Ecology vs. Religion - Part I
I just read an article on teh CNN website a few hours ago:"Ocean and so-called greenhouse gas levels are rising faster than they have for thousands of years, according to two reports published on Thursday that are likely to fuel debate on global warming. The full article is here.
I have had a number of reactions to this debate over the last few years, and I think I may have had an epiphany.
To begin, the article states that "carbon dioxide emissions come mainly from burning coal and other fossil fuels in power plants, factories and automobiles." We all know that. We also know that if we continue on our present course, it is inevitable that humans will do enough damage to destroy our own habitat.
Alot of blame is being placed on the current use of fossil fuels. Granted, we can destroy small regions through waste or mismanagement, making them uninhabitable to humans. Sadly, due to political and social reasons, we often force populations to live in such conditions. This is a travesty. But, but we can never do any permenant damge to the ecology on a global scale. At least not with fossil fuels.
What we fail to remember is that fossil fuels are nonrenewable resources. Use will decrease naturally as the costs of production exceed the value of the produced goods. It's already beginning with $2+/gallon prices (in America), and over the course of the next 15 years, we'll see the demand for fossil fuels dwindle away to nothing as refineries simply go out of business.
The real question is to ask how threatened the global environment would be if every single possible once of our nonrenewable resources were consumed. This is, by default, the worst case scenario. Here's a little bit of info from the ETE online series (I love NASA!)
"Even if emissions of CO2 stay the same as they are now, concentrations of atmospheric CO2 will increase to 700 ppm by 2100. As a result, mean global temperatures will increase by 3.5 °F (1.9 °C) over the next 100 years."
Remember, this is 100 years worth of projection. At the current rates of consumption, we have a best case scenario estimate of 50 years (U. of Mich. study) before every drop is gone. Considering the rising expense as supplies dwindle, I predict that we'll naturally stop using it long before this "best case" scenario occurs.
So, to answer the real question. . .how bad will this impact be if it were all used up? So far, I can't find any details. After spending alot of time looking, it has become clear that nobody really knows anything, and the the amount of fear/passion in the writer seems to be inversly proportional to the projected statistics. There are some hazy predicitons about a decrease in some soil moisture, a bit heavier rainfall, and an increase in sea levels by 2 feet or so, but it is diffcult to know what deserves specific mention. Hopefully, I can piece something together at a future date.
Unfortuately, I haven't even gotten to the real reason for this post. . . a comparison between religion and environmentalism. This discussion will continue in Part II. . . stay tuned.
posted by Chris W. @ 2:01 AM
