SUPPORT THIS INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM
The article you’re about to read is from our reporters doing their important work — investigating, researching, and writing their stories. We want to provide informative and inspirational stories that connect you to the people, issues and opportunities within our community. Journalism requires lots of resources. Today, our business model has been interrupted by the pandemic; the vast majority of our advertisers’ businesses have been impacted. That’s why The Capistrano Dispatch is now turning to you for financial support. Learn more about our new Insider’s program here. Thank you.

By Karl Reitz, Ph.D.

Although some scientists warned about the dangers of the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for many years, it did not receive widespread attention until the mid-eighties.  Because carbon dioxide in the atmosphere acted in a way similar to how the glass around a greenhouse holds in the heat, carbon dioxide and other gases like methane were called greenhouse gases. Similarly, the effect on the earth was called “global warming.” However, because the effects of atmospheric warming did not necessarily result in uniform warming and sometimes even resulted in local extreme cold, scientists advocated a change in terms. The term “climate change” became the term most often used to cover a whole host of changes, which include warmer dryer conditions in some places, more severe storms in others and even the possibility of extreme cold waves.

Another change is now occurring. Scientific American recently announced that it would no longer be using the term “climate change” in its publications and instead use the term “climate emergency.” Others are using the term “climate crisis.” As with the change from “global warming” to “climate change,” this more recent change is the result of a growing consensus among scientists that the word “change” does not adequately reflect reality.

The reality is that world governments have not done enough in response to both predicted and actual changes to the world’s environment. Actual changes include loss of glacier and arctic ice, the rise in world average temperatures and the increase in acid levels in the ocean. Incorporating these changes into the current predictions result in some truly frightening possibilities like ocean level rises close to 100 feet, hundreds of thousands of climate refugees, and parts of the world becoming uninhabitable.

A recent study out of MIT shows that it is possible for the world to stabilize the atmosphere and keep the worst from happening by achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050. This is doable, but it means significant changes in how we produce energy. A large majority of economists and policy experts agree that the biggest step we can take is to pass legislation assessing fees on industries that result in the release of greenhouse gases.  One such proposal is the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act now before Congress.

Karl Reitz, PH.D., is an environmental science educator, a member of the South Orange County Chapter of Citizens’ Climate Education/Lobby, and a retired professor of social sciences from Chapman University.

BECOME AN INSIDER TODAY
Trustworthy, accurate and reliable local news stories are more important now than ever. Support our newsroom by making a contribution and becoming a subscribing member today.

About The Author Capo Dispatch

comments (1)

  • I don’t know Mr. Reitz, and I’ve never attended one of his classes. However, I doubt seriously if he put a photograph of a wildfire in front of one of his lectures. Then again, I wonder if he ever lectured about climate while a Social Science professor at Chapman?

    The climate is obviously changing. In fact, it has been changing for as long as I can remember, which is longer than I care to admit. Can we stop this change? Mr. Reitz seems to think so, endorsing the idea that 2050 is some kind of deadline. I have my doubts about that approach.

    What of the other deadlines that we have been under, those of Gore and the Democratic Party, (but not of the UN who pander to less-developed member countries) and those deadlines that have come and gone?

    If the climate is changing (it seems to be), then what can we do to adapt to the change? If all the world’s governments were, as one, to agree to stop climate change tomorrow, would that actually stop it? If we cripple ourselves trying to be “leaders”, what resources will remain to adapt?

    Of late, climate change is an issue designed to garner votes. It has nothing to do with climate.

comments (1)

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>