Why were the Lights at the Eiffel Tower Turned Off?
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published last February 2 the “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Basis”, its most comprehensive report to-date, which assesses the current scientific knowledge of the natural and human drivers of climate change, observed changes in climate and projections for future climate change. The world’s climate scientists who contributed reported that the Earth’s climate system is increasingly heating up and that it likely has not been this warm for at least 1300 years.
Heating effects have been strong on melting of snow and ice, rising global mean sea level, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and aspects of extreme weather including droughts, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones.
The IPCC also said that it is unlikely that global warming is natural; they pinned it directly on human greenhouse gases emissions. Global temperatures are likely to rise by 2 to 4.5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century relative to the last, the IPCC said in the report.
The turning off of the lights at the Eiffel Tower was a symbolic step of the French government to campaign for a reduction of excessive energy consumption as well as the human greenhouse gases emissions that is destroying the ozone layer. It was turned on again after five minutes indicating that it was only a symbolic action to acknowledge that global warming is indeed true. It is perhaps the first step to a worldwide campaign to mitigate the climate change problem; or, perhaps, a first step that will not be further pursued.
“Global warming and climate change really have no direct or immediate implications to my life or to everyone else at the present time, since the effects such as rise in global temperatures will not manifest until after a few decades or centuries. I don’t deny that carbon emissions may play a role in the Earth’s warming of a degree Celsius, but it does not mean that the case is sufficiently proven to justify a revolution in global use of the fossil fuels. Such an abrupt policy would cause economic dislocations that may be far more severe than the climate change itself that as has been said earlier, will take place decades into the future. The IPCC report should be considered as another contribution to the global warming debate and not some definitive last word that justifies radical policy change in global energy use.”
This is the notion of most people.
But in truth, changes in precipitation amounts, the growing intensity and frequency of hurricanes and tropical cyclones and others are now being manifested by the environment. Most people, I believe, especially the Americans refuse to see this truth. The US is the only country who refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The US claimed that decreasing its carbon dioxide emissions would mean reduction in its industrial and commercial production. Although nuclear power has already been widely available in the US, coal and oil are still the primary sources of fuel and energy. US economy would decline if they were to lessen its industry, and the US government would not permit it.
I think, therefore, that the campaign to reduce greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels could be accomplished through a national commitment. The turning off of the lights at the Eiffel Tower may contribute little, if any, to improve the situation. Likewise, saving energy through electricity use will hardly help, as long as the burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal continue. I’m not saying individual efforts matter no more, they do. But countries, as a whole, who commit themselves into such cause can really contribute a big difference.
And as said above, abrupt policy changes in global energy usage can be disastrous to the economies of most countries. But a gradual transition from fossil fuel energy to renewable resources and even nuclear power could provide the only solution to the global warming and climate change issue. And it may as well start now.
This was a reaction paper for Social Science. I just thought I'd put it here to go along with my greening of industries essay. ^__________^ For Earth Day. Hopefully, some people begin to realize the urgency of the Earth's current situation.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published last February 2 the “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Basis”, its most comprehensive report to-date, which assesses the current scientific knowledge of the natural and human drivers of climate change, observed changes in climate and projections for future climate change. The world’s climate scientists who contributed reported that the Earth’s climate system is increasingly heating up and that it likely has not been this warm for at least 1300 years.
Heating effects have been strong on melting of snow and ice, rising global mean sea level, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and aspects of extreme weather including droughts, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones.
The IPCC also said that it is unlikely that global warming is natural; they pinned it directly on human greenhouse gases emissions. Global temperatures are likely to rise by 2 to 4.5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century relative to the last, the IPCC said in the report.
The turning off of the lights at the Eiffel Tower was a symbolic step of the French government to campaign for a reduction of excessive energy consumption as well as the human greenhouse gases emissions that is destroying the ozone layer. It was turned on again after five minutes indicating that it was only a symbolic action to acknowledge that global warming is indeed true. It is perhaps the first step to a worldwide campaign to mitigate the climate change problem; or, perhaps, a first step that will not be further pursued.
“Global warming and climate change really have no direct or immediate implications to my life or to everyone else at the present time, since the effects such as rise in global temperatures will not manifest until after a few decades or centuries. I don’t deny that carbon emissions may play a role in the Earth’s warming of a degree Celsius, but it does not mean that the case is sufficiently proven to justify a revolution in global use of the fossil fuels. Such an abrupt policy would cause economic dislocations that may be far more severe than the climate change itself that as has been said earlier, will take place decades into the future. The IPCC report should be considered as another contribution to the global warming debate and not some definitive last word that justifies radical policy change in global energy use.”
This is the notion of most people.
But in truth, changes in precipitation amounts, the growing intensity and frequency of hurricanes and tropical cyclones and others are now being manifested by the environment. Most people, I believe, especially the Americans refuse to see this truth. The US is the only country who refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The US claimed that decreasing its carbon dioxide emissions would mean reduction in its industrial and commercial production. Although nuclear power has already been widely available in the US, coal and oil are still the primary sources of fuel and energy. US economy would decline if they were to lessen its industry, and the US government would not permit it.
I think, therefore, that the campaign to reduce greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels could be accomplished through a national commitment. The turning off of the lights at the Eiffel Tower may contribute little, if any, to improve the situation. Likewise, saving energy through electricity use will hardly help, as long as the burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal continue. I’m not saying individual efforts matter no more, they do. But countries, as a whole, who commit themselves into such cause can really contribute a big difference.
And as said above, abrupt policy changes in global energy usage can be disastrous to the economies of most countries. But a gradual transition from fossil fuel energy to renewable resources and even nuclear power could provide the only solution to the global warming and climate change issue. And it may as well start now.
This was a reaction paper for Social Science. I just thought I'd put it here to go along with my greening of industries essay. ^__________^ For Earth Day. Hopefully, some people begin to realize the urgency of the Earth's current situation.