Inside PBS Blog

Christopher
It is confusing to see anyone who appears to be aware of PBS programming indicate they "believe that all the climate change jargon is a scam". Such a pronouncement would seem to be a denial of years of programs following the research, studies, examinations of scientists, scholars etc from many different disciplines all coming to the same basic conclusions about climate change. We humans are a direct cause of the extremely fast current change in climate; fast in terms of any historical evidence gathered thus far going back any length of time we have discovered a record for. The only exceptions are recorded mass extinctions research indicates were likely caused by impacts from extraterrestrial objects. So it would appear either you mean something other than what your apparent statement says, you disbelieve all the evidence provided by the aforementioned experts or you suffer a common denial based on fear you are unable to participate in a positive way to help humanity survive. If your statement is the later; just find anything you can do to help (volunteer, tell others of your concerns about the planet, write anyone in government in support of a healthy planet when related legislation comes up, find things to do in your own lifestyle to contribute, find a way to support those who are able to get directly involved [organizations], etc). Whatever you do, don't give up on the rest of us. We're all in the same lifeboat (every living thing on earth) and most of earth's life-forms will live, be degraded or die together as a result of human impact.

As for legislation regarding "energy efficient laws governing the way we should live". We are social beings and incapable of successful "drastic" legislative measures even in our own best interests. In reality, we already have energy efficiency laws. Industry is already producing "Energy Star" energy efficient products from refrigerators to TV's to automobiles. Perhaps this has not meant an untenable degradation of lifestyles. Many houses are now being built with "green" emphasis. Most people actually would like not having toxins etc from earlier construction practices in their lives. No, I've not seen the proposed legislation you are concerned about. Perhaps you could point us toward a copy.

"Coal mining"; it would begin to look like this blog is a "plant". Not even the most "paid politicians" from coal rich states are unaware of the issues in burning coal or the mining practices used to extract it. It shouldn't take long to uncover the issues, but here is a start; (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_coal_mining Try the forth paragraph with links; environmental issues & air pollution & global warming, Fossil fuels; strip mining & mountaintop removal, Environmental and health issues). The issue of human energy use is not as simple as the issues of coal. That's why our current administration is attempting positive changes via a national energy approach.

Christopher, I completely agree with you about the climate change. As a student taking an Advanced Biology class I can tell everyone that extreme climates, widespread extinctions, and even fluctuating climates are not knew to Earth. While we need to respect our planet and take care of it we cannot be blinded by ideology nor can we commit economic suicide in order to push a green agenda. As to the "green house" legislation, I haven't looked at the details but I will give my full support to any green initiative that is beneficial economically and environmentally. I feel the technology isn't quite ready to achieve both of these requirements.

I would prefer not to be involved in an "I say / you say" discussion. If we can attempt to site unbiased specifics it might move things forward more productively. I asked to be directed toward a copy of the proposed legislation of concern. It's not been forthcoming. The question at hand is not about whether there have been "extreme climates, widespread extinctions, and even fluctuating climates are not knew to Earth" or if we might "commit economic suicide" by moving deliberately and quickly toward become "green" oriented. But let's look at these two questions anyway. Everyone agrees there have been major changes in earth's climate. But fast climate changes affecting a large number of living organisms causing mass extinctions is important. These changes historically point toward probable extraterrestrial impacts or seriously high levels of increased volcanic activity.
Example:Extinction event http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event
"Present day - the Holocene extinction event. Nearly 70% of biologists view the present era as part of a mass extinction event, possibly one of the fastest ever"

But the present climate change is different. The indication is human activity is at the center. Example: Holocene extinction event http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction_event

Economic disaster due to going "green" is a false argument. Businesses that actually get involved in "green" find it an economic advantage due to cost reductions.
Example: Companies Find the Profit in Being Green and Banking on green building
http://resources.bnet.com/topic/construction+and+pnc+bank.html
Example green home constriction: (Atlanta Home Builders Association) "50 percent of National Association of Home Builders' builders incorporate green into their building practices" http://www.atlantahomebuilders.com/education/earthcraft.cfm

There is reality in understanding what is "essential to life as we know it on our planet". That reality is the question. It is not whether life will continue on planet earth, it's about human continued participation. Biology classes at any level should inform partakers that all life forms function within limits of temperature and chemistry; major changes in climate profoundly affect both. "Drastically remove CO2" and "unforeseen repercussions in our food supply". It's a little late for that question. We have spent approximately the last 200 years raising CO2 levels in the atmosphere which is already threatening to affect our food supply.
Example: Carbon dioxide, the ocean and climate change http://www.csiro.au/resources/ClimateChangeCO2inOceans.html
Off-balance Ocean: Acidification from absorbing atmospheric CO2 is changing the ocean's chemistry
http://oceanacidification.wordpress.com/2009/02/24/off-balance-ocean-aci...

