To deny climate change is indeed to deny history. Graphs, such as the one produced by longrangeweather.com, chronicle over 4,000 years of significant swings in global temperatures. But politicizing science has placed the cause directly on man’s activity, which may not be the truth.
As noted on the site, “We, Climatologist Cliff Harris and Meteorologist Randy Mann, believe in rather frequent climate changes in our global weather patterns. Geologic evidence shows our climate has been changing over millions of years.
The warming and cooling of global temperatures are likely the result of long-term climatic cycles, solar activity, sea-surface temperature patterns and more. However, Mankind’s activities of the burning of fossil fuels, massive deforestations, the replacing of grassy surfaces with asphalt and concrete, the “Urban Heat Island Effect,” are likely creating more harmful pollution. Yes, we believe we should be “going green” whenever and wherever possible.”
According to numerous climatologists, a primary motivation for “going green” is to reduce “greenhouse gas” emissions, specifically carbon dioxide (CO2). In spite of the other sources of CO2 emissions, the burning of fossil fuels by industrial activity has been cited as not merely the primary source, but as one worthy of virtually the full focus of regulatory agencies.
And it comes as little surprise that among governments throughout the world, the most popular means of addressing CO2 emissions is through some form of taxation or manipulation.
Cap-and-trade is one such scheme. It allows, and in some cases, requires companies that produce less than their allowance of carbon emissions to sell credits to companies that exceed their limits.
Nations that signed the Kyoto Protocol are required to have a greenhouse gas emissions trading policy in place. In the United States, which did not sign the agreement, participation in carbon trading arrangements is voluntary.
In essence, cap-and-trade allows excessive CO2 emissions so long as someone profits from them or pays a penalty.
“Offsetting” is another CO2 management scheme. Companies achieve a level of absolution for their carbon emissions by funding projects that remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.
It certainly can’t hurt to reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions produced by the burning of fossil fuels. However, the battle against CO2 emissions can’t succeed until other significant sources are also addressed.
A review of CO2-reducing agreements and activities shows that fact to be self-evident. In 2005, the Kyoto Protocol, a CO2 emissions reduction agreement between industrialized nations (excluding the United States) went into effect, yet atmospheric levels of CO2 have not only continued to increase, they have increased at faster rates than prior to the signing of the agreement.
Climate data compiled by NASA specifies the January, 2005 CO2 level at 371.21 parts per million (ppm); by December, 2016, that level had risen to 405.25, an increase of 34.04 ppm.
In contrast, according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data for the period between January, 1994 and December, 2005, the 11 years preceding the Kyoto Protocol, levels increased only 21.87 ppm, from 358.24 ppm to 380.11 ppm. The rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 levels was therefore 55.65% greater after the Kyoto Protocol agreement went into effect than before.