At first glance it’s hard to imagine how the proliferation of human activity upon the environment has been a major factor in climate change given that climate change alone is nothing new. Over two million years the earth’s history has seen enormous changes.

The climate is however very changeable these days. Getting the politics right has been half the fight. Unfortunately, the right policy has been held at bay partially by having the right knowledge of what’s happening to the climate. The climate changes we see today are the result of only a century and a half of study, peanuts in comparison the huge shifts over the earths history.

The recent UN Climate Change Conference sought to put in place a policy to take over the Kyoto protocol. At its core were some recently publicised results:

1. The warming trend on the earth’s surface has been taking place since the early part of the twentieth century. The last ten years have been the warmest of that millennium.

2. There have been rapid signs of melting the Arctic circle. The sea ice there has fallen by around eight percent over thirty years.

3. The old inconsistency in the data between the temperature rise in the atmosphere and on the planets surface seems to have levelled out. They appear to rise in parallel.

4. The Scripps Institute of Oceanography in California noted that the ocean has been warming at different depths for over 65 years. These results match the predictions that warming has been induced more by greenhouse gases that as a result of small changes in the suns heat output.

5. There has been an observed and recorded link between the sea surface temperature and the frequency and intensity of tropical storms, typhoons and hurricanes.

6. The existing computer models of the change in ocean currents, in particular in the North Atlantic, are correct.

There are however still some unknowns. For example the solar hypothesis is now known to be a lesser contributor, the miniscule changes in the suns heat output over its eleven year sunspot cycle is adding to the mix. Also, the aerosol emissions from sulphurous fuel promote the formation of clouds, and as a consequence the sunlight reflected from the earths surface increases, effectively opposing the greenhouse gas effect.

“There is a 90 percent chance the planet’s average temperatures will rise 3 to 9 F (1.7 to 4.9 C) by 2100.” This simple statement in the June 2001 report released by National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado leaves little doubt of the magnitude of the threat from global warming. The UN Environment Program estimates that the extra economic costs of disasters attributable to global warming are running at more than $300 billion annually. The global community is responding with actions lead by the Kyoto Protocol, which aims to reduce emissions of global warming gases. Nearly 90% of global warming gas emissions are CO2, which are primarily from the use of fossil fuels for energy. The focus on energy will undoubtedly continue to increase. Throughout the world different methods are being used to encourage reduced energy use. Japan has enacted the Energy Conservation Law in 1999. The U.S. has revised ASHRAE Standard 90.1 to raise the minimum COP level for centrifugal chillers from the current value of 5.2 to 6.1 effective in October of this year. A growing number of countries are using environmental costing which includes an estimated cost for resource depletion and environmental deterioration. Although such fees to discourage pollution were first proposed in 1920 they did not see widespread application until 1990 when Finland implemented the first carbon tax. At present there are more than 30 countries that have some type of carbon tax in effect. Environmental accounting (or costing) is a broader term than just a carbon tax on energy. For example, subsidies being provided to energy producing industries are a form of negative tax. Removal of such subsidies has the same effect as a carbon tax, which is to raise the price of energy to the user. Such methods make more energy efficient alternatives more financially attractive. In the recently released “OECD Environmental Strategy for the First Decade of the 21st Century” the goal is to include “cuts to energy, farm and other subsidies so prices more accurately reflect environmental impacts”. China, the U.K., India, Indonesia and Thailand are countries that have recently eliminated subsidies to parts of their energy industries. Will environmental costing continue to spread? Environmental costing is an estimated cost for resource depletion and environmental deterioration. One can only guess. It is intuitively attractive to tax something bad, i.e. environmental damage rather than something good such as one’s salary or company’s profits. As a building owner, facility engineer or factory manager the implications are enormous. Just how much could energy prices change? According to European Research Commission Report released in July of this year “The cost of producing electricity from coal or oil would double if costs such as damage to the environment and health were taken into account”. Coal subsidies in China have been more than halved since 1984, and nearly 1 million coal-mining jobs have been eliminated over the past five years as a result of far-reaching coal reduction initiatives. In 1999 alone, total coal use in China dropped 4.4%. Petroleum subsidies fell from 55% in 1990 to 2% in 1995. Source: EIA April 2001. Any significant change in the price of energy can have a major impact on the profitability and value of a building or factory. One can protect their interests by investing in the highest possible efficiency that is economically justifiable. In the past energy efficiency improvements in the U.S. have had a median payback of only 1.9 years meaning that IRR’s of up to 70% were not being selected. This is now changing. In addition to the economic attractiveness of high efficiency there are environmental gains through reduced emissions of carbon dioxide and other power plant emissions that are harmful to the environment. The move to high efficiency equipment is accelerating. And at the same time, there is increasing emphasis in system design and optimization. Low flow/high delta T systems are offering energy savings in operating costs and first cost through smaller pipe diameters and pump sizes. The focus on high efficiency HVAC equipment and systems will continue to increase as additional emphasis is being placed on the environmental costs associated with energy use.
by: Larry Butz

