Really, what is the whole Global Warming debate really about?

Conservatives and Liberals alike have acknowledged that the Earth is getting hotter. So "global warming" in the strict denotative sense is not being argued by anyone. The Earth is getting hotter.

The crux of the argument appears to be whether people are causing this rise in global temperatures. The conservative cry has been "NO; humans do not affect the climate." The liberal cry of course has been "YES; humans do affect the climate." How does one decide?

Science is one way to determine who is right, or to which extent both are right. Here's a little of what science has to say on the subject:

In February of this year, top scientists from around the globe issued a report on global warming. The report is considered the most authoritative report on global warming to date. A few exercepts from the news article: whole story here

"The scientists said global warming was "very likely" caused by human activity, a phrase that translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that it is caused by humans burning fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame."

""It is critical that we look at this report ... as a moment where the focus of attention will shift from whether climate change is linked to human activity, whether the science is sufficient, to what on earth are we going to do about it," said Achim Steiner, the executive director of the U.N. Environment Program."

For more scientific information on global warming and climate change, go to the Union of Concerned Scientists webpage on Global Warming here and you can read for days and days. Here is an excerpt:

"We do know, for example, that certain gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, play a crucial role in determining the Earth's climate by preventing heat from escaping the atmosphere. Researchers have also been able to document that the increased concentration of such gases in the atmosphere results from human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation and land degradation, cattle ranching, and rice farming."

There is much, much more science on the likelihood that humans contribute to global warming, but I am finding it time-consuming to track down all the charts and graphs and for copyright reasons I can't post them here anyway. Suffice it to say, there appears to be a global consensus among the people who are looking at the climate through objective eyes, and without political agendas. In fact, the only people holding out for a non-human explanation for global warming... seem to be the conservatives, either for reasons of miseducation, profit watching, or party loyalty...?

Since it appears to be the case that carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse gas and contributes to increases in global land temperatures, let's go ahead and pretend for a minute that we decide to decrease our emissions of Co2. What always strikes me is how one choice can influence us positively in so many different ways. For instance, let's look at the choice of driving more fuel-efficient motor vehicles:

1) Driving more efficient vehicles cuts Co2 emissions, which decreases the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, which allows the gases already there to begin dissipating, slowly.

2) Driving more efficient vehicles reduces the amount of pollutants in our air. You wouldn't wrap your lips around a tailpipe and breathe, yet we act as if spitting these gases out into our atmosphere and breathing them in slowly over time is okay. Breathing polluted air has taken a backseat as a social cause in recent years, for some reason unbeknownst to me, but I think it's important to keep the effects of pollution in the forefront of our minds in the subsequent years. Interesting, that the Earth's temperature has risen as carbon dioxide levels have risen. Interesting, too, that cancer rates in the US have risen steadily (about 1.5% a year) as Co2 levels have risen. Despite our incredible medical technology saving more lives every year, there are still more people getting cancer every year. Doesn't cancer seem more prevalent today? Could pollution be playing a role?

3) Driving more efficient vehicles decreases our dependence on foreign oil. Decreasing our dependence on foreign oil appears to be a universal goal held by all Americans in all political parties. It also negates arguments such as drilling in ANWR, and may help keep us out of military and political entanglements in the Middle East.

4) Driving a more fuel efficient vehicle puts more money in your pocket. Another goal which appears to be bi-partisan in this country.

Here we appear to have a win-win-win-win situation, by simply driving a more fuel-efficient vehicle. In one fell swoop, we are helping slow climate change, lowering pollution levels, decreasing our need for foreign oil, and saving ourselves some money. Sounds good? With help from forward-looking companies like Toyota, who have promised to make their hybrids cost the same as non-hybrids in 3 years, the choice to drive more fuel-efficient vehicles is becoming an easier one with less compromise needed in other areas of our lives.

I could make a similar argument as above for requiring coal-burning power plants to recapture Co2, replacing light bulbs with more efficient ones, and eating a vegetarian diet But I think the universality of the benefits of these behaviors is obvious enough.

Yet, has it occurred to anyone else that these measures, while true of heart and well-intended, are simply stop gaps?

It certainly speaks well to those who make dramatic changes in their lives in order to decrease their carbon footprint. But should people really have to change their lives in order to help the planet?

Is the problem really that we drive SUV's? Or is the problem that SUV's still run on fossil fuels?

Is the problem that people drive more that they need to? Or that driving still produces lots of greenhouse gases?

Is the problem that people use incandescent lightbulbs? Or leave their furnace set to 69 rather than 68? Or that they don't have the proper attic insulation? Or that their windows and doors have bad weatherstrip?

NO!!

The problem is that all of these activities still produce pollutants and greenhouse gases!

We should all be able to drive the car, truck, or SUV we want without fear of the effect we're having or the ridicule we'll receive. We all should be able to drive in circles in a parking lot if we want without it having an effect on global climate temperatures. We should all be able to leave the lights on, stand with the refrigerator doors open, and have our homes as hot or cool as we want.

The heart of the problem is not what we are doing (simply living) the problem is that in their current form, these behaviors all have negative effects on us in the long run... environmentally, politically, economically, and healthily. So what to do?

We need new sources of energy. We have new sources of energy. Do you know that we have had the capacity to live off solar energy for decades? Use whatever light bulb you want! Stand with the refrigerator door open! It doesn't matter, when your home is powered by the Sun. San Francisco is the foggiest city in America. It is also the city most run by solar electricity. What does that say about the energy priorities of America? What does it say about our dependence on oil - our psychological dependence? Why is my city, in the heart of the desert, not the one run most by solar energy? Because no one has made that choice yet.

You can drive your car as much as you want, as hard as you want, as long as you want, without fear of condemnation or destroying the environment... as long as that car runs on Solar Electric. We currently have a growing crop of gas-electric hybrid cars making waves in the US markets. I believe in the long run, hybrids will be a flash in the pan, as all-electric vehicles will be the next logical step in the evolution of the automobile. Electric cars that are recharged every day by ubiquitous, free, Solar Energy. Hybrids will serve their purpose as a transitional technology from gas to electric, and maybe have uses in situations where more power and longer drive times are needed. Imagine the day when the carbon footprint made by airplanes and 57 Chevys is insignificant because the rest of the world is running on logical, clean, solar electricity? The first 100 years of automobiles saw the evolution of the gasoline engine. Hybrids will help get us off unsustainable fossil fuels, and Solar-Electric cars will mark the next 100 years of automotive evolution, I believe.

The technology is coming, but why aren't we invested in it? Is it as obvious as the ties between our government and Big Oil? Could that be that simple? Are people so stuck in their ways that they see any change as "liberal" and therefore scarey, and bad? I think a Solar-Electric solution to our energy problems is an obvious, and... inevitable one. How could it end any other way? Our oil reserves won't last forever. Even hybrid technologies rely on the use of some fossil fuels. The only clear answer appears to be solar power.

And that is why I write this, not just to convince you to turn your thermostats up and buy a hybrid and change your lightbulbs, but to push for institutional change. The kind that lets you buy a Hummer and leave the refrigerator door open, because it's all sustainable, renewable energy. Tell your governmental officials that you want new energy - the kind we don't have to kill over. And in the meantime, until they do, go change that lightbulb.