Why government should make fossil fuel illegal - Research Paper Example

Government Should Make Fossil Fuel Illegal Oil is a finite resource, its availability and price unstable. Oil also contributes to air pollution and enriches brutal dictatorships such as Libya and oppressive monarchies like Saudi Arabia. The ongoing unrest in both countries as well as throughout the Middle East has caused oil prices to rise and should again remind all countries to accelerate the implementation of alternative sources of fuel. The by-products of oil, along with coal, together known as ‘fossil fuels,’ are the major contributors to what is commonly referred to as ‘greenhouse gasses’ being pumped into the atmosphere at a phenomenal rate, the effects of which are causing the Earth’s climate to change. According to all peer-reviewed scientific studies, if the quantity of greenhouse gasses being spewed into the air by automobiles, power plants and factories is not greatly reduced and quickly, the earth and its inhabitants will experience catastrophic consequences in the not too distant future. Fossil fuels are doing great harms that cannot be justified therefore should be illegal much as another other product that causes death and destruction. The people of the Middle East will have to rise up, as they currently are, to dispose their leaders. The best path for other countries, in this respect, is to stop funding them. This paper will discuss the most vital reason to criminalize fossil fuels, pollution and global warming. The greenhouse effect occurs naturally. When the sun’s light penetrates the atmosphere and strikes the earth’s surface only about two-thirds of the solar energy of the impact is absorbed by the earth. The remaining third reflects off the earth then back into space. Gases consisting primarily of nitrogen and oxygen located in the atmosphere act in the same manner as the glass roof of a greenhouse. These gases act like a bubble surrounding the earth and allow all the available sunlight to enter but trap the majority of this solar energy which, in turn, warms the earth. This is a natural yet tenuous balance which is made more unstable by man-made gases which adds to the total amount of gases. This continuing build-up of gaseous substances in the atmosphere traps more of the solar energy and reflects less. This increasing trend is the reason the earth is warming and its climate changing. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) makes up only a tiny fraction of naturally occurring gases in the atmosphere but constitute approximately half of man-made fossil fuel greenhouse gases. (Lean, Pearce, 2006). The very apparent, inarguable scientific facts regarding man-induced CO2 gases exacerbating the greenhouse effect are not apparent to some who are arguing the evidence with questionable evidence and logic. For example Anthony Lupo author of the article “Anthropogenic Global Warming: A Skeptical Point of View” postulates that CO2 is not a pollutant at all which is a short-sighted theory, at best, to anyone who has seen black plumes of CO2 smoke pouring out of factory smoke-stacks into the formerly clean air. Lupo claims CO2 is beneficial for plants and occurs naturally in the atmosphere which is true but only when considering naturally occurring amounts which are small and not the excessive quantities which have been emitted worldwide over the past 100 years. According to Lupo climate change is more a regional occurrence and does not affect the entire earth. “Regionally, climate has been shown to change rapidly in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Life on earth will adapt as it has always done. Life on earth has been shown to thrive when planetary temperatures are warmer as opposed to colder” (Lupo, 2008). Further, Lupo says that scientists will not be able to prove one way or the other if climate change is happening for many decades to come. As if the well documented rising ocean levels and melting Polar ice caps are not an indicator. Lupo believes, or at least writes that today’s scientific community does not fully understand how the climate operates nor do they have sufficient information to positively show how humans are contributing. Again, despite all evidence to the contrary. “Many who are skeptical of global warming point out that natural cycles may be the reason that warming is occurring now. If we accept the premise that we don’t understand climate completely, then it is reasonable to assume that we may not understand completely, or even know the role natural cycles are playing in climate change” (Lupo, 2008). Skepticism is healthy and leads to better informed conclusions but to dismiss current scientific knowledge seemingly out-of-hand is unhealthy and unproductive. The result of melting Polar Regions and consequential sea level rise has been well documented. The oceans of the world absorb CO2 from the air. Increasing amounts of CO2 in the air means more is absorbed by the oceans which causes the water to warm thus reducing the ability to absorb more CO2. “When the oceans can no longer keep pace with the intrusion of this naturally equalized cycle then more CO2 will remain in the atmosphere. Increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to result in a warming of the Earth’s surface accelerating the greenhouse effect” (Woolf & Brown, 2005). Effects of global climate change other than melting ice caps and rising sea levels are known but not as commonly. Rain and snow patterns are changing and will continue at a more noticeable rate over the coming years. A lessening