Global Climate Change: Myth or Reality

Global environment will continue to improve and will no longer deteriorate the environment at the pace that it has following the industrial revolution. The major reason for this is governments are now more educated and aware of the global environment and are already working hard to reverse the effects of global environmental deterioration. The words at the tip of everyone's tongue whenever the subject of “environment” comes to light is “global warming.” The general consensus is that global warming is a man made climate phenomenon. “...scientist say that today's world warm-up is caused mostly by people when they burn fuel (Costello, 2009). There is evidence that suggests that governments are working diligently to control the burning of hydrocarbon fuels. Global warming has become such a doomsday prophecy within the global community with the major consensus concluding that the rise in sea levels are inevitable and major changes in weather patterns would be catastrophic (Oquz, 2009, p.2). However some scientists believe that global warming may not net the results others predicted;furthermore, others predict a rise in temperature could net positive results (Williams, 2009). Some scientist even go as far as to say that we are entering a period of global cooling, and that the warming period has ended (Pocock, 2009). If global warming is still on the rise, I believe the efforts of the government's will reduce emissions before we have catastrophic climate change. The deterioration of the global environment has peaked in my opinion because governments have made strides in emissions standards which will only get better with time, scientist have found a pattern of cooling since 1998 which would indicate that the new emissions laws have worked to some extent, winter indexes predict a 20 year cooling cycle, solar activity decreased indicating a cooling period, and the last 6-12 months have been cooler, again suggesting that we may have already began to reverse the trend of global warming (Pocock, 2009, Williams, 2009).

Historically speaking, environmental concerns are a fairly new concept to the global community. The 1970's saw the first agreements on many environmental concepts such as air pollution, global fisheries, and land areas (Viotti & Kauppi, 2009). Humanity finally began to realize that it was hurting the Earth. Efforts by the government to control emissions seemed to pick up after the 1985 finding of the hole in the ozone layer. The concept of a “global environment” is very complex. The fact that certain sovereign states' pollution harm the rest of the world poses some difficult obstacles. How do we stop a state from polluting without violations of sovereignty? Even the idea that South America's rain forests are a needed resource for the whole world, how do we control the preservation of another country's resource? Even controlling international fisheries is complex. Whose jurisdiction is it to patrol the sea and capture poachers? Environmental issues are the responsibility of the global community, world governments, national governments, state governments, and all the way down the line to each individual that depends on the Earth for survival. Nothing has made the global community realize that any more then the latest major environmental issue:global warming. Within the last decade scientists have realized that the massive burning of hydrocarbon fuels caused a layer of carbon dioxide to blanket the Earth's atmosphere, in doing so heat waves from the sun are not allowed to be emitted into space causing what is termed as a “greenhouse effect” (Viotti & Kauppi, 2009, p. 375). A rise in the Earth's absolute temperature seems imminent (“4 Degree C Warming May be Inevitable”, 2008). But governments are taking steps to control the emission and the burning of hydrocarbon fuels.

In 2008 the Group of Eight (G8) powers set a goal to reduce emissions by 50% by the year 2050 (Guha & Pilling, 2008). Almost all of the countries accepted this goal with the exception of India and China (Guha & Pilling, 2008). Australia's minister in charge of overseeing the climate change debate, Professor Ross Garnaut, acknowledged that “reducing emissions in developing countries was an additional challenge”(2008). The fact that the global community is coming together to try to tackle global warming has to be one of the more positive aspects of globalization. They are laying the foundation for what hopes to be a very powerful institution that can uphold global environmental regulations. The major obstacle, as usual, is that they can not enforce these goals, they just hope for compliance. As I mentioned previously, the fact that China and India refuse to agree to the goals set by G8 shoes the shortcomings of almost all world organizations, there is no real way to enforce these regulations. India and China being developing countries that rely on manufacturing as the key to their economies are going to burn a great deal of hydrocarbon fuels. Manufacturing requires a great deal of natural resources that need to be burned, melted, and molded in order to produce goods. Emissions standards would add costs to India and China's production services; and who's to say that the comparative advantage for producing such goods wouldn't shift to yet another developing country that could choose not to comply with the emissions standards set forth by the G8. Governments are on the right track by setting emission standards, and compliance is still a global issue as is the enforcement of regulations. If global warming continues to climb I think additional pressure or maybe even a global boycott of goods may be in order. However, in a capitalistic global society it would be difficult on many economies to sustain a boycott of cheaply manufactured goods by the countries that have the comparative advantage to produce them. I don't see a foreseeable alternative to controlling emissions other then on an individual level. As I have pointed out it is very difficult to control emissions of production based industries, however, with the concept of global warming our individual choices may be more important then the emissions of China and India. We have to produce goods globally, but what we produce and what we buy as a consumer would more likely reverse the effects of global warming than controlling fuel burning by factories. We as a nation should lead the way in finding alternative energy sources for power, and the production of more efficient vehicles. The United States' “love for the automobile” has brought us global scrutiny throughout the entire global warming debate. If we could ever part with this ideology concerning the freedom associated with our own car then maybe a more logical rail system or transit system would work. Sadly enough it might take a catastrophe for the United States to ever take the right steps to controlling global warming as individuals.

