Sea level, temperature, and social justice

   A. Summary

   This post is designed as a rebuttal to The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change by Marc Morano. Climate Change is real. Climate change critics like Morano do not want people to believe that climate change is due to burning of fossil fuels. They are not concerned enough with the expense and negative effects of sea level rise on real peoples' lives to find a scientifically valid alternative explanation for why seas are rising. They ignore the fact that the supplies of fossil fuels are limited. They seem to prefer people to argue about whether or not greenhouse gasses are responsible for climate change. They claim that the greenhouse gas theory was invented by those who desire to establish a one-world government. This controversy, driven by pro-fossil fuel climate change critics like Morano, shifts the public's attention away from the hundreds of billions of dollars in hidden annual costs of fossil fuels. These costs occur in the form of government subsidies, of public health costs, and of clean-up and remediation costs. Putting profits before people’s health and environmental quality is a form of social injustice.

B. Sea Level Rise     

       Is human activity forcing the earth's climate to change? As a person who is devoted to the truth, it is difficult for me to accept the sincerity of the climate change deniers. Actually, there seem to be fewer people than ever that continue to deny that the climate is changing. There are still those that claim that the rate of climate change is not at all unusual and that contemporary climate change is definitely not caused by human activity. What are the facts? An article from Business Insider 

(http://www.businessinsider.com/sea-level-rise-water-thermal-expansion-new-orleans-2015-6) states, "Earth's oceans rose an average of three inches since 1992, and the warming waters show no signs of stopping, NASA announced on August 26." According to this article, "Melting glaciers and ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica are responsible for at least two thirds of sea level rise." The other one third is due to "thermal expansion." That refers to a phenomenon in which water expands when heated above 4 degrees Centigrade. Ocean levels vary around the world probably due to uneven tidal forces exerted by the moon and sun or currents and/or the tilt of the earth. As I understand it, if one had a bathtub set on a level surface, the depth of water would be uniform throughout the tub. If one could introduce a strong gravitational force at one end of the tub, more water would be drawn to that end of the tub thus making the water level in that end "rise." Dump a bucket of ice into the tub and the level of water overall will rise with or without the gravitational force. Warm the water in the tub over 4 degrees centigrade and the overall water level of the tub will also rise. That is due to thermal expansion as explained above. 

    Average sea level and ocean temperature fluctuates from year to year. Some years they rise, some years they fall, some years they remain the same. It is the long term trends that concern scientists. Satellites began measuring sea levels in 1992. Sea levels have been rising an average of 3.2 millimeters annually from 1993-2018 (https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/).

       Ocean temperatures vary by location and depth. By comparing temperatures at specific locations/depths and at specific times, scientists trace average ocean temperatures.That is how they know the following:

• Sea surface temperature increased during the 20^th century and continues to rise. From 1901 through 2015, temperature rose at an average rate of 0.13°F per decade.
• Sea surface temperature has been consistently higher during the past three decades than at any other time since reliable observations began in 1880.
• Based on the historical record, increases in sea surface temperature have largely occurred over two key periods: between 1910 and 1940, and from about 1970 to the present. Sea surface temperature appears to have cooled between 1880 and 1910.
• Changes in sea surface temperature vary regionally. While most parts of the world’s oceans have seen temperature rise, a few areas have actually experienced cooling—for example, parts of the North Atlantic (https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-surface-temperature).

     If the northern hemisphere was getting warmer while the southern hemisphere was getting cooler, climate critics might say that was not a problem since the temperature extremes cancel each other out. If my feet are cold while my head has a fever, would that be a condition which should be ignored?  Or would the wiser course of action be to ascertain the cause of this physical condition?

     "If you look more closely at the past 2,000 years, you can see that sea level also goes through some less dramatic changes. For the first 900 years A.D., it was very steady. Then it rose gradually for the next 600 years or so, then fell even more gradually until about 1900. But at that point — just as greenhouse gases and global temperatures began to increase significantly — sea level began to rise faster than at any time over the previous 2,000 years, and has climbed about eight inches over the past century." (http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/basics/history)

     Long-term rising average temperatures of air and water correlate with rising sea levels. Both are signs of climate change and there is evidence that both have been occurring for decades. Nor is there any reason to believe the oceans will stop rising.  A scientific study published in 2016 "documented five vegetated reef islands (1–5 ha in size) that have recently vanished and a further six islands experiencing severe shoreline recession. Shoreline recession at two sites has destroyed villages that have existed since at least 1935, leading to community relocations" (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/5/054011). Miami, Florida has spent tens of millions of dollars to deal with flooding. This is flooding from the sea at high tide - not due to storm surge (https://www.ibuildamerica.com/industries/general-building/miami-beach-pump-stations-winning-race-rising-sea/). Miami's non-Hispanic white population had decreased to less than 12% by 2010 (Wikipedia). Sea level rise is reality.

