CO2 Emission

Relevance

The optimist vs. pessimist debate for CO2 emissions centers around the effect that it has on the planet’s temperature and the future production of the green house gas. Essentially this is a global warming debate as well. This debate seems to be dominated by the pessimists, who believe that the Earth’s temperature could rise as much as 4.5 degrees Celsius and the ocean’s level could rise as much 43 cm, both of which would have devastating effects on Earth’s life and human society. In addition, they believe the world is not doing enough to limit CO2 production, with the US being the biggest offender.

Optimist

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), co-winners of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice-President Al Gore, predicts that if green house gas emissions could be kept at current levels than 2 degrees Celsius. In addition, the oceans may only rise 14 cm. Still, no one really knows what the impact of what just 14 cm could mean for the world. Nearly 50% of Americans live within 50 miles of the ocean.

There is however, also the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change that argues the sun has a greater effect on climate. The Heartland Institute recently drafted a report for the NIPCC called “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate.” In this report the authors attack the idea that ice cap melting and warming oceans mean that humans must be causing the warming. According to the report, ice cap melting is a consequence of warming and does not indicate whether it is anthropogenic or natural. There are also many other factors that affect them, and they are not accurate measure of warming. The NIPCC also argues that there is no conclusive evidence to support the connection between temperature and CO2 levels. Though global warming is widely accepted as being caused by humans, there are some who still argue otherwise and would likely consider themselves to be optimists.

The optimists can also look at the changes that are being made to curb CO2 emissions. Hybrid car sales are soaring, it seems that oil reserves are running out, and many countries have ratified the Kyoto Protocol.

Pessimist

There are many growing concerns over the impacts of agriculture in its current state, both environmentally and logistically. One of the first major concerns is that, from a global perspective, we already cannot feed the world population. What will happen with our global population growing as fast as it is? Currently, we globally produce enough food for everyone on earth to have an adequate diet. Yet still between 750 million and 1 billion people suffer from insufficient nutrition. These problems need to be addressed but how?

Growing concerns over biocide (pesticide, insecticide, fungicide, etc.) use is also prevalent. Farmers are seeing a growing trend of biocide adaptation to the repellant chemicals placed on crops. Once farmers see that their biocides are becoming increasingly less effective, they have two options: increase the amount they use on crops or acquire a stronger type of biocide. However, this now confronts pessimists with an interesting dilemma: do you advocate the use of potentially human hazardous biocides to produce more output, or oppose their use and lose output?

The most common solution put forward is that of sustainable agriculture. This is where the agriculture system does not degrade the environment and there is a respectable level of output. The bottom line remains that in the pessimist mind frame, things need to be changed for the future.

References

Optimist Pessimist Debate | Population | CO2 Emission | Fossil Fuel Reserves | Renewable Energy | Free Trade | Agriculture