But some scholars will even argue that there is no such thing as global warming. Not everyone is sold on the global warming theory, as authors Paul Viotti and Mark Kauppi would like to suggests in their book International Relations and World Politics that“...there are only a few who still disagree” (2009, p.375). This statement shows that the majority of the scientific community holds global warming as fact backed by scientific evidence and is therefore undeniable, but I will explore the other side of the story, the side of the coin rarely seen in this great debate:global cooling. Is this just a natural warming period that possibly got facilitated by greenhouse gases? Scientist published a study in the Science journal reviewing 250,000 years of climate change in the western Mediterranean using ice core samples which allows them to judge temperature from the elements in the ice. Their findings were not abnormal and suggest it is a natural cycle, “...cold stadias were periods of only limited duration, immediately followed by well-defined returns to more warmth”(Martrat & Grimalt, et al., 2004). As a matter of fact our period of warmth may have peaked. Meteorologist Larry Cosgrove of WeatherAmerica states the three reason he feels the Earth is now headed not just to a cooling but a global cooling. “From 1970 to 2007, the trend has been for warmer years, but in the past 6-12 months our climate has been cooler then in previous years...” Furthermore, Cosgrove says that there is less solar activity meaning the sun will be cooling, and lastly he states that there are very predictable winter indexes that show we are at the end of our 20 year warming period and began our cooling cycle which would last 20 years. (Pocock, 2009). Many trends show that the earth “has been cooling since 1998” (Williams, 2009). Other research of ice core samples claim that the global warming theorists are looking at to narrow of a spectrum in researching their studies.

“The new data indicate 'that the warm, 12,000-year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, and then the Earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years.' Aiding this theory is a study of ice cores, ocean sediment cores, the geologic record and studies of ancient plant and animal populations which demonstrate a regular cyclic pattern. Add to that the tilt of the Earth which varies over a 41,000 year period, the shape of the Earth's orbit which changes over a period of 100,000 years, and the Earth's wobble which gradually rotates the direction of the planet's axis over a period of 26,000 years” (“No Global Warming, Ice Age Here, 2009).

Everyday new evidence emerges that points to the fact that it is not global warming but global cooling.

Is it possible that this heating trend was a natural cycle that may have reached record levels of global warmth because of the gases in the atmosphere. It is, like most debates, usually going to be explained in the middle where no one wants to stand. It could very well have been a peak warming cycle that reached record temperatures because heat couldn't escape the Earth. It seems it is in the human psyche to only tend to matters at hand and not look ahead. If temperatures do drop it would be a great time to reduce emissions in the atmosphere, however, it is most certainly going to do the opposite as people try to stay warm, so our next cycle of warmth could be indeed catastrophic. Regardless of whether we are in a period of global warming or global cooling, high carbon dioxide levels blocking in heat waves will eventually cause some type of man made climate change for the worse.

How catastrophic? Rising sea levels with an increase temperature by 4 degrees Celsius would effect between 7 million and 300 million coastal residents each year, “30-50% less water availability in southern Africa and the Mediterranean, 15-35 % lower crop yields in Africa, and possible extinction for 20-50% of animal and plant species” (“4 Degree C Warming May be Inevitable,”2009). This would be catastrophic to the global community, and stands as the vision modern scientist hold for our future if we do not reverse the effects of global warming. The article “4 Degree C Warming May be Inevitable” suggests that we have already emitted enough carbon dioxide that the previously mentioned statistics are real life possibilities in our near future. The journal suggests we are already at a 2.5 degree Celsius increase in global temperature. The debate rages on however because not everyone thinks global warming will change the climate the way we might conventionally think. By performing a simple experiment scholars can show the effects of melting ice on the sea level. Science teacher Ayse Oquz found that by placing ice cubes in a glass of water we can simulate what the water levels will do with the melting of glaciers and polar caps (2009). In this lab study with students Oquz discovers that the melting ice does not raise water levels significantly like we might think, at first it the water actually lower because the molecules cool and condense. Eventually the water rises a little bit but not to the point that would first suspect because the cooler water takes up less space than warmer water.

“Many scientists predict that if changes in global climate increase world temperatures then ice bergs will melt, and sea levels would rise . They claim that this would bring a global problem to the direct attention of individuals living in coastal areas. However by looking at this experiment, I do not believe the scientists are telling the truth about global warming”(Oquz, 2009).

The absolute matter theorists suggest that there is only so many water molecules therefore they have to take up about the same amount of space as they do now, the frozen matter is actually expanded (remember putting leaving a can of water in the freezer), so when it thaws it will condense and further condense the water around it by cooling. However, as global warming would eventually prevail. The rise in water levels would be caused by the expansion of the water molecules. Eventually the glacier cooled water would rise if global temperatures continued to rise(Ozuq, 2009). This would be the time when catastrophe would hit, unless the possible cooling period would refreeze the glaciers. But not everyone thinks that global warming is a bad thing.

