Cicerone, who was introduced by Chancellor Mark S. Wrighton to the researchers, students and other members of the Washington University community in attendance, said the problem of global warming will not go away on its own.

And while individual people may try to make a difference, he doubts that such small steps will be sufficient.

“I’m more optimistic about science and technology as the solution than human behavior; I don’t think human behavior is going to change fast enough, and I think science and technology can, but I don’t know how fast,” Cicerone said.

He said that while the issue of global warming has become politicized over the past few election cycles, the science alone necessitates that tangible solutions be pursued.

“I think the clarity of the science is improving, partly because the changes are accelerating—they’re getting easier to see. But in terms of solutions, I don’t see much commitment yet, even with the relatively easy targets out there, [such as] money to be saved with energy efficiencies. There’s just not as much out there as I would have expected,” he said.

Cicerone noted that while people should be worried about the consequences of humanity’s environmental recklessness, no one knows exactly what these consequences will be or when they will appear.

“Continued dependence on fossil fuels is eventually going to lead to a very serious problem; we don’t know exactly what, but we have to get started changing our energy [sources],” he said

He said that those who remain skeptical of global warming are consistently losing footing as the research becomes progressively clearer.

“Physical principles do explain the [globe’s] warming; it’s the added greenhouse gasses. At this point, there is no other viable explanation. Not only does [the model] fit, not only do the numbers work, but there is no other viable explanation that anybody has suggested yet. And I can tell you I wake up many mornings trying to,” Cicerone said. “Scientists don’t achieve much by simply confirming what other people have always found, so there are always people trying to be skeptical…and come up with other ideas. And it’s 35 years now where nothing has worked.”

Members of the undergraduate Pathfinder program in environmental sustainability were in attendance. Many said they were pleased with how well the lecture consolidated and built off of much of what they had learned from the University.

“I took a bunch of environmental classes last semester and what was said in the lecture, it was exactly what I was taught in class. It made me feel like Wash. U. is really nailing the climate change issue,” freshman Allison Karp said. “And it also was nice to hear from someone from the [National Academy of Sciences]…because that’s basically the authority on the subject. The lecture was great.”

“I’ve learned about most of this information before but he presented it in a really good way for the public,” freshman Orma Ravindranath said. “I thought that some of the analogies he used were really good.”

Freshman Chris Thom said he was interested with how Cicerone went past the environmental research to discuss the issues of security and financial cost related to pursuing sustainable technology.

“I found that very interesting because normally it’s just the science perspective but he also put a bit of an economics twist on it towards the end—which [as] an environmentalist you try to ignore, but really you need to look at,” he said.

Cicerone, introduced by Chancellor Mark Wrighton to about 300 peer scientists, students and other members of the Washington University community, said the problem of global warming will not go away on its own.

And while individual people may try to make a difference, he doubts that such small steps will be sufficient.

“I’m more optimistic about science and technology as the solution than human behavior; I don’t think human behavior is going to change fast enough, and I think science and technology can, but I don’t know how fast,” he said.

He said that while the issue of global warming has become politicized over the past few election cycles, the science alone necessitates that actual solutions be pursued.

“I think the clarity of the science is improving, partly because the charges are accelerating, they’re getting easier to see. But in terms of solutions, I don’t see much commitment yet, even with the relatively easy targets out there, [such as] money to be saved with energy efficiencies. There’s just not as much out there as I would have expected,” he said.

He noted that while people should be worried about the consequences of man’s environmental recklessness, no one knows exactly what these consequences will be or when they will appear.
“Continued dependence on fossil fuels is eventually going to lead to a very serious problem; we don’t know exactly what, but we have to get started changing our energy [sources].”

Members of the undergraduate Pathfinder program in environmental sustainability were in attendance, and many said they were pleased with how well the lecture consolidated and built off of much of what they had learned from the University.

Check back on Thursday for the full story.

But why? Why do I bother switching off the lights in an empty room or buying local produce? Because in reality, I’m not crazy. I am not radical; I am not ignorant. I am not a victim of some global warming hoax that liberals have cooked up to help spread the wealth. What I am is passionate—passionate about making a difference.