Marya Mannes once wrote, “The earth we abuse and the living things we kill will, in the end, take their revenge; for in exploiting their presence we are diminishing our future.” Obviously Ms. Mannes preferred the status quo - health, sanity, logic, blah, blah, blah. Why? Green House Roulette is so much more intriguing. In the country, weather affects everything. For five years Western South Dakota has been gripped by drought. Water and hay are vanishing. Farms and ranches are blowing away. While the government bails out victims from hurricanes and says, ‘South Dawho?’ our cattle are pissing dust mites. Fortunately, things are looking up. There is some good news! Those pesky glaciers are finally melting off! Last year an eight-nation report estimated an area of Arctic icepack the size of Texas and Kansas is gone. For those who are geographically impaired, that is an area bigger than a breadbox. At first, news of devastating global climate change might seem a bit of a bummer. Then I read an LA Times article and had a change of heart. The article began with the usual gloom. Greenland’s ice cap is melting. Our coasts will flood from rising seawater. Inuit hunters are falling through thinning ice. Melting glaciers change ocean temperature and salinity contorting the jet stream, which results in altered weather patterns worldwide. Multitudes of species are dying off . . . It was disheartening. Then I got to the article’s final paragraph. Bam! My faith was restored. Here the Times pointed out the perks of global warming. Seriously, the article actually ended saying: “The report is not all gloomy. A warmer Arctic could increase the number of some species, such as Arctic char, a fish. It could extend the growing season for wheat in Canada and open up now-treacherous sea routes, such as the Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route, which parallels Russia, for shipping and resource exploration.” Three cheers for the LA Times! It’s true! All is not gloomy. With that glorious bit of sunshine pumped straight up my ski bibs, I was able to see things in a whole new light. I started thinking of other advantages to global warming. Soon you will agree that people from all walks of life will benefit. For starters, Inuit Hunters will benefit! Once Inuit have nothing left to hunt there will be no need for them to risk falling through thin ice. Plus, by needing food they will be ripe for a floating (pontoons, not ice) Arctic Super Wal-Mart. “Go get ‘em, Sam.” Boat owners will benefit! Not only will there be smooth sailing through the formerly bothersome ice of the Northwest Passage, but each summer, cruise ships will be able to run tourists straight up Bourbon Street in New Orleans. Scuba Divers will benefit! There will be no more burning coral cuts. In fact there will be no more coral. Once all the reefs are gone, divers can pack away first aid kits and dive straight in. A little silt never cut anyone. Canadian Wheat Farmers will benefit! You see, there is a 10% decrease in yield of corn from Midwest crops for every degree of global warming. No worries though, now wheat can take the place of corn. Think about all those scrumptious Wheat Dogs at the ball game. How about popped wheat with butter at the movies or steaming wheat on the cob? All scream ‘yummy’ to me. While it is a bit ironic that ethanol is made from the corn crops global warming devastates, I am sure some aspiring chemist will rise to the challenge of developing ‘Wheatanol.’ Imagine Canuck Wheat Farmers having more influence than the Saudi Royal Family. Dune-Buggy enthusiasts will benefit! The Dakotas will soon reopen for your 4-wheelin’ pleasure. Join the Mount Rushmore Nose Climb on July 4th! It will be a bugger of a challenge! Eco-Tourism Operators will benefit! Companies could offer new “Emaciation Tour Packages.” Tourists get closer photos of polar bears and whales when they are too lethargic from starvation to meander away. In addition, long treks to Inuit villages can be avoided once they are forced to beg on the streets of Nome (or cashiering at Wal-Mart). Finally, the next generation of Bush family politicians will benefit! Once again they can avoid addressing campaign issues, this time by distracting dehydrated voters with witty campaign phrases like; “No Kyoto Pact-No Ice Pack,” or “Dead Seals Never Flip-Flop,” even promising “No Char Left Behind.” Not to mention offering new, SPF 80 tax credits. Well, by golly, I do feel better! Shall we spin the Rolette wheel some more?
by: Nola L. Kelsey

