Although it is still too early to conclusively link the current North American heatwave and drought with the greenhouse effect, the growing demand for air conditioning by many North Americans to escape the heat [1] will, ironically, contribute to the build up of greenhouse gases in at least two ways.
First, the increased use of air conditioners will result in an increase in the amount of CFCs (notably CFC-11 and CFC-12, both greenhouse gases) released into the troposphere when these air conditioning units are destroyed [2]. And second, the electricity used to power the air conditioners will be generated, in part, by fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas -- all producing another greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, as a waste product [3].
Clearly, the concentrations of CFCs and carbon dioxide that will be released as a result of this heatwave are small. However, given the mounting evidence that these gases do contribute to the likelihood of global climate change [4], we must do everything within our power to reduce or eliminate their release into the environment.
References
Published: August 1988
The drought that has gripped much of the prairies and U.S. mid-west this summer will result in far more than higher bread prices ('Prairie drought will trigger rise in bread prices', Globe and Mail, 3 September 1988) -- many industries which use agricultural-based chemicals will also be affected [1].
For example, a number of ethanol producers in the U.S. have already been forced to shutdown or cut-back production because of a one-quarter drop in this year's corn yield. The low corn yield is also expected to affect those food, paper, and textile industries which use corn-based starches. Similarly, the price of alkyd resins, used in the production of paints and inks, will probably rise due to a shortfall in the soybean crop.
Since the past decade's warming trend culminating in this year's drought has been caused (at least in part) by man's production of greenhouse gases [2], it would seem prudent that we do everything possible to reduce the output of the various greenhouse gases. However, given the lack of action by most governments in curtailing the production of greenhouse gases, perhaps we'd better do what most farmers are reduced to doing each year -- praying for rain.
References
Published: September 1988
Elisabeth and John Honek are quite right, your magazine 'Domino' is far too glitzy and consumer-oriented given the environmental disasters of the past summer (letter, 17 September 1988). So, in order to show that the editors (sic) of Domino aren't just fashion conscious, but also environmentally aware, here are a couple of ideas that could be used in future issues:
Not Published
Although the environment is one of the key issues in this year's federal election, a number of policy statements from various politicians seem to contradict their 'pro-environment' stand. For example, take Mr.\ Broadbent's proposed two-cent a litre cut in the price of unleaded gasoline ("Cheaper gasoline NDP vows," 15 October 1988).
At first, the price reduction seems to make sense, since it may encourage people to start using unleaded gasoline before the federal government's 1990 deadline. However, National Energy Board figures (not to mention common sense) clearly show that the lower the price of gasoline, the more it will be used. It is inevitable that an increase in gasoline consumption will contribute to a number of environmental problems including:
Of course, maybe Mr. Broadbent was misquoted, and he really proposed a two-cent a litre increase in the price of gasoline and that the revenue obtained from this tax would go toward paying for additional rapid and mass transit systems in cities across Canada.
Let's hope so.
Published: October 1988
Gable's cartoon showing our three political leaders squabbling over a small bomb labelled 'Free Trade' while a larger bomb labelled 'Deficit Issues' had its fuse burning away (12 November 1988), omitted a third, even larger bomb with a very short, rapidly disappearing fuse labelled 'Environmental Issues'.
Published: November 1988
The recent article by Sue Branford on the greenhouse effect (Business can buy time against greenhouse effect, 3 December), demonstrates everything that is wrong with our approach to solving the greenhouse problem -- we do little or nothing to reduce our carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, while expecting people in the Third World to continue suffering for us.
This is best illustrated by the article's reference to the Applied Energy Services' (AES) 180 megawatt coal fired power station being built at Uncasville in Connecticut. AES (and the U.S. Government) are giving about $18 million to the Guatemala Agroforest Project to help 40,000 Guatemalan farmers plant trees over the next decade.
At first, encouraging Third World farmers to grow trees so that we may continue producing CO2 does seem to make sense. For example, not only can this type of project reduce the amount of CO2 available as a greenhouse gas, it can also be used to help stop desertification in areas of the world such as the Sahel. However, once these trees have reached maturity, they cannot be burned since this would release the stored carbon as CO2, defeating the entire purpose of the project. Instead, methods must be found to ensure that the carbon will not be released, including disposing of the wood underground or under the ocean, or using it as a construction material.
At present, hundreds of millions of people in the Third World spend untold hours searching for scraps of wood for cooking and heating. According to the Brundtland Report, by the turn of the century, over 2.4 billion people may live in areas where fuelwood is scarce. Given the dependence of people in the Third World on fuelwood, we cannot honestly expect them to grow trees for us which they cannot use as a fuel.
Unless we (the people of the First World) start to reduce our production of CO2, by the year 2000 there will be more to worry about than simply the greenhouse effect.
Published: December 1988