New York Times Article Suggests That We Have Surpassed Long-Dreaded Milestone For Carbon-Monoxide

Okay, yes, we have been hearing about these environmental disaster stories for some time, right?

Many people, particularly a large segment of the American population (especially the voting population) continue to believe that this is all a hoax, despite the overwhelming evidence (to the point of absurdity) to suggest that this is, indeed, a real threat. Of course, we all know the general lack of credibility that science is given in the United States, at least in the political climate. Like with so many other things, the United States has continued to lag behind badly, to the point that it has become a source of embarrassment for many American environmentalists and concerned citizens. Even, perhaps, to the average citizen that recognizes the real dangers of global warming, and see the clear pattern of ever increasing extremities in the weather, with record droughts and floods, sometimes even in the same area within a relatively short period of time (such as in the Midwest in recent years). We have seen the hottest years on record with increasing regularity, and have had to endure megastorms, which were once considered "once in a lifetime" storms, such as Katrina and Sandy.

Like with another disaster that was not natural (September 11th), there is the sense among most that what we have seen is really just the beginning. That we will not only continue to see such events, but that they will increase in both frequency and severity.

It is enough to make even the bravest among us begin to truly despair for the future of life on this planet.

All the signs are there that this is no fluke, or huge conspiracy, but something far worse, and far too real. It has reached the point where the signs are so obvious, that you have to be willfully ignorant to continue to ignore it.

Yet, nowhere are people ignoring it en masse as much as Americans are ignoring it.

Here is one example that seemed exceedingly obvious to me, yet somehow, it never seems like a story that anybody else remembers. It is mentioned in this article that China passed the United States as the greatest overall polluter (in recent years)

When China first "earned" this title, Americans suddenly awoke to just how damning and damaging such pollution really was, much like many so-called conservatives only woke up to the excesses of the Bush regime once Obama was in the White House, and they promptly and conveniently blamed the man then in office, rather than the one who had created so much of it during his long, eight-year tenure in the same office.

There were those American Olympic athletes who went to the Beijing Olympic games in 2008, arriving at the airport with gas masks, as a form of protest (apparently). Where the hell were they when their own President was essentially dismantling important environmental legislation and allowing corporations to have their way in poisoning our land, our water, our air (hell, even our food!)? Where was this well-placed outrage when the very man who represented their nation, who had promised to be the "environmental president" when he was a candidate, only to reverse this a mere two months into office and suggesting this reversal was based on new scientific evidence (the first, and perhaps even the worst, in a long line of slaps in the face to our collective intelligence by any administration, if ever it could truly be limited to just one) was denying that carbon emissions weren't actually doing the damage that it had long been believed they did. Not fully two months into office, and he reneged on an important campaign promise, yet Americans (particularly those calling themselves conservatives and supportive of the President). Where were these Olympic athletes then? Why do Americans only seem to recognize the faults with other countries and peoples, and never seem to do anything about their own problems and glaringly obvious imperfections?

I think Justin Gillis summed it up aptly in this article:

"China is now the largest emitter, but Americans have been consuming fossil fuels extensively for far longer, and experts say the United States is more responsible than any other nation for the high level."

It should be added, also, that China has four times the population that the United States has, which means that Americans still hold the as yet uncontested, and dubious, position as the greedy consumers of fossil fuels in the world, and no one else really comes close. That is not to undermine the extent of the damage that China's pollution has. It is only to point out the overly convenient hypocrisy that Americans often take on this (and other) issues. They direct a very public spotlight on, and criticize, the Chinese for the "sudden" problem of carbon emissions, or point the finger of blame on those who are burning the rainforest in South America (among other places), while ignoring not only the deeper issues of poverty and injustice in those places, but also (again too conveniently) ignore the deforestation that went far too long uncontested (some might suggest unnoticed) right here in the United States for many decades.

The Brazilian government is trying to crack down on deforestation. I will admit that I am not overly familiar right now with what the Chinese are doing (assuming they are doing anything) to counter the rise of carbon emissions in that country.

But I know what the American government, and more importantly the American people that the government is elected by and represent have traditionally done in recent decades to counter massive pollution, deforestation, and particularly carbon emissions right here at home: virtually nothing.

