Global Warming: A Hoax - Essay Example

Global Warming: A Hoax. Global Warming constitutes one of the most contentious and divisive issues of contemporary times. While global warming per se, which is actually a negligible less than one degree Celsius, is generally acknowledged as a fact, the debate hinges on whether it is attributable to anthropogenic or natural causes. The alarmists who contend that everything, from floods and famines to the total annihilation of life on planet earth, is the result of climate change caused by human activity, are becoming increasingly strident. It is now considered politically and socially ‘correct’ to agitate against allegedly human-induced climate change. The voices of sanity and scientific proof are being ignored. Global Warming “is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people” (Gray, Washington Post. May 28, 2006). Global warming is a natural phenomenon which is independent of human activity. Continuous climate change is a cyclical, natural phenomenon which predates human existence on earth. This makes the very concept of an individual’s ‘carbon footprint’ a fantasy, as man is not responsible for climate change. Climate variation is normal and global warming and extremes of temperature are not unique to this century. The Medieval Warm Period (800-1300 A.D.) witnessed higher temperatures and the Little Ice Age (1300-1900 A.D.) experienced lower temperatures than this century. In fact, the present rise in temperature is due to the earth emerging from the Little Ice Age. It is not the result of industry-generated carbon-dioxide emissions, but due to unusually intense levels and lengths of solar radiation. The present cooling of the ocean surfaces indicates that the rising temperature has reached a ceiling and the earth will inevitably start cooling within the next decade and move into the next ice age. Computer-generated climate simulations to the contrary are speculative and not scientifically validated. Based on the available spurious evidence, America’s refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 is eminently justified. This international agreement, under the aegis of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, mandates binding commitments to targets of reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. These targets are set by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. While the U.S.A. is the largest funder of the UNFCCC and the IPCC, it has not ratified the Protocol, as it does not mandate equivalent emission reduction for developed and developing countries, particularly China and India. Ratification of the Treaty would undoubtedly compromise on American sovereignty and adversely affect the economy, as China is a major trading partner of the U.S.A. Unfortunately for America, the Democratic Party’s candidate for the Presidency, Barack Obama, believes that “Global warming is real, is happening now and is the result of human activities” (Obama. BarackObama.com). He has announced ambitious plans to reduce carbon emissions 80% by 2050 through the implementation of a market-based ‘cap-and-trade’ system, which envisages mandatory allowances for permissible levels of carbon emission – the ‘cap’. These individual allowances can be bought and sold as a commodity at auctions. This is a perfect recipe for misuse and scams. Obama has grandiose plans for the rigid implementation of fuel economy standards – this will deal a death blow to Detroit. Furthermore, his inclination to ratify the Kyoto Protocol will effectively cede control of America’s environmental policy to the U.N. and the European Union. John McCain, the Republican candidate, also promises to “make global warming a priority” (McCain, The Boston Globe. 7 January 2008). While McCain supports a cap-and-trade system, his strategy focuses on increased power production and independence from foreign oil and is more reasonable and friendly to the free market economy. In such a scenario, there is absolutely no justification for allowing any outside agency, be it the U.N. or the EU. to set the agenda for climate change in the U.S. The commitment of public funds to research on global warming is a colossal waste. ‘Carbon offsets,’ which refer to processes of reduction of greenhouse gases, such as tree-planting, only encourage pollution in the confidence that offsets can be purchased. The introduction of measures such as a carbon tax will have disastrous economic consequences. New technologies to reduce carbon emissions through fuel-efficient automobiles and tougher building codes mandating the use of energy-efficient material, will be prohibitively expensive. The high cost of the proposed carbon tax on gasoline and all carbon dioxide emissions would be unacceptable. At a viable cost of $30 a ton of carbon, there will be a 25% increase in electric bills. The carbon ‘capture and store’ technology to capture carbon dioxide gases and store them underground for centuries is not commercially viable. The concept of the ‘preventative principle,’ if accepted, will only empower agitators to block new technology. In the light of such hare-brained schemes, the U.S.s’ pledged contribution of more than #500 million to the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), the financial mechanism of the UNFCCC, is a deplorable waste of public funds. The best solution to climate change would be to simply let Nature take its course – which it inevitably will, regardless of human activity. Instead of a tragic diversion of funds into futile efforts at stemming climate change, programs for adapting to inevitable climate change should be researched and implemented. Fuel self-sufficiency is the need of the hour for the U.S., in order to escape from the stranglehold of foreign oil. This necessitates research into alternative sources of energy. A cleaner, pollution-free America is to be desired, but not in the name of global warming. Global warming is but a figment in the imagination of environmental fanatics. Works Cited. Achenbach, Joel. The Washington Post. (28 May, 2006). The Tempest. 28 August 2008. < http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html > Baliunas, Sally and Willie Soon. Capitalism Magazine. (22 August, 2002). Global Warming: Science vs. Computer Model Speculation: Just Ask the Experts. 28 August 2008. < http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1816 > BarackObama.com. Web site. Obama’08. Barack Obama: Promoting A Healthy Environment. 28 August, 2008. < http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/EnvironmentFactSheet.pdf > Barack Obama Info Center. Text – 2006-04-03: Barack Obama Speech About Energy Independence and the Safety of Our Planet. 28 August, 2008. < http://www.barack-obama.tv/barack-obama-articles-audio-video/barack-obama-time-after-time/text-2006-04-03-barack-obama-speech-about-energy-independence-and-the-safety-of-our-planet > Cromie, William, J. Harvard Gazette Archives. Global warming is not so hot: 1003 was worse, Researchers find. 28 August, 2008. < http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/04.24/01-weather.html > McCain. Stewards of Our Nation’s Rich Natural Heritage. 28 August, 2008. < http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/issues/65bd0fbe-737b-4851-a7e7-d9a37cb278db.htm > NOVOSTI. Russian News and Information Agency. Russian academic says CO2 not to blame for global warming. 28 August, 2008. < http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070115/59078992.html > UNFCCC web site. Kyoto Protocol. 28 August, 2008. < http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php > Mufson, Steven. The Washington Post. (15 July, 2007). Page A01. Climate Change Debate Hinges on Economics. 29 August, 2008. < http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/14/AR2007071401246.html The White House web site. Council on Environmental Quality. Addressing Global Climate Change. 29 August, 2008. < http://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq/global-change.html > Read More