global terms?
I feel a rant coming, so I’ll quickly end by saying this is complicated. There are still many questions to be answered. However, by lowering our impact on the environment – and eventually reversing that trend, to eventually enhance the environment, just as almost every other species does, is the only was for us to survive. We as designers, consultants, and implementers need to do our best with the information we have available to make the right decisions, but standing behind claims that are “undebatable” on such a complicated issue will do nothing more than deteriorate the credibility of the sustainable movement. We always have to keep asking questions, maybe one day we will get it right. We are certainly not there yet.
