GLOBAL WARMING?

Political or Scientific? We've made a political issue out of the global warming phenomenon. It isn't. Its a scientific issue. When I started this blog I resolved to stay away from politics but such an important issue will have long lasting effects on our investment policies and I felt I had to devote at least some space to the myths and realities what's going on.

Is It Real? The scientific community is certainly not unanimous as to whether the temperature increase we're observing is just part of random cycles or whether its a real phenomenon that can be expected to continue if we don't do something about it. Although much of the discussion has occurred within the past 10-15 years, this certainly isn't new. I remember when I was working in the research department of a major oil company in 1964, we had a seminar in which a respected scientist told us of his research that indicated this was happening and that it was at least partially due to "the greenhouse effect". He defined the greenhouse effect as the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which was keeping heat from escaping the environment. Although not all scientists agree, for the purpose of this discussion, we will assume that the temperature changes we are observing are real and not just random fluctuations.

What is Causing Global Warming? If you ask the "man on the street" what is causing global warming, the answer will be pollution. The accuracy of this answer will depend on how you define pollution. The so-called pollution consists almost exclusively of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring substance in our atmosphere. Without it there would be no life on this planet. The first thing to go would be plant life which breathes in carbon dioxide to produce oxygen. This means no trees, no crops, no animals that eat plants, and no animals that eat the animals that eat plants. There is no carbon containing substance that can be converted to energy without generating carbon dioxide. Not ethanol, not biodiesel, not wood, and not coal. The cleanest burning engine known will produce carbon dioxide exclusively. Carbon dioxide is produced from other sources. We exhale carbon dioxide as do all animals; plant decay produces carbon dioxide; the leaves that fall from your trees produce carbon dioxide. Undoubtedly, without carbon dioxide there are other phenomena that can cause the earth's temperature to rise, not the least of which is is small increases in the temperature of the sun. In fact, some research indicates that this is the main culprit. All this leads me to believe that global warming, if it does exist, is certainly not caused by pollution since I could n ever consider a naturally occurring substance, without which life could not exist, as a pollutant.

Can We Improve the Situation by Reducing The Amount of Carbon Dioxide We Emit? Most people think we can. I have my doubts. We certainly can't stop exhaling, we can't stop the decay of plant materials, we can't control the temperature of the sun. We can burn less gasoline, diesel, and coal. If we assume this will make a substantial improvement, how will we replace that energy without ruining our economy and drastically reducing our standard of living? Perhaps a promising approach is the use of nuclear energy to generate electricity. Before you accuse me of being crazy, consider the fact that nuclear energy produces no emissions and there are already 10 countries that derive at least 40% of their electricity from nuclear power. This includes France which generates 79% of it's electricity from nuclear power. Of course, nuclear energy is not without its environmental hazards; however, even the most staunch environmentalists are becoming of the opinion that this is preferable to burning carbon containing materials. Hydrogen is touted as the fuel of the future since the combustion product is water vapor. Two huge barriers exist: 1. We haven't found an economical way to produce hydrogen for fuel. 2. We don't know the consequences of introducing huge amounts of water vapor into the atmosphere. It could increase global warming as much or more than carbon dioxide. Finally, we can use solar energy, which has been the utopian solution to the problem for decades. Despite the attractiveness of solar and the research that been devoted to developing it, it has yet to become a significant source of energy. Apparently, the technology necessary to develop solar into a significant resource is somewhat elusive.

What Can We Conclude From All This? A quick summary of my opinion is as follows.
1. Global warming most likely exists.
2. Part, but not all, of global warming may be from carbon dioxide.
3. Carbon dioxide is not pollution by my definition.
4. Carbon dioxide is not exclusively man-made.
5. We can reduce carbon dioxide emissions but this may not be enough to have a significant effect.
6. The economic and environmental consequences of reducing carbon dioxide emissions have not yet been
determined.

Hopefully This Post Has Not Been Offensive. I have tried to make it objective and not political. I felt it necessary to address this subject because of the large amount of misconceptions that are prevalent in discussions by politicians, all of whom think they know the answers. The fact is that the answers aren't simple. Those who think they are fully aware of what we need to do are misinformed. That is the trouble with politics. Everyone thinks a simple solution is available and it usually never is.