While microeconomic adjustments can sustain profit margins, the macroeconomy as a whole will need to see a fundamental restructuring to keep pace with long-term environmental demands. Gilding argues that this economic adaption will be stunted by disruptive influences in the free market. This is true, to an extent: in order to provide for the needs of consumers yet maintain a sustainable economy, the plight of materialism must be mitigated. In 2004, the average size of an American home was 2350 square feet. Compared to the 980 square foot average home size of 1950, there is a 140% increase in the average home size, (Porter 178). This has in turn prompted consumers to buy more goods to fill up their growing homes. Growing economic consumption of physical goods cannot increase indefinitely—eventually the rate of consumption will need to slow. Although there will always be an inherent level of consumption, this rate cannot be zero. However, excess consumption due to materialistic aims, will need to be curbed, or redirected into a sector with less environmental impact.

     Such an outlet for consumers is the growing virtual market. As the twenty first century continues to provide more ubiquitous access to advancing technologies, the market demand for virtual goods will subsequently increase. These goods are software, online services, and applications that can be developed once, but bought by a nearly unlimited number of consumers for minimal marginal cost to the producer. As the market for applications has grown, it has helped to satiate the rampant spending habits of some consumers, (Porter, 186). By diverting market demand from durable goods to virtual goods, there will be a slowing in the growth of physical consumption of resources required for manufacturing.

     Moreover, the advancement of technology facilitates the process of downsizing households by providing a wide range of functionality without taking up much space. As the human population increases, efficient living habits will become more of an imperative. Coupled with the push toward urbanized living, a reduction in the average carbon footprint of American households would allow for decreased carbon emissions despite the increasing population, (Calhoun 188). As the United States becomes more populous, more Americans will migrate towards cities for convenient location to public amenities and work offices. Having residents located close together allows for less individual transportation and smaller living spaces. This results in a lower carbon footprint per capita, which is synonymous to a smaller environmental impact per person in the United States.

     Paul Gilding effectively recapitulated the concerns of environmentalists and economic theory in The Great Disruption, while hypothesizing that the economy will fluctuate before stabilizing with environmental demands. His predictions of sudden economic disturbances were based on the climate models popularized by doomsday scenarios like Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. The difficulty inherent with these models is their alarming inaccuracy, resulting in largely speculative climate forecasts. The most economically sound plan to protect the environment will be one that adapts to more reasonable estimates of global temperature change. While a long-term adjustment for sustainable, minimalistic living will be required by the U.S. economy, careful price discrimination can be used to lessen Gilding’s predicted disruptions. As prices of durable goods adapt, the continued growth of the technology market will fuel the economy until it stabilizes without need for further growth. This policy relies on the strength of the free market as the driving force behind adapting consumer behavior towards simplistic living. Throughout this process, there is great incentive for the development of new technologies which will bolster sustainability. With this economic approach, Gilding would be satisfied by the adaption of the economy to maximize social well-being rather than materialistic desires. Furthermore, it provides hope that, one day, the United States could develop a core practice of sustainability for future generations.

Works Cited

Calhoun, Yael. Environmental Policy. Philadelphia: Chelsea House, 2005. Print.

Gilding, Paul. The Great Disruption: Why the Climate Crisis Will Bring on the End of Shopping and the Birth of a New World. New York: Bloomsbury, 2011. Print.

Kowalski, Kathiann M. Global Warming. New York: Benchmark, 2004. Print.

Porter, Eduardo. The Price of Everything: Finding Method in the Madness of What Things Cost. New York: Portfolio Penguin, 2012. Print.

Williams, Mary E. Is Global Warming a Threat? San Diego, CA: Greenhaven, 2003. Print. 

     With the passing of environmental policy, there is always an economic tradeoff. This is especially evident in countries with developing economies. China, for example, has tripled its gross domestic product per capita to $7200 over the past decade, (Porter 117). Since 1990, the number of people living on less than a dollar a day has decreased from 60 to 16 percent, (Porter 117).  This rate of expansion was accompanied by a subsequent decline in the air quality of major Chinese cities. China made the decision to forgo environmental protection for their astounding economic growth. It appears that both costs and benefits were assessed to maximize national well being, trading some loss of environment for subsequent gains in economy. However, those gains and losses are not evenly distributed. With such rapid economic growth, it is expected to see greater income inequality among the population–higher paid employees will see more gains than low wage workers. The share of national income for the top 1 percent of Chinese workers doubled from 1986 to 2003 to nearly 6 percent, (Porter 123). Unlike economic gain, the environmental loss is evenly noticed by all the city residents. Thus, those who benefited from trading off the environment were employees (often company executives) who profited most from economic gains. It becomes apparent why many see the environment and economy as two separate, competing entities.

