Controlling Carbon

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (GHG), as is water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone, or O3. These gases, being present in the earth's atmosphere, reflect back to the earth some of the sun's radiation that would otherwise bounce off into the universe. By this process, the overall temperature of our planet is within the range of ideal for our form of life and without it, the average temperature would be approximately 33°C colder. It is reasonable to say that an increase in any single GHG, without a reduction in any of the other greenhouse gases, could lead to an increase in temperature and, conversely, that significant decreases in said gases may lead to global cooling.

Of all the GHGs, except for water vapor, carbon dioxide has the largest value for radiative forcing at 1.46W/m2. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines radiative forcing as “... a measure of the influence a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere system and is an index of the importance of the factor as a potential climate change mechanism. In this report radiative forcing values are for changes relative to pre-industrial conditions defined at 1750 and are expressed in watts per square meter (W/m2)." (Pachauri, and Reisinger) While the atmospheric concentrations of each greenhouse gas affects how much heat radiation is retained, levels of carbon dioxide make the most difference per unit. Therefore, if we want to minimize our potential affect on the world's climate, we will want to focus on our CO2 production. Stated in such fashion, this sounds like a simple and common-sense tactic to take. In Gregg Easterbrook's essay, “Some Convenient Truths”, simple and cheap are exactly how he wants his readers to see the issue of controlling global warming. This is not the case.

Carbon is the fifteenth most abundant element on Earth and ranks fourth in the entire universe. It is the basis of what we refer to as organic and life is dependent on its abundance and stability. Photosynthetic life requires carbon dioxide to convert water and sunlight into energy, and animals, including humans, are 18% carbon. We breathe it, eat it, cannot exist without it. These facts are only indirectly related to our issues with controlling our carbon emissions, though. It is a byproduct of this carbon-based system that we have come to rely on so heavily that may cause problems. Energy. Carbon's stability means that, as it has been converted into organic compounds by various flora and fauna, those compounds are converted under pressure and over time into an extremely concentrated source of energy. Humans have created a society that is precariously balanced atop that easy to get to yet limited supply of energy.

Easterbrook posits that “...action to prevent runaway global warming may prove cheap, practical, effective, and totally consistent with economic growth.” (506) He points to previous successes in curbing emissions that have been affordable and effective. The addition of catalytic converters for automobiles, chlorofluorocarbon regulations, and air-pollution reduction by power-plants have been efficacious with costs that the American public have hardly noticed. Easterbrook makes two assumptions based on this history. Firstly, because CO2 emissions have not been reduced, we have not tried to reduce them. Secondly, because solutions to other environmental problems were economical, future ones will be as well. It is a wonderfully optimistic essay but that doesn't make it true.

The Kyoto Protocol is the most widely known measure proposed to combat anthropogenic global warming. First adopted in 1997, 191 sovereign states have since ratified the treaty. The purpose of the Protocol was to reduce average GHG emissions by about 5% from 1990 levels by 2012, or about 20% below predicted values at that time. This would postpone the predicted temperature increase 3.5°C from 2100 C.E. To 2105 C.E., five years (Lomborg, 22). An estimate of the cost for these reductions ran $180 billion annually from 2008, assuming that the United States was participating (Lomborg, 24). The figure is lower without U.S . participation, but the benefits are, likewise, scaled down. Easterbrook's premise is damaged all in one go.

There have been talks about implementing an international cap-and-trade system that would affect carbon emissions for both industrialized nations as well as developing ones. Theoretically, such as system would benefit the rich countries by allowing them to purchase rights to produce more CO2 while profiting those nations whose emissions fall well below the limit. In reality, cap-and-trade profits only the industrialized nations who already posses the wealth created by the technology that also produces the pollution that they are buying the right to produce. The countries without the industrial infrastructure will be impeded by the desire to obtain easy finances that then can't be used to create manufacturing jobs because they no longer have the right to emit CO2 from their factories. When was this supposed to get simple?

Burning fossil-fuels is not the only way that we release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, of course. In third world countries, there are millions of people without the use of natural gas, coal, or nuclear energy to heat their homes or to cook their food. They use fuels like dung or blubber, but most often, wood. Wood is not so dense with carbon and, because of that, it is much less efficient. This inefficiency leads to another contributing factor to higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2; deforestation. Growing vegetation is the best carbon sink on the planet, so for every tree lost that is not replaced with a new one, more carbon dioxide is being left to float around. So this is where it does get simple. It is easy to plant trees. Trees grow for hundreds or thousands of years, sequestering carbon in all that time. Nearly free air cleaning.

So, perhaps to focus on smaller scale projects will help. Each individual's behavior can make an impact. When our personal finances were in jeopardy because of the high cost of petroleum, we made more efficient vehicles. That made a difference. We expect more responsible resources from our utility companies and from our home appliances. That makes a difference. If we continue to hold industry accountable for the pollution it produces, it will make a difference. But if the goal is to maintain carbon dioxide levels as they are or to reduce them to pre-industrial revolution levels by the year 2100, this is not near enough. 2100 C.E. is only 89 years away. We would have to convert to non-carbon based energy, entirely. Not even the most optimistic person in the world would suggest that we could have that sort of technology soon enough for such a deadline.

For as long as there is attainable fossil fuels to burn, people will use them. Industry and innovators may continue to make the process more and more efficient and governments and consumers should be ready to make such technological advances desirable through profitability. Science will certainly learn wonderfull new things about the universe in the future and perhaps we'll be able to use anti-matter to create energy or shrink nuclear reactors to fit in the palm of your hand. It is true indeed that any sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic, but we'll have to wait a very long time for our magicians.

Works Cited

Easterbrook, Gregg. "Some Convenient Truths." The Aims of Argument: A Text and Reader. Ed. Timothy W. Crusius, Carolyn E. Channell. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2009. Print.

Lomborg, Bjorn. Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2007. 22-24. Print.

Pachauri, R.K., and A. Reisinger. "Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." ipcc.ch. IPCC, 2007. Web. 13 Feb 2011. .