Global warming myths debunked
MYTH: The science of global warming is too uncertain to act on.
FACT: There is no debate among scientists about the basic facts of global warming.
The most respected scientific bodies have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and people are causing it by burning fossil fuels (like coal, oil and natural gas) and cutting down forests. The US National Academy of Sciences, which in 2005 the White House called "the gold standard of objective scientific assessment," issued a joint statement with 10 other National Academies of Science saying "the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions." (Joint Statement of Science Academies: Global Response to Climate Change [PDF], 2005)
The only actual debate in the science community about global warming regards how much and how fast warming will continue as a result of heat-trapping emissions. Scientists have given a clear warning about global warming, and we have more than enough facts — about causes and remedies — to implement solutions right now.
MYTH: Even if global warming is a problem, addressing it will hurt industries and workers.
FACT: A well designed trading programme will harness global ingenuity to decrease heat-trapping pollution cost-effectively, jumpstarting a new carbon economy.
Claims that fighting global warming will cripple economies and cost millions of jobs are unfounded. In fact, companies already reducing their heat-trapping emissions have discovered that cutting pollution can save money. The cost of a comprehensive national greenhouse gas reduction programme will depend on the precise emissions targets, the timing for the reductions and the means of implementation, but studies in the US have shown that a modest cap-and-trade scheme could cost less than $20, or roughly £10, a head.
Experience has shown properly designed emissions trading programmes can reduce compliance costs significantly compared with other regulatory approaches. The acid rain programme in the US reduced sulphur dioxide emissions by more than 30 per cent from 1990 levels and cost industry a fraction of what the government originally estimated, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Furthermore, a mandatory cap on emissions could spur technological innovation that could create jobs and wealth. Letting global warming continue until we are forced to address it on an emergency basis could disrupt and severely damage global economies. It is far wiser and more cost-effective to act now.
© Environmental Defense; reprinted with permission. For more information, visit their website at www.environmentaldefense.org.