     This distinguished view between the economy and environment has caused many global warming activists to attack free enterprise directly and demand some form of action. Despite ongoing pressure from the public, placing at least equal value on the economy as the environment has allowed the United States to forgo passing radical climate change policy that would be detrimental to U.S. industry. The Kyoto Protocol was one such policy. The international treaty called for industrialized countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Countries like the United States were expected to reduce levels of greenhouse gas produced annually by 7 percent of 1990 levels by the year 2010, (Calhoun 100). When President Bill Clinton signed the treaty in November of 1998, the economy was still growing with more growth projected for the following decade, (Porter 120). Meeting these requirements would seriously inhibit industrial sectors of the U.S. economy. President Bush stated his concerns in a letter sent to the Senate in March of 2001: “As you know, I oppose the Kyoto Protocol because it exempts 80 percent of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the U.S. economy,” (Kowalski 80). While the president rejected the Kyoto Protocol, he was not blind to the issue of environmental protection. In 2002 President Bush announced his Clear Skies initiative, which called for the reductions of hazardous air pollutants such as mercury, (Kowalski 81). To satisfy demand for climate change policy, he also called for an 18 percent decrease in greenhouse gas intensity, (Kowalski 81). This meant that there would be less greenhouse gas emission per unit of economic productivity. Conservative estimates from economists state that the President’s decision in rejecting the Kyoto Protocol and implementing his alternative policies saved the U.S. economy approximately $400 billion and over 3 million American jobs, (Williams 44). While this approach is temporary at best, it provides a baseline for environmental policy that coexists with the growth of the economy.

Kyoto is intended to cut global emissions of greenhouse gases. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

     One inherent difficulty when performing the cost-benefit analysis of environmental policy is determining even a reasonably accurate price tag on the environment. This is often difficult for many to reason. Is it even morally acceptable to put a price tag on the Earth where we live? Some would say that a pristine environment is priceless. However all economists should know that nothing exists with an infinite true value. This grey area between immeasurable and measurable value is where economists and environmental scientists debate and reason what is deemed a “fair” price tag on an environmental resource. The difficulty in quantifying an exact price on the environment has, at least to some degree, facilitated the over-consumption of some resources, (Porter 205). Take cod fishermen, for example. To the fishermen, the cod in the river are essentially “free,” a single fisherman can catch as much cod as he can one day and come back tomorrow to fish again. It is when all the fishermen come to the river that problems begin to arise. With many fishermen trying to obtain their maximum harvest, overfishing becomes a serious reality, (Calhoun 131). If continued, both the economic profitability of cod fishing and the cod themselves will be driven to extinction. This is the case with many “free” resources, including air and water. As a public utility around most of the world, the price of water is very little; it does not rise to account for growing scarcity or influence us to consume more carefully, (Porter 206). The perceived priceless natural resources are at risk simply because they are price-less and have no clear cost. With over-harvesting, the cost of losing a resource can become economically apparent, although measuring the environmental aftermath with dollar signs is difficult for even the most experienced economist.

     The question remains: is there effective policy to account for both the environment and the economy? The answer is controversial, complicated, and still under heated debate. Paul Gilding expresses that this path to balance will not be direct and smooth, but rather gradual and disruptive as the economy adjusts to environmental changes. He points out that the current materialist trend of rampant consumption as a foundation of our economy will undergo a radical restructuring. Society will eventually have to adapt to a zero-growth economy, focused more on the maximization of social welfare than profits, (Gilding 135). Throughout this process, Gilding argues that the appropriate environmental response will take effect by people increasingly demanding a better environment and businesses will respond accordingly to meet consumer demand. However, this pragmatic attitude departs from the original despondent message of The Great Disruption: the disruption of environmental change and economic action is advancing so quickly that even all our collaborative effort will be unable to stop it, (Gilding 102). Gilding believes the disruption is inevitable, but that it would be irresponsible not to be aware and active about the issue of climate change.

