|
|
| HEATED DEBATE November 10, 1997 |
|---|
Return to this forum's introduction.
Questions answered in this forum:Can the science behind global warming predictions be trusted? Can an effective program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions be created? Should there be a tax on gas-guzzling vehicles? Could nuclear power reduce America's greenhouse gas emissions? Can a system of emissions credits reduce America's production of greenhouse gases? Should developing countries be included in a global climate treaty? Viewer comments
NewsHour Coverage
October 22, 1997:
A discussion of President Clinton's plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
June 25, 1997:
President Clinton is backing the EPA's push for tougher air quality standards, but critics say they're too costly.
February 18, 1997:
The federal Environmental Protection Agency has proposed new clean air standardsthat have been criticized by some industry, state and local officials.
March 6, 1997:
The fastest rise in temperature for perhaps ten thousand years is having a dramatic effect on the brittle ecosystem of Antarctica.
January 4, 1996
British meteorologists report that the Earth's surface temperature was higher than the average in 1995.
Browse the NewsHour's coverage of science and the environment.
OUTSIDE LINKS:
EPA Web site on global warming
Environmental Defense Fund
Sierra Club
William Bosworth of Lancaster, OH, asks: Would the panel be willing to discuss anthropogenic [man-made] contributions to greenhouse gas emissions? Specifically, with over 95 percent of greenhouse gases occurring naturally, and only 3.5 percent related to man's activity, what are the chances of creating a solution that will actually work and not simply end up as an economic drain? In response to this question, one might concentrate on CO2 (a prime target of the U.S.).
Karen Karrigen of the Global Climate Information Project responds:
I am quite willing to discuss this, but feel very alone on this position. This is one of those threshold questions which proponents of the theory of global warming, and of a "global" treaty (such as the White House) have whistled past like a graveyard. They instead implore us to move on to "how" to regulate industrial man on this issue, skipping the "whether," and for very good reason.
As you point out, with a de minimis proportion (my understanding is actually 2.5 percent based on current figures) of the primary culprit being anthropogenic, or attributable to man's activities, there is indeed very little logic to regulating man's activities for the purpose of stemming "global warming." The fact is that any climate change occurring is the Earth's self-regulating activities which we all know have occurred since the beginning of time. The insistence that man cease his industrial world as we know it exposes the "religion" underlying proponents' arguments: it is not anthropogenic contributions, but the activities behind them, which are the true target. The "economic drain" you cite as a likely result is denied by proponents in public, but privately sought by the "true believers." Thus the tragedy of the President being sold so hard on this one.
So, 2.5 percent is the anthropogenic contribution which, to my knowledge, is not credibly disputed. But for man's activities, therefore, the Earth would still conduct activities leading to 97.5 percent of the (purported) precipitant of the planet (allegedly) warming (despite satellite and balloon evidence to the contrary). Ask the "true believers" behind this movement, in a moment of honesty: If (s)he were shown that man's contribution has nothing at all to do with any climate change which may be occurring, should we still intervene to somehow, through whatever means possible, reverse that which purportedly is occurring? It is unlikely you can find one who will even stipulate, arguendo, that modern man's activities need not be ceased. That should itself be instructive.
Carl Pope of the Sierra Club responds:
Fortunately, the U.S. economy would be more efficient and productive if we put less CO2 into the atmosphere, even if the impact on global climate is nil. We subsidize, enormously, the consumption of fossil fuels. Fossil fuel users don't pay their fair share of U.S. military preparedness (to defend the Middle East), U.S. health care (to treat illnesses caused by air pollution), local government (road users pay only a fraction of the actual costs of the highways) or water pollution clean up costs.
So in the range currently being debated, the U.S. has very attractive policy options: more efficient appliances (purchasers would recoup the initial investment in 2-3 years), tougher fuel economy standards for autos (lower defense bills, less air pollution, auto drivers would recoup initial costs in 3 years), elimination of tax subsidies to fossil fuels and highways, etc.
Dr. Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund responds:
It is true that 95 percent or more of emissions would occur absent human beings. However, these emissions are almost exactly balances by natural processes that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The remaining 3 percent is from human activity, primarily fossil fuel combustion, and it is certain that this 3 percent has exceeded the natural balance and caused the 30 percent buildup in atmospheric CO2 since industrial times.
Scientists have used four independent means to arrive at this conclusion, and there is no doubt about it.
Next: should there be a tax on gas-guzzling vehicles?
The PBS NewsHour is Funded in part by: Additional Foundation and Corporate Sponsors
Program
Support
From:
Copyright © 1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station.
