During the last 70 years, a debate has raged between those who would sacrifice some convenience to prevent environmental damage later and those who claim such sacrifices are a waste of time and effort.
    On some issues, like the pesticide dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane, chlorofluorocarbons and the extinction of animals, environmentalists have achieved a solid consensus and a foundation of legislation.
    Because of these successes, DDT levels have decreased to an average of less than one part per million in American mothers’ breast milk, CFC levels in the atmosphere have stopped increasing and efforts are made to protect the habitat of species whose existence is threatened.
    Environmentalists have had much less legislative success on other issues, like mandatory fuel efficiencies for passenger vehicles, federal funding of energy conservation and alternative energy programs, and enforcement of water conservation.
    The consequences are enormous. For example, American car companies built gas-guzzling luxury vehicles past the date it stopped being sensible, essentially defaulting dominance of fuel-efficient vehicle technology to foreign companies that have shown more responsibility and foresight.
    The government should not fund a bailout of these domestic automakers. Making the public pay for the short-sighted, resource-wasting mistakes of corporate CEOs is not the capitalist way. 
    The term “tree hugger” is offensively inaccurate and misleading. I don’t hug trees; I hug my sister and her children. I climb trees and depend on them for oxygen.
    It is true I do love trees, as I love the air and the dirt and the sun. If there is an appropriate title for those who feel as I do, it is “environmental conservatives” — and those who mock and oppose these views are essentially “ecogamblers.”
    One of America’s biggest hurdles to environmental sustainability is the group of citizens who want to maximize their nice toys and luxury while avoiding all forms of inconvenience. No one knows the best possible way to mitigate the terrible consequences of global warming, but we should all be on the same page in terms of what is the proper attitude and what is unacceptable.
    “Reduce, reuse, and recycle” is the basis of environmentally sound living, and it is a responsibility that belongs to all the citizens of this planet. The fact that it will make life more challenging and take more effort is not a legitimate reason to absolve ourselves of this duty.
    There are zero respected climatologists who claim human beings have played an insignificant role in the temperature increase seen since the beginning of industrialization. Since humans first began large-scale consumption of fossil fuels and clear-cutting forests, atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels have risen more than 35 percent, and the global average temperature has risen by more than 1 degree Celsius.
    If these trends continue without mitigation, increased atmospheric energy will continue to create more powerful storms, melt ice caps and raise global sea levels.
    Anyone with doubts as to the scientific legitimacy of environmentally conservative viewpoints can Google the official Scientists’ Warning to Humanity, signed in 1992 by more than 1,500 scientists and the majority of Nobel Prize winners.
    Also available are countless peer-reviewed studies by climatologists and unbiased scientific institutions like NASA and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, both of which confirm the existence of global warming and make dire predictions for the future of our ecosystems should the trends continue. 
    There is little doubt of the accuracy and validity of those analyses and discussions. America must adopt environmental conservatism into its core moral values, place a disapproval of needless waste and environmental destruction side by side with our disapproval of lying, stealing and murder.


Myles Ikenberry is a graduate student in chemical engineering. Please send comments to opinion@spub.ksu.edu.

Comments

6 comments

Next »

12

Your name

Tue Nov 25 2008 13:50

Warm is good, the next Ice Age cometh. The climate has always been changing and it has nothing to do with mankind. If we can slow the inevantable, then great:

When will the next Ice Age occur?

If historical patterns repeat themselves, within about 2,000 years. But that's an extremely big "if." Over the past several million years, Earth has spent most of its time sheathed in ice. But about every 100,000 years, the planet thaws. These warm spells, called interglacial periods, usually last between 15,000 and 20,000 years. We've been enjoying our current interglacial period for about 18,000 years-giving us roughly 2,000 to go before the next deep freeze.

Many factors may affect this pattern, however, and scientists disagree on the impact of these influences. First, we're still learning about all the natural cycles that affect Earth's climate. These include astronomical forces such as variations in sunspots, the planet's tilt, and tectonic pressures such as shifting landmasses and volcanic activity.

Also, we're still assessing the effect of our own impact on climate. Increased carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have been proven to increase surface temperatures. Ulrike Lohmann of Dalhousie University, in Halifax, Nova Scotia, which co-sponsored a conference on "Global Warming and the Next Ice Age" in 2001, predicts the icy arrival in about 10,000 years. Predictions from other scientists vary from 5,000 to 50,000 years.

Wikipedia

Thu Nov 20 2008 21:34

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that most of the increase since the mid-twentieth century is "very likely" due to the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.[3][4] Natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950 and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward.[5][6] These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science,[7] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.[8][9][10] While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with these findings,[11] the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.[12][13]" -Wikipedia
99.9% support the theory of man-made global warming - not even close to "almost evenly divided".

Your name

Thu Nov 20 2008 20:37

Treehugger

Eric

Thu Nov 20 2008 13:46

If you are really a Graduate student in chemical engineering, it seems that you would have included in your article, some ideas or comments about solutions to this impending disaster. Instead, this is written in the style used by some of the radio talk show "entertainers".
Congratuations, you did make me chuckle a couple times. I'm thinking that you really want to be a talk show host, not a chemical engineer. Good luck with your career choice.

Your name

Thu Nov 20 2008 12:17

NASA is a governmental agency, and thus is affected by current executive regime's philosophy; Independent is a term that only goes so far. If Bushie & Co think global warming is a non-threat, and NASA says it is - I'll believe the agency that is going against executive policy and who has combined centuries of experience actually dealing with the environment.

Next »

12

Add comment


I am not posting spam. I understand posting spam or other comments that are unrelated to this article will cause my comment to be flagged for deletion and possibly cause my IP address to be permanently banned from this server.

Verify you are human:

Enter the characters in the image above: