Thank you for bringing these issues to our attention. I have been following these issues in the news for the last few years and was saddened by the Bush Administration’s treatment of the Kyoto Protocol. I believe that real censorship is going on in the NOAA, although how much is directly related to the Administration is difficult to say. Bush’s treatment of science is, I think, analogous to his treatment of weapons of mass destruction; if the evidence serves your political purpose, use it; if not, ignore or downplay it.

I find myself in somewhat of a difficult (hypocritcal?) position. As a consulting geologist, I provide services to coal mines in Utah, Colorado and, most recently, Mongolia. My career cannot be said to be helping the environment. In my defense, I note that coal mines exist by demand; our nation’s demand for traditional sources of energy drives the market. What is needed is more political “shock therapy”; government subsidizing of rewewable/nonpolluting energy sources to allow their cost to drop to the level they become economic. This of course is happening with fuel cell technology, but the funding may have been premature: the technology will probably not be viable until 2020 or later. In the meantime, we continue to add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

Another technology which appears promising is “carbon sequestration.” Plans are underway in the U.S. to build a coal-fired power plant which injects the excess carbon deep into the ground (presumably into depleted oil or gas reservoirs). I must admit, however, that the approach described by Alan Johnson seems much better.

Finally, I believe that the article by James Lovelock greatly overstates the potential climate change. His metaphysical/doomsday ideas get in the way of his science. His treatment of global warming as a “fever” implies that there is one optimum global average temperature for the planet’s health, and that is the one we’re at now (well, a few years ago!). In reality, this planet’s climate has fluctuated greatly over life’s > 3.5 billion year history. During the Cretaceous Period, the global average temperature was probably 6 to 8 degrees C above what it is today. There were no continental ice sheets, and subtropical plants were found up to 55-60 degree N and S latitudes. The problem is not the temperature but the rate at which it changes. When the climate changes as fast as it is now, it overwhelms the abilitiy of species to evolve and adapt, resulting in mass extinctions.

For a less biased view of how climate change may unfold over the next century, here is an article in the National Geographic:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0317_050317_warming.html

Duane, thanks for promoting this discussion and causing us to think more about these issues.

Eric

Nice to hear from you and of your interest in Carbon Management. This has been very much a part of my endeavors for the last five or six years. (See: http://www.zeca.org/)

I think it is very important not to get carried away with the global warming theories which are currently very popular; but to focus on carbon management as it it is virtually certain now that, in this century, we will put more carbon into just the atmosphere (now circa 380ppm) than exists in the entire active biosphere (the atmosphere, plants, detritus, soil and the top 100m of the oceans)!

The implications far exceed global warming and could even mean catastrophic global cooling. One particular impact will almost certainly be the collapse of the thermohaline circulatory system that sustains the gulf stream… throwing Europe into a deep freeze… failure of coral growth… changing the balance of ocean species… changes in plant growth from C3 to C4, epidemics of osteoporosis…. etc, etc. See: http://www.natural-resources.org/minerals/CD/docs/regional/unece/workshop/Ziock_LANL.ppt

A smattering of the references to the work I have been engaged in can be found at:

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22Alan+A.+Johnson%22+%2BCoal&btnG=Google+Search

(A few references at the end to an “Alan A. Johnson” in Wyoming and Ohio are not me.).

What I have been trying to get people to understand is that we can still use carbon fuels if we don’t let go of the carbon and put it back in the ground safely. I hope you find this information intriguing.

Kindest regards to you and your wife.

Uncle Alan

http://www.fightglobalwarming.com/viewads.cfm?video=train

http://www.fightglobalwarming.com/viewads.cfm?video=tick

So now what? Now what we all say? What do we do? Sabatoge oil refineries for the good of man kind?

-Owen