Thursday, May 07, 2009
Someone in Texas has died from a scary-sounding flu. Have we closed the state yet?
I mean, really. What are those people doing in the streets of Maypearl and the tractors of Hartley County when they could be duct-taping their windows?
Really. When has such emotional and informational energy been exerted to less informational benefit?
Information: There is influenza in the world. Flus cannot be contained by borders. People travel. They breathe and use their hands as instruments. Advisory: Wash hands. Continue to breathe.
I don’t meant to dismiss a real public health concern. But, really: Are we so aching for a global crisis that we’ll take a cough and make it whooping cough?
If you’re aching for a global crisis, here are two stories that fit the term. Really.
* A 270-square-mile section of ice — about the size of New York City — broke off from the Antarctic ice shield last month.
Well, it’s just ice. It has nothing to do with people. But, wait . . .
* Drought-stricken India has been rocked by a grisly and climbing toll: deep-in-debt farmers committing suicide. First reported by The New York Times three years ago, the toll has reached the thousands.
The story behind that story, believe it or not, is ice. Really. Himalayan glaciers are the key source of India’s irrigation and drinking water. Those glaciers are shrinking in a steady and scary fashion.
Global outbreak: ignorance?
I know that some readers are poised to attach “hoax” to the assertion that man’s pollution is the key variable in this true global crisis. They sound absolutely certain. They might be able to cite a scientist who doubts the claim. Finding one doubter is good enough for them, for two doubters make a movement.
Congress, fortunately, and now with the prodding of a dead-serious president, finally appears on the verge of putting this country back in the leadership role on global climate change that it has punted away.
Real actions to curb carbon emissions are needed sooner, not later. Dr. Rajendra Pachuari, who chairs the International Panel on Climate Change, said if the United States doesn’t set the pace with its own substantive reductions before 2012, “that will be too late.”
Pachuari — sounds like one of those exotic, hate-America nags we must endure on the BBC. Actually, he’s a George W. Bush appointee.
On the table right now in Congress is legislation that is downright ambitious. We’ll see to what extent money and industrial interests sap Congress of its will.
What climate-change groups are urging, and what is possible in this Congress, is a cap-and-trade system under which industries would be required to buy permits for carbon emissions. That means they can decide for themselves whether it is cheaper to pollute or to spend the money to reduce pollution.
Under the measure supported by climate-change groups, cumulative carbon emissions nationwide would be cut between 25 percent and 40 percent through 2012. This would be in tune with targets adopted by international climate negotiators in 2007.
Critics call this a back-door carbon tax. Call it whatever you wish. You see, when you put a cost on pollution, you give someone an incentive not to do it.
This country needs to face two realities: (1) the health ramifications of overdependence on fossil fuels, of which global warming is just one consideration; (2) the increasing scarcity of such fuels and the need to make alternatives cost-effective.
You may believe global warming to be a hoax, but let’s all acknowledge that when we address carbon emissions, we address all of the above issues, to our benefit.
These concerns make something as fleeting as a flu outbreak almost laughably inconsequential.
Maybe if we gave climate change an exotic, infectious-sounding name, it would draw attention. Dodo influenza. How does that sound? It could work. The difference is that global warming doesn’t just affect those who don’t wash their hands.
John Young’s column appears Thursday and Sunday. E-mail: jyoung@wacotrib.com.
Comments
By Sammy
May 8, 2009 3:48 PM | Link to this
John, don't be so quick to pooh-pooh this flu epidemic. It's not over yet. The infamous "Spanish flu" epidemic during WWI had a fairly typical flu onset but with a catastrophic 2nd. wave with half the deaths among the 20-40 age group, which is not typical.
Consider the wisdom of worrying about global warming and making political points while a flu epidemic is extant. Being hysterically worried about this epidemic is no worse than being hysterically worried about global warming.
I suspect most people alive today had relatives who either died or were sickened by that epidemic; I know I did (both). The following quotes are from Wikipedia:
"The 1918 flu pandemic (commonly referred to as the Spanish flu) was an influenza pandemic that spread to nearly every part of the world. It was caused by an unusually virulent and deadly Influenza A virus strain of subtype H1N1...The pandemic lasted from March 1918 to June 1920, spreading even to the Arctic and remote Pacific islands. It is estimated that anywhere from 70 to 100 million people were killed worldwide, or the approximate equivalent of one third of the population of Europe...In the U.S., about 28% of the population suffered, and 500,000 to 675,000 died...The pandemic is estimated to have affected up to one billion people: more than half the world's population at the time."
By Mark
May 8, 2009 9:33 AM | Link to this
Micahael you are right ignorance is a powerful thing so stop watching msnbc and cnn. And start looking at what is right in front of you.The earth has gone through cycles in climate change for millions of years.
By Michael
May 8, 2009 9:14 AM | Link to this
Boy howdy. I'm just dumbfounded by some of these comments. Ignorance is a very powerful thing. The word implies an ability to ignore. We can continue to ignore climate change and continue to go merrily along like we have since the dawn of the industrial revolution. That is the road to extinction. It took us about 200 years to screw up the climate. It make take thousands of years to repair. But one thing is for certain. It's only going to get worse unless we make some big changes right now.
