Crossing the Green Line
"Life and death on our
planet are lashed together in a complex and often obscure weave of
environment, sociology, industry, politics, science, technology, and money.
But maybe most of all, money."
--- taken from: Bernard, Harold W. Global Warming Unchecked:
Signs to Watch For. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1993.
The release
of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and pollution in general, happen to
be byproducts of the very industrial and agricultural activities that maintain
our standard of living. Up to now we have been gambling that the benefits of
these activities far outweigh any possible adverse consequences. The most
obvious immediate way to prevent further effects of global warming is by
reducing the production of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide
emissions, but how do we weigh the possible harm of our actions against the
advantages of economic growth? How do we enforce regulations without limiting
the freedom of individuals? If indeed human-induced global warming is
affecting the world today, what can we do---and how soon? Should immediate or
gradual steps be taken in order to reduce greenhouse warming and anticipate
its effects? These are big questions in the economic and political arena of
the global warming debate. In deciding on what to to about climate change,
three positions have emerged. First, some argue that action can and must be
taken as soon as possible to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and develop
alternative, more efficient, forms of energy. Others argue that we just don't
know enough about the science of climate change to take any action at all
currently. Lastly, some authorities insist that nothing needs to be done,
because even drastic changes might not be sufficient.
The choices made today among feasible and
cost-effective options for energy supply and use will significantly affect the
rate of future emissions. The current global pattern of energy use is neither
economically rational, ecologically sustainable, nor socially equitable,
observes John Holdren, Professor of Energy and Resources at the University of
California (Mintzer 6). Globally, the scale of responsibility is tipped on the
side of the rich industrialized countries, which represent about 25% of the
world's population, consume about 2/3 of the primary
energy and release more than 50% of the total greenhouse gases (Mintzer 6). In
addition, the United States, the world's leading emitter of CO2,
remains very energy-inefficient. The US currently requires twice the energy to
produce a dollar of Gross National Product than foreign competitors such as
Japan and many West European nations require. Thus more efficient use of
fossil fuels should slow the CO2 buildup, says Steven Schneider,
and "[And] what would be wasted in taking this step? Efficiency usually makes
economic sense" (Steven Schneider 131). US Representative Claudine Schneider
(Rhode Island), author of the Global Warming Prevention Act, reports that
detailed government and private studies show the US economy could maintain its
robust economic growth while achieving $200 billion per year in energy through
use of alternative forms of energy (69). In the case of these renewables--
solar, biomass, hydro, wind, and geothermal resources- the United States has
barely tapped its massive reserves. According to the Department of Energy's
Energy Research Advisory Board, the nation's reserves of these renewable
energy resources exceeds a thousand times the total US energy consumption of
1989, and 5-10 times the US coal reserves. Both new technologies and greater
efficiency, while they require an up-front investment, are more cost-effective
than the traditional use of fossil fuels, so why haven't they been universally
implemented?
