Before We Heard About Global Warming. . .
This 2006 photo is a typical summer view looking west towards the Central Valley as seen from Moro Rock in Sequoia National Park. The city beneath the smog in the distance is Visalia, with more than 400,000 people living in the greater metro area. Let me begin this post by pointing out that is was definitely people, not global warming, that made the smog.
Much has been discussed, argued, or ranted about global warming. Is it happening? Is it part of a natural cycle, or is it human caused? What, if anything, should we, or can we, do about it?
A LOT of good science has gone into trying to answer these questions, as well as some not-so-good science, be it the result of carelessness or of political agenda. Though I am uncertain of his personal views regarding environmental issues, I do, in fact, applaud the diligence of Chico meteorologist Anthony Watts in trying to keep science "honest" by looking at the compliance (or apparent lack thereof) of temperature monitoring stations.
What I fear, however, is summed up in the following tongue-and-cheek (I hope) comment by one of his blog readers, in response to the fact that Mr. Watts' efforts have cast doubts on NASA's accuracy in determining if average national temperatures are indeed rising:
"Okay, I'll keep the green [compact fluorescent] light bulbs, but I'm turning the air conditioner back on."
For the record, I do believe global warming is real. Melting ice sheets and rapidly retreating glaciers alone have been enough to convince me of this, and peer-reviewed scientific research has further convinced me that human activity is one of the key causes of the rise in temperature through the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. I further believe that we must recognize a sense of urgency in addressing these issues (starting, like, now).
But for the sake of argument, let's take global warming out of the equation. Does that mean we no longer need to be concerned with our energy use or vehicle emissions? Absolutely not.
Long before we heard about global warming, we knew that the stuff that comes out of exhaust pipes and goes into our air is, in short, not healthy for our lungs. Solutions include driving less, biking more, taking public transportation, buying low-emissions vehicles, and purchasing locally made products that don't need to travel far to get to market.
Before we heard about global warming, we knew that it was cheaper to be fuel efficient. (Kind of a no-brainer: Use less energy, pay less money).
Before we heard about global warming, we knew that planting trees was generally considered to be good, and cutting down entire forests was generally considered to be bad.
Before we heard about global warming, we knew the drawbacks of having a fuel economy that is linked to foreign oil.
Before we heard about global warming, we knew that almost every source of energy has its environmental challenges, whether through the means of energy extraction (ex: stripmining coal, damming rivers), or the risks and issues associated with processing or transporting the energy (ex: Exxon Valdez, acid rain, disposing of spent nuclear material).
I could write more, but you get the gist of what I'm saying. The bottom line is that even without the specter of global warming, there are plenty of other environmental, economic, political, or health reasons why reducing vehicle emissions and energy use now, today, is still a pretty darn good idea. And yes, this includes keeping the air conditioner off (or more specifically, keeping the thermostat set at 78 degrees or higher in the summer).
Just my two cents.
Comments
Jeremy,
I also applaud Anthony's efforts at keeping the data accurate, as well as fear that people are taking what he is finding out of context. As you point out, temperature readings are only one of many indicators of a rapidly changing climate.
I also like how you were able to move beyond climate change and point out that many of our behaviors have negative side-effects outside of raising global temperatures. As you have pointed out over these past posts, we have a lot of environmental issues to contend with and they are connected to some very established believes and practices. To be effective, we are going to have to alter, in some way, almost everything we do.
To quote Mike in an earlier comment,
"If it was only about the paint it would be easy."
Posted by: Mark | August 13, 2007 07:16 AM
Hi Jeremy, thanks for the post. It may come as a surprise but I'm greener and more sustainably oriented than many people probably know about.
For example, I put solar on my home in 2005, and in 2006 as CUSD Trustee headed a project to put solar on Little Chico Creek School which you can see online here:
http://www.cusd.chico.k12.ca.us/dna/little_chico_creek/Solar_Energy_Project.html
I'm also on the mayor's city sustainability task force.
I do recycle, I have CFL bulbs throughout my home, plus timed light switches in least used rooms like closets and on certain appliances like whole house fans. My home is Energy Star approved for insulation, windows, and for major appliances.
