172
markers, stone buildings, statues, and even concrete. Sulfur compounds also block
sunlight. Photochemical smog from petroleum combustion created thick brown
hazes over cities that also dimmed the sun. These caused a substantial rise in the
number of “unhealthy air days” that led to all sorts of respiratory problems in urban
populations. So, although the global cooling predictions of the 1970s were reasonable given what was known at the time, things have changed since then. Sulfur has
been removed from coal smoke, and photochemical smog from automobiles has
been greatly reduced by the introduction of catalytic converters, unleaded gasoline,
and ethanol additives. Abundant sunlight is once again reaching the Earth, warming
the planet.
Sulfur dioxide isn’t the only acid of concern. Carbon dioxide also creates
carbonic acid when dissolved in water. The oceans have absorbed a significant
amount of anthropogenic CO 2 emissions, and the levels of GHG in the atmosphere
would be far higher without this. It has not been without consequence, however. The
acidity of the oceans has increased by 30% over the past century, and many marine
biologists and other scientists are alarmed at the consequences this is having on
ocean life, especially shelled creatures. Animals build shells by removing calcium
carbonate from seawater, but this requires neutral to slightly alkaline chemistry to
achieve. The acidic oceans are dissolving away existing shells and preventing the
formation of new ones (NOAA 2020).
Plant biochemists have linked the higher levels of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere to changes in the levels of sugar, starch and other carbohydrates in grass
(Thompson et al. 2017). Warmer climate grasses are less affected than cool climate
species, which have experienced nearly a 20% increase in the amount of fructan,
starch, and sucrose in the plants compared to decades past. This is significant, and
was accompanied by a decrease in total nitrogen in the leaves and changes in protein
levels. This biochemical alteration has affected the nutritional value of these grasses
for grazing animals, with consequences that are not yet known.
Suppose for a moment that 97% of the world’s scientists happen to be wrong and
that climate change is actually a non-event. Doesn’t humanity still have a responsibility for controlling the emission of fossil fuel combustion products into the atmosphere? Can we just keep dumping these waste gases into the air and expect no
consequences? Even if arguments about the physics of CO 2 warming the atmosphere are set aside, the acidification of the oceans and the changes in plant biochemistry are both measurable and alarming. In the end, what harm is done by
ending these emissions? At worst, we’d have cleaner air. At best, we’d save ecosystems and possibly humanity itself. If the only reason behind climate denial is to
maximize the profits of fossil fuel producers, that is a rather poor excuse to give to
our great-grandchildren.
Climate contrarians need to provide a scientific justification for why they are so
opposed to the reduction or elimination of CO 2 emissions and other fossil fuel combustion products into the Earth’s atmosphere. “Not believing” in climate change is
not a valid argument. It doesn’t matter what someone believes. Science is based on
evidence, not faith, and the evidence supports the reality of climate change. If climate deniers have any evidence to the contrary, they must publish it in peer-reviewed
9 Fossil Fuels and Climate Change
markers, stone buildings, statues, and even concrete. Sulfur compounds also block
sunlight. Photochemical smog from petroleum combustion created thick brown
hazes over cities that also dimmed the sun. These caused a substantial rise in the
number of “unhealthy air days” that led to all sorts of respiratory problems in urban
populations. So, although the global cooling predictions of the 1970s were reasonable given what was known at the time, things have changed since then. Sulfur has
been removed from coal smoke, and photochemical smog from automobiles has
been greatly reduced by the introduction of catalytic converters, unleaded gasoline,
and ethanol additives. Abundant sunlight is once again reaching the Earth, warming
the planet.
Sulfur dioxide isn’t the only acid of concern. Carbon dioxide also creates
carbonic acid when dissolved in water. The oceans have absorbed a significant
amount of anthropogenic CO 2 emissions, and the levels of GHG in the atmosphere
would be far higher without this. It has not been without consequence, however. The
acidity of the oceans has increased by 30% over the past century, and many marine
biologists and other scientists are alarmed at the consequences this is having on
ocean life, especially shelled creatures. Animals build shells by removing calcium
carbonate from seawater, but this requires neutral to slightly alkaline chemistry to
achieve. The acidic oceans are dissolving away existing shells and preventing the
formation of new ones (NOAA 2020).
Plant biochemists have linked the higher levels of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere to changes in the levels of sugar, starch and other carbohydrates in grass
(Thompson et al. 2017). Warmer climate grasses are less affected than cool climate
species, which have experienced nearly a 20% increase in the amount of fructan,
starch, and sucrose in the plants compared to decades past. This is significant, and
was accompanied by a decrease in total nitrogen in the leaves and changes in protein
levels. This biochemical alteration has affected the nutritional value of these grasses
for grazing animals, with consequences that are not yet known.
Suppose for a moment that 97% of the world’s scientists happen to be wrong and
that climate change is actually a non-event. Doesn’t humanity still have a responsibility for controlling the emission of fossil fuel combustion products into the atmosphere? Can we just keep dumping these waste gases into the air and expect no
consequences? Even if arguments about the physics of CO 2 warming the atmosphere are set aside, the acidification of the oceans and the changes in plant biochemistry are both measurable and alarming. In the end, what harm is done by
ending these emissions? At worst, we’d have cleaner air. At best, we’d save ecosystems and possibly humanity itself. If the only reason behind climate denial is to
maximize the profits of fossil fuel producers, that is a rather poor excuse to give to
our great-grandchildren.
Climate contrarians need to provide a scientific justification for why they are so
opposed to the reduction or elimination of CO 2 emissions and other fossil fuel combustion products into the Earth’s atmosphere. “Not believing” in climate change is
not a valid argument. It doesn’t matter what someone believes. Science is based on
evidence, not faith, and the evidence supports the reality of climate change. If climate deniers have any evidence to the contrary, they must publish it in peer-reviewed
9 Fossil Fuels and Climate Change