Arctic Ocean
Carol Forsloff — While the United States faces a hotly contested election, one of the key questions missing in the Presidential debates is that of global climate change. Given the record of ignoring the problem for years, and the denial of climate change by more conservative elements and lesser scientists than the Nobel Laureates pronouncing the problem, it is essential, according to scientists, that global world leaders focus on the serious problems emanating from climate change.
The State University of New York at Stonybrook offers research findings that tell us how global climate change is often seen in the local environment. What the research has found is that rather than seeing a worldwide extinction of certain species, the extinction comes in local areas where predators diminish and the ecological change therefore becomes significant.
The National Academy of Sciences has released its research findings at one of its national conferences showing how changes in the ecosystem of Venezuela affecting marine life and the air and water temperatures and circulation that can impact other areas of the world related to the ocean currents.
Recent news reports indicate a growing portion of the United States to experience drought conditions. Already 2012 has shown an increase in fires and widespread drought from the center of the country, feeding outward both East and West. Scientists tell us they anticipate increasing tree death as a result. How this will affect the ecological system can be seen in those areas where trees have been taken down or burned by fires, where when the protective blanket of tree growth diminishes, or is erased, the land becomes even more parched and the wind develops a stronger impact on surrounding areas. One only has to drive through a desert on a windy day to experience how this feels.
So as the Presidential debate rages, and international leaders focus on election results in the United States and what might happen with all the tensions in the Middle East, some may see the environmental issues pushed from the front of the news. But scientists remind us that it is an essential concern, something world leaders must become appraised of and reduce the carbon emissions that exacerbate a growing problem.
Dear Carol,
you are reporting on a serious problem, and I would like to share some thoughts with you and my fellow readers.
Fact is, we are running short on fossile fuels since mankind (or let’s say, the western hemisphere) has heavily exploited the planet since industrialization. At the same time, with the growth of economies as those of China, India and Brazil, the world faces a growing need for energy.
I hope I will be proved wrong, but I see new wars coming in order to get control over fossil energy sources. Some claim that the war in Iraq is nothing else than blood for oil. I am not getting into detail here, but nevertheless, it is a clear sign towards which direction we might be heading.
I have not much insight on the politics of the USA, thus regarding the issue as an external observer. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the US government is missing a historical chance – and I do not think if it will get any better with a new president.
In this case, America could learn a lot of Europe. Governments here encourage enterpreneurs and companies to invest in ecofriendly technologies. To give an example, we see a huge rise of offshore wind parks that in a few years will free us from the need to burn coal for gaining electricity. A good side effect is that these companies are making money, thus providing new jobs and strengthening the economies of Europe.
Private individuals are also supported on this path. People who renew their houses or build new ones are encouraged to use ecoefficient technologies, like geothermal energy for heating or light emitting diodes for illumination. Sure, the investment costs are higher compared to conventional technologies. But they pay off soon since only a fraction of energy is needed to run these houses.
I will stop here since the letter to the editor should not be longer than the article it refers too *lol*. To sum up my point: The government of the US should focus on strengthening and promoting ecological awareness. It would be good for the planet, good for the national economy and last but not least good for the people as well. It is our responsibility to sustain a world worthwhile living in for coming generations.
Kind regards
Stathi Vassiliadis
Stathi, delightful to have you comment. Agreed with your observations. Actually Oregon, where I live, does the same as Europe to a very large extent, so it is considered the “green” state and has received many awards. The rest of the country is doing something but most not much. Interestingly enough Obama has invested in these alternative sources, and the scientists who were treated dismissively by the previous administration that told people there was no such thing as climate change or it was done by God, did little for renewable energy. And the conservative contender for the Presidency is supported by the big oil and gas companies big time and wants to have more of that done in some of the untapped areas left, like in Alaska and to bring Canada’s supply through a pipeline from tar sands. Scientists remind us of the potential for the earth to be compromised from this activity, but people in this country do not read what they don’t believe and hold to what they hear on Fox news or read from a scientist who is not in the big leads and just wants attention.
Addendum: As for war, yes, combine America’s entitlement beliefs with respect to oil and gas and the fundamentalist’s siding with Israel for almost everything, and to usher in the end of the world, you are right. And the United States will be aiming in that direction, if we are to believe the rhetoric of the conservative contender.