Search Helium

Home > Politics, News & Issues > Environmental Issues > Climate Change

Should we emphasize adaptation to climate change or mitigation of CO2 emissions?

Results so far:

Adaptation
42% 43 votes Total: 102 votes
Mitigation
58% 59 votes

Adaptation

by Mike Patrick

Created on: September 28, 2009   Last Updated: September 30, 2009

According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, (OSHA), the maximum safe CO2 level for humans is 5,000 parts per million (ppm), or 0.5% of the atmosphere. At that level, a worker can be exposed to CO2 for 8 hours every day, through an entire 40 hour work week, without adverse effect. OSHA has always been known to err on the side of safety; it's kind of their job. CO2 actually becomes toxic to humans at around 8,000 ppm, or .8% of the atmosphere.

I found a global-warming site on the Internet at http://co2now.org/ which appears to update the present CO2 level hourly. It says Earth's present atmospheric level is 385.92 ppm. Let's just round that up to 386 ppm. That is .0386% of the Earth's atmosphere. Okay . . . that's a little too concise to work with. Let's round it up to .04%.

In the last 50 years, CO2 levels have averaged rising a tad under 1.5 ppm a year. If that trend continues, the human race is going to be in real trouble according to OSHA standards-around the year 5223. That should allow enough time to adapt to the increased CO2 toxicity; heck, it might be enough time to evolve.

But we're not worried about CO2 becoming toxic. We're worried about it trapping enough heat to warm the oceans, melt the polar ice caps and raise the ocean levels. Now we can understand that most of human adaptation would involving moving population centers away from the rising seas. Can we get it done in time?

The sea levels have been rising for the last 10,000; every since the last large Ice Age. According to Wikipedia (I know, that's not the worlds best reference work), for the last 100 years they have averaged rising about 1.8 mm per year. For the metrically challenged, that's about .07 inch; somewhat less than the thickness of an average human hair. At that rate, I don't even want to try to figure out what year the Statue of Liberty will be under water. It's so far in the future we may very well have learned to grow gills by that time.

Perhaps it isn't the sea level that bothers you. Maybe it's the progression of the deserts caused by CO2 climate change. There's nothing but good news here. Increased levels of CO2 cause increased plant growth. Although approximately one third of the world has been desert covered for thousands of years, the paltry increase of CO2 since the Little Ice Age is starting to shrink the deserts. Millions of square miles are turning green. If CO2 continues to rise, there will be whole new areas for humans to move into; areas oceans will never cover.

Unfortunately, all the news isn't good. Studies of ice-core samples from the Polar Regions show that CO2 fluctuations lag 800 years behind temperature fluctuations. That means that CO2 doesn't force global warming; global warming forces CO2. It also means that the CO2 levels we are experiencing now are an echo of the temperature from somewhere around the year 1200.

That is the inconvenient truth for Al Gore (and may be why he won't debate anyone) which negates the whole argument of, not only man-made global warming, but any global warming being caused by CO2. The good news is we don't have to spend trillions of dollars in a futile attempt to lower CO2 levels.

There are two items of bad news connected to the trillions in savings. First, the global temperature quit rising in 1998 and began dropping in 2002. Unless it starts rising again, we have less than 800 years of increasing benefits from rising CO2 before the CO2 level follows the temperature and begins dropping too.

Second, something other than CO2 was forcing the increase in temperature. That something may be a real threat that we need to learn to control-or we may be forced to adapt.

Learn more about this author, Mike Patrick.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Mitigation

by Sheila Westfall

Created on: August 12, 2008   Last Updated: November 24, 2011

This is an issue that is not so much about what we should do as what we can do. There are many simple things that we can do every day to reduce CO2 emissions and more advanced methods are in use with more in development. We can never fully eliminate our emissions but we can greatly reduce them. By contrast, adaptation is simply not possible. The impacts of climate change are insurmountable by mere human efforts.

In recent years we have experienced more intense hurricanes, extreme drought, and massive floods. While we can be more prepared for these events, there is no true way to adapt to the devastating effects of a hurricane like Katrina or to protect farmland from floods such as the Midwest has experienced this summer. Atlanta, GA has been suffering from drought for over a year, seeing their main water source, Lake Lanier continuously drop in water level. Water use can be restricted but it is still one of the main ingredients of life. We can not do without it.

Drought is a major issue across the globe. Once fertile land in Africa and Asia is turning to desert. Poor African nations who contribute little to climate change will be the hardest hit as it progresses. Famine has been ever present in countries like Ethiopia and Somolia but as farmland disappears it will reach new heights. The absence of arable land will exacerbate the problem of world hunger; as this is already a huge problem we can not hope to "adapt" to worsening conditions.

As the glaciers melt, sea levels will rise and land will vanish beneath the waves. We can, of course, learn to live without parts of Florida and move beach front properties inland a bit. But the millions of people world wide who live along the coasts will be displaced and put added pressure on other locations whose resources may also be depleted. Rising sea levels are also credited with strengthening tsunamis such as the one that hit Indonesia is 2005.

The heat waves that accompany climate change are having both direct and indirect effects on mankind. Hundreds of Americans die each year during heat waves; in 2003, 35,000 Europeans died during a record setting hot spell. And how are we to solve this problem? With water and air conditioning? Drinkable water is becoming ever more scarce and running the AC only exacerbate the problem as it pumps greenhouse gases into the air. An indirect effect of the heat is a reduction in the snow pack in Northwestern states. Less snow falls because it isn't cold enough and what does accumulate is melting earlier in the spring. The water from the snow pack is essential for replenishing the rivers and ground water that supply water to the people.

The fact is that adaptation is just not an option. We can not change our needs for water for both hydration and agriculture. We can not change our need for food and arable land to grow it on. We can not change our body's reaction to extreme heat. We can not change the effects of extreme weather. What we can change are our actions - the amount of energy we consume and the sources from which we get that energy. And so it is what we must change.

Learn more about this author, Sheila Westfall.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.


CONNECT WITH US

Read
our blog
Helum for writers

Write and get published
Share with other writers
Polish your freelancing skills

Join our active writing community
Helium Content Source for Publishers

Quality articles from proven freelancers
Exclusive rights, fast turnaround
Brand engagement, business blogging -- our writers do it all

Get custom content today!

INFORMATION


Helium, Inc.
200 Brickstone Square Andover, MA 01810 USA