An Answer To The Question

You may have heard that global temperatures have flat-lined over the last decade. While these past few years have been overwhelmingly hot when you look at global mean temperature, there actually has been no increase in the temperature since roughly 1999. Climate deniers and global warming skeptics love to bandy this little fact about, saying it proves global warming and climate change are hoaxes. They just love to think that the scientific community doesn't know what it's talking about or that there is some huge leftist conspiracy driving scientists to come up with what they view as bunk.

However, as usual, scientific study has been able to determine this plateauing of global average temperature for the last 15 years. On ScienceDaily.com is an article detailing that researchers have found that water cycles in the Atlantic Ocean have been drawing down the heat down to the depths. Scientists participating in the research say this cycling occurs on roughly 30-year cycles, so this phenomenon will not occur forever. In addition, just because temperature has flat-lined does not mean global warming is no longer a threat. The carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are still trapping the heat within the confines of our atmosphere. Temperatures are still warmer today than they were 40 years ago. On top of this, all that heat being drawn down into the ocean could assist in the warming of our oceans which could have devastating effects on polar ice and the ability of certain species to thrive within their oceanic habitats.

Yes, science keeps giving us new things to be concerned about and they raise more questions, but they also find answers to these questions. This is the relentless pursuit of science - to discover the truth no matter how long it takes or how deep the research must go. That is why I love science.

Breath In and Thank A Tree

My web perusal today led me to this article on ScienceDaily about a newly-published study that shows us how important trees and forests are. It turns out that trees save lives and prevent respiratory illness. Of course the study points to the fact that the percentage of tree cover is important in determining these benefits:

"In terms of impacts on human health, trees in urban areas are substantially more important than rural trees due to their proximity to people," Nowak said. "We found that in general, the greater the tree cover, the greater the pollution removal, and the greater the removal and population density, the greater the value of human health benefits."

Scientists have long understood the environmental benefits of trees. This most recent study actually helps us to visualize the health benefits. Thank a tree today for the good it is doing in your life. Go out into the woods and celebrate the fact that these trees are collectively holding onto CO₂, helping to reduce the amount of the greenhouse gas from residing in the atmosphere, where it contribute to warming the planet. Be grateful that intact forests provide a range of ecological services ranging from erosion control to temperature control. Do your part to protect the habitat of hundreds - even thousands - of animal species by asking our policymakers to prevent as much deforestation as possible.

Trees are an evolutionary marvel. Without trees, life would be very different on this planet. We get so much of our existence from a life form that cannot move away from our prodding, poking, digging, planting, cutting, and innovative hands. When you realize how much they do for us, it doesn't seem so quirky to hug a tree. It's okay, I won't tell.

Taking Action

This past week, President Obama, through the EPA, released an ambitious plan to cut carbon emissions from power plants by 30% from 2005 levels by the year 2030. Despite the plan focusing mostly on coal-produced pollution, we are finally moving in the direction we should have been decades ago. Of course, those in the coal industry are screaming bloody murder and their fellow climate deniers are saying this is all about killing jobs to enforce a political ideology. While there may be a loss of some jobs and a general decrease in coal-mining, it is likely more jobs will be created as the energy sector continues to undertake innovation in sustainable, cleaner forms of energy production.

A unique aspect of this carbon-cutting plan is that it relies on individual states to make decisions on where to make cuts and undertake energy-investment opportunities. Much like the European Union allows its member nations to implement many of its environmental regulations in their own individualized ways, this allows states to be flexible in how they will actually achieve these cuts. Some states have already met the goals, while others will be given credits that take into account that their energy production largely comes from coal. Far from limiting the country and individual states in economic terms, this promotes innovation as well as flexibility which is a good thing when dealing with such a complex issue. Opponents may claim that China will more than make up for what we don't dump in the air, but there are signs that isn't true. In addition, it finally looks like America is showing that it is willing to take part in the international need to cut carbon emissions. America is a leader on many issues, but has been far behind on the challenge of global warming and climate change. It is entirely possible that with our nation finally taking important action on carbon emissions, other nations that have been holding back will follow suit.

Again this is an ambitious plan, but for those of us who want to see meaningful change there is a need to stay vigilant. The plan is up for public comment over the next year, which means there will be plenty of opportunities for opponents and the coal industry to water this plan down. Beyond that, power plant emissions are just a fraction of overall human-based carbon pollution. We would see the most immediate benefit if greater regulations were placed on transportation emissions. Cars, trucks, planes, anything that runs on oil-based fuel puts a large amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Fuel-efficiency and the push to move away from fossil fuel-powered vehicles (including planes) needs to be stressed to our lawmakers. It's up to us to make sure that regulators, lawmakers, and industry pay attention to the science of carbon emissions and global warming.

Crossing the Bridge

In my last post, I discussed hydraulic fracturing for natural gas. Many within the oil & gas industry, as well as some scientists, have pointed to natural gas as a "bridge fuel" that can help transition our dependence on dirtier fossil fuels (such as coal and oil) to clean, renewable energy (solar, wind, etc.). This is because natural gas burns in a way that puts less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than oil and coal do.

Taken at face value, that statement makes natural gas a shoe-in for a cleaner energy future.
As is usually the case, the issue is far more complex than that. Natural gas has a high level of methane, which is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Bringing natural gas to the surface for energy consumption opens up the chances for methane to leak into the atmosphere and become a major contributor to global warming. While burning natural gas may prevent methane from getting into the atmosphere, it still emits the by-product of carbon dioxide. There may be less carbon dioxide percentage-wise than burning an equivalent amount of coal, but it is still putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Recent studies have highlighted the risks of methane leaks from the natural gas infrastructure in America. Additionally, researchers have found that the process of obtaining natural gas, in particular "shale gas", is very energy intensive, and may actually decrease the overall "clean" benefits of natural gas. For example, hydraulic fracturing uses millions of gallons of water per instance of fracking, and a single well may be fracked many times. Water must be obtained and is usually trucked in from an off-site source. To construct a well, obtain water & chemicals for fracking, pump the water, and then remove the wastewater that is produced requires over 13,000 round-trip tractor-trailer truck visits. Most of these trucks use conventional diesel fuel, which is a dirty fuel, so local emissions of greenhouse gases rise when shale gas productions begins.

I want to re-iterate that I am not completely opposed to hydraulic fracturing, nor am I opposed to the use of natural gas. It's use is far better than that of regular gasoline or diesel fuel in vehicles and much cleaner than coal-fired power plants. My goal in writing this post is to make the general public aware of the faults that shale gas has. It is not completely clean and it is certainly not renewable. While it's likely that natural gas will be a major bridge fuel for the foreseeable future, I don't think we need to fall for industry claims that natural gas is our savior in the energy realm. We as consumers should be pressing for more viable options and for the continued expansion of the truly clean renewables, not settling for the least bad fossil fuel.