A History of Climate Change

Written by: Wil Norton

It was front page news. A river in Cleveland caught on fire. So was the state of the environment in 1969. Without environmental safeguards this was the world we lived in. A world of smog, acid rain and tainted water. Hence the start of the contemporary environmental movement. A movement to correct the harm we caused to the nature around us and the stewarts of nature we are now gleaned to be.

The true origin of this movement came from a 1962 book warning against pesticide use. This book was “Silent Spring” by Rachel Carson. She warned of the use of pesticide in agriculture. To many, this book was a landmark in the beginning of the movement. The idea that human progress can be detrimental to the nature and environment we all enjoy was sent to the political debate stage at this point in history. DDT use was proven to be dangerous to human and wildlife health. Ever since the time of these two incidents among others, the environment is now something openly discussed even globally at the UN. 

The world itself now faces its largest environmental challenge. Climate change became an issue by a hearing Senator Tim Wirth chaired about the issue on Capital Hill. On June 22, 1988 climate scientists convened in a Senate panel to discuss the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This compound known as CO2 in chemical nomenclature is a common gas, but is also a danger in too large quantities according to scientists.

This gas causes something called the greenhouse effect. At high levels, CO2 will prevent sun’s warming UV rays from escaping the atmosphere causing a warming effect according to scientists. We have seen this trend in practice since then. The Earth is warming. The effect is real. The rise in temperature is measurable.

So where does the added CO2 come from? There are two main sources of extra CO2. The one we probably all know about is the use of oil and gas. These fuel sources are also known as hydrocarbons by scientists. Hydrocarbons are chains of carbon and hydrogen. When burnt is oxygen, the carbon binds to the oxygen to form carbon dioxide. This is why the level of carbon dioxide is increasing and the greenhouse effect is coming into being. As the world burns more hydrocarbons like crude oil and coal, the combustion with oxygen will release more CO2 in the atmosphere.

There is also another trend that is worrying about CO2 levels that usually isn’t discussed. That is the trend of deforestation. Vegetation almost always takes in carbon dioxide and releases oxygen through a process known as photosynthesis. Therefore, forests are known as carbon sinks that remove carbon dioxide from the air naturally when they produce the sugar molecules they need to survive. Therefore, climate change has two culprits, hydrocarbon use and deforestation.

This is the science. However, \with politics the issue is more difficult to manage. Efforts to reduce the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are fraught with challenges. First is the expense. Coal and gas are cheap forms of energy. Trying to cut energy use in many parts of the world are political non-starters for many nations. Some governments also fear massive unrest if they try to curb gas use by raising prices. There have been governments that have almost been toppled because of an ending of a fuel subsidy. Even in a rich country like the US, the price at the pump is always front and center when it comes to economic sentiment and presidential approval rates.

The second of course is the fact that oil and gas are big businesses. You may even say they are the biggest business on Earth. There’s a reason the Saudi royal family has enough money to buy the PGA. Oil and gas companies are enormous companies with millions of employees and large amounts of shareholders. Efforts to put these companies out of business is not feasible for these reasons. Oil companies have political attributes to protect their profits and positions in the global economy.

There are also further economic reasons why ending oil would cause geoglobal instability if it were actually put into practice. Nations that are rich in crude oil resources are not going to give up their economic good fortune easily. There are also developing nations that depend on their petroleum reserves almost exclusively to fund their budgets. Petrostates like Nigeria would lose a substantial amount of their income if they had no oil imports to fund the government.

The science and politics therefore collide on a pathway that neither side can win the argument completely. We know that we are facing environmental catastrophe if we keep increasing the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. We also know that the effort to completely remove oil and gas from the energy mix along with coal is not politically doable. So how do we solve the problem? This is where we stand right now with the issue.

This issue therefore shows the vital place that the UN plays in the global challenges that face our world. Climate change is not just an issue that affects the US or another singular nation. Climate change is a global issue. It is one of the moving parts that require a set of cooperation between nations to find the solutions to prevent a warming trend that could desecrate the global climate. 

We have already seen the effects of climate change. There has been a migration away from the equator for wildlife due to warming trends. Hurricanes and monsoons are becoming more frequent. “Hundred year” floods are occurring in some places much more frequently. The solutions are not easy. It requires work and deal making. 

Even the UN mission itself has issues with its agenda when it comes to global warming. Freedom from want is a founding value of the United Nations. This includes access to electricity that can be vital in many parts of the world that depend on things like wooden charcoal to cook meals. Power sources could end this unsustainable practice but that would require electricity access. Hence the solutions to the global warming debate are more nuanced.

Fortunately, many developing nations have the option to “leapfrog” the development that the industrialized world used to form their current electrical grid. Wind and solar power can now be used as the first source of energy instead of relying on fossil fuels as a starting point. Still, this is also a process that takes time but also must be considered when discussing the issue of climate change.

The United Nations is in  a position to handle these issues globally so that the efforts don’t just pit one nation against another. Climate change is a global issue, not a national issue where oil rich states are pitted against other nations that are feeling the largest effects caused by climate change. 

We have the problems and fortunately we have the solutions. There are green sources of energy that can be used to replace fossil fuels. The difficulties of economics are still the problem we must consider along with the rights of the less fortunate. Electric cars and even methods of carbon capture are possible with the burning of fossil fuels. Ending rapid deforestation in places like the Amazon rainforest is also possible. 

Everything must be on the table when it comes to this issue. Economics and science are the two main forces at work here. Going away with a solution on both sides of this table is vital for organizations like the United Nations to prevent an irreversible warming trend. 

Awareness is a positive tool when it comes to this issue. Pressure must be applied wisely to push the science to the forefront to force the issue among the political and economic realities that often govern the way that global politics works. This is even true at the United Nations. Stay informed and educate yourself on this reality. Global warming is real science and it is also not a problem that is easily solved.