In the eighties and into the early nineties, I remember being considered an "environmental wacko" for daring to care about the Earth, and believing in the "global warming theory". Most people, even most Americans, are no longer laughing. But at the same token, the American government rarely actually seem to do anything about it. George H. W. Bush took a hardline position against further regulations designed to protect the environment, setting himself, and the nation that he represented and led, at odds with most of the rest of the world. Here is a link to a New York Times article about that conference:

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/11/world/earth-summitbush-rio-president-has-uncomfortable-new-role-taking-hard-line-earth.html

Then, a few years later, the United States (once again) was at odds with the rest of the world in not fully ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. It was an under-reported story here in the United States at the time (predictably), but I think this was no less than the true beginning of when the rest of the world began to acknowledge that there was just a political disconnect between most of the rest of the world and the United States, which seems too often to view itself as exempt from everything that the rest of the world has to deal with. The rest of the world did not wait for America to get on board. They went ahead and signed the Kyoto Protocol, and tried their best to make it work. When the United States (and Australia) petitioned with their objections in 2000, they were overruled. What tentative agreement the United States had given at the time under Clinton for the Kyoto Protocol was withdrawn very quickly once George W. Bush, the self-proclaimed "environmental president" took office. If you would like a fuller history, with much more details, on the Kyoto Protocols, here is the Wikipedia link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

Just in case you maybe do not remember recent history with George W. Bush's environmental promises being forgotten so quickly into his presidency, here's a little quote from the National Resources Defense Council's web page on the subject that should serve as a strong reminder:

"On March 13, 2001, President Bush backed away from his campaign pledge to seek cuts in emissions of carbon dioxide -- the main cause of global warming -- as part of a strategy to regulate together, rather than separately, four air pollutants emitted by power plants. In a letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) explaining his reversal, the president cited a recent Department of Energy report that concluded it would be too costly to regulate CO2; he also claimed that CO2 is not considered a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Below, David Hawkins, director of NRDC's air and energy program, and Dan Lashof, director of our global warming project, let the air out of these arguments."

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/abushco2.asp

My main question then, given this dubious and self-serving history of ours, is how are we going to respond? By denying the bad news, which we have clearly done in the past? By claiming that any further environmental regulations are strangling businesses and detrimental to the economy? Perhaps we will point the finger of blame on some other country that, we believe, is doing worse than us?

Are we ever going to take responsibility for our own actions?

Part of the reason the American car industry was falling behind those of other countries, and failing so badly, was because of this very reluctance to change. While other countries began to focus on more fuel efficient vehicles, Americans continued not only to produce and market, but to purchase huge, gas-guzzling vehicles, which was tantamount to a middle finger in the face of the rest of the world. But the rest of the world was not buying American cars anymore, and increasingly, many Americans weren't, either. Sure, there was (and is) a loyal base. But that base was not enough to keep these companies from nearing bankruptcy, and I suspect that their inflexibility with trying to make their vehicles competitive with those of other nations in terms of fuel efficiency was a much larger part of the reason than was let on in the news.

The indifference on the part of far too many Americans was all too clear. When gas prices rose dramatically in the early 2000's, large gas guzzlers were not seen as often. But as soon as the prices fell again, even just a bit, those same gas guzzlers once again populated the roadways, and sales increased during these periods as well. Talk about stubborn stupidity. This was not even good for their wallets, yet far too many Americans were more interested in what they perceived as a status symbol to economic (let alone environmental) common sense.

After such a history, perhaps some environmental advocates (of whom I consider myself a part of) might be excused for being pessimistic about just what the American response will be to this, and other, pieces of bad environmental news.

Still, we have to keep trying to fight the good fight, right? This is far too important an issue to simply give up on. A part of the task (although by no means the only thing) that needs to be done is communicating, and that is what I am trying to do here.

Read this article by Justin Gillis, published just two days ago in the New York Times. Those conspiracy theorists will continue to ignore the strong evidence, so that they can maintain their cocoon of their own faith, which relies on denial of obvious fact at this point (perhaps particularly on this issue). There are too many people in this world, and this brings with it too many problems.

Heat-Trapping Gas Passes Milestone, Raising Fears

By JUSTIN GILLIS Published: May 10, 2013

The level of the most important heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide, has passed a long-feared milestone, scientists reported Friday, reaching a concentration not seen on the earth for millions of years.

Scientific instruments showed that the gas had reached an average daily level above 400 parts per million — just an odometer moment in one sense, but also a sobering reminder that decades of efforts to bring human-produced emissions under control are faltering.  

The best available evidence suggests the amount of the gas in the air has not been this high for at least three million years, before humans evolved, and scientists believe the rise portends large changes in the climate and the level of the sea.  

“It symbolizes that so far we have failed miserably in tackling this problem,” said Pieter P. Tans, who runs the monitoring program at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that reported the new reading. 

Ralph Keeling, who runs another monitoring program at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, said a continuing rise could be catastrophic. “It means we are quickly losing the possibility of keeping the climate below what people thought were possibly tolerable thresholds,” he said.  