     Human society is accustomed to disruption. Countries have dealt with economic collapse, war, natural disasters, social change, and more and still remain in one piece. The resiliency of collaborative societies is greatly underestimated and is equipped to deal with these environmental and economic changes. Even so, the disruptions of Gilding’s predictions may not be as large as he claims. The popular global warming doomsday scenarios flooding oceans, erratic weather, and significant temperature increase are highly speculative at best. Since climatology is based on long-term forecasting, there is a significant delay between predictive events and their occurrence—decades even centuries must pass before some hypothesizes can be tested, (Calhoun 79). The evidence supporting catastrophic global warming is primarily due to predictions of computer models that have been grossly inaccurately in the past, (Williams 43). Overarching policy should be implemented to accommodate the most likely scenarios. Since predicting climate patterns is speculative at best, a moderate approach considering the average of reasonable estimate. This would safeguard against, policy that could prove detrimental in the economic long-term.

The film, which will be teased in a trailer later this week, will be apparent at different Obama attack stops starting next week. It will “put into angle the enormous challenges that the nation faced if the president took appointment and the strides we’ve made together,” Jim Messina, Obama’s campaign manager, told reporters on Wednesday, according to The Hill.

Guggenheim has biconcave into advoacy before; he won an Oscar for his accord with Al Gore on 2004’s all-around warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, and his take on the educational failings in America, Waiting for Superman, was a awareness at the 2010 Sundance Blur Festival. Most recently, he took allegation on It Might Get Loud, a documentary about the bandage U2 that angled at the Toronto Blur Festival in 2011.

Despite his accord with Guggenheim, Obama has absent some continuing with Hollywood, which has donated significantly less to his attack than it had at this point in the endure acclamation cycle.

Eva Longoria, who was afresh alleged a co-chair of his re-election effort, took issue with what she alleged underappreciation of the president.

“There are so abounding things that he has delivered on that I acquisition humans overlook,” she recently told The Hollywood Reporter. “And I anticipate the address adjoin him is so sharp from the primaries, that it’s alarming for people to buy into the misinformation that’s out there.”

     Environmental issues pose a dual challenge to policymakers— they have incomplete and often conflicting scientific data on which to base their decisions as well as competing and occasionally irreconcilable political interests to answer to. In order to illuminate how these two factors have led to an impasse in climate change policy, this essay will address the major scientific controversies and relevant interest group activities associated with the climate change debate.

The Contentious Science of Climate Change

     The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a body of climate scientists from various countries that was established by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization in 1988 (IPCC 2007). Due to the broad international support the IPCC receives, its reports reflect the consensus view of global climate change by the scientific community. In their most recent publication, the Fourth Assessment Report of 2007, the IPCC forecast a rise in average global temperature by approximately 0.2°C per decade (Alley, et al. 12). Likely results of this rise in temperature include increasing oceanwater acidity (14), melting polar ice in both the Arctic and Antarctic, rising intensity of tropical storms (15), increasing precipitation in high latitudes coupled with decreasing precipitation over subtropical land (16), and up to a 7 meter rise in sea-levels by the year 2100 (17). Based on their findings, the IPCC asserts that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” (5) and that greenhouse gasses produced by human activity “very likely” contributed to warming since the 20th century (10). This “increased concentration of carbon dioxide” was primarily brought about by burning “fossil fuel” with “land use” making a smaller but significant contribution (2). A doubling in the current carbon concentration would “likely” raise the average global temperature between 2°C and 4.5°C while holding carbon emissions “at year 2000 levels” would reduce the amount of global warming to 0.1°C  per decade (12).

     The IPCC’s conclusions have not gone unchallenged by fellow scientists. For instance, scientists in the IPCC rely on the imperfect method of computer modeling to reach many of their conclusions (Keller 2008, 659). Despite its predictive power, “significant uncertainties” such as how to properly represent clouds, remain with this method (662). One of the most high-profile disputes in climate science originated from challenges to the infamous “hocky-stick” graph (652). The data that this graph provided about the climatic anomalies known as the “Little Ice Age” and the “Medieval Warm Period” have been contradicted by more recent studies (655). These inaccuracies are significant because both events provide insight into the climate’s “sensitivity to changes in solar activity” independent of the effects of industrial greenhouse gas emissions (654). Michael Mann, one of the authors of the “hockey-stick” graph, works for the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. This group became embroiled in another high-profile controversy after hackers leaked a series of emails that allegedly exposed attempts to “manipulate” and “delete large chunks of data” in violation of freedom of information requests. Though Mann and the other researchers were officially cleared of any misconduct, skeptics still believe these episodes “call into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case” (Booker 2010)

Interest Groups and their Effects on Climate Change Policy

     Though the interest groups that dominate the debate over climate change policy in the United States vary greatly in their goals and values, each can be placed in one of the following two categories: those that believe the government should intervene in the economy to address climate change, and those that do not.

