Explore the IssuesGlobal Warming
Global warming is already affecting the world as we know it, from rising sea levels to vanishing wildlife to extreme weather patterns. Scientists think that once greenhouse gas pollution climbs past a certain threshold in the earth’s atmosphere, various climate mechanisms will reach the point that they cannot be stopped. How’s that work? Through a number of “positive feedback loops” that get stronger over time. For example, ice reflects light and heat while water absorbs it. So as Arctic sea ice melts and exposes more water, less heat is reflected, more is absorbed and the Arctic gets warmer, leading more ice to melt and … you get the idea. So it’s necessary to act now before those forces reach the point of no return. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that avoiding the “major” impacts of global warming would require a 50 to 85 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Doing nothing about global warming, based on state-of-the-art computer modeling, would cost the U.S. economy more than $3.8 trillion annually in today’s dollars by 2100. Renewable Energy Renewable energy, drawn from sources such as windfarms and solar panels, can produce electricity without creating the global-warming pollution that endangers public health. And because it comes from nature, renewable energy won’t run out like fossil fuels. Renewable energy currently accounts for about 7 percent of U.S. power generation, but a Department of Energy report says that could grow to more than 20 percent if the right steps are taken. Spain, a world leader in renewable power, already produces more than 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, with some regions of millions of people supplied by more than 50 percent renewable energy. Germany has more than 18,000 wind turbines, driving an industry that provides 70,000 jobs. More than 99 percent of Iceland’s electricity comes from hydroelectric and geothermal sources, while many of our own renewable resources remain untapped.
Nuclear Power Nuclear power plants emit almost none of the pollutants -- including carbon -- that plague fossil fuels, but it is a misnomer to call the nuclear fuel cycle “clean.” Reactors routinely release small amounts of short-lived radioactive gases and liquids into the local environment, but there is a low risk, assuming competent nuclear operators, of catastrophic accidental releases of radioactivity. The traditional uranium mining and refining process produces large quantities of environmental contaminants that pose radiation and chemical hazards to human and environmental health. Alternative solution mining methods impair groundwater quality. Like a large coal-fired power plant, about two thirds of the energy produced by a nuclear reactor is typically discharged to the environment as waste heat, which can be a significant environmental problem for lakes, rivers, and bays that host nuclear plants. The cooling intakes of these plants routinely suck in and kill huge numbers of larvae and young fish every year. Finding acceptable sites for the long-term isolation of nuclear waste has proven to be a difficult problem in the U.S. and most other nuclear countries. Additionally, in some countries nuclear fuel cycle facilities pose a nuclear weapons proliferation threat, and all nuclear plants impose heightened security requirements and costs not shared by other power generating technologies. All these factors combine to favor quicker, cleaner, cheaper, and less risky renewable energy solutions as candidates for subsidies.
Transportation Increased funding for public transportation will give Americans more choices for getting to work. Right now, only 9 percent of the total U.S. work trips employ mass transit, compared to 40 percent in Europe. Transportation accounts for two-thirds of U.S. oil consumption and is the main contributor to global warming pollution. Americans that commute via train or bus reduce their carbon footprint significantly and save themselves money in the process.
Fuel Efficiency The United States has 3 percent of the world’s oil supply but represents 25 percent of the world’s demand for oil. Even if we could suddenly access all of our oil, it is impossible for us to significantly affect oil prices because they are determined by the world market. Oil is a finite resource, and the faster we use the oil we have, the faster we’ll run out. Even if the protected Arctic National Wildlife Refuge were opened for drilling tomorrow, despoiling one of the world’s last great wilderness areas, not a drop of oil would flow for a decade the greatest impact it could have on gas prices would be mere pennies per gallon. We need to put our money and focus into using less oil and finding transportation and fuel alternatives.
