It is believed that global warming, or the "greenhouse effect," is slowly heating up the Earth. If something is not done to reduce fossil fuel emissions, the Earth will continue to heat up unimpeded. An increase in the temperature of Earth of even a few degrees could have drastic side effects. The greenhouse effect is caused by specific gas emissions that blanket the Earth and prevent heat from escaping. The most important of these gases is carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide escapes into the atmosphere in a variety of ways. Car emissions and the burning of fossil fuels account for about 90 percent of carbon dioxide emissions (Abrahamson 214). The use of fossil fuels is the most inexpensive and efficient method of creating energy, but the supply of fossil fuels is running out. It is predicted that, at the current rate of consumption, the Earth’s supply of fossil fuels should be totally exhausted in the year 2350 (Levi, Hafemeister, & Scribner 181). In addition, we burn fossil fuels at such an enormous rate that the emissions of carbon dioxide are becoming an increasing problem every year. These emissions build up in the atmosphere and reside for approximately 300 years because the gas is so resistant to breaking down. Carbon dioxide allows rays from the sun in to warm the Earth, but when the Earth emits the energy back into space in the form of heat waves (infra-red radiation), it is absorbed by carbon dioxide, creating a blanket of heat. The term greenhouse effect is derived from the fact that heat comes in, but does not escape (see figure 1).

Without motivation from the public to do something about global warming, it is certain to take a low priority to other problems. A large-scale survey and a small, independent survey were conducted for the purpose of determining concern over global warming issues. The general population is not very worried about global warming. In perspective, many people feel that global warming is not a threat right now and is therefore not very high among their concerns. Many scientists also feel that the issue is (figure 1: This figure illustrates how heat becomes trapped inside a greenhouse)

(Benard, p50)

unimportant or that there are other issues needing more attention. Nonetheless, we should keep in mind that it is always better to deal with a problem early because it is much easier to resolve in its early stages.

The most sensible solution in this situation is to find a replacement energy source for fossil fuels. The burning of fossil fuels pollutes the land, air, and sea and is also responsible for carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to global warming. In addition, fossil fuels are non-renewable resources, meaning they do not replenish themselves, that we should conserve, instead of burning for all of our energy needs.

The process known as the greenhouse effect, as illustrated in figure 2, begins by heat from the sun, which is emitted in the form of ultra-violet rays and the visible light spectrum. These rays pass through the Earth’s atmosphere. The atmosphere reflects some of the rays and absorbs or allows the rest through. The Earth absorbs what makes it through the atmosphere. This process heats up the Earth and then heat is emitted back into space in the form of infrared radiation, or heat waves. Heat waves have an extremely long wavelength and can thus be absorbed by certain greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the most common of which is carbon monoxide. These gases trap heat within the atmosphere, creating a blanket-like effect on the earth. Similar to a greenhouse, heat comes in, but does not escape. In the scientific community,

(figure 2: This figure shows how, like in a greenhouse, heat becomes trapped in the atmosphere)

(Hafemeister, Levi, & Scribner 57)

greenhouse gases are usually considered to be carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), nitrous oxide (N₂O), and water vapor (H₂O_(g)). These gases are only partially affected by humans. Largely, we cannot control water vapor, nitrous oxide, and methane. (Benard 83)

The Challenge of Global Warming is an excellent book by Dean Abrahamson. It is clearly stated and convincing. A layperson can easily understand the book, yet it contains research-backed data which could be useful to any scientist. Some statistics from his book are used here. One must remember, however, that Abrahamson’s statistics may differ slightly from other sources because the topic of global warming is so subjective because of the questions surrounding its existence.

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased 50 percent in the last 100 years; however, the actual concentration in the atmosphere is only a 0.02 percent total concentration (Abrahamson 214). This may be why the scientific community differs in recognizing the importance of slowing the global warming process. Coal and oil combustion account for approximately 40 percent of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. In this group, car exhaust makes up about 45 percent, the greatest factor in carbon dioxide emissions. Unfortunately, carbon dioxide has a residence time in the atmosphere of about 300 years. Even if we stopped all CO₂ emissions today, what is already in the atmosphere could only slowly diminish for another three centuries (Abrahamson 215). Because CO₂ emissions will not stop, and will even increase, the problem is compounded, thus increasing the risk.