     The quantity and diversity of groups seeking a government response to climate change has grown significantly over time. What began as an environmental movement has grown to incorporate a variety of business interests. Alternative energy companies, represented by “industry coalition[s]” such as the Climate Action Partnership, lobby Congress to regulate carbon emissions. They are supported by banks that would profit from facilitating the exchange of emission permits under a “cap-and-trade” scheme as well as a number of universities and “public transit agencies” that are also “seeking a piece of the pie” (Lavelle 2009). Economists contribute to the climate action movement by balancing the “trade-offs between the value of saving the planet for the future and saving the poor today” (Norberg 2010, 553).

     The number of groups opposed to government climate action has grown at an equally impressive rate. Business interests, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Organization of Manufactures, are considered the “leading voices against climate action” due to the massive amount of lobbyists they employ. They have found unlikely allies in labor organizations, such as AFL-CIO which argues that putting a price on carbon could cause jobs to begin “migrating to China” and other areas where energy is less costly (Lavelle). Many economists oppose climate action, such as Bjørn Lomborg who argues that humanity would benefit more by devoting resources to solving problems like “malaria, dysentery, and other needs arising now from a lack of investment in infrastructure in the developing world” (Nordberg 2010, 552).

     In 2006 the Policy Studies Journal published the results from a series of surveys taken by each of the organized interests present at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Orr, 147). The study provides insight about which tactics interest groups are likely to employ and which tactics are most likely to influence policymakers. For instance, “activist organizations” are much more likely to engage in protests and other types of direct action than “think tanks or economic interests.” Predictably, “think tanks and universities” are the most likely groups to conduct research (156). Activist groups are the most likely interest to engage in lobbying, followed (in descending order of likelihood) by economic interests, think tanks, and universities (157). Interestingly, it does not appear as though the amount of lobbyists that an interest employs corresponds to the amount of access an interest has to policymakers. Think tanks are the most likely organized interest to have “constant contact” with government delegates with activist organizations being the next most likely and economic interests being the third most likely (160).

Conclusion

     The political process of the United States has become increasingly polarized since the inauguration of President Barack Obama. The issue of what, if any, actions the United States government should take to combat climate change is far from settled. Climate science is imprecise. Though the IPCC facilitates the collaboration of scientists from different nations and diverse fields, the institution itself has faced many challenges to its integrity and credibility. The organized interests in our political system have different values, goals, approaches, and personal stakes that influence their various policy preferences. Though both sides of this debate have support from a wide range of occupational fields, studies suggest that backing by think-tanks and activists organizations is the most effective way for either side to improve their chances of having access to policymakers. Though the erosion of the Democratic Party’s legislative majority casts uncertainty over the future of climate change legislation, one thing is clear: organized interests will continue to play a role. Those opposed to climate-action will have an opportunity to seize, while those supporting climate-action will have to fight even harder for progress.

Works Cited

Alley, Richard B., Terje Bertsen, Nathaniel L. Bindoff, et al. “Summary for Policymakers.” A Report from Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change. Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, et al. (eds.): Cambridge, UK,Cambridge University Press. 2007. PDF.

Booker, Christopher. “Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation.” The Daily Telegraph. 28 November 2009. Web. 24 October 2010.

“Organization.” IPCC. Web. 26 October 2010. <http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.htm>

Keller, Charles F. “Global warming: a review of this mostly settled issue.” Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 23. 5 (643-676). 8 August 2008. PDF.

Lavelle, Marianne. “The Climate Change Lobby Explosion.” Center For Public Integrity. 24 February 2009. Web. 24 October 2010. <http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/climate_change/article/entry/1171/>

Nordberg, Donald. “Disagreeing About the Climate.” Business & Society, 48. 548 (548-557). 11 May 2010. PDF.

Orr, Shannon K. “Policy Subsystems and Regimes: Organized Interests and Climate Change Policy.” Policy Studies Journal, 34. 2 (147-169). 1 May 2006. PDF. 

