Questions on Global Warming
For discussion on Tuesday, November 16

Note: Each of these categories of questions, except the first about "What's going to happen," will be the starting point for one of your group projects.

What's going to happen?

It has been postulated that if Global Warming trends continue as they have, within the next fifty years the ice caps on local mountain ranges will permanently melt, wreaking havoc on the seasonal flow of water into the Puget Sound region. Among other things, this will cripple the hydropower system we rely on for much of our energy, increase droughts throughout the state (in turn damaging out agricultural economy), and disrupt the ecosystem of local wildlife such as salmon. How will our local economy and society be altered due to these changes? What policies should we adopt to cope with the widespread disruption?

What would be the economic effects of making changes to combat warming? Would they be as devastating as we fear?

With global warming do you think that the effects will hinder humans in development, especially developing nations, or do you think that the threats of global warming will provide an incentive to develop technologically and in other ways?

Some scientists argue that there is not sufficient data to conclusively support global warming (ex. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html). Are their arguments legitimately based on scientific methods or are they simply a denial of a larger problem to which there are no easy answers? At what point do scientists predict Bush's Clear Skies Initiative create drastic changes in our weather pattern?

Is there any evidence that we have already reached a point where the atmosphere's/climate's negative feedbacks have already been too compromised; i.e. do any scientists believe we have already reached a point of no return, from which any legislation is unlikely to make a difference?

How will global warming and changes in our climate effect global/national markets? Which products will be in demand? What new technology will need to come about?

Centuries from now, will there be large health risks from climate changes? Will lifestyles change? Will all continents be inhabitable?

First, we're all talking with the assumption that something must be done. Now, whether I believe that or not, let's just pause and think differently: What are the fundamental implications if we do nothing? Will global warming effect American lives to the extent that we will change "before it is too late?" or will its probable effects be something we are capable of coping with?

How responsible are we forthe effects of long lasting fluorinated gases, like CF4, with a lifetime of 50,000 years? If the effects of these gases are so gradual and longterm, are we obligated to find a solution now? Are these fully fluorinated gases of equal priority to the other rising greenhouse gases, or can they be igored for the time being?

Responsibilities of Government

In light of the Kyoto Protocol, the first legal treaty aimed at cutting down greenhouse gas emissions: Do industrialized countries have an obligation to monitor their carbon emission? Should some countries be held more accountable than others in fossil-fuel burning and, thus, have higher expectations in reducing their emissions?

Can a worldwide protocol really work? How do we implement changes in carbon emissions that can deal with both short term and long term concerns and guarantee full cooperation on a global scale?

Do the developed nations of the world have a responsibility to help less developed countries institute cleaner air standards for their industries (primarily subsidies of corporations originated in developed countries) ?

What is the likelihood of future legislation requiring hybrid motors in cars in light of both pollution issues and global oil depletion?

As has been discussed previously, President Bush refused to include the United States in the Kyoto Treaty in 2001. However, our local government has, in essence, "signed the treaty" on its own; we have set our goals to those of the treaty and have adopted policies in pursuit of those goals. Is this an acceptable compensation strategy? What other tacks can local governments take to counteract national measures of similar nature imposed by Bush throughout the next four years he is in office?

Some of the places that seem to have the most potential to be harmed by global warming are coastal cities that would be drastically affected by even slightly rising levels of the ocean, especially cities that are largely below sea level such as Venice and New Orleans. How many cities are actively aware of these potential disasters and pursuing long-term solutions?

Would implementation of a regulatory system, like the Montreal Protocol controlling CFCs, be a feasable and efficient way to cut back the amount of other greenhouse gases (like CH4) being released to the atmostphere? Would this measure have sufficient effect on the atmosphere to be worth it in the short term? The long term?

Should we expect developing countries to meet the same environmental standards? Will regulation of industries, especially in developing countries, hinder economic development or competition? How do we provide incentives for such industries?

Without the involvement of the United States, what is the real effect of Kyoto? How big a change must the most developed countries make? Are countries like China or India actually having to sacrifice for the environment or are they merely making improvements they would have made anyways? In light of the relative contributions of other nations, was the US right to reject the accord?

How the hell has environmental concern become a partisan issue? I mean seriously?! If there is one facet of political life that exists outside of the purely political realm, it must be the state of the global ecosystem, and yet this seems to be marginal issue. How has it become this way?