As for pollution, greenhouse gases and temperature my view is this:
1) I'm all for reducing air pollution, especially particulates, ozone, NOx, and CFC's, I always have been.
2) I'm unsure as to the role of CO2 yet in climate change because the science is not settled. I believe that while CO2 is a component, it is not the main forcing component. Nonetheless I do support rational and gradual conservation measures that would reduce CO2. However I prefer they be market driven rather than mandated. Mandates are difficult to implement, but market advantages are something people and business will naturally follow. I think the best choices we have are to work on better and more affordable alternate energy solutions and let the market drive use of those solutions.
3) I want the science of temperature measurement to be right. So far I've seen direct and repeatable evidence that the surface temperature record is corrupted by micro-site issues and the adjustments that been applied by NASA and others are ineffective at pulling a valid climate signal from a noisy and disjointed surface temperature record. Bear in mind the network of COOP weather stations was never designed for climate change detection, but is being pressed into service for that use. More scrutiny is needed. Those who distrust the government on other issues are too quick to trust the government (NOAA) to have done a good job of temperature measurement and quality control. The QC issue's are significant.
4) I think carbon credits are a formula for abuse and corruption of the process, and license for those with money to circumvent the process. It also has the potential for abuse of power at the expense of citizens that may be forced to pay for it. Witness PG&E' s new tiered rate system, those who use more electricity are penalized. My business for example has now incurred a $600 a month hit last month due to this policy. Yet I have taken steps to improve efficiency and reduce consumption at my business. Hardly a just reward for those efforts, and I predict it will negatively impact California's economy.
Posted by: Anthony Watts | August 13, 2007 12:57 PM
Anthony--Thank you for your thoughts, your points are well-taken. However, you seem to put more faith in the altruistic qualities of the free market than I do. Businesses that take into account the needs of the environment continue to be the exception rather than the rule; indeed, our present model of the free market economy does not have much of a track record of internalizing external costs for the sake of the planet. The question is, is this present market model self-perpetuating and thus inherently flawed, or can the market (presumably driven by the environmentally concerned, energy-minded consumer*) retool itself to account for the environmental needs and challenges of the 21st century and still be a viable system?
*Assuming there are enough of these consumers out there. . .
Posted by: Jeremy Miller | August 13, 2007 09:19 PM
Jeremy,
Just wanted to say thank you for including Habitat for Humanity on your blog. The ReStore diverts thousands of pounds of "waste" from our land fill every year. New and used building products can be purchased at the ReStore Thursday, Friday, and Saturday from 10:00am to 5:00pm. This store is an incredible asset to individuals wanting to build homes or make home repairs while being conscious of the environment. Besides the obvious benefit of re-using materials, every purchase directly benefits the construction of affordable housing for the low income members of our community.
Thanks,
Tami Ritter
Posted by: Tami Ritter | August 16, 2007 10:32 AM
Which of us will bet our lives and those of our children and their children on the present changes not being significant? What are the odds on survival? Let's all just get on with it and do something other than talk.
Posted by: Alan Gair | August 16, 2007 05:24 PM
Alan makes a great point of getting to the action. However, Alan, since you challenge Jeremy and Anthony in this way, you do open yourself to the question of what you have done (and given up) yourself? Jeremy appears to have made a lot of lifestyle changes for environmental betterment. Anthony is locally famous for having a solar home and living an energy conscious lifestyle.
My own home is not greatly energy efficient, but I can proudly say it uses about a tenth of the energy of Al Gore's home.
So how about it Alan, how big is your footprint?
Posted by: Dane Langston | August 22, 2007 10:47 AM
Dane,
Rather than a personal attack or challenge, I read Alan's comment as an open call for others to accept as real the risks of global warming as evidenced by recent climate changes and to act accordingly for the sake of generations to come.
I do not believe he is in anyway disregarding the personal efforts of Anthony or me to reduce our impact on the planet. I know Alan himself to be very passionate about trees in Chico, and is a strong advocate for a city-wide urban forest assessment (using a program, http://www.itreetools.org/) that allows one to translate into quantifiable data the many benefits trees have to our community (shade, carbon offsets, increased property value, aesthetics, etc.) with the goal of enhancing protection on Chico's urban trees and forests.
Posted by: Jeremy Miller | August 22, 2007 12:51 PM