Global Warming

So, yet again, we find ourselves debating about global warming. Shocking. First of all, there is something that I have been wondering about. I don't think that there is any quarrel with the concept that more carbon (or other greenhouse gases) in the air means higher temperatures. (ie If we released a huge vat of carbon into the atmosphere, the temperature would rise.) http://epa.gov/climatechange/kids/greenhouse.html
I also don't think that anyone disputes that cars release carbon. (http://epa.gov/climatechange/kids/change.html) Even the UN stands behind that, saying, "11. The transport sector is a major contributor to environmental pressures, particularly through its use of energy. Although energy efficiency in the passenger transport sector has improved slightly, as a result of advances in technology, energy efficiency in the freight transport sector has shown no sign of improvement." (*quote from http://www.unece.org/env/documents/2002/cep/ac.10/cep.ac.10.2002.24.e.pdf*) The EPA also backs that up, saying, " The largest source of CO2 emissions globally is the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas in power plants, automobiles, industrial facilities and other sources." (http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html) The argument is really about to what extent humans have impacted our Earth. Is this merely part of a huge cycle that spans millions of years? Is this life-threatening? Is it even happening? Well, here's my take on this whole thing. If we can all agree that carbon= increased temperatures and cars= carbon, then why not cut down on our carbon output? Even if the rise in temperatures that's occuring now is simply part of a huge pattern, wouldn't, eventually, enough carbon build up in the atmosphere so that we would have a problem? Why not take preventative measures? I would argue this for all areas of our culture that release carbon, but I chose the auto industry because they are a major contributor of greenhouse gases.

I read an interesting tidbit in the Star Tribune today. It was about the men who were involved in building the original highways in Minnesota. They included some statistics, which I find relevent. "There were 920 registered vehicles in the state in 1903, and 324,166 by 1920."- Star Tribune, 1/13/08 Now you might be thinking, "Yea, but that's when the car was new! Surely the rate of increase is lower now." Well, it probably is, at least in the US. However, in countries such as India, that is not the case. A new car, called the Tata, has appeared on the market. (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_17/b4031064.htm) It is selling for around $2,500, and (I quote from the aforementioned source), "Both are leading a race to the bottom that could affect the business every bit as much as Henry Ford's Model T did a century ago." Thousands of people are entering the middle class in India, Russia, and other such countries, and they want a car. This will add countless drivers, all who emit carbon. Not to mention the fact that these countries, with their new, releatively affluent, middle class, will probably increase industrially in order to keep up with demand for goods and jobs. This might involve burning coal, which is a huge source of carbon emissions. Research has shown that if only the established powers were to drastically cut down on carbon emissions, the carbon levels would still reach 450 parts per million by 2070. (which is very dangerous) If things continue the way they're going, it could be reached by 2040. Many developing countries feel that the established powers (US, Europe) became influential by using fossil fuels for energy, and that denying that power source to them would be unfair. They want the chance to become world leaders, and are afraid that if they use enviromentally friendly energy, they will be surpassed by a rival. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/weekinreview/16revkin.html

So, the way it seems to me, we need to do something. Even if there is no man-made global warming now, (even though I think there is) there will be in the near future, fueled by countries fighting their way to the industrial top and by their citizens buying all the latest (and now cheaper) gadgets. Why not stop it before it either begins or gets worse?