of snow cover in addition to sea and lake ice will have calamitous consequences for locations at lower elevations and higher latitudes, especially in the spring and winter months. The higher the temperatures, the proportionately higher the resulting precipitation and atmospheric water vapor will be. The composition of cloud patterns will change causing an amplification of the greenhouse effect. “The increased levels of precipitation because of the warming at the Polar Regions will increase the (greenhouse) effect. Shifting vegetation patterns, types and regional variations, will cause major human adaptations, the degree to which is open to speculation” (Wunderlich & Kohler, 2001). Dr. Walter Meir of the National Snow and Ice Data Center refutes the overwhelming evidence for global climate change by citing an observation from the Center. “Barring an about face by nature or adjustments, it appears that for the first time since 2001, Arctic Sea ice will hit the normal line as defined by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) for this time of year” (Smith, 2010). The author of the article, Wesley Smith, is evidently inferring that, given Dr. Meir’s observation is correct; a one-time growth of ice is proof enough that climate change is a myth. All available peer-reviewed scientific evidence can now be discounted because of a one time, at least to this point, phenomenon. When asked why the Arctic Sea ice reached an arbitrary line once since 2001 Dr. Meir mused “Basically, it is due primarily to a lot more ice in the Bering Sea, as is evident in the images. The Bering ice is controlled largely by local winds, temperatures are not as important (though of course it still need to be at or at least near freezing to have ice an area for any length of time)” (Smith, 2010). The winds not temperature caused the ice line to be met, once, but an entire article was devoted to debunk climate change evidence based on Dr. Meir’s observation. This is indicative of other studies and articles dedicated to confusing the public regarding the science on the subject. This type of pseudo science keeps alive the myth that there is a debate to be had on the science of the issue when clearly there is not. Besides funding terrorism and authoritarian regimes along with polluting the planet’s waters such as the Gulf of Mexico just last year at this time, the emissions from fuel oil is making the Earth inhabitable. Besides being the cause for miner’s deaths, coal is also making the Earth inhabitable. Fossil fuels should be illegal. Congress should pass this law making it illegal to use products that will cause mass extinctions by, say 2020, plenty of time to change over to alternative fuels. The motive of those who refute the science of climate change is clear, money. For some such as the oil and gas industry, their bottom-line would suffer if the countries of the world converted to clean energies such as solar, wind and geothermic. Cap and trade laws would force industries to reduce pollution their plants emitted, a potentially costly proposition. Many believe if these industries profits were lessened they would be forced to reduce their workforce conveniently forgetting the new jobs created by clean energy technologies. When money is the motive, the truth does not matter nor does the health of the world’s environment or its population. The auto industry has historically been vehemently opposed to any type of climate change legislation because they say it’s, again, too costly and they could not compete with foreign auto manufacturers, as if their lack of quality product had nothing to do with their lack of competitiveness. The consequences of doing nothing about climate change goes beyond the immediate economics of today. When ocean levels rise just a few feet, millions will be displaced; famine and disease will run rampant. Weather patterns will shift causing agricultural dilemmas the extent of which is open to speculation but all scenarios are dire in nature. How much will all this and many other problematic issues caused by climate change cost? How will it affect the economy? Seems like the old saying ‘pay me now or pay me later’ applies. The payment now may be tough for some but the payment later is incomprehensible but very obviously much greater. Climate change, global warming, is of great importance to scientists, many people and most industrialized nations in the world. The majority of U.S. politicians, however, do not consider climate change to be an important issue. They campaign and speak of issues such as unnecessary wars, gay marriage, gun control, crime, tax cuts for the wealthy, etc. so as to be re-elected by a largely under-informed American public. If the public worries more about the economic of today rather than the economic of the future and politicians worry more about their job today than the world’s future we will have no future to worry about. Works Cited Lean, Geoffrey & Pearce, Fred. “Amazon rainforest could become a desert.” The Independent. (July 23, 2006). April 23, 2011 Lupo, Anthony PhD. “Anthropogenic Global Warming: A Skeptical Point of View” Missouri Medicine Vol. 105 No. 2 pg. 25 (March/April 2008). April 23, 2011 Woolf, Marie & Brown, Colin. “Global Warming: The US Contribution in Figures.” Common Dreams. (2005). April 23, 2011 Smith, Wesley J. “Global Warming Hysteria: Skeptic Notes Arctic Ice Back to Normal” First Things (April 1, 2010). April 23, 2011 Wunderlich, Gooloo S.; Kohler, Peter O. “Improving the Quality of Long-Term Care.” The National Academies Press, 2001, p.18. Read More