Changing views on climate change

On April 23rd, the 'Prince' devoted an entire page to two opposing viewpoints on climate change policy, allowing an important debate to emerge in this very newspaper. While you may have missed those articles by Brad Simmons and Brian Beck, it is difficult to claim complete ignorance with regard to this environmental debate. Most of us settle for partial ignorance, which is unfortunate at an institution like Princeton. In my geosciences class, entitled "Weather and Climate," the argument that emerged on the pages of the 'Prince' offered an opportunity for us to see first hand what our colleagues here at Princeton thought about a question on which we were supposed to be getting "enlightened." While I commend Simmons and Beck for taking up the debate, both seem to lack a complete grasp of the issue and the appropriate response (particularly Beck). In this editorial I've been asked to take the cohesive positions of the members of Geosciences 220 and respond to the two viewpoints.

The basic debate to which I have alluded is much more political than it is scientific, although proponents of inaction will often disagree. Interestingly, Beck admits that there does exist a scientific consensus but claims, "that isn't how science is done." It isn't? Assuming that climate change is a real, man-made problem by accepting scientific consensus, we can focus on the true question: whether to act now or later.

The reason for immediate action can be summed up in two words: exponential growth. Models depicting the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere show that since the Industrial Revolution, the concentration of this hazardous greenhouse gas has been increasing exponentially. By the nature of exponential growth, change may be quite slow at first, but at some point, the impact of the high CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will become apparent at an alarming pace. Changes in the ecosystem that are likely to occur if global warming continues include the flooding of major coastal cities as a result of melting polar icecaps, agriculturally detrimental changes in worldwide climate zones, and distorted weather patterns due to the changes in oceanic thermohaline circulation. The problem needs to be solved before we reach the steeper side of the exponential CO2 curve, or else these problems may literally arise overnight.

Education is the first step in bringing about national interest in climate change to spark action. The earth's atmosphere is a complicated system that deserves greater attention than it currently receives in the average American household and in school curriculum. Overall, students have a good understanding of the human body (another complicated system), and how one's actions, such as diet, exercise, and smoking, affect it. This connection is not always made, however, between the individual and his environment. We might place our cans and newspapers in the recycling bin, but we don't think twice about driving our SUV a mile to get a gallon of milk. Let's make an analogy between the atmosphere and our body, both fragile, complicated systems that must be taken care of. If driving a car (releasing carbon into the atmosphere) were the same as smoking (bringing carcinogenic chemicals into our body), would we take our emissions so lightly? While the time it takes a smoker to feel the effects may vary, the effect of unmitigated smoking is always negative. We must likewise be careful with unmitigated emission, for although we do not know precisely how strong the effects will be or when they will occur, they will certainly be unwanted and harmful.

While Beck painted a bleak picture of potential solutions to the problem of reducing emissions, in truth, he minimized the viability of many possible resolutions. Breezing by the idea of a government-regulated system of emissions credit trading is unfair, and it overlooks an economically sound solution. The United States can lead the world in creating a market where companies buy and sell rights to emit greenhouse gases with only a set national quota and a flexible system to achieve it. In time, this quota system could go international, and a small company in Kenya could be selling its emissions credits to General Motors before we know it. Meanwhile, companies which invest in renewable sources of energy or decrease their emissions through carbon sequestration etc., would be able to increase their profitability by selling off their emissions credits to companies which fall behind. Beck's denial that the technology isn't there creates a vicious circle, as the technology will only be created when companies have an incentive to do so.

A senior friend of mine here was shocked and skeptical the other day when I mentioned at dinner that ozone depletion and global warming are two entirely different issues. If students at the top university in the country don't know the facts, we can hardly expect national and international efforts to decrease the emission of greenhouse gases. Activism will eventually push forward change only if we each take a moment to become aware of what's going on around us, before it's too late to change it.

David Marcovitz is a freshman from Ambler, Pa.