C. Changes in Atmospheric Temperature

      Air temperatures vary with time and location. Scientists keep track of temperatures at different locations of the globe throughout each year. That is why NASA can state, "The global average surface temperature rose 0.6 to 0.9 degrees Celsius (1.1 to 1.6° F) between 1906 and 2005" (https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page2.php). The climate critics point out that scientists have found that atmospheric temperatures have changed abruptly a number of times in the geologic past. For example, the last glacial period culminated "with a 'relatively rapid' rise of temperature — about 1°C (roughly 2°F) per thousand years" (https://history.aip.org/climate/rapid.htm). A rise of .9°C per one hundred years is ten times faster than what the climate scientists consider "rapid" for the distant past.

D. The Greenhouse Gas Explanation

       It would seem natural to me to wonder why climate change is happening. 97 % of climate scientists believe that increasing "greenhouse gases" produced from human activity are responsible for rising sea levels. These gasses include carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane.

       Through the analysis of ice cores, etc. scientists are able to trace the concentrations of  greenhouse gases in earth's atmosphere throughout time. The concentration of these gasses in the atmosphere vary with conditions such as the seasons, the amount of fossil fuels being burned at any given time., etc. Scientists determine the average concentrations of these gasses through historical ice core studies. "Historical measurements show that the current global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are unprecedented compared with the past 800,000 years". Historical ice core studies indicate that the highest atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide until recently was 300 parts per million (ppm). That was 400,000 years ago. In the late 1770s the average concentration was 228 ppm. Air monitoring sites around the world show that global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide increased from approximately 315 ppm in 1950 to 400 ppm in 2015 (27% increase in 65 years). The highest atmospheric concentration of methane in the last 800,000 years until recently was approximately 750 parts per billion (ppb). In 1950 it was approximately 1250 ppb. By 2015 it was ap. 1875 ppb (50% increase in 65 yrs.). Nitrous oxide reached a high of 300 ppb more than 300,000 years ago. In 1950 it was approximately 290 ppb. In 2015, it was approximately 330 ppb (14% increase in 65 yrs.). (https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-atmospheric-concentrations-greenhouse-gases%23ref7)

E. Another Explanation?

            As I understand it, the greenhouse gas theory is that greenhouse gas emissions produced from human activities including burning of fossil fuels and raising of cattle results in climate change because higher concentrations of greenhouse gasses trap heat in the atmosphere that would ordinarily radiate into space as light waves. But what if 97% of climate scientists are mistaken? Perhaps there is another scientific explanation in regard to why  surface temperatures and sea levels are rising. If I really believed that there was and I had the money which climate deniers with large investments in the fossil fuel industry do, I would hire some of the 3% of scientists who disagree with the  greenhouse theory to discover the so far undetermined cause of rising sea levels and temperatures.
      I would also want those scientists to determine the possibly increasing subtle negative effects (other than climate change) that  the historically high concentrations of greenhouse gasses due to human activity may be having  on the ecological balance of planet Earth. That would include the 2-4% drop in ocean oxygen levels over the past fifty years (http://time.com/4675022/ocean-oxygen-study-world/). Continually increasing the concentrations of these gasses is like playing Russian roulette with the environment. Hoping the gun does not fire a bullet won't give one time to change one's mind or to repair the damage done. 
      On the other hand, if I were that rich and cared only about money and the white privileged members of my socio-economic class and felt threatened by increasing numbers of non-whites, I might not care why the seas are rising nor the negative effects that rise will have on the economically disadvantaged.

F. Fossil Fuels are not Renewable

        Even, if, in the fullness of time, it is found that greenhouse gasses have no negative effects, will our efforts to rely more on renewable sources of energy like solar, wind, geothermal, and pumped-storage hydroelectric, eventually be seen as a wasted investment? The climate change critics would like us to think so. They think every last bit of fossil fuels should be extracted from the earth for the sake of profit. This is very short-term, egocentric thinking. They claim that since the cause of rising average global temperatures is not certain, an ice age like the one that occurred in England in the 1700s might be right around the corner. Or it may occur a hundred years from  now just as the last of the fossil fuels in the earth are about to be extracted.  That, of course, will not be a problem for today's climate critics. But if one does care at all for future generations, one should be willing to conserve as many resources as possible since it seems inevitable that the human race will continue to multiply indefinitely. The more renewable energy we use today will allow more non-renewable fossil fuels to remain in reserve until such time as they are needed for survival.

 G. Are Fossil Fuels the Cheapest Source of Energy?

        The climate change deniers think it is unreasonable to develop "more expensive" sources of energy in order to avoid the use of fossil fuels. This view, of course, benefits those invested in the fossil fuel industry. But are fossil fuels really the cheapest form of energy? In 2014 the fossil fuel industry made a $257 billion profit in extracting, transporting, refining, distributing and trading in fossil fuels in the United States and Canada" (http://priceofoil.org/profits-oil-gas-coal-companies-operating-u-s-canada/). How can anyone claim with a straight face that fossil fuel is "inexpensive"? If the industry would not compensate their CEOs with millions of dollars annually and would sacrifice some of those billions of profit in lower prices for gasoline, heating oil, coal, and natural gas, it might be more believable.