            While Al Gore’s credibility is still in question by many of those to the right of the political divide after the debates over the validity of some of the data in his movie An Inconvenient Truth, his essay The Climate for Change brings up points that are centered more around fixing the economy than saving the environment.  He bases his essay around five pieces of potential legislation that would help to cut greenhouse gasses and increase jobs. This plan would cut all carbon-producing energy sources to nothing over the span of ten years. His first point is that the government should offer incentives for the constructions of wind farms and solar thermal plants in the Southwest. Second, we can modernize the grid that carries electricity from rural to urban areas in order to cut the loss of energy that occurs as it travels underground. It is estimated that this measure alone could save four hundred billion dollars over the ten-year period.  The third step of the plan is to over government-funded incentives to automobile companies that manufacture plug-in hybrids.  Next, Gore advises to replace out-of-date windows, lighting, and insulation in buildings that emit greenhouse gasses to the environment. The final step of Gore’s plan essentially puts a tax on using any sort of carbon fuels.

            Several of these measures would create much-needed job opportunities for many Americans. Someone would need to build the wind farms and the solar plants. Someone would need to plant the power lines in the ground to carry the energy. Someone would need to physically take down old windows and insulation and replace them with new ones. It is true that there would eventually be the inevitable layoffs of people who work for the oil drilling companies, but seeing as three quarters of our oil comes from overseas, it would take many more workers than those who were laid off from American companies to fill all the jobs required to produce new clean energy.

            A main opponent of any global warming legislation, including legislation to help cut dependency on oil, would be congressional Republican hard-liners. Any legislation, such as Gore’s proposal, that requires government regulation of any sort would be argued against by many conservatives. The main argument against bills that would require cutting of carbon fuels is that small government is good government, a central conservative philosophy. Legislation would require more taxes to fund the projects, a big no-no in republican camps. I agree with the conservatives on this point ninety-nine percent of the time. But to anyone struggling with the decision of whether or not to support government action to cut down on greenhouse gasses I urge you to ask yourself this- what if you’re wrong?

            It was this simple question that recently rocked my once close-minded world. If the studies are wrong and the numbers are fudged, as some republicans still believe, what happens?  We lose our dependency on foreign oil, energy costs go down because of newly developed renewable energy sources, the economy begins to fix itself because of new jobs, and urban areas start to smell and look a little nicer because of the lower smog levels. But what happens if the science is correct, and we decide not to do anything about it? The world falls apart. In this situation it is hard to argue against allowing the government to intercede and take action to stop a potential crisis. Journalist Bracken Hendricks of the Washington Post even makes a point that it is fundamentally un-conservative to not do anything about the climate scare. A basic principal of conservative politicking is to protect against possible negative events in the future. As Hendricks puts it,

 “Far from being conservative, the Republican stance on global warming shows a stunning appetite for risk. When faced with uncertainty and the possibility of costly outcomes, smart businessmen buy insurance, reduce their downside exposure and protect their assets. When confronted with a disease outbreak of unknown proportions, front-line public health workers get busy producing vaccines, pre-positioning supplies and tracking pathogens. And when military planners assess an enemy, they get ready for a worst-case encounter. (Hendricks)”

         In an article by Rebecca Lefton and Daniel Weis entitled “Oil Dependence Is a Dangerous Habit”, yet another case is made against our dependency on foreign oil. Aside from having devastating effects on our economy (nearly one billion dollars a day that could go towards either American oil companies or research for clean energy is spent for oil from foreign countries), it is also dangerous to our safety. The United States currently purchases oil from ten countries on the State Department’s Do Not Travel List, including Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Algeria. The money given to these countries helps to fund governments that have taken an openly anti-American stance. Even countries such as Iran, which Americans cannot deal or trade with, benefit from our spending in Africa and the Middle East. Our heavy demand for oil causes global prices to skyrocket so that the unstable countries still benefit greatly from the countries that do buy their oil (Lefton, Weis).

         Right-Wingers will argue that we don’t really support these countries that much because almost forty percent of our oil comes from our allies Canada and Mexico. If you think that we don’t support enemy countries now, your opinion may be changed in the near future. According to a report by the Center for American Progress entitled Securing America’s Future: Enhancing Our National Security by Reducing Oil Dependence and Environmental Damage, Mexico’s oil fields will be dry within the decade, and since Canada’s oil comes from a very dirty source called tar sands, drilling there is rapidly being discouraged. We will have to make up this forty percent somewhere, and the only solutions that are realistically available are to drill up the Alaskan fields or to buy more oil from the Middle East (Beddor et al).