Deforestation is a very large contributor to carbon-dioxide emissions. Trees and forests and all plants in general remove carbon dioxide from the air. In fact, while trees are young and growing rapidly, they absorb so much carbon dioxide that they cannot use it all and it is stored in the trunk (Levi, Hafemeister, & Scribner 181). They do this by a process known as photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is a process by which plants create energy by removing carbon dioxide from the air and releasing oxygen off as a byproduct. The reaction for photosynthesis is written as follows:

CO₂ + H₂O ® CH₂O + O₂

All plants survive by utilizing this process. Examples of other plants that help remove carbon dioxide from the air besides trees include plankton in the oceans and even common grass take part in this life giving process (181). Collectively, photosynthesis removes a tenth of all of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere every year. It should be noted, however, that when the tree dies, it gives off stored carbon dioxide and further adds to the problem of carbon dioxide emissions instead of helping to solve it (181).

Another greenhouse gas to be concerned about is methane. Methane levels have doubled over the past 100 years. Methane is produced during the decomposition of organic material. It is found in swamps, marshes, landfills, rice paddies, and in marine sediments. It is also generated from the burning of biomass (wood for example). Natural gas leakage and coal mining account for 15 to 20 percent of methane emissions. Partially under human control, cattle and rice paddies account for another 35 to 40 percent. Burning biomass and landfills add another 20 percent (Abrahamson 215). The remaining 20 to 30 percent comes from natural sources, such as wetlands and lake sedimentation. If methane escapes into the stratosphere (although only a small portion does), it is converted into water vapor, which is an extremely powerful greenhouse gas. Methane only stays in the atmosphere about 10 years, however, because it is not as stable as CO_2, and breaks down after a much shorter time.

Some scientists do not believe there is any danger in global warming. Some of the arguments that they have range from the fact that the world heats up and cools in a natural cycle and there is nothing which can change that, to ideas that computers that are used to predict temperatures in the future cannot accurately do so (Alder 38) (Bender & Leone 25). Global warming is attacked and criticized on fronts such as these, but what is important is to remember the facts about global warming.

An increase in the temperature of the Earth of even 4°C would be catastrophic. An example of one such consequence is massive flooding. If the general air temperature were to increase 4°C, polar ice caps would melt in massive quantities causing the general sea level to rise. Sea levels could increase several feet, flooding beaches, and wiping small islands off the face of the Earth (Bender & Leone 34). While it may seem to contradict the concept of flooding, the increase in temperature could also cause massive desertification and drought. Dry areas such as the mid-western United States and Africa could suffer massive lack of rainfall turning once dry but productive areas into desert wastelands. Even with all the extra water around, do not assume that at least ocean life would be happy, because destruction of the underwater eco-system is one of the most powerful threats caused by global warming. Fish and plankton would die in massive amounts if such a change were to occur. The ocean is very sensitive to climatic change. It is like when buying a new goldfish, one must be very careful about introducing the fish into its new fish bowl’s temperature. Even after the fish becomes accustomed to the new water, one must regulate the temperature of the bowl constantly to keep the fish from dying. Now imagine this effect on a huge scale with tiny, delicate organisms like plankton, the ocean’s main source of food. If such a change were to occur, the change in temperature would kill plankton on a huge scale, destroying the food chain of the ocean (Bender & Leone 35).

It is unfortunate that the issue is treated with such disregard by the general public (see social aspect section) mostly because there is a difference of opinion in the scientific community on whether or not there is a problem. A 4°C change is definitely a possibility. According to computer modeling, which is based on trends in air temperature set in the past, if the carbon dioxide concentrations were to double, the average temperature of the Earth would increase 4°C (Bender & Leone 33). As mentioned earlier, carbon dioxide is only at a 0.02 percent concentration in the atmosphere. This would mean that if concentrations were to increase to 0.04 percent, we could have a catastrophe on our hands very soon. Furthermore, if concentrations of carbon-dioxide are increasing at 50 percent a year, this could make the "theory" of global warming a noticeable problem within the next four years. This issue is not to be down-played for any reason.