Virtually every automobile ride, every plane trip and, in most places, every flip of a light switch adds carbon dioxide to the air, and relatively little money is being spent to find and deploy alternative technologies.  

China is now the largest emitter, but Americans have been consuming fossil fuels extensively for far longer, and experts say the United States is more responsible than any other nation for the high level.  

The new measurement came from analyzers atop Mauna Loa, the volcano on the big island of Hawaii that has long been ground zero for monitoring the worldwide trend on carbon dioxide, or CO2. Devices there sample clean, crisp air that has blown thousands of miles across the Pacific Ocean, producing a record of rising carbon dioxide levels that has been closely tracked for half a century.  

Carbon dioxide above 400 parts per million was first seen in the Arctic last year, and had also spiked above that level in hourly readings at Mauna Loa.  

But the average reading for an entire day surpassed that level at Mauna Loa for the first time in the 24 hours that ended at 8 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on Thursday. The two monitoring programs use slightly different protocols; NOAA reported an average for the period of 400.03 parts per million, while Scripps reported 400.08.  

Carbon dioxide rises and falls on a seasonal cycle, and the level will dip below 400 this summer as leaf growth in the Northern Hemisphere pulls about 10 billion tons of carbon out of the air. But experts say that will be a brief reprieve — the moment is approaching when no measurement of the ambient air anywhere on earth, in any season, will produce a reading below 400.  

“It feels like the inevitable march toward disaster,” said Maureen E. Raymo, a scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, a unit of Columbia University.  

From studying air bubbles trapped in Antarctic ice, scientists know that going back 800,000 years, the carbon dioxide level oscillated in a tight band, from about 180 parts per million in the depths of ice ages to about 280 during the warm periods between. The evidence shows that global temperatures and CO2 levels are tightly linked.  

For the entire period of human civilization, roughly 8,000 years, the carbon dioxide level was relatively stable near that upper bound. But the burning of fossil fuels has caused a 41 percent increase in the heat-trapping gas since the Industrial Revolution, a mere geological instant, and scientists say the climate is beginning to react, though they expect far larger changes in the future.  

Indirect measurements suggest that the last time the carbon dioxide level was this high was at least three million years ago, during an epoch called the Pliocene. Geological research shows that the climate then was far warmer than today, the world’s ice caps were smaller, and the sea level might have been as much as 60 or 80 feet higher.  

Experts fear that humanity may be precipitating a return to such conditions — except this time, billions of people are in harm’s way.  

“It takes a long time to melt ice, but we’re doing it,” Dr. Keeling said. “It’s scary.”  

Dr. Keeling’s father, Charles David Keeling, began carbon dioxide measurements on Mauna Loa and at other locations in the late 1950s. The elder Dr. Keeling found a level in the air then of about 315 parts per million — meaning that if a person had filled a million quart jars with air, about 315 quart jars of carbon dioxide would have been mixed in.  

His analysis revealed a relentless, long-term increase superimposed on the seasonal cycle, a trend that was dubbed the Keeling Curve.  

Countries have adopted an official target to limit the damage from global warming, with 450 parts per million seen as the maximum level compatible with that goal. “Unless things slow down, we’ll probably get there in well under 25 years,” Ralph Keeling said.  

Yet many countries, including China and the United States, have refused to adopt binding national targets. Scientists say that unless far greater efforts are made soon, the goal of limiting the warming will become impossible without severe economic disruption.  

“If you start turning the Titanic long before you hit the iceberg, you can go clear without even spilling a drink of a passenger on deck,” said Richard B. Alley, a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University. “If you wait until you’re really close, spilling a lot of drinks is the best you can hope for.”  

Climate-change contrarians, who have little scientific credibility but are politically influential in Washington, point out that carbon dioxide represents only a tiny fraction of the air — as of Thursday’s reading, exactly 0.04 percent. “The CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rather undramatic,” a Republican congressman from California, Dana Rohrabacher, said in a Congressional hearing several years ago.  

But climate scientists reject that argument, saying it is like claiming that a tiny bit of arsenic or cobra venom cannot have much effect. Research shows that even at such low levels, carbon dioxide is potent at trapping heat near the surface of the earth.  

“If you’re looking to stave off climate perturbations that I don’t believe our culture is ready to adapt to, then significant reductions in CO2 emissions have to occur right away,” said Mark Pagani, a Yale geochemist who studies climates of the past. “I feel like the time to do something was yesterday.”   

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:  

Correction: May 10, 2013  

An earlier version of this article misstated the amount of carbon dioxide in the air as of Thursday’s reading from monitors. It is .04 percent, not .0004 percent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/science/earth/carbon-dioxide-level-passes-long-feared-milestone.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0