         If economics and national security aren’t incentives enough to provoke more research on clean energy, then maybe this will be the final swaying point. If we choose to continue to use oil, we will eventually need to dig even further into the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, which lies directly over trillions of barrels worth of oil. The problem is that this land is home to arctic foxes, caribou, and thousands of species of birds. It is the largest on-shore polar bear nesting site in the world. Polar bears are already rapidly being lost due to melting glaciers, and drilling could possibly be the straw that breaks the camels back. Oil spills kill fish, which are eaten by seals, which are in turn eaten by polar bears. The oil that is then in the fish is often enough to kill a full-grown polar bear. When oilrigs disturb dens, mothers often will not return to their cubs (Defenders of Wildlife). Because of the relatively small reproduction rate of polar bears, it is imperative that cubs survive or else the entire species outside of captivity could be wiped out in only a few generations’ time.

         Oil dependency isn’t only about global warming. No matter what part of the political spectrum your beliefs lie in, everyone can find some way in which you are directly negatively affected by our addiction to this dirty fuel. There is much at stake if we continue to depend on foreign oil as much as we do.  In just a matter of years, our economy could be worse than it already is. Money spent on oil from enemy nations could be used as startup for these countries to develop nuclear programs. Hundreds of species that this world holds very dear could be wiped from the face of the earth forever. If you can look a polar bear cub in the eyes and say that you are ok with taking a risk on all of these “could be’s”, that is fine. It is up to each individual to find his or her own reason to do what is right. This essay or the government can’t force anyone to change. That’s the beauty of America. All we can hope is that there will be enough support to fix the problem before all the other beauty is lost. 

Want to join Triond and begin making money by publishing on the internet? http://www.triond.com/rw/46448

Works Cited

Beddor, Christopher, Winny Chen, Rudy DeLeon, Shiyong Park, and Daniel J. Weiss. Rep. Securing America’s Future: Enhancing Our National Security by Reducing Oil Dependence and Environmental Damage. Center for American Progress, Aug. 2009. Web. 8 Nov. 2010. .

Gore, Al. “The Climate for Change.” 2008. The New World Reader. Third ed. Boston: Wadsworth, 2008. 409-12. Print.

Hendricks, Bracken. “Don’t Believe in Global Warming? That’s Not Very Conservative.” Washington Post – Politics, National, World & D.C. Area News and Headlines – Washingtonpost.com. 7 Nov. 2010. Web. 10 Nov. 2010. .

Lefton, Rebecca, and Daniel J. Weiss. “Oil Dependence Is a Dangerous Habit.” Center for American Progress. 13 Jan. 2010. Web. 10 Nov. 2010. .

“Wildlife Impacts from Oil Drilling in the Refuge – Defenders of Wildlife.” Defenders of Wildlife – Protection of Endangered Species, Imperiled Species, Habitats. Web. 10 Nov. 2010. .

What is happening to our planet?

Some call it global warming, others call it climate change; the effects are up for debate but could range from not necessarily warmer weather, but more severe weather. They’re terms that have caused so much debate, and yet so much concern over the last decade, who knows what to believe anymore?

Many global warming sceptics will claim the world is experiencing a natural warming cycle as it has many other times in its history. At the same time, Canadian Environmentalist David Suzuki stresses that global warming is an effect of human activities and will continue to affect us should we chose to ignore the problem.

Al Gore, creator of the popular documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, proves that as Carbon Dioxide levels in the atmosphere rise, so do global temperatures. Global warming conspiracy theorists say it’s the other way around.

As the debate goes on, the idea of global warming being a marketing technique to sell products arises. Government officials don’t appear to be taking a position, and no one feels trust in them anymore. Yet, the effects of global warming are devastating people, vegetation and biodiversity all over the world. Polar bears are drowning, ice burgs are melting, and storm severity is increasing.  

Which side will you believe? 

For the first time ever, our entire planet and the future of our civilization is being faced with a problem that will undoubtedly affect every single one of us. Unbelievably, we’re in this together, but we can’t seem to come to an agreement about the solution or even the problem. What are the chances of defeating such a massive global issue with so many different perspectives and individuals who don’t want to work together? 

Regardless of which side of the spectrum you’re on, whether you believe, don’t believe or don’t know what to believe when it comes to global warming, maybe there is a single perspective that everyone can agree on.
It is plainly very obvious that humans have caused severe distruction to this planet. Ask yourself; what do you think the planet would look like if humans hadn’t made it their home and abused it?

Simple observations would be that factories would be non-existent, the planet wouldn’t be paved over, water wouldn’t be polluted, skies would be clear, animals habitats wouldn’t be destroyed, the list can only go on.

Even if global warming is a natural cycle, we have still increased the amount of green house gasses being released into the atmosphere. That wouldn’t have happened on it’s own. 

