|
N2O EmissionsNitrous Oxide is produced both naturally and anthropogenically - or by us. Its concentration in the atmosphere has risen by 16% since the industrial revolution and whilst there's much less of it than Carbon Dioxide, Nitrous Oxide is up to 310 times more effective. This means that the effect of just 1Kg of Nitrous Oxide would be the equivalent of up to 310 Kg of Carbon Dioxide, which curiously is the one everyone seems to be afraid of. Naturally, it is produced by temperate and tropical soils and the world's oceans, whilst anthropogenic production (the stuff we're responsible for), is through fertilisers, farming - aeration of the soil, the production of Nylon, biomass burning and the production of animal feeds. Allegedly, both natural and anthropogenic quantities are currently at about 10 million tonnes a year each, so, logically one would think that if we weren't producing the amounts we were, that level would drop significantly - perhaps by as much as half. Nitrous oxide is broken down by sunlight, but while it's around, it's incredibly good at breaking down the ozone layer, which is partly what makes it such an effective greenhouse gas. Nitrous oxide has a life in the atmosphere of about 120 years. |
|
CO2 EmissionsMost of us know where carbon Dioxide comes from. It comes from exhalation and burning fossil fuels like wood (either as wood or charcoal), coal, petrol/gasoline and natural gas. Since the industrial revolution, CO2 in the atmosphere has risen from about 280 parts per million (ppm) to around 380 ppm. A rise of over one third. Between 1744 and 1955, the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 40ppm. This represents an annual rise of 0.19 parts per million, easily able to be managed by natural sinkage and reabsorbtion. However, the population of the world then topped out at about 2.75 billion people, deforestation was nowhere near what it is now, neither was farming nor any of the other agricultural pursuits. However, between 1955 and 2005, the CO2 count rose by 70ppm, which represents an annual rise of about 0.7ppm - which annually, is nearly three times what it had been. During this time, the population grew by a further 4 billion, while land use change (from forest to agricultural land) and deforestation rose dramatically. These two elements alone have contributed greatly to the amount of CO2 the Earth has to deal with, which has led to an annual rise in CO2 content in the atmosphere rising by approximately 2ppm per annum. This is ten times what it was and I will elaborate on how this affects the Earth later. |
Coal fired power station
Car exhaust |
Methane EmissionsThis is a gas that is produced through human waste treatment, ruminant livestock, landfill, rice production and biomass burning. It was discovered in the 18th century by Alessandro Volta, when he saw bubbles rising on a pond and discovered that these could be ignited by a naked flame. This gas is 23 times more effective as a GHG compared to CO2. This means that 1Kg of Methane over a period of time, is the equivalent of 23Kg of CO2 over that same period. Normally, Methane breaks down in the atmosphere over about ten years, but this is dependent upon its concentration. The more of it there is, the longer it stays, giving it a life of up to twelve years. Since the industrial revolution, Methane quantities in the atmosphere have more than doubled. In 1800, the concentration was about 750 parts per billion (ppb) rising to 1750 ppb now. Whilst it appears to have slowed down recently, this is due to low rainfall. If rainfall returns to normal, it can be expected to continue to rise. But it's not just the GHG's we have to worry about... . |
Sheep farming and the farming of other ruminant livestock produces methane.
Methane is produced when sewerage is treated |
The GHG's are doing a fine job of messing with climate, but we have to take most of the blame. We have felled many of the trees that would normally have removed much of the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and recommissioned the land for agricultural or other uses.
Aside from the oceans, trees and other plants take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and replace it with oxygen during photosynthesis. It's not a one-to-one trade here, but a mature tree can take 48 pounds of carbon dioxide per year and replace the atmosphere with enough oxygen to support two human beings. Collectively, mature trees used to account for 20% of the Earth's oxygen production.
A logging truck taking timber from the Malaysian rainforest |
It is estimated that an area of trees about the same size as Ireland is cut down each year, which equates to between three and six billion trees per year. That's enough trees to offset the world's carbon dioxide production by up to 140,000,000 US tons or 127,000,000 metric tonnes or 125,000,000 imperial tons.
On top of that, if the area that has been cut down is changed from forest to agricultural use, this means that an area the size of Ireland each year is producing nitrous oxide, which is even worse than carbon dioxide.
If that's not exacerbating an already dangerous situation, I don't know what is.
In 2007, the fourth assessment report by the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) stated that the surface temperature of the Earth rose by 0.74oC during the twentieth century, mostly attributed to the increasing concentrations of GHG's.
What's worse is, this rise in temperature could increase by between 1.1oC and 6.4oC over the course of this century. The difference in those figures is as a result of differing models which a) are sensitive to current GHG levels and b) predict the rise in GHG's over that period.
Exactly how this rise in temperatures will affect us is largely unknown, but only from the point of view of the degree of severity. What is known is that several things are going to happen with increasing frequency.
It's not known how this will affect individual regions, some may get it worse than others, but I guess that depends upon the microclimate and geographical position of that region. The fact is, it will affect us all - globally. This isn't like ghosts or UFO's where you can either choose to believe or not. Neither is this something one can decide to opt out of because it will affect all of us to varying degrees.
