Global warming and our economy Essay

Global Warming is always been a debatable issue since last century and with the rise of globalization, this issue is in continues focus. This paper will discuss effects of global warming in this era of global economy. This relates to our interest in giving social rationales the centrality that it deserves. By social purpose we mean that all environmental politics as well as policy reflect particular point of view, values, and preference. Even if nature challenges political economy, it does not leave it unnecessary. This paper highlights that various view points of analysts who understand and speak for nature. And therefore speak in many voices. However, the reasons for focusing on social purpose are not only moral. In fact, it is not probable to make sense of the origins, impacts, and effectiveness of policies, including environmental policies, without understanding how they classify and affect the universe of stakeholders implicated. Introduction: Global warming has emerged as a prevailing issue, can help understand whether it will remain so and what kinds of solutions are practical. It makes a great deal of difference to recognize whether the fate of global climate policy is obsessed by scientists or energy concerns. In addition, and without contradicting the role of scientific advice, it makes for a much more precise analysis to know how scientific networks are themselves engaged in politics and that scientific knowledge is internally challenged. Thus, in promoting the idea of global economy, how do select the most important risks to be avoided? All too often, decisions are not made realistically, but primarily on how scarily the scenario can be portrayed. Global warming is one of these cases. Main Body: Global warming is a natural phenomenon to which human literally owes their lives. Without natural global warming, this planet would be thirty-five degrees colder, bitterly cold at night and hot during the day. Global warming is typically (some estimate 75 percent to 80 percent) caused by natural phenomena, such as cloud cover, temperature gradients, the heat absorption of the seas, etc. The question raised is whether so-called greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, considerably add to global warming. And, if they do, is the calculated increase more or less than the natural variation that would occur without the â€Å"greenhouse† gases? It all started in 1988, which was a mainly warm year. Despite the fact that similar temperature variations had occurred several times in history, suddenly this phenomenon became headline grabbing news. A climatologist by the name of Jim Hansen at NASA’s Goddard Space Institute testified at a Senate hearing that he was persuaded that the warm temperatures that year were a consequence of the greenhouse effect. He postulated that carbon dioxide coming from industrial activity was causing the atmosphere to replicate heat from the earth back to the ground, thus raising temperatures (Joseph, 2000). As Hansen expressed a â€Å"high degree of confidence† that the unusual rise in temperature in 1988 was linked to this greenhouse effect, it made big, scary headlines, implanting it in popular thought. As a result, few people today have any doubt that there is a greenhouse effect and that it does grounds global warming. The basic implication is that the result will be bad for humanity. Yet, every one of those popularly held opinions is open to serious question (Joseph, 2000). In his book, Sound and Fury: The Science and Politics of Global Warming, which was published in 1992, Patrick J. Michaels debunks these ideas. Fred Singer, a climatologist with perfect credentials, has not only called all of these notions into serious question but has presented a scary assessment of the costs that will be incurred if the apocalyptic vision of global warming is the cause of unwise along with costly legislation. Other noted climatologists took issue with Hansen’s predictions. First of all, the basic data upon which he postulated his scary headlines were questioned. There are several other records of global temperatures that indicate that NASA’s data were perhaps 30 percent too high. The grounds of this variation can be in the way each of the groups measured those temperatures. So, the fundamental effect that Hansen was scaring us with may have been grossly incorrect. Then, and this error is evident to anyone, he took the average temperatures for the first ten years of the fifty-year period and compared them with the average temperature of the last ten years, totally ignoring what happened in between! Selecting only those data that support your thesis is pretty intuitive. As a matter of fact, historical data shows that increases and decreases of temperatures from year to year are wider than the ones Hansen used to scare us to death. Furthermore, the computer program that projected global warming was tested against history by Hansen’s critics. It shows completely no correlation with any global warming over the past fifty years — and these were the years in which carbon dioxide emissions improved dramatically. The major vehicle of global-warming optimism has been the Hoover Institute, a conservative think tank, under whose banner Thomas Gale Moore has coined a signature slogan for the cynic: â€Å"Global change is inevitable—warmer is better, richer is healthier† (Moore 1997). For pure evangelistic eagerness in the face of â€Å"global warmists,† few can excel Moore, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute. Moore’s 1998 book A Politically Incorrect View of Global Warming: Foreign Aid Masquerading as Climate Policy was published by the Cato Institute. Moore believes, â€Å"Global warming, if it were to occur, would probably benefit most Americans† (Moore 1997). If global climate models point out that a rising in the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will cause temperatures to increase more at night than during the day, so much the better, according