By Peter Montague For about 100 years, scientists have been saying that an increase in the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere (from burning coal and oil) will, sooner or later, heat up the planet. Carbon dioxide allows sunlight to strike the earth, but traps some of the resulting heat. Eventually, this additional heat will warm the planet. Very few scientists dispute this prediction. The carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere has increased 30% during the past century — an increase caused by the burning of coal and oil. This too is not in dispute. For the past 20 years, scientists have been looking for evidence that the increasing carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is producing a warming effect planet-wide. The problem is that the temperature varies naturally (daily and seasonal changes, plus larger fluctuations between decades and centuries), and so scientists are trying to "see" the global warming "signal" against the "background noise" of natural variations. The report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — some 200 of the world's best-known climate specialists, released last month, provides the most conclusive evidence yet that global warming is occurring, and that human activity is at least partially responsible. The effects of global warming, as described by the IPCC, include: "more extreme weather and possibly more intense tropical storms; the destruction of some communities by rising seas; damage to and loss of natural ecosystems that cannot adapt rapidly enough; diminished agricultural output in some places; and an increase in some tropical diseases".
Political struggle
However, scientific consensus alone will not avert the widespread dislocation that the IPCC report says global warming is likely to bring. The scientific consensus must be translated into public and private programs to move away from coal and oil toward solar energy in which no additional heat is created or released. The technologies necessary to do this exist. The determination to adopt them is what's missing. This is a question of political struggle. On one side are the scientists trying to get the word out to the public that burning coal and oil is likely to cause major disruptions of life as we know it. On the other hand, the coal and oil companies are trying to keep doubt alive, arguing we don't really know whether global warming is worth avoiding. The coal and oil companies are among the most powerful corporations on the planet. Many of them have annual sales larger than the annual value of the total goods and services produced by many countries. For example, in 1994 Exxon (US$103.5 billion) was larger than Finland and Israel. Mobil Oil ($57.4 billion) was larger than Ireland and New Zealand. Chevron Oil ($37.5 billion) was larger than Algeria, Hungary, Egypt, Morocco and Peru. While a few hundred scientists write about the dangers of global warming in scientific journals, Mobil Oil places advertisements in the New York Times, lobbying both the educated elite and Congress, urging no action on global warming. On February 25, 1993, for example, a Mobil advertisement acknowledged that, "if present trends continue, carbon dioxide levels will double over the next 50 to 100 years", but goes on to say that this may not have any effect whatsoever, or it may actually be beneficial. The Mobil advertisement quotes a book published by the Pacific Research Institute which states that, "the highly touted greenhouse disaster is most improbable". PRI is a San Francisco think tank which describes itself as "a non-profit education organisation that aims to foster individual liberty through free markets, protection of private property rights, and advocacy of limited government". Mobil also quotes S. Fred Singer a professor at the University of Virginia where he was funded by energy companies to pump out glossy pamphlets pooh-poohing climate change. Singer hasn't published original research on climate change for 20 years, and is now an "independent" consultant who spends his time writing letters to the editor and testifying before Congress, claiming that ozone-depletion and global warming aren't real problems. In the Mobil ad, Singer is quoted saying "the net impact [of a modest warming] may well be beneficial". The Mobil ad's summary is this: "It would seem that the [global warming] phenomenon — and its impact on the economy — are important enough to warrant considerably more research before proposing actions we may later regret. Perhaps the sky isn't falling, after all."Corporate disinformation
This kind of corporate disinformation has its intended effect. US congressperson Dana Rohrabacher who heads the House subcommittee on energy and environment said recently, "Nowhere is scientific nonsense more evident than in global warming programs that are sprinkled throughout the current year's budget". But Americans need not worry, he assured us, because "there's a new gang in town ... Our '96 budget does not operate on the assumption that global warming is a proven phenomenon. In fact, it is assumed at best to be unproven and at worst to be liberal claptrap, trendy, but soon to go out of style in our Newt Congress." At least 10% of Rohrabacher's $180,000 re-election campaign in 1994 was funded by energy and transportation corporations. Rohrabacher's words have been backed up by deeds. On October 12, the House approved a $21.5 billion science bill which explicitly prohibits the US Environmental Protection Agency from conducting any research into global warming. In opposition to scientific consensus, a handful of disgruntled critics, their tiny voices amplified by a billion-dollar corporation, can make endless arguments that war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, and global warming may be good for you.[Abridged from Rachel's Environment and Health Weekly.]