Locally, dump site 41, or putting toxins over-top of what’s known as the world’s cleanest water wouldn’t even be an issue. The recent oil spill would never have occurred. 

The point is, whether or not you believe in global warming, there is still a planet we have damaged; still an environment around us that we have destroyed. 

In other words, maybe global warming isn’t real, but all of those other nasty human-induced effects are. 
Maybe you’ll go green or environmentally friendly because you recognize that humans have caused destruction to this planet, whatever term you want to call it and you want to save the planet for future generations.

In reality, the planet doesn’t need saving. It will save itself, and it will do it by cleansing. The issue is making sure that the planet remains hospitable for us to live on. Without it, we won’t have a home and we certainly won’t have a future.
So maybe the fight isn’t as much about saving the planet, but more about saving ourselves.

The future of our civilization is depending on us. It’s time we work together and save the future, for once and for all. There is still hope.

For more information, visit www.greenlikeafrog.com 

Do you think he his sincere? If so, why does he continually fly around the world. He emits more emissions on a 8hr jet trip than 300 trucks on a 100 mile freeway run. Go figure. If he invented the Internet, as he claimed while he was Vice President, then you would think he could use it to communicate, instead of flying everywhere.

The one thing that your not hearing from no one in the main street media is the fact that a lot of the science associated with global warming was made up. The science behind the whole idea in fact is flawed. There is no way to determine what is man made and what is made naturally. Do you realize how much CO2 is emitted from just one volcanic eruption? OR how about the trees, or maybe all the animals. The whole thing is bogus. The earth has continually went thru up and down cycles, and we have been in a cooling cycle for 10 years, but do you hear that from AL.

I am about saving the planet as much as anyone, but I don’t think raising taxes and charging for emmisions is the way to go.

How about this: let’s go to a four day work week. Save a day a week of congested interstates. Or how about, telecommuting, a lot of office work could be done from home a couple days a week, and that would also eliminate a lot of traffic. This wouldn’t more power in the hands of government or increase your taxes, but it would be a common since approach.

If people want to do something to help the eviorment they can. But, it shouldn’t be up to the government to decide for us, especially when they are using made up science to effect those changes.

Recently Al Gore was asked about an English court’s ruling that there were nine factual errors in his movie “An Inconvenient Truth” by the Irish filmmaker Phelim McAleer. It was evident that Mr. Gore would not respond to McAleer’s question about the court’s ruling. As a professor of ancient history and mythology I was intrigued as to why Mr. Gore purposely evaded the question. Other than not wanting to admit that he had indeed made some mistakes, I thought there was good reason to keep the argument of “Global Warming” in the realm of myth. What is meant by that is discussed below.

The word “Myth”

When one brings up the word “myth” traditionally the hearer thinks of stories that are connected with some being, hero, or event that usually has some deity or demigod to explain a rite, practice, or natural phenomena.  However, myths are more than primitive fiction, fables told to children, or stories about Greek and Roman gods. Anciently the word myth, from the Greek word mythos meant story, history or word.[1]

The reason for Myths

Myths are the human mind working with life experiences attempting to develop explanations and encouragement to guide us in life. Through the use of symbols and narrative, myths offer a vision of reality consisting of some fact and or human experience woven in a tapestry of imaginative language to present an inner meaning to life’s challenges. Thus, it can be said that humans are myth-making animals. We use stories and words (myths) to pass on values, morals, societal norms, aspirations, etc.

The communal aspect

Myths are communal in that they can bind a group, community, or nation together in a common ideological, psychological, or spiritually activities. They project a cultures aspirations, values, and fears. Therefore, as a political or social tool, they can be very effective in communicating the values, ideology, and accepted truths of a particular group, community, government or nation. Hitler’s use of mythology to produce, define, and legitimize a “master race” is a powerful example of how myths can be used in this manner. Let me be clear that I am not comparing Mr. Gore to Hitler or his practices.

Myth and Global Warming

However, one can see why it would advantageous for Mr. Gore to keep the discussion of global warming in the realm of stories (present situations or possible future possibilities), and or antidotal explanations. To declare that the debate on global warming through science is over because all the facts are in puts the discussion in the domain of myth – stories, antidotes, cataclysmic warnings, fear mongering, etc. There are billions of dollars at stake for those who support global warming as an agenda to effect social policy, thus the stakes are high. Factual debate or even admission that some of the facts are wrong could lead to disastrous affects where it really counts – the pocket book. Perhaps the use of myth and its ability to unite around a common cause is why President Obama does not nor will not discuss the facts of health care – just a thought.

