A rchive Date
[ 14-09-2000 ]
Category
[ Science ]
sub-Categoy
[ Climatology ]
|
[Climate paper twisted by contrarians
By DAVID SUZUKI-- CNEWS Science
Thursday, Sep. 14, 2000
Climate science isn't easy for most of us to understand at the best of times, but it seemed to become even more confusing recently after a climate expert released a controversial new paper on the topic.
In his paper, James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies points out that, while many researchers have focused largely on the effects of rising carbon dioxide emissions on our climate, other greenhouse gases are equally important and may actually be easier and cheaper to reduce in the short term.
After the article was published, some newspaper editorials declared that Hansen had changed his mind about global warming and was suggesting that we should scrap the Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It was interesting to watch as pundits twisted Hansen's article to fit a pre-determined agenda, but it was disturbing to think that many people may believe them.
One opinion piece, which ran in several newspapers across Canada, stated, "there can be little doubt that dropping Kyoto's carbon dioxide program is exactly what Mr. Hansen is proposing." Really? Why? First, Hansen does not say we should drop Kyoto. In fact, he says of his scenario: "This interpretation does not alter the desirability of limiting CO2 emissions."
But more importantly, the Kyoto Protocol does not single out carbon dioxide from other greenhouse gases for reduction. That wouldn't make any sense. Greenhouse gases all have a similar effect - they trap heat - and that's what's causing our climate to change. Some gases, like methane and chlorofluorocarbons, are much more powerful than carbon dioxide. The goal of the Kyoto Protocol is to slow climate change and that's why it deals with six different gases, not just one.
What Hansen says is that reducing some of those other gases first might be cheaper and more effective than going after carbon dioxide right away. That's an interesting theory, but it's also controversial - something some editorials also neglected to mention. One editorial actually stated that, "it is impossible to deny his conclusions," as though Hansen's paper would be the last word ever written on the subject.
Hardly. Many scientists have questioned some of Hansen's basic assumptions, such as the expected growth rate of carbon dioxide emissions. A recent article in the journal Nature also quotes Harvard University professor John Holden as saying, "it's all too easy to get the impression from the article that CO2 is not as important as had been thought, and that is not correct."
Study after study has indicated that climate change is expected to have serious consequences on ecosystem and human health. And just last week, UN experts on climate change said that the earth appears to be warming faster than expected. This is why taking action to reduce greenhouse gases is so important and Hansen agrees with that.
Whether or not Hansen's assumptions about carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are correct will be decided through further research. In the meantime, many of his suggestions to help slow warming could be implemented, like switching from coal-fired to gas-fired electricity generating stations and changing government policies to encourage energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy.
Hansen has not changed his mind about the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and his ideas can easily be implemented through the Kyoto Protocol. So why twist Hansen's conclusions? Why omit and ignore key sections of his paper? Hansen may have stirred up some debate with his paper, but the real confusion was concocted in the media.
 World Fact Book (CIA)]
|