Divergent Views On Climate Change

Major media Today are full of apocalyptic predictions after the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. That is no surprise. I expect better from C&EN. Therefore, I was disappointed to read an editorial with similar sentiments by Jerry A. Bell and Bassam Z. Shakhashiri (March 17, page 3).

The so-called evidence that greenhouse emissions are going to cause catastrophe does not stand up to scientific analysis. An economist, Richard Tol, was the lone voice at the IPCC meeting in Japan to speak up against the overly alarmist predictions. Compare the IPCC computer models with actual temperatures for the past 20 years, i.e., real data. There is little chance based on current trends and the science of IR absorption of heat that a 2 °C temperature increase is going to happen no matter how much carbon we burn.

Ulick Stafford
Enniscorthy, Ireland

I was quite glad to see the guest editorial by Bell and Shakhashiri calling on ACS to continue to address climate change. This problem is so urgent that inaction would be utterly irresponsible.

In particular, I would like to underline their mention of a revenue-neutral carbon tax, with the tax to be imposed at the mine or wellhead, and the revenue to be distributed to the population at large. It is hard to think of a single measure that could do more to move people and institutions toward more efficient use of energy, and more use of renewable energy.

This kind of tax is advocated by many experts, including most Republican economists who address the issue. The one national organization dedicated to passing such a tax is the Citizens Climate Lobby, which is active across the U.S. and Canada.

Doug Burke
Oak Park, Ill.

The guest editorial by Bell and Shakhashiri is a tiresome rehash of the various mantras of those who believe that man-made catastrophic global warming is in our future. The only way to save mankind from causing massive disruptions of our climate is to minimize, if not eliminate, carbon-based fuels.

The very general statements about what might happen are based on models that are of questionable accuracy. The mantra that the “science is settled” has less and less validity as more and more studies reveal the complex and chaotic nature of the systems that impact Earth’s temperature and climate.

When considering the adverse effects that many “renewable energy” initiatives have had on economies throughout the world (that’s where the money for government grants to scientists comes from), it would appear wise to consider other ideas on this critical issue.

I look forward to more guest editorials/articles that might give a broader view of the factors involved in Earth’s climate and perhaps suggest other ways to deal with the challenge of man-made climate change (if there is such a thing).

Donald Koestler
Philadelphia

“Action on Climate Change” was a welcome prelude to the IPCC’s fifth assessment report focusing on the consequences of continued foot-dragging by responsible institutions. I have been perplexed by our nation’s inability to take this seriously, instead retreating largely into scientifically untenable denialism and parochialism.

I was especially pleased by the call for a revenue-neutral carbon tax, which has the potential to spur action across the entire economy without picking winners or losers. This policy has been endorsed by a wide range of scientific and economic experts, from climate scientist James Hansen to conservative economist Gregory Mankiw and from former Reagan secretary of state George Shultz to Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman. On this, we find agreement between organizations as diverse as environmental advocacy group 350.org; the nonpartisan Citizens Climate Lobby; and major oil companies such as ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Shell.

While the mainstream media and many politicians persist in viewing climate change mainly as a political issue, it’s good to see serious parties like ACS promote rational action. Yes, fossil fuels have been a crucial contributor to humanity’s advancement. Yes, we now know that their continued widespread use is altering our planet’s chemistry in dangerous ways. Both of these things are true, and we need to have the maturity and common sense to find the best way forward.

Isn’t that what engineers do?

Rick Knight
Brookfield, Ill.