What does Elton John’s song, Levon, have to do with climate change? Not much, really, but the line about Levon’s son, Jesus, going to Venus made me think about Earth’s sister planet. At one time scientists speculated that its thick clouds hid a watery planet where rain fell constantly. Actually, based on space probes that have explored Venus over the past 50 years, we have learned that the dense clouds on the second planet from the sun hide one of the most inhospitable places in our solar system. The average surface temperature on Venus is nearly 900 degrees Fahrenheit. The reason? Venus is blanketed by a dense atmosphere consisting primarily of carbon dioxide (CO2). Because it traps heat radiation from the sun like glass in a greenhouse, CO2 is known as a greenhouse gas. With CO2 comprising over 95% of its atmosphere, Venus has a major greenhouse effect resulting in global warming run amok.
Like Venus, the Earth has CO2 in its atmosphere. Unlike Venus, CO2 comprises only a very small portion of it. In October 2012 the CO2 concentration in earth’s atmosphere was measured at 0.0391% or 391 parts per million (ppm). What concerns many scientists is that this concentration has increased significantly since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution in the late 18th century when it was around 280 ppm.
The steam engine, perfected by James Watt in 1778 derived its power by burning coal which also became a key fuel for generating electricity. In 1859, the first commercial oil well was drilled in the U.S. at Titusville, PA. At first there wasn’t much of a market for this black liquid, but it became pure gold after Henry Ford showed us how to burn gasoline by introducing us to his Model T in 1908. These and other developments led to the rapid industrialization of the western world and resulted in the burning of massive amounts of coal, oil and natural gas over the past 200 years. Today, most scientists believe that the CO2 released from the combustion of these fossil fuels is largely responsible for the observed increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere over this period of time.
According to U.S. EPA’s website, increased concentrations of greenhouse gases will lead to an increase in the earth’s average temperature. This, in turn, will cause a decrease in snow cover, ice and permafrost which will lead to a rise in sea levels putting many coastal cities at risk. It will also contribute to the acidification of the oceans and will have a significant effect on weather and precipitation patterns. (See, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/future.html.) In other words, things will be different and probably not in a good way.
So what can be done to prevent these consequences? Reducing CO2 emissions is not as easy as slapping pollution control devices on our cars and power plants. Theoretically, CO2 can be broken down into carbon and oxygen with the addition of energy – the reversal of the combustion process. The only genius who has been able to invent a pollution control device that does that is someone called “God.” His invention is called “plants.” Using energy from the sun and a chemical called chlorophyll, these so-called plants use energy from the sun to convert CO2 into carbohydrates and oxygen through a process called “photosynthesis.”
Over thousands of years, God’s pollution control devices “treated” carbon dioxide generated by natural processes (like when animals exhale) creating a rough balance that kept the CO2 concentration fairly stable. The problem is that God’s pollution control devices haven’t been able to keep up with all the extra CO2 currently being produced by mankind. Consequently, the excess CO2 is causing a buildup of greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere.
The only man-made alternative to reduce CO2 emissions is to burn less fossil fuel. Short of massive changes to our lifestyles in the developed world, there are presently only two ways to accomplish this: 1) improve energy efficiency so we need less fuel to meet our energy needs, or 2) develop alternative sources of energy that don’t release greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. There are a number of ways to make this happen, such as voluntary conservation efforts and making greater use of solar, wind and, yes, even nuclear power to meet our electrical needs. Alternatively, we can adopt laws and regulations designed to force reductions in greenhouse gas emissions such as by increasing vehicle fuel economy standards, by imposing taxes on carbon or by adopting pollution reduction schemes like cap and trade.
Such measures are opposed by climate change skeptics who deny the existence of global warming or at least deny that mankind’s activities have anything to do with it. These skeptics claim that observed warming trends such as the melting of the Arctic ice cap are simply part of the natural cycle and will not be influenced by how much or how little fossil fuels we burn.
These views, of course, run counter to the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists (97% according to NASA) that global warming is the result of human activities. (See, http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus.) But even assuming for the sake of argument that the skeptics are right, think about what would happen if we took steps anyhow to reduce the burning of fossil fuels through conservation measures and using alternative sources of energy. We would have more coal, oil and natural gas to pass on to future generations of mankind. While most of these materials are burned for fuel today, some are used to manufacture products such as lubricants, plastics, pharmaceuticals, dyes and solvents. Conserving these resources now will allow more to be available in the future for these and other uses that have not yet been discovered. Why rush to burn them now, unless our concern is that the energy companies are not making enough profits?
Isn’t conserving what that great inventor, God, asked us to do in the Book of Genesis – to be good stewards of his creation? And Jesus teaches us, “Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” (Lk 12: 15, 34.)
My wife says that for Christians, the global warming problem is a little like believing in Jesus. If believing in Jesus will get you to heaven, but you’re not sure there is a heaven, then you should still believe. If it turns out there is no heaven, then believing did you no harm and may have done you some good. But if there is a heaven, then believing could save you. Likewise, if we reduce our consumption of fossil fuels to avoid global warming and it turns out that the skeptics are right, at least we will have conserved resources for future generations to use. But if it turns out that the overwhelming opinion of today’s climate scientist is correct, then reducing greenhouse gas emissions could save the planet.
And when Jesus one day makes plans to return to Earth, he won’t decide to go to Venus because it’s cooler there.
No comments:
Post a Comment