By Mark
May 8, 2009 9:12 AM | Link to this
Robbie you rock. Sounds like you should write for the paper because you give ALL THE FACTS.
By Seah
May 8, 2009 12:09 AM | Link to this
It is good to know that we can adjust the temperature of the globe at will by increasing or decreasing our carbon dioxide output. Evidently, if we believe what is reported, we can reduce our output and thereby reduce temperatures. I would like to vote for daytime temperatures in the summer here in central Texas at around 72F and maybe about 68F in the winter. I do worry a little about how we will stop the cooling, but I guess we can just eliminate the carbon tax and encourage people to polute if we get too cold. Who will decide? I suppose we can vote on it like scientists do when they decide whether a theory like global warming is valid or not.
By im_sticky
May 7, 2009 5:29 PM | Link to this
I don't have to look any further than my own refrigerator to know that global warming is real. The ice cubes from my ice maker are measurably fewer and smaller than they used to be just ten years ago. Also, the runoff into the drip pan from the defrost cycle is greatly reduced, which profoundly impacts the waterbugs!
By John Young
May 7, 2009 3:56 PM | Link to this
Denial starts with a "D."
Here's what the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration says. I can't imagine anyone more authoritative:
"Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74ýC (plus or minus 0.18ýC) since the late-19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13ýC (plus or minus 0.03ýC) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years. The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S. and parts of the North Atlantic) have, in fact, cooled slightly over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70ýN. Lastly, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995."
By Robbie
May 7, 2009 3:51 PM | Link to this
John,
I don't study it everyday, but I do know where to look for good, credible sources on this and other issues. Opinions should not be knee-jerk reactions, but well thought out ideas after surveying a variety of informational sources, which is why I like to quote them.
The area of Antarctica experiencing the ice decline that you mentioned is on the opposite side that's experiencing the ice growth that the Aussies have been studying. According to the Aussie source, the ice is growing at a rate higher than the ice is declining on the other side.
It's convenient to mention the declines, which are happening, as a back-up for your arguement, but it's a bit disengenuous to leave out the growth that is also occuring.
The atmospheric temperature measurements do indicate a global decline in temperatures for the better part of the last decade, which puts the planet on par with estimated global temperatures from before the Industrial Revolution boom, i.e. before manufactured carbon emmissions.
Ocean temperatures are a different story. We've heard the terms El Nino and La Nina tossed around a lot. Those refer to the perioding rise and falls of ocean temperatures in certain regions as ocean currents move across the globe. The recent rise in ocean temperatures near the Antarctic Peninsula are certainly the cause of the ice decline in that region. Similarly, the decline in ocean temperatures on the other side of Antarctica have fallen to allow for a tremendous increase in ice and snowy weather in that region.
I have no doubt that there are some regional health effects of dirty pollution, but to call carbon emmissions a global climate disaster is a falicy, based off a more complete look of information. The hype of which is leading into a massive political agenda set a growing government, government intrusion and legislation into individual lives, and needless increases of taxes and consumer good prices across the globe.
By John Young
May 7, 2009 11:09 AM | Link to this
""John Young responds
I would defer to your expertise, Robbie, as I don't study this every day and maybe you do. But here's one guy who does:
"There is little doubt that these changes are the result of atmospheric warming," said David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey.
"For the first time, I think, we can really begin to see the processes that have brought about the demise of the ice shelf," Vaughan said.
He said eight ice shelves along the Antarctic Peninsula have shown signs of retreat over the last few decades.
That's from Associated Press. And this:
"Average temperatures in the Antarctic Peninsula have risen by 3.8 degrees Fahrenheit (2.5 Celsius) over the past 50 years ý higher than the average global rise, according to studies."
By Robbie
May 7, 2009 8:38 AM | Link to this
According to the Australian Antarctic Division glacial research program, who does extensive research in Antarctica on glaciers, "The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown 'significant cooling in recent decades.'"
Get out the floaties, John! This obviously means that the colder temperatures in Antarctica are causing the ice to melt... Wait... Cold temperatures cause ice to freeze in my freezer, but melt in Antarctica? I know its in that screwy Southern Hemisphere where toilets flush backwards, but ice melting as a result of Antarctica's cooling temperatures. That's a stretch.
The article goes on to say, "Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica." Huh... So Antarctica's ice is growing... Did you see that? "losses... more than offset." Funny... I thought the globe was warming. How can ice be growing if the globe is warming?
Well... It's not. It's cooling. According to "two widely used global temperature data sources... from earth-orbiting satellites UAH (University of Alabama at Huntsville) and RSS (Remote Sensing Systems.) Both show decreasing temperatures over the last decade, with present temperatures barely above the 30 year average." WHAT! Al Gore didn't tell you that!?!? You mean the earth's temperatures have been going down over the last decade? And it's not warmer now, than say, 1979? Nope. Actually, according to The UK Meteorological Office's Hadley Center for Climate Studies, worldwide temperatures ahve been declining since 1998, and estimate that "the earth is not much warmer now than it was than it was in 1878 or 1941."
Sounds like a global crisis to me, John. HURRY! Save the planet!!
[1 2] next
Commenting is open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. M-F, except on Tuesday when it's open until 9 p.m.
Post a comment
*HTML not allowed in comments. Your e-mail address is required.