Yes, it may sound like a summary of the film "The Day After Tomorrow", but it's a fact. The film itself was only really incorrect in the time frame; everything happening too quickly, but then we can only say that because of what we think we know. There's no guarantee that it's not more predictive, as there are factors that we will only know regarding what's happening as we amass data - which takes time.
In the meantime, we should be doing something. |
So what are we doing about it?
Well, I hate to say it, but not a lot.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC or FCCC) is an international treaty produced at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), informally known as the Earth Summit.
This is an attempt to get the developed countries in the world to reduce GHG emissions. They want to try and at least stabilise the levels so as not to interfere with the Earth's climactic systems. This way economic growth can be sustained.
The problem of having something that works is largely down to public opinion.
Whereas in Africa and most other under-developed countries, global warming isn't even considered, as most haven't even heard of it, Europe is planning a step by step plan to try and reduce the effects of GHG's in the atmosphere.
The United States of America on the other hand is debating whether global warming is happening at all.
But it's not like people haven't had time to get used to the idea.
The term 'global warming' was first coined in its modern sense by a scientist named Wally Broecker in a paper entitled, "Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?" which was published in Science on the 8th August 1975. Wally's terminology was new. Previously, scientists had used the term "inadvertent climate modification", as at that time, they knew humans had the wherewithal to modify the climate, they just didn't know in which direction - hot or cold.
In 1979, the National Academy of Sciences first used the term stating that if CO2 levels continued to rise, climate change was inevitable and they had no reason to believe that the changes it would bring about would be negligible. In this, they were making a clear distinction between the Earth's surface temperature - as referred to by the term global warming - and in other aspects, to which they used the term climate change meaning change in weather patterns - i.e., storms etc.
Not everyone agrees with this scenario and certain think-tanks and oil companies such as ExxonMobil have challenged this view and provided their own projections of the economic cost of stricter controls. Some fossil fuel companies, have cut back on their funding of research into global warming and have called for policies to reduce GHG emissions.
It seems strange to me that economic growth and the economic cost should be major considerations with the plans to clean up the atmosphere.
In fact, I'm appalled.
What it shows is that they're saying, "Okay, we're all for the reduction in emissions providing we don't have to lose out either financially or by having to give up this non-sustainable lifestyle we've grown accustomed to.
What complete stupidity.
They seem to be putting economics above simple survival and appear to be prepared to allow whole species to die out in the pursuit of that unattainable dream. What's worse is that everyone knew that the rate at which we are using the Earth's resources couldn't be sustained ad-infinitum.
Added to that is the fact that species and indigenous peoples that live in the rainforests are already dying off and the rest face extinction as a direct result of politicians following the 'economics' of making policies to counter global warming. Also, should this warming trend continue as it is, the coral reefs and the huge diversity of life that exists within them face a similar fate as the sea becomes more acidic and the temperature and salinity of the seas change.
In the 1998 film, "Godzilla", the Mayor of New York City was only concerned with how much the creature's presence was costing in lost revenue and seemed to care little about the safety or welfare of the population.
Doesn't that sound familiar?
Is that life imitating art or vice versa?
Whatever the answer there, we have a problem and unlike the film, this problem isn't one that's been created with CGI only to exist on the screen. This one is one we don't have all the facts for; one that we don't know the consequences of and by the time we find out, it may be too late.
Whilst the people who signed the Kyoto Accords may have meant well, the policies may not be nearly enough.
For a start, we don't know how much damage we have already done. I mean, if scientists knew about this issue thirty-five years ago, what kind of damage have we caused by waiting so long to address the problem?
Simple reduction may well have been a solution back then, but the population at that time was in the order of four billion. That's now risen to more than six billion. Also, the number of motor vehicles in 1970 was 200M. In 1990, worldwide, there were 500M - and a recent survey shows that there are now 204M in the US alone.
These numbers are rising rapidly and a simple reduction isn't going to equate to enough, because as much as we're reducing, there are more cars, more people and more GHG's being produced.
Let's put it this way. In 1975, there were 200M motor vehicles and even then, we were being urged to reduce CO2 production. Now we're being asked to reduce for real and even if we all used our cars half as much, we'd still be producing more CO2 than we were back then - by about 25%
On top of that, the population rise since that time has gone up by a further 50%, which means that just from breathing, there's 1.5 times the amount of CO2 being produced.
I don't know about you lot, but I find this a scary proposition and whilst it may not be as bad as I feel it is, I still get the impression that the “Powers that Be” are still considering economics over what needs to be done.
I think it's time these people woke up and realised that the time to act is now before the boat sails or we cause something that becomes entropic and can't be stopped. In case they haven't noticed, we don't have anywhere else to go and decisions based on economics rather than what needs to be done, could be our's and every other creature on this planet's death warrant.
Pollution and Global Warming
Leachate and landfill
Plastic waste
Sound pollution - stopping it
Recycling