Oil, coal, and petroleum companies, and other high polluters who profit highly from the combustion of fossil fuels, ran a $500,000 campaign to sway "older, less-educated males from larger households who are not typically active information-seekers," and "younger, lower-income women," as "good targets for radio advertisements," to oppose to the global warming theory (Burton, Rampton 29). The status of the Earth and the concerns by the general public for it should not be suppressed for the interests of profit. In fact, "Even industry organizations such as the American Petroleum Institute and British Petroleum admit the use of fossil fuels likely has some effect," on global warming (Peachey 43).

Steps toward correcting this problem need not jeopardize the interests of industry, anyway. Planned cutbacks in fossil fuel use, such as those suggested in the Kyoto Conference, are very realistic. The Kyoto Conference was a 10-day meeting of industrialized nations held in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997. While the outcome is yet to be ratified by the United States and other governments, the Kyoto Protocol proposes the lowering of greenhouse gas emissions to 5 percent below1990 levels by the year 2010 in certain industrialized nations. In fact, the United States accepted a 7 percent decrease in an effort to further negotiations (Roth 28).

Industry believes that this decrease in energy consumption will only cause economic disaster in loss of jobs and income, yet not diminish greenhouse gas emissions because other countries--not affected by the Kyoto Protocol--will generate more emissions in their bid to compete for a corner on the world market. (Music 1-2). This idea, however, is false. In an article entitled, "Greenhouse common sense: Why global-warming economics matters more than science," the economic pros and cons were carefully analyzed by Gregg Easterbrook. The article explains that while energy cutbacks described in the Kyoto Protocol would mean changes, they did not necessarily mean an injured economy. Easterbrook cites many examples of how environmental conservation acts, laws, and ideas have only improved the quality of living for everyone. An example Easterbrook cites is the Clean Water Act of 1972, which prohibited industry from dumping hazardous material into lakes and rivers, and other laws passed in the 1970’s which were designed to reduce smog. Not only were these laws enacted over a time of economic growth (which would include industrial growth), money saved on health care is estimated to be $40 saved for every $1 spent on environmental control (58). Another good, common sense example, is the florescent light bulb. Although fluorescent light bulbs are costly, at approximately $15 each for a typical bulb, they save the user an average of $50 over their lifetime. Also, because they last so much longer and operate so much more efficiently, they do not clog up landfills, only use a tenth as much electricity as a regular bulb, save on packaging and thus deforestation, and save money and gasoline because of reduced shipping (59).

In the same way, Easterbrook believes that similar, productive solutions could be employed to satisfy the criteria set forth by the Kyoto Protocol. The author suggests that hybrid engines, which run off gasoline and an electric motor, could save vast amounts of energy because they are estimated to run at 66 miles per gallon (60). Ethanol is also a good choice for gasoline replacement, because it burns so much cleaner and more efficiently that gasoline. In fact, ethanol powered engines are used almost exclusively in professional racing. Another good idea, which may help replace a few coal burning power plants, is solar power. Solar power cells are becoming less expensive and more efficient and it is quite possible, according to Easterbrook, that they could be lining the roof of every house in the Midwest very soon (61).

Global warming is vastly affected by the fact that the world’s attitude towards it seems lackadaisical. Most Americans do not feel that global warming will be any kind of a threat within the next 2-3 years. According to a 1996 Gallup Poll Monthly, 64 to 76 percent of Americans believe that global warming "will have harmful effects within the next 25 years" (Gallup & Sadd 13). In addition to this, only 25 percent thought that global warming would pose a "serious threat" to them during their lifetime (13). With such indications of apathy and unconcern, it is no wonder that global warming gets so little attention.

Another disturbing factor in society’s attitude toward global warming is the public’s overwhelming ignorance on the issue of global warming. According to the Gallup Poll, only 16 percent of Americans believe they understand the issue "very well" and only 26 percent think they know the issue "fairly well" (Gallup & Sadd 14).

In 1992, 53 percent of the public thought that aerosol sprays were a "major cause" of global warming (14). In fact, aerosol sprays have very little to do with global warming. Global warming is caused by the release of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, which come typically from the combustion of fossil fuels that trap heat over the Earth like a blanket. Aerosol sprays contribute to ozone depletion because they release chloro-flouro-carbons (CFCs), not greenhouse gasses. Destruction of the Earth’s protective ozone layer, which reflects deadly ultra-violet rays, by CFCs is caused by their release at the hands of refrigerants and aerosols (Watson 2-3). CFCs react violently with ozone (O₃) destroying it in massive quantities. This allows ultra-violet rays to get to the Earth. While ultra violet rays cause cancer and cataracts and other serious medical problems, they do not significantly heat up the Earth. CFCs are so insignificant in comparison to carbon dioxide and methane and other greenhouse gasses that they’re contribution to the blanket-like effect that causes global warming makes them hardly worth mentioning. Although both global warming and ozone depletion are important issues, they are more unrelated than people seem to think.

