There seem to be afloat strong differences as to the causes of global warming. You see it on the news and on the Web.
Some say that global warming is a natural phenomenon, as the sun is hyperflaring and heating the earth’s surface.
Though some scientists supporting this natural cause theory have been linked to funding by Exxon and other oil corporations, there is still the fact that sun flaring has been on the rise. If we consider the fact that our ozone layer has been polluted and diminished, sun-flaring then has an incremental or synergistic effect, thereby causing the surface of the earth to be more affected by the sun’s heat.
This said, the other side of the global warming equation, which is supported by 98 percent of the scientific community, who are largely free of influence from oil corporations, shows ample evidence that global warming is caused by human activities, and is human-related.
This resounding majority of scientists have proved their case, showing a positive correlation between the time of our increase in oil production and its use as coinciding with an increase in hydrocarbons and an increase in the temperature of our planet
What if both theories have merit? This is my contention. And if both theories do have merit, what do we do now?
When I was a drug-rehab nurse (before insurance companies took my job away) there was a refrain in 12-step circles: “God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.”
It seems this saying can apply to the issue of global warming. If both theories are correct, I can apply 12-step wisdom. For instance, I can’t change the sun’s-flaring. The energy alone it would take to attempt to change the sun’s course of action could be harmful and wasteful as an end result.
But I can change my own activities that produce hydrocarbons in the atmosphere and that also contribute to global warming. And I may not be able to entirely prevent global warming, but I can empower myself and others, including corporations and government, to help slow down the global warming process as much as possible.
I can control my own environment, while asking my government to use less fossil fuel and to support more labor-intensive renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind energy. This would help the pollution factor, decrease hydrocarbons in the atmosphere, and create new jobs. The oil, nuke and LNG companies, or the coal, gas and ethanol industries may not like this approach, but it would be doing the right thing for our planet and those souls who live on it, and who will largely be affected by global warming.
Many Americans do not know that more than half the hydrocarbons produced by the U.S. are caused by war and the military industrial complex.
There is no greater example of this than the findings reported by an article in the L.A. Times in 2008 that said we cannot pull out of Iraq by 2013 because we cannot remove all the stuff we have transported there in that time frame.
The article implied it would take five to six years or longer just to bring our stuff back.
Think of all those cargo planes and cargo ships, and all those trips they have been making over the years, not to mention the shock-and-awe destruction of a needless pre-emptive war turned occupation. Isn’t this colossal mistake heating our planet?
As an individual, I can only do so much. But did you know that the test missiles launched from Cape Canaveral use as much energy as our community burns by car in a year, and produce 10 times the hydrocarbons?
The high technology of war and the mass production factories associated with war, the resources produced and destroyed by war, and the incendiary nature of war add dramatically to the hydrocarbon pollution, as well as to the heating of our planet. Missile testing and war in general should be stopped or reduced immediately.
And if we are to survive, we need a less hydrocarbon-intensive way of resolving our conflicts.
We the People should not bear the guilt or brunt of the blame for the cause of global warming. It is those corporate individuals (corporations are now individuals) that do far more extensive damage than the powerless person can. Sure, there are those who live on rolling estates with 10 bathrooms in 42,000-square-foot homes (Al Gore) but this is the tip of the iceberg compared to the destructive force of wasteful corporations.
The media exemplifies how harmful corporate “ethics” are to the heating and pollution of the planet. They glut us with their “buy, buy, buy” mantras and dominate our quotidial habits.
Along with corporate propaganda, the corporate structures, commercial buildings, factories, plants, etc., are designed, in large part, to consume energy rather than save it, and are contributing factors to global warming. They do far more damage than one person can. But since the Supreme Court says corporations are just powerful groups of individuals, they still have that human side to them, and therefore have the power of change in their hands. And therefore, humanity has that power, the human power to change this erroneous human side of global warming.
Grant Marcus is a resident of Ventura and a nurse.