"Mother Nature will balance herself" and "A world filled with high levels of CO2 seems catastrophic to us but there is biological evidence that Earth has already seen these conditions". The question is not whether the earth has had high CO2 levels, it is whether humans will exist at all with the changes taking place or with some degree of what we currently consider reasonable within Mother Nature's new balance picture. Read the information from the links provided or many others on the same questions. It's apparent for 200 years we have tinkered "in the affairs of our planet". Many of us have realized humanity needs to act on the research that points to a need for us to change the way we relate to our environment so we have less environmental impact and utilize earth's finite resources more wisely.

There are already people volunteering to "plant some trees".
Example: "the Arbor Day Foundation provides information about planting and caring for trees, our Rain Forest Rescue and Tree City USA programs" http://www.arborday.org/

(Sorry about the extra post)

To Mr. Owens, I must say you seem a little afraid. Well, I guess scare tactics have always been fairly effective. Your comment of "[Carbon dioxide] needs to quit rising and start falling.... really" is the truely scary part of this whole debate. You speak of math problems but let us look at some high school science. The main source of energy for our planet is the sun; it is essential to life as we know it on our planet. After the sun come the producers. These are organisms that can make their own food from inorganic particles (photons of light can be considered a particle). Most plants rely on photosynthesis to turn the sun's energy into chemical energy which is stored in the form of sugars. We can simplify this process into carbon dioxide + water + energy = sugar + oxygen. Let us "think" like a plant for a minute, even though they can't think. "Hmm, I'm hungry. It must be time to make lunch. I need carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen to make my delicious sugar. Okay, I can suck up water with my roots, take in carbon dioxide from the air, and use sunlight to mix them together. But wait, I have too much oxygen now. Oh well, I guess I have to get rid of it."

What I have tried to illustrate with my childish plant story is that photosynthetic organisms, the ones we as consumers depend on for our very existence, don't care how much carbon dioxide is in the air. They don't even care about oxygen, it is a waste product to them. If we humans start to drastically remove CO2 from our atmosphere there could be unforseen repercussions in our food supply. If we really care about our planet we will stop trying to "help" by coming up with large scale projects to "get rid of that nasty carbon dioxide". The earth is very good at stabalizing itself due to buffers, which occur naturally. As long as the human race keeps a watchful eye on our pollutants (CO2 not being one of them) and cleans them up Mother Nature will balance herself out because it is what she wants to do. If you really want to decrease CO2 levels, plant some trees.

I have one last point. A world filled with high levels of CO2 seems catastrophic to us but there is biological evidence that Earth has already seen these conditions. Without getting too complicated, here it is. There is a process that C3 plants (rice, wheat, soybean, etc.) can go through on a hot, dry day called photorespiration. This process occurs when the plant doesn't take in enough carbon dioxide because its stomata are partially closed to conserve water. When CO2 is in short supply, oxygen takes its place in the photosynthetic process. This produces a product that is broken down into CO2. It doesn't seem like too big of a problem, right? Wrong! Photorespiration consumes ATP (energy) while producing none. It also takes away organic matter that would otherwise have been used to make sugar. Why would plants purposefully have the capability to perform a process that is counter-productive? A logical theory is that plants in the world's early evolutionary process didn't run into this problem because CO2 levels where much higher and oxygen levels much lower. The capability has never been totally erased.

Now of course we would never want to go back to such a time on purpose but it does show that we are not in control. The earth has seen much worse conditions before and we can only make our current situation worse when we tinker in the affairs of our planet. That is why we need to be VERY CAREFUL when we deliberately try to alter our environment. Therefore, I believe it would be very unwise if we were to act hastily and drastically in this matter. Can you think of any other time when it is best to act this way, with no forethought or reasoning?