It Took 113 Scientists To Deduce About Global Warming
Written by Major Tom
Filed under: Earth & Environment
February 2, 2007
It took 113 scientists to point this out and though it may not be as surprising to CNN’s commentators when they reported this morning about the new scientific report on global warming, it is to me (considering what we always say about rocket scientists having to be the ones to know some difficult things). The said report resolved that after thorough discussions and research, it is now mostly believed that globalwarming or the effect of such to our environment is caused by ‘human activity’, meaning the incessant spewing of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere such as carbon dioxide and methane—as a result of the so called ‘human activity’ such as the use of fossil fuel in our cars and factories.
So this may lead us to ponder whether as car drivers or owners and patrons of factory products from shoes to plastic bags, whether or not we should blame ourselves for being one. When did owning a car becomes a wrong thing to do? Isn’t this a free world in which we live in? Apparently, there is an unmistable truth everytime we pour gasoline into our car’s tanks for in effect we become primary suspects (90% of the time) of contributing to the warming of the atmosphere.
It has been deduced that in the last century alone, global temperature had increased by 1 degree celcius onthe average, and with the rapid modernization of the world today—like the industrial jaggernaut in China—Earth’s temperature would increase by an estimated 5 degrees celcius in the next one hundred years, an increment that is enough to melt polar ice in the North Pole. When that happens, scientists foresee the disappearance of many coastal cities, including famous ones like Los Angeles and Tokyo.
So what does humanity do now that ‘human activity’ is such a culprit for global warming? That is the million dollar question that we gravely faced today considering the fact that it is just improbable for each and everyone of us just to stop driving our cars or patronizing factory products cold turkey. Scientists prescribes a compromise and this means moderation or even the non-use of fossil fuel in factories and vehicles—but that’s so much easier said than done.
But in my own personal way—everytime I start the car’s engine—I try to think what global warming means and the effect of carbon dioxide on our environement and ponder on what I can do about it. Other than that, I’d be at a lost. I just can’t stop driving, that is.
It has always been said that progress will be the death of us. And now we are faced with a dilema.
Comment by snglguy — February 2, 2007 @ 10:44 pm
I also feel a little guilty everytime I start my 17 years old car which still passes the regular smug test, but the other option is to stand in the cold and get frost bites waiting for the bus.
Our next election is going to be won on this issue, the environment, and every political party’s strategist are outdoing the scientist of finding solutions. Politicians where ever, just about as sneaky.
Comment by vic — February 3, 2007 @ 4:47 am
This global warming is really getting to be alarming now. But what are we to do? Like you, I also want to do my part in using less of whatever causes this. I’ve heard about the environmentally friendly light bulbs and I thought I’d start with that. But they are not cheap. So I haven’t switched yet. I’m also at a lost.
Comment by niceheart — February 3, 2007 @ 11:11 am
To sngl: Just like an Orweillan world where the more progressive we become, as the theory goes, the more we deteriote.
To vic: It’s also what I see; future politics will center on who and what will take care the environment the more. In the Philippines, a senatorial candidate is riding on the crest of a cleaner form of energy source–biofuels. I think we will about to enter that phase.
To niceheart: I also try to be aware of those daily activities in which I can be of help to the trust to make our environment more viable, like as you said, using energy saving light bulbs and recycling waste.
Comment by Major Tom — February 3, 2007 @ 11:31 am
Can the government do something to prevent global warming, say, ban the use of CFC’s? That would be a good starting point. But what will happen to our dependency on materials that use CFC’s? Patay na.
Comment by Abaniko — February 3, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
the bigger concern now is china, which is bursting at the seams due to rapid development. and with more people owning cars there, in a couple of years we’ll have additional smog blowing in from that part of the planet.
Comment by atticus — February 3, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
I read about this in PDI and I somewhat felt helpless.
Comment by reiji — February 3, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
To Niko: on CFC’s I think it’s now being slowly phased out, there’s now HCFC(Hydrofloorocarbons)for use in propellants. But the main problem now is the emission of huge amount of carbon dioxide and methane thru vehicles and factories. So far what the gov’t had done is the Biofules Law which could moderate fossil fuel use but that won’t be any nearer to a miracle cure.
To atticus: It is just deafening how growth happens now in China and not only economically but also in terms of population. Imagine how voracious China had become that it goes to as far as Africa and India just to source raw materials like iron and copper. It creates a lot of industrial demand that from Mumbai to Johansburg, factories would be spewing fumes all the more.
Comment by Major Tom — February 3, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
To reiiji: I hope that’s not true; maybe there is just something we can do about this, in own small ways.
Comment by Major Tom — February 3, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
hope people will realize the dangers of not taking care of our environment, sana huwag sa huli magsisi.
Comment by iskoo — February 3, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
Tama ka dyan bro; before everything becomes too late.
Comment by Major Tom — February 3, 2007 @ 6:59 pm
Brazil is known for its success in implementing ethanol as replacement for gasoline. The country is a big producer of corn which is one of the best sources of ethanol. I watched the interview of the head of General Motors on TV on the issue of using ethanol vs gasoline and his answer was - gasoline is still pretty cheap in the U.S. so there is no compelling reason to switch to ethanol. The underlying principle in his statement is very obvious - economics. In the same train of thought, if someone was to miraculously invent an engine that runs with water, the potential decimation of the oil industry will bring about catastrophic economic consequences. Planning to counter the effects of global warming is one thing but implementing it without the dire consequences to the global economy is another thing.
Comment by bw — February 3, 2007 @ 11:03 pm
Before Pres. Bush’s State of the Nation address, a group of 10 big corporations in the US call for reduction on industrial emission by 10%. This is a first considering the non-ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by the US. China on the other hand should stop those who still use coal to fuel their industries. These top 2 polluters should set an example.
Comment by ipanema — February 4, 2007 @ 5:34 am
To BW: It’s very true bro since as I said, combatting greenhouse gases is easier said than done. The problem with ethanol, as a biofuel gas, is that one needs miles and miles or area to plant corn and this seems to be the main problem with patronizing this alternative form of energy. It’s like we may have cheap fule but we won’t have to plant any other crops in the Philippines except corn. That’s not a good idea at all.
Comment by Major Tom — February 4, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
To BW: It’s very true bro since as I said, combatting greenhouse gases is easier said than done. The problem with ethanol, as a biofuel gas, is that one needs miles and miles or area to plant corn and this seems to be the main problem with patronizing this alternative form of energy. It’s like we may have cheap fule but we won’t have to plant any other crops in the Philippines except corn. That’s not a good idea at all.
Comment by Major Tom — February 4, 2007 @ 2:56 pm
to ipanema: 10% is a good number I think and it’s a good start. I hope President Bush’s words will not end up just empty promises, but something that is doable and done.
Comment by Major Tom — February 4, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
to ipanema: 10% is a good number I think and it’s a good start. I hope President Bush’s words will not end up just empty promises, but something that is doable and done.
Comment by Major Tom — February 4, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
As with war, Oil and the powers that control it, control the destinies of ordinary folk like us. A man has been placed on the moon, but the majority of our cars are still run solely on fossil fuels. There are a few hybrids here and there, but why hasn’t that technology been developed further? Maybe because it would cut on the profits of the Oil Masters that enslave us? Polar Bears in the Canadian Arctic face starvation and possible extinction because the ice that normally forms land bridges in the winter, so they can access their hunting grounds, are not forming. Scientists have been saying this for decades now? I fear that only when the big cities like LA and Tokyo start flooding over will the powers that be take this issue more seriously.
Comment by Angelo — February 5, 2007 @ 9:47 am