Where They Stand:Do you support or oppose mandatory limits to reduce global warming pollution 80% by 2050? 141 79 15 Do you support or oppose producing at least 20% of America’s electricity from clean power sources? 171 48 16 Do you support or oppose additional subsidies to build new nuclear power plants? 53 143 39 Do you support or oppose more federal funding for public transportation? 154 58 23 Do you support or oppose increasing fuel efficiency standards to at least 50 mpg by 2030? 144 77 14 Click here to see full questionnaire |
Global warming is already affecting the world as we know it, from rising sea levels to vanishing wildlife to extreme weather patterns. Scientists think that once greenhouse gas pollution climbs past a certain threshold in the earth’s atmosphere, various climate mechanisms will reach the point that they cannot be stopped. How’s that work? Through a number of “positive feedback loops” that get stronger over time. For example, ice reflects light and heat while water absorbs it. So as Arctic sea ice melts and exposes more water, less heat is reflected, more is absorbed and the Arctic gets warmer, leading more ice to melt and … you get the idea. So it’s necessary to act now before those forces reach the point of no return. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that avoiding the “major” impacts of global warming would require a 50 to 85 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Doing nothing about global warming, based on state-of-the-art computer modeling, would cost the U.S. economy more than $3.8 trillion annually in today’s dollars by 2100.
Renewable energy, drawn from sources such as windfarms and solar panels, can produce electricity without creating the global-warming pollution that endangers public health. And because it comes from nature, renewable energy won’t run out like fossil fuels. Renewable energy currently accounts for about 7 percent of U.S. power generation, but a Department of Energy report says that could grow to more than 20 percent if the right steps are taken. Spain, a world leader in renewable power, already produces more than 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, with some regions of millions of people supplied by more than 50 percent renewable energy. Germany has more than 18,000 wind turbines, driving an industry that provides 70,000 jobs. More than 99 percent of Iceland’s electricity comes from hydroelectric and geothermal sources, while many of our own renewable resources remain untapped.
Nuclear power plants emit almost none of the pollutants -- including carbon -- that plague fossil fuels, but it is a misnomer to call the nuclear fuel cycle “clean.” Reactors routinely release small amounts of short-lived radioactive gases and liquids into the local environment, but there is a low risk, assuming competent nuclear operators, of catastrophic accidental releases of radioactivity. The traditional uranium mining and refining process produces large quantities of environmental contaminants that pose radiation and chemical hazards to human and environmental health. Alternative solution mining methods impair groundwater quality. Like a large coal-fired power plant, about two thirds of the energy produced by a nuclear reactor is typically discharged to the environment as waste heat, which can be a significant environmental problem for lakes, rivers, and bays that host nuclear plants. The cooling intakes of these plants routinely suck in and kill huge numbers of larvae and young fish every year. Finding acceptable sites for the long-term isolation of nuclear waste has proven to be a difficult problem in the U.S. and most other nuclear countries. Additionally, in some countries nuclear fuel cycle facilities pose a nuclear weapons proliferation threat, and all nuclear plants impose heightened security requirements and costs not shared by other power generating technologies. All these factors combine to favor quicker, cleaner, cheaper, and less risky renewable energy solutions as candidates for subsidies.
Increased funding for public transportation will give Americans more choices for getting to work. Right now, only 9 percent of the total U.S. work trips employ mass transit, compared to 40 percent in Europe. Transportation accounts for two-thirds of U.S. oil consumption and is the main contributor to global warming pollution. Americans that commute via train or bus reduce their carbon footprint significantly and save themselves money in the process.
The United States has 3 percent of the world’s oil supply but represents 25 percent of the world’s demand for oil. Even if we could suddenly access all of our oil, it is impossible for us to significantly affect oil prices because they are determined by the world market. Oil is a finite resource, and the faster we use the oil we have, the faster we’ll run out. Even if the protected Arctic National Wildlife Refuge were opened for drilling tomorrow, despoiling one of the world’s last great wilderness areas, not a drop of oil would flow for a decade the greatest impact it could have on gas prices would be mere pennies per gallon. We need to put our money and focus into using less oil and finding transportation and fuel alternatives.