Re: [asa] climate change severity

Bill,
=20
I agree that well-thought out solutions need to be found and
implemented. =
I'm not an economist; I am not qualified to determine economic
policy. =
There are many other things that I am also not qualified to speak
to. The =
Kyoto treaty was universally rejected by the US Congress for many
reasons =
by both Republicans and Democrats, and I don't really have any desire
to =
discuss it here. I'm not yet convinced that we have well-thought out =
solutions, and that's not surprising to me since it seems that many
people =
still don't recognize that there is even a cause for concern. =20
=20
My main concern - where I do have qualifications to speak - is that
we as =
thinking citizens recognize the importance and validity of the
geologic =
record of atmospheric chemical compositions, and that we realize what
it =
means - that the activities of human beings over the past couple of =
centuries have dramatically altered the concentration of a very
important =
trace compound in Earth's atmosphere (and not only CO2, but other =
materials such as CH4, SO2, etc.). This has been done largely by =
industrialized nations, who were and still are burning huge amounts of =
coal, oil, and natural gas. This fact is also determined by
atmospheric =
geochemical data - there is a direct geographic link between high =
concentrations of some materials in the atmosphere and industrialized =
nations. Those cows you mention - would they be contributing so much =
methane to the atmosphere if there were not 6.5 billion people who
like to =
eat them and drink their milk? They too must be included in
anthropogenic =
effects, because they would not exist in their current population
size if =
it were not for human activity. Global cattle population has done the =
same thing over the past century that global human population has
done - =
grown at an astronomical rate. =20
=20
I'm not saying I have a solution - as I said, I'm not an economist or
a =
public policy guru. But it is the absolute concensus of the
scientific =
body that human activities have had an enormous impact on planet
Earth - =
so much so that in some cases the anthropogenic input outweighs the =
natural input 2:1, as is the case for atmospheric methane. We have
spent =
millions of dollars on scientific research to carefully study these =
natural systems. Why would we then ignore the concensus of that data
and =
those professionals? The US should be a global leader in solving
these =
problems - it is not. =20
=20
I agree that we do not want to wreck our economy in trying to find a =
solution - but neither do we want to wreck the planet by refusing to =
recognize a problem even exists. We are the richest nation that the
world =
has ever known. Personally, I think we can afford to try and attempt
some =
solutions. =20
=20
Best Regards,
Charles
=20
_______________________________
Charles W. Carrigan, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Geology
Olivet Nazarene Univ., Dept. of Physical Sciences
One University Ave.
Bourbonnais, IL 60914
PH: (815) 939-5346
FX: (815) 939-5071
ccarriga@olivet.edu
http://geology.olivet.edu/
=20
"To a naturalist nothing is indifferent;
the humble moss that creeps upon the stone
is equally interesting as the lofty pine which so beautifully adorns
the =
valley or the mountain:=20
but to a naturalist who is reading in the face of the rocks the
annals of =
a former world,=20
the mossy covering which obstructs his view,=20
and renders indistinguishable the different species of stone,=20
is no less than a serious subject of regret."
           - James Hutton
_______________________________

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jan 13 16:56:10 2007