We’ve all heard the warnings from scientists and environmentalists: “The polar icecaps are melting! Sea levels are rising! Extreme weather is coming! Carbon dioxide will be the end of us!” But isn’t global warming still a theory? Do we really know what causes it? Shouldn’t we just adjust to a warmer climate rather than try to prevent it? It turns out the answer to all these questions and more is a resounding “No.”

Elizabeth Kolbert spoke to the ENVS 12 class and a packed Filene Auditorium on April 4th to discuss the science and politics surrounding climate change. A writer for The New Yorker, Kolbert has visited numerous Arctic locations that experience global warming on a very local level. Her talks refuted the objections to reducing carbon dioxide emissions, discussed why these ideas are still given credence, and presented overwhelming evidence to support global warming. She impressed upon her audiences the immense changes that are happening around us and the consequences we will face if nothing is done to reverse the current trends.

Science of Global Warming

Kolbert devoted significant time to explaining the science behind global warming. She showed the facts to be simple and well-accepted, questioning the credibility of scientists who still refute global warming.

The heat-trapping properties of carbon dioxide and the natural greenhouse effect were discovered and reported in the‘50s. Radiation that reaches Earth from the sun is largely visible light, much of which is absorbed by the Earth. The Earth re-emits light in the infrared (IR) range. Oxygen and nitrogen, the most abundant elements in air, allow both visible and IR light to pass through, while carbon dioxide and water allow visible light to pass through, but reflect some IR radiation back toward Earth. The more carbon dioxide or water vapor in the air, the more heat is trapped. This natural greenhouse effect is beneficial; without it, the average temperature on Earth would be around freezing.

Humans have been adding to carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere primarily by burning fossil fuels. Since‘60, the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has increased by about 30%. Basic science tells us that increased carbon dioxide concentrations lead to increased temperatures on Earth.

The Proof

There is no longer a serious question about whether global warming is occurring. Proof is evident in the United States, even here in New England, but especially around the polar icecaps. The five warmest years since‘90 were (from warmest to lowest) 2005,’98, 2002, 2003, and 2004; the American Geophysical Society says that this could not be due to a natural variability in temperature. It is no coincidence that carbon dioxide concentrations are higher today than they have been in the last 400,000 years.

The examples supporting global warming are numerous. Arctic communities are sinking into the ocean as their fragile coastal environments are being hit with severe weather without the protection of surrounding ice. There has been a decrease in perennial Arctic ice covering an area twice the size of Texas. Freshwater from the melting of ice caps and glaciers is desalinating some of the world’s oceans. Permafrost in Alaska and Russia is melting. In more temperate areas, flowers are blooming and frogs are mating earlier than ever, while frost is arriving later and there is less snow cover. The number of category four and five hurricanes has doubled in the last 30 years.

The evidence that global warming is occurring is overwhelming and no longer debated on any serious scale, but the potential effects are devastating. Melting of the Arctic ice shelf would cause a 15 foot rise in ocean levels, submerging huge swaths of land. At current carbon dioxide emission rates, temperature increases are predicted to be between seven and 11 degrees Fahrenheit. While this may seem like a pleasant change, a 10 degree temperature change is the difference between New England’s current average temperature and that of the last ice age. This is a serious change we are imposing on the world without preparing for the consequences or attempting to prevent further warming.

Debunking myths

President Bush recently said that the world is warming, but there is question as to whether the cause is manmade or natural. Kolbert explained that “this argument ignores more than 100 years of science.” She argued that the cause of global warming is not important—or at least should not prevent us from taking action—because we know the effects of carbon dioxide on temperature and we can reduce levels and prevent the unfavorable consequences of rising temperatures.

Kolbert addressed several other commonly-used excuses for avoiding the issue of carbon emissions. Even though growing trees absorb carbon dioxide, U.S. forests do not absorb enough carbon dioxide to balance our emissions. Also, old forests do not absorb much carbon dioxide, and may even emit it in warm months. Further, the carbon dioxide absorbed by forests can be emitted later if forests are burned or harvested.

A common excuse is that any reduction of carbon dioxide emissions by the U.S. will be counteracted by increased emissions from China and the developing world, so the U.S. would set itself behind economically for no reason. As Kolbert pointed out, the U.S. can’t expect China to take the initiative on this. We progressed as a society by emitting carbon dioxide and so will China unless technologically advanced countries make it economically advantageous to use renewable energy.

Many people suggest that we should spend our energy and resources on preparing for the inevitable warmer climate instead of trying to prevent it. The problem with this approach is there will not be one new climate we can adjust to. Kolbert said, “You don’t get a climate; you get a constantly changing climate.” It is a cumulative problem that will continue to escalate unless we take preventative measures.

U.S. Response

The U.S. response to mounting evidence about global warming is difficult to explain. We originally had signed the Kyoto protocol but withdrew within the first months of the Bush presidency. Since then we have hindered similar talks in Montreal. Kolbert outlined several causes for our relative apathy toward the problem. Our lifestyles are based on excessive energy consumption, and this causes guilt because we are the cause of global warming. Some people in the U.S. are ignorant of the problem or misinformed by the media. Oil companies have also led a misinformation campaign about global warming for many years which has allowed it to be presented as a theory rather than fact in the media. Corporate interests lobby to prevent laws that will reduce emissions, and voters have not pressed the issue. As Kolbert put it, “We all bear some of the responsibility [for the U.S.’s lack of a response]. It’s a tremendous number of factors.”

The media’s attention toward global warming has changed in the past few years. While reporters largely present global warming as fact, they equally divide their attention between the 99% of scientists who claim global warming is occurring and that we are causing it and the mere handful of dissenters. This presents the public with a distorted view of the opinions of the scientific community.

Looking to the Future

There are many challenges to halting the Earth’s warming trend, and Kolbert was not very optimistic: “The message is very gloomy…[but] if we wanted to, we could ameliorate this.” She described some efforts in the United States that are already underway to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without the cooperation of the U.S. federal government. Burlington, Vermont and Seattle, Washington have initiatives to significantly reduce emissions, with hopes to inspire action by other local governments. California clean emissions legislation may impact car manufacturers for the whole country because it is such a large market. “There are corporations that are way ahead of the federal government” for economic or environmental reasons. Texas Instruments and Ford both built green plants, though she cautioned, “They’re still making their money off of SUV’s.”

Multinationals in Europe are making changes in carbon emissions, and Kolbert said “that is a hopeful sign. These are big companies…[and] big power producers.” Iceland is planning to use its enormous geothermal resources to produce hydrogen fuel cells and thus wean itself almost completely from fossil fuels. Some, like Germany, are also taking bold steps: half of that nation’s electricity is currently produced with wind turbines. Many European countries are relying more heavily on nuclear. Though admittedly, Kolbert is somewhat skeptical of nuclear power as a feasible alternative to fossil fuels because of the unknown environmental impact, the dangers to human health, and the large security risks involved in transporting nuclear materials.

Kolbert has practical goals for the U.S. She said, “We’re not going to adopt Kyoto,” but we need to set federal emission limits—more stringent than the McCain-Lieberman bill—and join the rest of the developed world in future Kyoto talks. Investment in electric cars will only help the problem if the electricity is not generated by burning fossil fuels; weaning the U.S. off of oil is “good if you’re going to renewables and bad if you’re going to coal.”

Kolbert feels strongly that we have a responsibility to act as individuals and as a society to tackle global warming. She pointed out our unique political power being in New Hampshire—a swing state and early primary state. So keep this in mind as primary candidates cycle through; it’s a serious problem that we can only ignore for so long, or else we might all be in serious hot water.