Bringing the global-warming debate to a boil

JOSEPH N. BELL

UC Irvine chemistry professor F. Sherwood Rowland has just added a

footnote to the list of achievements that won him a share of the

Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1995 for his research on the depletion

of the Earth’s ozone layer. Last week, he kept an overflow lay

audience at the Newport Beach Public Library auditorium deeply

engaged for more than two hours with a highly technical explanation

of global warming -- and I was there being educated.

Drawing from the beginning in the mid-1970s of charting the

increase of carbon dioxide being discharged into the atmosphere to

the sophisticated studies of today, Rowland built a case for us

against the steady encroachment of man-made global warming. He did it

with graphs, scribbled pages of formulae, quotes from scientists and

politicians, photographs and numbers piled on numbers, all delivered

with the kind of affection that accompanies the introduction of old

friends to a group of strangers.

I’m not going to attempt to replicate the technical evidence here

except to say it would be hard to find a more authoritative source,

and Rowland’s conclusions are shared firmly by -- among many others

-- the National Academy of Science and the members of the Kyoto

Protocol, an international agreement to mitigate global climate

change. At the core of their convictions is research telling us the

10 warmest years on record have all been since 1990, when we have

experienced the most drastic global temperature rise in more than

1,000 years. We have increased levels of man-made carbon dioxide --

the primary global-warming gas -- in our atmosphere by 30% in the

past 100 years, a greater increase than occurred over the previous

10,000 years. We have created -- and continue to create -- this

lethal pollution, and only we can turn it around.

By the time Rowland finished, I was ready for my marching orders.

But since I had an opportunity to question him after his lecture, I

wanted to know a little more specifically what depredations we might

expect if global warming continues unchecked.

With appropriate scientific caution, Rowland said: “All science

has to be faith-based to some degree. None of us can look into

absolutely everything. So we can’t say absolutely what will happen if

global warming continues to grow, but we strongly expect that without

corrective measures very soon, the growth will continue, and the

results will be drastic.”

What kind of results?

“There are two major possibilities -- possibilities, not

predictions: a shut-down of the Gulf Stream and El Nino becoming

permanent. If the first happens, the French climate would resemble

that of Siberia, the northeastern U.S. would be much colder and the

southern U.S. much warmer.

“If the second happens, typhoons would be much more frequent in

the eastern Pacific, and the rain/snow borderline in the Sierras

would rise several thousand feet. This would change winter snow to

rain, raising the likelihood of winter floods in Southern California.

And the declining snow pack in the Sierras would also mean less water

available for release in the dry summer months.”

If these possibilities sound draconian, they don’t seem to be

affecting Washington, D.C. Rowland generally skirted global warming

as a political issue, sticking to science except to call attention to

a comment from President Bush in 2001 that “we know the surface

temperature is warming.” This recognition was followed by a steadfast

refusal by Bush and his environmental team ever to mention the

subject again. “The Bush administration,” said Rowland in classic

understatement, “is giving us mixed messages.”

But Rowland can also point to a less circumspect breadth of

scientific and political sources. British Prime Minister Tony Blair,

for example -- while giving the back of his hand to his pal George

Bush for refusing to support the Kyoto Protocol -- calls global

warming “a challenge so far-reaching in its impact and irreversible

in its destructive power that it radically alters human existence.

Only timely action can avoid disaster.”

The Union of Concerned Scientists (whose letter to President Bush

urging that environmental decisions be based on solid scientific data

included Rowland’s signature) reported: “Despite claims that his

administration would make decisions about climate change that were

science-based, the Bush administration has suppressed the strong

scientific consensus on this issue.” And from the Sierra Club: “If we

don’t begin to act now to curb global warming, our children will live

in a world where the climate will be far less hospitable than it is

today.”

So what actions will we have to take to prevent this from

happening?

Rowland’s lecture included a chart showing that discharge of

carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases was about evenly

divided between industry, transportation and building construction.

It is clear that effective efforts to reduce these pollutants would

anger the business community and irritate the rest of us who would

have to give up some of our most cherished possessions and habits. We

would, just for starters, be told to lower thermostats, air

conditioners and water heaters, to use fluorescent light bulbs and

low-flow shower heads and especially to replace our gas-guzzling

cars. And on a larger scale, Rowland suggested the reluctant return

to more nuclear power plants and the broader use of natural gas,

which sends off much less carbon emissions than oil and coal.

Does Rowland think we can ever bring this off?

“Early in the 19th century,” he said, “city dwellers regularly

threw waste out the window because building sewers was difficult and

expensive. But when this practice became dangerous enough to their

health and well-being, the sewers were built. So when dumping carbon

dioxide into the atmosphere is seen as dangerous enough, we will act.

I just hope it isn’t too late.”

When and if that happens, the 200 Newport-Mesa residents who heard

Rowland speak last week will be armed to lead the charge.

* JOSEPH N. BELL is a resident of Santa Ana Heights. His column

appears Thursdays.