[1] myth. (2009). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved October 20, 2009, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mythand Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, Gramercy, s.v. myth.

An example is the Mayan Calendar found in the old Mayan Pyramids in America. It has been said that the Mayans were the first one to actually make a calendar. Using old technology and mathematics to help them keep track of the days. They etch one line in a pyramid to indicate one second. Researches found out that one of the Pyramids, stopped exactly at December 12, 2012. A very disastrous date indeed. But is this really true?

Many things are affecting our world today. Global Warming, and other climate changes and natural calamities. But today, the world is getting worse everyday. Who knows? It might be really the end on 2012. But, we can stop this, just have Faith. That’s it.

            Mine is letting sunlight shine through this world of ours that is blanketed by darkness. I have a task to inflame a glimmer of hope shine in a corner where misery and woes abode. I may be exaggerating, but let’s face it. In every minute that is passing, someone is dying because of the darkness and families ripped apart.

We live in this kind of world everyday. Now you know my mission.

I can and I will change the world.

How about you?

-Gabriel(not real name)

Saving Mother Earth, Saving Ourselves

          It was a few years before my tender age of twelve when I discovered a real monster not told in horror stories.

            “Dad”, I asked while frustratingly brushing sweat off my forehead, “Why is it boiling hot in this country of ours?”(we live in the tropical country of Philippines). My dad replied while furiously applying moisturizing cream on his dark brown skin, “The temperature wasn’t this high when I was a kid about your age back then”.

            It took billions of years or so for the Earth to develop into the home we know. True, our human species started late in grasping and using our planet’s resources, but in that short period of time, we leaped from leaving in caves to driving in cars filled with fuel from Earth’s treasures.

            At the same time, in just that fraction of time, we made our own home a live, ticking time bomb.

            Climate change brought about by global warming, ozone depletion and energy abuse is that monster in that harrowing darkness. If not stopped, it will swallow us whole.

            According to the Intergovernmental Panel on climate, the Earth’s temperature will probably increase between 1.4 to 5.8 degree Celsius by year 2100. “Increasing temperature leads to more floods”, they say.

            Rising sea level from the rapidly melting glaciers off the coast of Greenland may bury in its depths islands close to the ocean wherein their lives depended on. But now, the ever changing climate will cause their impending doom. What a down-spirited feeling it is, isn’t it? Considering that there are many islands near sea level. The world map might just have to be revised if that happens. Some parts of the seven continents might even vanish on the face of the Earth. The Earth is as warm as flames in a winter’s day, it sends a chill in your bones that in the future there will be an epidemic in skin cancer and people, you and me, will die in anguish.

            If we continue to abuse nature, throwing garbage anywhere, illegal logging, and many a cruelty to our God-given home, Earth will change to its worst. By now, she’s on Red Alert.

            We must all turn to gaze at the light of reality before it’s too late. Every one of us needs our Mother Earth, and she, too needs our call.

The World Amidst Our Eyes

          Have you seen the documentary film, An Inconvenient Truth? If yes, your eyes may be really that wide open of all the changes that happened in our world today. You may have seen what one crisis leads us to weary experiences. That is Global Warming.

            The documentary film, with Al Gore as the main speaker, simply says that we, the people living in this world are totally blinded of the discomfort that we are feeling about the truth on Global Warming. It is indeed not suited to our comfort but then, we are the ones to be blamed. This film tends to unfold our eyes in seeing the beginning of a climate crisis that threatens life on Earth as we know it. The on-screen evidence is difficult to dismiss-the charts and graphs reveal frightening trends, and the film loses no time showing us the destruction of hurricanes along with a series of comparative photographs from disappearing glaciers around the world, footage of collapsing ice shelves, data on the record, number of storms, floods, and other kinds of extreme weather, animations of the effects of rising sea levels, new diseases, photos of dying polar bears and disappearing coral reefs. “It is a nature hike through the Book of Revelations,” As what Al Gore stated.

            Many people ask why would anybody in their right mind want to spend their hard-earned money on a slide show like this. My answer is, that is because knowledge is empowering and “An Inconvenient Truth” is not a depressing film. Gore’s forecast is serious, but he knows better than to leave us in despair. There is room for hope. He insists that the solutions to the problems are within reach; we only lack the will to do anything about what we calls a “moral imperative.”

            Why would we let ourselves suffer more? Why not help each other in eliminating this predicament. You might just don’t know and notice it but I, you, he and she can change the world.