December 1, 2009 @ 3:52 am
The Inconvenient Truth?
by Anuradha Parekh
Is global warming a hoax? Are the polar bears really disappearing? Will the Ganges become a seasonal river by 2035 due to rapid depletion of the Gangotri glacier? Will the sea levels rise high enough to gobble up coastal regions? Or is “Climate Change” the catchphrase of this decade, overriding some of the more serious and imminent threats to our planet?
Open Magazine’s (yeah, again!) article Climate of Chaos addresses these and many more questions related to climate change and exposes the Inconvenient Truth in a whole new light. Do read for some very interesting snatches of information. For instance did you know that:
Some, like Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London, argue that historically, there have been sharp rises in temperature over very short periods. In 1200 AD, Europe was 2 degrees centigrade warmer than it is today and agriculture flourished even in Greenland.
Or, for some perspective:
While the world’s population increased by 300 per cent in the 20th century, the use of water increased by a staggering 700 per cent. Over a longer period of 250 years since the Industrial Revolution, carbon dioxide formulations in the atmosphere have gone up by approximately 37 per cent, methane by 150 per cent and nitrous oxide by 16 per cent.
Perhaps it’s time to re-orient our thinking and focus on more pressing and real issues, ones we can act upon and remedy before its too late.
Filed under Environment Permalink
5 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI
Posted by Priya Q
December 3, 2009 @ 10:27 pm
hopefully things will change for better after the Copenhagen Summit!
Posted by GD
December 7, 2009 @ 6:02 pm
Focus should be on “sustainable living” not just Greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions is really a problem, though it might not cause a scenario like 2012, it does affect local living conditions (e.g vehicular pollution in Bangalore)
I strongly support US adopts some kind of mandate. They just consume too much energy on a per capita basis and need to reduce their consumption (will help some political stability when they stop raiding countries for oil
).
It will also help greater research and innovation in the energy sector in the US, which currently is deeply involved in inventing facebooks, twitter and video games and a whole lot of the same stuff, with no real value add. The best minds are clustered in the wrong field
Posted by Hatikvah
December 8, 2009 @ 9:24 pm
I suppose, Crichton’s State of Fear portrayed a similar situation. Btw, GD, as for the mandates from U.S, check out the recent statement from EPA on GHG emissions. They have brought in 6 gases under the Clean Air act, a move that has been termed political, but something that should have been done in the Bush era itself, were he not busy conquering other nations…
Posted by Dhimant Parekh
December 10, 2009 @ 9:17 pm
Firstly, sorry for a delayed reply. Yes, but I don’t think too many people hope any positive outcomes from the Copenhagen Summit
Posted by Dhimant Parekh
December 10, 2009 @ 9:21 pm
GD – Absolutely agree