to Moore. Moore asserts that ninety percent of human deaths occur in categories that are more general in winter than summer (Moore 1996). Left unmentioned by Moore is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) estimate that a doubling-up of carbon dioxide levels could lead to about 10,000 estimated additional deaths per year for the current population of the United States from higher summer temperatures, yet after factoring in the helpful effects of warmer winters and assuming that people in a warmer world will become somewhat adapted to their environment. Moore argues, to the contrary, that human civilization has flourished throughout warm periods of history, and declined while climate cooled. Therefore, Moore argues that a warmer world will benefit human society and economy. In addition, he enthuses, â€Å"Less snow and ice would reduce transportation delays and accidents. A warmer winter would cut heating costs, more than offsetting any increase in air conditioning expenses in the summer. Manufacturing, mining and most services would be unaffected. Longer growing seasons, more rainfall and higher concentrations of carbon dioxide would benefit plant growth†. (Moore 1997) Virtually any attempt to ameliorate global warming, according to Moore, would entail â€Å"a huge price for virtually no benefit† (Moore 1997). The best way to deal with potential climate change, says Moore, â€Å"is not to embark on a futile attempt to prevent it, but to promote growth and prosperity so that people will have the resources to deal with it: Global warming is likely to be good for most of mankind. The additional carbon, rain and warmth should promote the plant growth necessary to sustain an expanding world population† (Moore 1997). Contrary to some scientists, who project an intensification of storms in a warmer world, Moore believes, â€Å"Warmer periods bring benign rather than more violent weather† (Moore 1995). Moore, like most greenhouse skeptics, celebrates humankind’s dominance of nature. Patrick J. Michaels agrees with Moore, writing, â€Å"Moderate climate change would be inordinately directed into the winter and night, rather than the summer, and that this could be benign or even beneficial†¦. [T]he likely warming, based on the observed data [would be] between 1. 0 and 1. 5 degrees C. for doubling the natural carbon dioxide† (Michaels 1998) Michaels draws on research by Robert Balling, indicating â€Å"that observed changes are largely confined to winter in the very coldest continental air masses of Siberia and northwestern North America† (Michaels N. d. ). According to Michaels, atmospheric carbon dioxide is escalating at slower-than-expected levels as more of it is being captured by plants whose growth is being keyed up by the carbon dioxide itself. Many scientists criticize Moore’s analysis as simplistic. According to George M. Woodwell, president and director of the Woods Hole (Massachusetts) Research Center, evidence explaining that higher temperatures will have little effect on rates of photosynthesis, a course that removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Instead, warming will raise rates of respiration amongst some organisms, thus releasing more carbon dioxide. A 1 degree C. (1. 8 degree F. ) increase in temperature often raises rates of respiration in some organisms by ten percent to thirty percent. Warming will thus speed the decomposition of organic matter in soils, peat in bogs, and organic wreckage in marshes. Indeed, the higher temperatures of the last few decades seem to have accelerated the decomposition of organic matter in the Arctic tundra (Woodwell 1999). Woodwell suggests, also, that global warming will lean to erode habitat for large, long-lived plants (such as trees) supportive of small plants with short lifetimes and rapid reproduction rates, such as shrubs and weeds. He says that the death of some plants and their decay will liberate more stored carbon into the atmosphere (Woodwell 1999). Many global-warming skeptics argue that the sunspot cycle is causing a considerable part of the warming that has been measured by surface thermometers throughout the twentieth century’s final two decades. Accurate measurements of the sun’s energy output have been taken just since about 1980, however, so their archival value for comparative purposes is relentlessly limited. Michaels, editor of the World Climate Report, cites a study of sunspot-related solar brightness conducted by Judith Lean and Peter Foukal, who assert that roughly half of the 0. 55 degree C. of warming observed since 1850 is an effect of changes in the sun’s radiative output. â€Å"That would leave,† says Michaels, â€Å"at best, 0. 28 degree C. [due] to the greenhouse effect† (Michaels 1996). J. J. Lean and her associates also estimate that more or less one-half of the warming of the last 130 years has resulted from variations in the sun’s delivery of radiant energy to the earth (Lean, Beer, and Bradley 1995). As solar inconsistency has a role in climate change, Martin I. Hoffert and associates believe that those who make it the means variable are overplaying their hand: â€Å"Although solar effects on this century’s climate may not be negligible, quantitative considerations imply that they are small relative to the anthropogenic release of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide† (Hoffert et al. 1999, 764). Like lots of his fellow skeptics, Fred Singer believes that a â€Å"warmer climate would, overall, be good for Americans, improve the economy, and put more money in the pockets of the average family† (Singer 1999). Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, advises adaption to a warmer world: â€Å"Farmers are not dumb; they will adapt to changes—as they always do. They will plant the right crops, select the best seeds, and choose the appropriate varieties to take advantage of longer growing seasons, warmer nights, and of course the higher levels of carbon dioxide that make plants and trees grow faster†. (Singer 1999)