Responsibilities of producers:

The article entitled "Welcome to Kyoto-land", appearing in the Oct. 9th-15th, 2004 issue of 'The Economist', talks about the effect the Kyoto Treaty will have on industry. Because President Bush rejected the treaty in 2001, U.S. businesses are not subject to the rules of the treaty. However, do U.S. businesses have a moral obligation to future generations to take some fiscal losses now in order to invest in an environmentally safer tomorrow?

Would a global "pollution market" be acceptable as a way to combat climate change? In this model, the amount of pollution being released is fixed, and allocated to companies. This way, if a company wants to go above their pollution allocation they must buy from a company that has pollution to spare. Is this a possibility?

Responsibilities of consumers:

Can the issue of climate change and global warming be considered an issue of individual survival? Should we consider these issues as personal matters since we are producing these changes or only as a collective problem to be solved by many?

Considering the important role fossil fuels have played (and continue to play) in greenhouse dynamics and the consumption of fossil fuel in the Western world (America, most notably), how should one motivate individuals to see long term consequences to their immediate actions? (eg, how do you motivate change in a society which is based on how big their SUVs are, and how little miles per gallon they can actually get) Are there long term consequences to these immediate actions?

Why, if we have fairly accurate proof of global warming due to human activities, don't we change policies more drastically (ie changing from gas to electric cars since we have the technology to do so, using more renewable energy sources, etc.) to try to curb these effects. In other words, why do people care about their comfort and luxuries that they are used to instead of trying to save the place that supports them?

Last year, former senate majority leader Trent Lott was quoted as claiming that Americans had a right to low gas prices citing his children's right to tour the family farm in a large SUV as his example. Considering America's role as the largest economy in the world and recent foreign policy decisions, to what extent is Lott's statement true? Do you believe a majority of Americans agree with him? Do you believe policy makers agree with him?

Public perceptions:

At what point will it be socially unacceptable for people to drive gas-guzzlers?

Why has "global warming" become such a huge political concern when most people who worry about it don't even know what it is?

The Bush administration has not yet declared carbon dioxide as a pollutant, and several states are currently in the process of suing the Bush administration over this matter. I wonder if the Bush administration's unwillingness to declare carbon dioxide as a pollutant has something to do with the conservative Christian values it espouses. Does U.S. government backing for scientific research threaten the Christian foundations of this country?

Are there any Biblical analogies which would challange the scientific idea of global warming, as tectonics is challanged with Noah's flood, and and evolution is challanged by the 7 days?

Why did it take expressly political motivation (our changing disposition towards Arab states, and their changing disposition toward the US) to make alternative energy a major issue (and not as major as some of us would have it)? Should environmental and climatological "moral" discourse perhaps appeal to less abstract principles as morality in order to promote less climatologically disruptive human behavior? Should appeals perhaps be more geared towards economics and the free-markets? What about religion? Should climatologists perhaps work with progressive theologians to develop a religious moral rubric for evaluating climate-changing behavior? How can climate change cease to be a disciplinary discursive issue, and instead become a human issue in all facets of public discourse? Am I being a hopeless idealist by believing that this is indeed possible?

"Science's answers are always tentative. And scientists never discuss ends, they only discuss means"---Jacob Bronowski. Does Science necessarily need to compromise these two principles in order to make more declarative statements that might inform public opinion, and perhaps policy regarding climate change? Another way of putting this is, should the scientific community make a moral statement about how our data regarding climate change and hydrocarbon should inform policy for the good of mankind? Does science as a discipline compromise its traditional objectivity by doing this? Should scientists be social critics? Is this dichotomy false to begin with? Is there a point at which scientists should downplay the fact that the data is tentative, damn nuance and make declarative statements anyways even though the climate is complex beyond measure? Because science has been so compromised by our current administration, is it time for the scientific community to enter the brawl and try to shape public consciousness by acting in concert with other concerned groups? What would a war between policy makers and scientists look like?

Technological Fixes

With the newer research coming out about Alternative Energy (and older research too), are these sources a positive or a negative for the environment with respect to greenhouse dynamics? What about socially? Do they have a place in our modern society? If so, how should they begin to be implemented? If not, why not? Is the Western world prepared for the change needed to implement these energy sources?

There is a proposal by advocates of bio-diesel to flood a large section of california desert to grow algae. How would this addition of water surface area and plant life affect the global carbon cycle? Would it cause more harm than it aims to fix?

Are there any climate feedbacks that we know of that could reduce the effects of the increased greenhouse gasses in a shorter amount of time than the natural one?

Is it technologically and economically feasible that a group of predominently rich, Western countries could solve the problem of global warming through a program designed to lower global Carbon Dioxide levels? This sort of cure seems more likely than global preventative measures.