SuperSatellite ||

Today, I got an email from a relative on the subject of the volcano eruption that occurred in Chile recently. It was accompanied by several pictures, from the ground and satellite, of the plume. There was also a simple (and unsourced) statement in it:

The amount of ash that was spewed into the atmosphere by the Chaitén Volcano, (Chile) dwarfs the amount of pollution the United States automobile industry has created since the invention of the automobile.

And that is all well and good, assuming that it is true. I have two counterpoints I want to offer. The first is directed at this example, the second will be on the topic of global warming itself. If you accept that quote as a well researched fact, there’s still the point that the quote does not put anything into context. Just because the eruption had a larger effect, does not mean that auto pollution is fine and dandy. There’s a reason we use the word “pollution” in reference to it, instead of calling it “auto environmentally friendly side effects.” Going out in LA on the highway in the middle of rush hour and breathing deeply all morning isn’t going to come much more highly recommended that breathing volcanic ash without a mask.

I can grant an eruption has widespread effects on a biosphere, no doubt. Look at Venus for an extreme case of what uncontrolled volcanism can do to a world. But, Earth built its biosphere on this planet, where volcanic eruptions were common during the early millenia of its formation. They were used as building blocks for minerals, chemical reactions, and atmospheric reinforcement. Essentially, mother nature has built in checks and balances for such natural processes. Pollution we add in on top of it is a separate matter.  It’s also not even remotely similar in substance or process.

In response to the email, I offered only one sentence: “On subjects of Global Warming, I generally defer to this guy: http://youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI.” The video is right below if you want to watch it, I can wait.

I don’t have any clue who this guy is, but I wish I did. He makes a point similar to one that I’ve tried to make for a long time. I don’t care whether or not global warming is actually occurring. That is wholly unimportant to me. What is important to me is that even if it isn’t, that is no excuse to treat the planet like our own personal toilet. It’s no excuse to refuse to change and be better at what we do. To believe that our biosphere can resist massive clear cutting, unchecked strip mining, and depletion of resources everywhere they are found is a laughable, and tragic concept. It’s on par with saying the world is flat.  If you require proof, go live in a big city, stick your head out of the window, and look to the sky.  Tell me what your stars look like at night, or what color the sky is during the day.  Then tell me that we don’t need to do anything about our behavior.

That’s why I like that video above. He makes the point well about how risk analysis should dictate how we behave on such matters. We will argue until a new era dawns if no one steps in. So what if climate change never takes place? At least if we acted, we’d have great long term benefits: better cars, more efficient alternative fuel sources, better waste disposal. These things matter. Anti-climate change people without fail eventually use that position as a way of justifying a stubborn mindset that refuses to evolve and adapt to a newer, more civilized world (or at least a more civilized world that is fighting tooth and nail to emerge).  Action is always preferable to non-action, and the results, while potentially causing short term strains, always provide greater long term benefits.  Non-action and petty political and regulatory bickering on the matter is leaving us with $4.00/gallon gasoline and $250/month heating bills.

QED.