Global warming debate continues
Andrew Rosten, Daily Vidette Staff
Issue date: 4/15/08 Section: News
Influenced at least in part by the Oscar-winning film "An Inconvenient Truth," there has been a lot of debate over global warming over the past few years.
While some question the logic of global warming, others have proposed ways to slow it down. One of these proposals has been to enforce limits on greenhouse gas emissions.
The purpose of these limits is to persuade energy users to conserve their energy or to change to non-polluting energy sources. According to the New York Times, however, some scientists believe that whatever benefits such proposals provide will be too little and come too late.
"Even with a cutback in wasteful energy spending, our current technologies cannot support both a decline in carbon dioxide emissions and an expanding global economy," Jeffrey D. Sachs, head of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, stated in a recent article in Scientific American. "If we try to restrain emissions without a fundamentally new set of technologies, we will end up stifling economic growth, including the development prospects for billions of people."
Dr. James Carter, an emeritus professor of geography, said he disagrees with the notion that it is too late to stop global warming.
"Too little, too late for what?" Carter said. "The consequences of global warming is not like having unprotected sex, in which the consequence is getting pregnant or not. Rather, the consequences are more like abusing your body with what you eat and drink and how much you sleep and exercise. You can abuse your body so much you will suffer significantly and may not be able to get back to good health."
"I assume we are experiencing some global warming and we will pay some consequences for this," Carter said. "The more warming we experience, the greater the consequences. Some people will benefit in some ways from any warming, but most persons and most societies will suffer from this."
Robert Quandt, an associate professor of chemistry, proposed for people who are serious about stopping global warming to start building nuclear reactors.
"I don't think it's as serious, but if you really think [global warming] is that serious of a problem, the best way around it is to start building nuclear reactors," Quandt said. "You can keep up our energy supply and you're not burning coal to generate electricity. People have objections to nuclear reactors for other reasons, but if you thought global warming was that big of a threat, that would be the logical first step. That's something we can do. We have the technology, and it doesn't rely on hydrogen-powered cars or fuel cells that are still probably, at best, decades away."
Quandt said he is skeptical about the seriousness of the global warming situation.
"I encourage everybody to look into both sides [of the global warming argument]," Quandt said. "We don't know how much is in the natural process, and how much is anthropogenic, which is a buzzword for man-made."
While some question the logic of global warming, others have proposed ways to slow it down. One of these proposals has been to enforce limits on greenhouse gas emissions.
The purpose of these limits is to persuade energy users to conserve their energy or to change to non-polluting energy sources. According to the New York Times, however, some scientists believe that whatever benefits such proposals provide will be too little and come too late.
"Even with a cutback in wasteful energy spending, our current technologies cannot support both a decline in carbon dioxide emissions and an expanding global economy," Jeffrey D. Sachs, head of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, stated in a recent article in Scientific American. "If we try to restrain emissions without a fundamentally new set of technologies, we will end up stifling economic growth, including the development prospects for billions of people."
Dr. James Carter, an emeritus professor of geography, said he disagrees with the notion that it is too late to stop global warming.
"Too little, too late for what?" Carter said. "The consequences of global warming is not like having unprotected sex, in which the consequence is getting pregnant or not. Rather, the consequences are more like abusing your body with what you eat and drink and how much you sleep and exercise. You can abuse your body so much you will suffer significantly and may not be able to get back to good health."
"I assume we are experiencing some global warming and we will pay some consequences for this," Carter said. "The more warming we experience, the greater the consequences. Some people will benefit in some ways from any warming, but most persons and most societies will suffer from this."
Robert Quandt, an associate professor of chemistry, proposed for people who are serious about stopping global warming to start building nuclear reactors.
"I don't think it's as serious, but if you really think [global warming] is that serious of a problem, the best way around it is to start building nuclear reactors," Quandt said. "You can keep up our energy supply and you're not burning coal to generate electricity. People have objections to nuclear reactors for other reasons, but if you thought global warming was that big of a threat, that would be the logical first step. That's something we can do. We have the technology, and it doesn't rely on hydrogen-powered cars or fuel cells that are still probably, at best, decades away."
Quandt said he is skeptical about the seriousness of the global warming situation.
"I encourage everybody to look into both sides [of the global warming argument]," Quandt said. "We don't know how much is in the natural process, and how much is anthropogenic, which is a buzzword for man-made."
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 2
Bob Burk
posted 4/15/08 @ 9:14 AM CST
I am not a scientist, although I am fairly well educated, but I read on the subject of "global warming" daily. I find it very interesting that "social scientists" seem to be more on the "AGW" bandwagon than "physical scientists. (Continued…)
Post a Comment