The Social Aspect: A Clemson Viewpoint

To further test the general attitude and knowledge of global warming, an informal survey was conducted at Clemson University over a small, selected group of people. The findings at Clemson were fairly consistent with those of the Gallup Poll. When asked whether they were concerned about global warming, only 44 percent of the selected Clemson students felt concerned about global warming and little more than half felt that the United States should put sanctions on the emissions of greenhouse gases (Clemson Survey). By their own admission, only 25 percent of the Clemson students asked believed they were "well informed on the issue." Only 19 percent thought they were "fairly well informed." The following question was asked to each student in the survey: "When considering the right candidate for president, how would you rank environmental issues among other platform issues (e.g., political party, economics, economy, healthcare, or taxes)." Only 19 percent of the students surveyed answered that they would rank environmental issues "high." The rest thought that they were either "last" or "low." (Clemson Survey) To add insult to injury, some Clemson students expressed their disinterest or ignorance on the issue with comments such as, "We could use some global warming; it’s cold around here," and "I don’t know anything about it, but I know it’s getting worse." (Clemson Survey).

In the survey, students were asked the question, "What do you consider to be the biggest environmental problem of the day?" Most (63 percent) stated that pollution was their biggest cause for concern. Thirteen percent said they felt that air pollution specifically was the biggest problem (Clemson Survey). Another 19 percent indicated that deforestation was the greatest cause for concern. Among their environmental worries, no one in the survey stated that global warming was the most important environmental issue of the day, but about half said they believed it should rank in at least the top three. It should be noted, however, that those who are concerned with deforestation, air pollution, and water pollution are also inadvertently concerned about global warming. The greatest contributors to air and water pollution are the spilling or combustion of fossil fuels (Clemson Survey). Deforestation reduces the number of trees that absorb carbon dioxide, and water pollution kills plankton, which--similar to trees--helps convert carbon dioxide to oxygen. Had these people been more educated on global warming, they would know that they are fighting for the same cause.

It is possible that people’s resistance to conservation techniques such as carpooling, mass transit, and even fossil fuel conservation is rooted in the belief that they are giving up a freedom. The fact that no one wants to sacrifice his or her freedom might explain why the carpool lanes are not nearly as crowded. Perhaps it is human nature to resist change or paradigm shifts, or it could just be that the very force that gave America its freedom persists in each individual’s desire to maintain every minute freedom gained. Global warming, though, is a real danger. No matter how you look at it, the problem is there and at least deserves some attention. It is possible that people are concerned about the repercussions of global warming, but are either ignorant of what causes it or are unfamiliar with the real causes and effect. It should be taken into account, however, that everyone interviewed in the Clemson survey (100 percent), stated that it would be worth the expenditure in resources to develop alternative fuel sources as a means to reduce the use of fossil fuels (Clemson Survey). If the problem could be articulated in a manner understandable to the public, it may well be the necessary tool to gain its correction. It is important to educate people about this issue. Everyone should become more involved in learning about global warming. With knowledge of the subject will come informed opinions and real concerns. With concern will come the search for answers, and with the search will come solutions. The Earth is something that should not be taken for granted. If we become effective stewards, the Earth will last us a lifetime and give our posterity generations unceasing.

• Are you concerned about global warming?

• Do you feel that the United States should put sanctions on carbon dioxide or other green house gas emissions?

• Do you feel that you are well informed on the issue?

• Do you do you feel that it would be good or bad to devote the resources necessary and look for alternate fuels to replace fossil fuels?

• What do you consider to be the biggest environmental problems today that you can think of?

• What would you rank global warming as, in order of importance, among all environmental issues that you can think of?

• When considering who to vote for, for president, how would you rank environmental issues among the others (e.g., political party, economic platform, economy, healthcare, taxes, etc . . .)

• Do you have any comments or thoughts on the issue (optional)?