“What ?” There is some speculation that if global warming is a real phenomenon and is going to continue to warm the Earth that it might not be a bad thing. Fred Singer the president for the Science and Environmental Policy Project “...touts the good of the warming ...due to increased carbon dioxide (critical plant food), fewer frosts, more precipitation, and longer growing periods”(Williams, 2009). Kevin Williams, a meteorologist, claims that warmer weather would have a good economic impact on the global community and would actually increase that life expectancy due to warmer weather which would cut down on cold related deaths as well as increasing crop productions with the environment more conducive to growing. The author also claims that in history of the world we as a population have done better during warmer periods then colder ones (2009). This could be observed the famines that followed the “little ice age” which struck the greater part of Europe in medieval times. The only catch to this theory is the weather would have to remain stable in order for this theory to be relevant. Assuming the planet would merely get warmer without massive climate and weather change is a shade on the optimistic side in my opinion. If the global temperatures rise, it will eventually be catastrophic, it may be later rather then sooner, but something will have to give, and I am afraid of what that would be for the human race.

At the for front of the global environment movement is the liberals. After all liberals “may see themselves as citizens of the world rather than as citizens of any single country (Viotti & Kauppi, 2009, p.16 ) Essentially, most of the concerns on global environment and the explosion of “global warming” in the media is driven by a liberal train of thought, the idea that we are all citizens of the planet and have the responsibility to protect it and make it better. If nothing else, global warming acted as a catalyst for a liberal train of thought for taking on environmental issues. The term “think green” was coined in the U.S. as a reminder to all of us we have a global responsibility each and every day. China and India as a nation have more of a realist approach to the environmental issues, especially concerning emissions control mainly because of the shift of power they might experience if the lost production jobs because of increased cost of emissions controls. As a nation they face economic repercussions as they deal with environmental issues. Their populations are so high they place a lot of emphasis on having jobs, it isn't a secret that they invest in the U.S. dollar to keep the value of their currency suppressed and the U.S. dollar valuable in order to keep the comparative advantage for production. China is obviously concerned with the shift of power, and in their mind, power comes with gainful employment through production services. We think as the global community as a capitalistic market in which all things a fair in supply and demand, however not everyone plays by the rules. So in the realist perspective, such as China, a true capitalistic community will not exist. The markets are manipulated. This is an interesting strategy for the economy and business however it poses to be a nightmare for the liberal movement of the G8 to facilitate emissions standards and agreements globally.

In my research I conclude that the global environment will not deteriorate any further. As I have shown the G8 is taking steps to control emissions and for the most part it has gained the support of the international community. The new emissions standard goals of the G8 is 50% less by 2050, with the majority of the countries agreeing and already taking steps to reduce emissions. I have focused on the major concern of the international community which is global warming. The new emissions goals are set to reverse the negative effects associated with global warming. There are arguments for and against global warming and now even arguments for global cooling. There are arguments about the causes of global warming and that could it actually be a good omen. Scientific studies show that climate change might not be as bad as we thought it would be if it exists, but the latest trends are looking at a cooling period, regardless of whether or not it is a stage of global warming and climate change, the calm before the storm, or maybe we were in a natural cycle of warmth. The global awareness for the environment has been raised due to the liberal perceptive on the environment on an international basis. China and India continue to take a realist approach or thought towards the emissions standards which poses the same problem as with so many international agreements and laws, how do you enforce them? There is so much research out there on global warming and the environment but the latest studies show that we have for what ever reason entered a cooling stage. The fact that carbon dioxide levels are still increasing leave me to believe it is not because of decreased burning of hydrocarbon fuels (Williams, 2009). It may be a natural shift in the Earth's climate. In my opinion it was somewhere in the middle, a natural cycle of warmth coupled with greenhouse effect made for record high global temperature. Now that it is cooling and we seem to be headed in the right direction , we should have the emissions standards fixed by the next warm cycle. If we don't it could be a catastrophe, but I think we will because I believe we have made great strides in environmental issues since we first started acknowledging them less the 50 years ago.

Works Cited

4 Degree C Warming May be Inevitable.(2008 Dec) Business and Environment. 19 (12) p. 16

Costello, Emily, (2009 Jan)“Polar Problem,” Scholastic News(ed 3). New York. 65 (13) p.2.

Cacho, I, Martat, B, Grimalt, J, Lopez-Martinez, C, et. al. (2004 Dec). Abrupt Temperature Changes in the Western Mediterranean Over the Past 250,000 Years. Science. 306 (1507), 1762-1768.

Garnaut Welcomes G8 Emissions Agreements. (2008 July). AAP General News Wire. Sydney No Global Warming, Ice Age Here. (2009 Jan) McClatchy- Tribune Business News.

Pocock, John (2009, Jan) Bundle Up for Global Cooling. Beef. 45(5) p. 56.

Garnaut Welcomes G8 Emissions Agreemnts. (2008 July). AAP General News Wire. Sydney

Guha, K, Pilling, P. (2008 July) China and India Fail to Give Support. Financial Times. London (UK) p. 1.

Oquz, A. (2009) Science Activities. 46(1) p.17-21.

Willaims, K (2009 Jan) There May be Benefits to a Warmer Planet. Daily Record:Rochester, New York.

Viotti, P, Kauppi, M. (2009) International Relations and World Politics. New Jersey:Pearson Press.