      How one determines the cost of different sources of energy is a relevant question in determining which sources are least expensive. Some believe that fossil fuels (coal and natural gas) are actually more expensive than alternative sources, depending on location (https://cleantechnica.com/files/2016/12/low-costs-solar-wind-drop.png). 

     Cost of energy is not a simple calculation. Operation, maintenance, and fuel each involves a distinct cost. A report of the  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that looked at these costs for different energy sources indicates hydroelectric generation including pumped storage* was the least expensive way to generate electricity (https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_04.html).

    When comparing fossil fuel energy costs with alternative energy costs, there are two additional factors that are commonly overlooked. One is the bill American taxpayers foot each year for fossil fuel industry subsidies. A report written for Oil Change International stated "...U.S. federal and state governments hand the fossil fuel industry more than $20 billion each year in subsidies to sustain and expand their operations" (http://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2017/10/OCI_US-Fossil-Fuel-Subs-2015-16_Final_Oct2017.pdf). The other factor is the price ordinary people pay for damages to public health.

    Researchers of a European not-for-profit organization, Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL), "found that the use of fossil fuels resulted in health-related costs of more (than) $2.76 trillion across the globe..." (https://www.triplepundit.com/2017/08/hidden-health-cost-fossil-fuel-subsidies-report/). A 2012 EPA study entitled “Economic Value of U.S. Fossil Fuel Electricity Health Impacts,” estimates "that the economic value of health impacts from fossil fuel electricity in the United States is $361.7–886.5 billion annually, representing 2.5–6.0% of the national GDP" (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412012000542).
  
   All of these hundreds of billions of dollars in non-apparent costs of fossil fuels do not include the following:

1. The cost of remediating streams from the effects of acid coal mine drainage.
2. Millions of dollars from mine subsidence damages each year (http://www.dep.pa.gov/Citizens/MSI/Documents/MSI%20Information%20Brochure.pdf). 
3. Cleanup of collapsed waste slurry ponds. One such collapse at the TVA Kingston Fossil Plant in Tennessee was estimated to cost between  $675 and $975 million (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill).
4. Oil spill clean-ups vary in cost depending on the amount and type of oil and whether it is on land or water. There are millions of gallons spilled from pipelines, tanker trucks, and rail every year in addition to oil spilled into the water from ships and drilling rigs. The final estimated cost of the BP Gulf of Mexico spill was $61.6 billion (http://texashillcountry.com/bp-oil-spill-cost/).
5.  There are also water supply contamination and earthquake damage caused by fracking.

     The facts do not support the contention that fossil fuels are the cheapest form of energy for the US nor for the rest of the world.

H. Conclusion

           Climate change critics seem willing to make any non-scientific claim in order to maintain the public's overwhelming dependence on fossil fuels. As long as we remain dependent, those who are invested in the fossil fuel industry will continue to reap billions of dollars in profits, profits supported by tax-payers in the form of government subsidies, by insurance companies, and by consumer purchases. Even if one does not believe, as do 97% of climate scientists, that greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels are forcing climate change, one may still believe in social justice. Apart from climate change, fossil fuels have unnecessary negative effects on the common peoples' economy, on public health, and on the environment. Those negative effects violate social justice. As

Frederica Perera stated in an International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health article, "Fossil-fuel combustion by-products are the world’s most significant threat to children’s health and future and are major contributors to global inequality and environmental injustice" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5800116/).  
      When one considers the disadvantages, expense, and detriment6al effects to public health, property, and the environment apart from climate change, one must question the motivation of the climate critics like Morano. The longer it takes the public to recover from their dependence on fossil fuels, the more the fossil fuel industry and those invested in that industry will gain financially.

          Renewable energy sources (solar, wind, geothermal, and pumped storage hydroelectric*) do not have those negative effects. The absence of those negative effects helps to make renewables more beneficial than fossil fuels to a society. Why would anyone who believes in behaving in a just manner not want to support renewable energy and decrease his/her dependence on fossil fuel products?

*"Pumped-storage hydroelectricity (PSH), or pumped hydroelectric energy storage (PHES), is a type of hydroelectric energy storage used by electric power systems for load balancing. The method stores energy in the form of gravitational potential energy of water, pumped from a lower elevation reservoir to a higher elevation. Low-cost surplus off-peak electric power is typically used to run the pumps. During periods of high electrical demand, the stored water is released through turbines to produce electric power. Although the losses of the pumping process makes the plant a net consumer of energy overall, the system increases revenue by selling more electricity during periods of peak demand, when electricity prices are highest" (Wikipedia).