Global warming is a reality and increasingly its consequences are upon us. We may think that global warming does not affect us but the fact is it has already started to have disastrous consequences. Flash floods, droughts, receding icebergs, cyclones are some of the manifestations of global warming. Although we are aware and worried about it and trying our best to control it but no significant impact could be seen. Scientists have come up with new strategies to tackle the problem. Now a scientist has suggested an ambitious idea to contain global warming. Put sunshades in space. That’s right. University of Arizona astronomer Roger Angel suggests putting sunshades in space and has detailed his idea in a paper “Feasibility of cooling the Earth with a cloud of small spacecraft near L1” in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. He suggests launching a constellation of trillions of small free-flying spacecraft a million miles above Earth into an orbit aligned with the sun, called the L-1 orbit. This spacecraft would form a long, cylindrical cloud and would have a diameter about half that of Earth, and about 10 times longer. It is suggested that about 10 percent of the sunlight passing through the 60,000-mile length of the cloud, pointing lengthwise between the Earth and the sun, would be diverted away from our planet. This would result in uniformly reduced sunlight by about 2 percent over the entire planet and would balance the heating of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere. The use of space shade was first mooted by James Early of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in 1989. “The earlier ideas were for bigger, heavier structures that would have needed manufacture and launch from the moon, which is pretty futuristic,” Angel said. “I wanted to make the sunshade from small ‘flyers,’ small, light and extremely thin spacecraft that could be completely assembled and launched from Earth, in stacks of a million at a time. When they reached L1, they would be dealt off the stack into a cloud. There’s nothing to assemble in space.” Angel proposes to design lightweight flyers made of transparent film pierced with small holes and would be two feet in diameter, 1/5000 of an inch thick and weigh about a gram, the same as a large butterfly. He suggests using “MEMS” technology mirrors as tiny sails that tilt to hold the flyers position in the orbiting constellation. The weight of all flyers would be 20 millions tons. But conventional rocket launch system at $10,000 a pound would be too prohibitive. His alternative would cost only around $20 a pound. He suggests deploying a total 20 electromagnetic launchers launching a stack of flyers every 5 minutes for 10 years. The electromagnetic launchers would use hydroelectric power but even if it uses coal-generated electricity, each ton of carbon used would reduce the effect of 1000 tons of atmospheric carbon. Once propelled beyond Earth’s atmosphere the flyer stacks would be steered to L-1 orbit by solar-powered ion propulsion, pioneered by European Space Agency’s SMART-1 moon orbiter and NASA’s Deep Space 1 probe. “The concept builds on existing technologies,” Angel said. “It seems feasible that it could be developed and deployed in about 25 years at a cost of a few trillion dollars. With care, the solar shade should last about 50 years. So the average cost is about $100 billion a year, or about two-tenths of one percent of the global domestic product.” He added, “The sunshade is no substitute for developing renewable energy, the only permanent solution. A similar massive level of technological innovation and financial investment could ensure that. “But if the planet gets into an abrupt climate crisis that can only be fixed by cooling, it would be good to be ready with some shading solutions that have been worked out.” by: Deepak Purang

The debate about global warming continues today and will continue for many decades to come. The subject of global warming refers to the average increase in the earth’s temperature–which then causes changes in climate. With the earth getting warmer, it may lead to changes in rainfall patterns, a rise in sea level, and a wide range of impacts on plants, wildlife, and humans. When scientists debate about global warming, we all benefit. We are being given all of the information available on both sides of the subject. When we talk about the issue of climate change, the concern is primarily about global warming caused by human activities or by the natural cleansing process of the earth. We are told by one group that we are all personally responsible for releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels when driving our automobiles or using other means of mass transit, and by home energy usage (the electricity, heating and cooling). The use of these fossil fuels is directly responsible for global warming, which is destroying the earth’s biodiversity and ecosystems. On the other side of the debate are the scientists who tell us that global warming is only partially caused by the use of fossil fuels. They want us to know that the different cycles and temperatures of the earth are part of a natural cycle that our evolving planet goes through. The debate about global warming is one that will continue for many years to come. Neither side can provide substantial evidence that fully supports their position. It true that we are polluting the environment and that we should reduce our use of fossil fuels, protect rainforests from being harvested, and also plant new tropical trees in countries where the rainforest have been decimated. However, this does not prove that global warming is caused by these actions or that these actions by us are meaningless. While the debate about global warming continues, it might be wise if we consider what we can do to reduce pollution. Whether the pollution causes global warming might not be the real question here. The pollution of the environment is directly affecting the air, water and land throughout the entire world. An action as simple as planting trees can help clean the air. An average tree uses and absorbs about 2,000 pounds of carbon dioxide during its lifespan. And, in return, the trees will release oxygen back into the atmosphere.
by: Frank Vanderlugt