Skip to main content

Climate Change

   

  Global warming and climate change

Is climate change a hoax? Some thoughts...

Lobbyists against climate action use a variety of arguments to sow doubt and influence policy to protect the interests of their clients - the fossil fuel industry.

Lobbyist argument

Counter point

Climate change is natural and cyclical - long term trends show cooling and warming of the planet

While the Earth's climate has changed naturally over millennia, the current warming trend is happening at a rate unprecedented in human history.

Climate models are unreliable - The computer models cannot be trusted because they have failed to accurately predict past climate features and have sometimes exaggerated the rate of warming.

Uncertainty is a normal part of all science, but the fundamental findings related to climate change are not in doubt. Uncertainty does not justify inaction; instead, it indicates a risk that must be managed.

Scientific studies are influenced by money. There is too much scientific corruption, so you cannot trust Science.

Overwhelming consensus - over 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change attributable to human activity is real.

Those who deny climate change are the ones likely to be funded by oil and coal lobbies.

CO2 is not a major factor; CO2 is only 0.042% of atmospheric gases (420 ppm)

In the last 200 years, CO2 levels have increased from about 280 ppm to over 420 ppm, which is approximately a 50% increase. Scientists say this contributes to trapping more heat

Cost of mitigation is high, better to adapt

This ignores the far higher costs of climate inaction - weather events (flooding and droughts, hurricanes), sea-level rise, and biodiversity loss

Regulation stifles free markets - an infringement on personal and economic freedoms

Not through overarching regulation, but by imposing a small cost for using polluting fuel that can then subsidize renewables. For example, we have higher GST on large cars that consume much more fuel compared to smaller cars.

It is a hoax – a pretext used by elites or governments to increase their power and control over the population

It doesn’t increase government power. It only affects the profits of oil and coal industries

Wait for future tech - Future tech will easily solve the problems, no need to worry now

Need to stop procrastinating. Delaying action increases future costs and risks.

Blaming other countries - China produces more greenhouse gases than everybody else

Everyone must chip in, in proportion to their consumption and not just production.

Priority - Money is required for other pressing issues

There is not much money required for this as compared to the military spends. Only policy changes encouraging renewable energy. We actually earn a lot of money thru enormous taxes on petrol and diesel.

 In conclusion:

First thing to do is to agree on facts and accept that this is a potentially serious problem. Only if we recognise a problem, can we solve it. We are at such a partisan stage in politics that we cannot even agree on scientific consensus now. Globally, we are burning 90 million barrels of oil per day and 25 million tonnes of coal per day. These resources had remained buried for millions of years and are now being burnt and released into the atmosphere. This is additional CO2 getting released at a record rate into the atmosphere. And CO2 traps heat. These basic facts should not be controversial and be acceptable to everyone.

If there is a 5% chance of heart attack in the next 10 years, would we not take action to minimize the risk, rather than wait for the attack and then getting a surgery. If there is a 5% chance of war with a neighbour, would we not spend enormous amounts on the military to stave off the threat. Well, there is a big chance of ocean levels rising significantly in the next 50 years, and hence we need to approach it the same way as the above scenarios. There is a high cost for inaction.

Also, the known oil reserves will last for only 60 years. Why not use it sparsely and leave some for our great grandchildren.

We have one planet, let us keep it safe and habitable for our descendants by reducing our carbon footprint, among other things.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Capitalism or Socialism?

  Capitalism or Socialism?   Liberals and left leaning folks are often accused of being a communist, socialist or Marxist. Before responding to the accusation, let us look at the definitions first: Marxism :  Political, economic, and social principles advocated by Karl Marx, for a class struggle, with the ultimate goal of achieving a classless, communist society. Communism  - economic and political theory that advocated the elimination of private property, and the common sharing of all resources among a group of people. Socialism  - is an economic system advocating for collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. These are not perfect definitions but more or less convey the idea. They have overlapping themes, but one common thread is “ No private property ”. Looking at this definition, I am sure nobody   in the world wants such an economic arrangement now. What most libera...