I am passionate about environmental issues, though not because I am any smarter or more righteous than anyone else. Frankly, it takes neither brains nor morals to be an environmentalist—it merely takes a little thought. I am passionate about environmental issues because I believe in doing what makes sense. It doesn’t make sense to use sewer sludge on food that people will eat or to breed turkeys so large that they need artificial insemination to procreate. It doesn’t make sense to throw away a bottle you can reuse. It doesn’t make sense to rely on outdated, polluting energy sources that are entirely nonrenewable. You can burn fossil fuels and sequester all the carbon dioxide in the ground, but you’ll never overcome the fact that coal and oil supplies are limited.

What does make sense is promoting cleaner, renewable energy so that there are no worries of limited supplies and major oil spills. What does make sense is farming as sustainably as possible, so that land’s resources are not exhausted. What does make sense is eliminating waste, because we can’t afford to waste anything more—time, energy or natural resources. I admit that I’m an idealist; I’m wishing for a lot in a short period of time. But athletes constantly crave a perfect game; engineers dream of a perfect machine. And better yet, they take action to achieve their goals. Likewise, I refuse to sit back, passively avoiding problems, when time is better spent striving for real solutions.

As an environmentalist, I am not a member of a deranged cult or religion; I am a part of a movement of concerned individuals trying to make the world a better place. If you’ve had a chance to stroll through campus in the last three weeks, you’ll know that Wash. U. is a beautiful place. Despite the Great Flood of October, the grass is lush and green, the trees are golden and red. We live at a beautiful school, in a beautiful country, on a beautiful planet, and I’m eager to do what I can to preserve all of it. Maybe one day I’ll be proven wrong, but for now I know what is right. I have to admit it—I care.

Much of Ms. Plovnick’s information is wrong, and her enthusiasm is misdirected.
There is no evidence that global warming will lead to increasing droughts or tropical storms (which make a lot of rain, the opposite of a drought). The climate has been steadily warming since the end of the Little Ice Age about 300 years ago. Some of this has been natural and some of it anthropogenic. There has been no evidence for an increase in either droughts or storms.

Sea level is rising at the rate of about 3.5 millimeters per year.  At that rate, a rise of four meters would take over 1,000 years. We rebuild our cities and infrastructure continuously, as they wear out or become obsolete, roughly every 50 years. Low-lying coastal cities will move inland, but the effect of rising seas will be only a small part of this natural process. There won’t be any climate refugees.

The world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China, not the U.S. Chinese emissions are growing rapidly, while those of the U.S. are nearly static. Are the Chinese supposed to remain poor peasants forever?

Why does she think she has the moral right to deny people in developing countries a fraction of the comforts we in America expect?

People won’t freeze in the dark for the sake of a scientific theory, even a correct scientific theory. It is inevitable that greenhouse gases will continue to rise until they are far above present levels.

Humanity will adapt. We may even benefit from longer growing seasons and milder winters (for good physics reasons, summers and the tropics are no hotter than they were 100 years ago and won’t get hotter).

Jonathan Katz
Professor of physics

Through all that I learned and experienced at Power Shift, my emotions shifted from fear and despair, to cautious hope, to ultimately a great desire to take action. First, I feared the dire consequences of continuing to release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at the current rate. With the expected temperature rise caused by greenhouse gas emissions, we will see increasing frequency of severe weather events such as droughts and tropical storms, species extinction, and a sea level rise of four to six meters that would put several coastal cities underwater, creating millions of climate refugees.

I also felt despair because the U.S. government does not seem eager to pass the climate change legislation that is necessary to stop such problems from occurring. The United Nations will meet in Copenhagen, Denmark, on Dec. 7 to discuss a new global climate treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol. Since the United States is the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gasses, an international treaty depends on the United States’ actions.

The House passed a clean energy bill over the summer, and a similar piece of legislation has been introduced in the Senate. But with the country focused on health care reform and many politicians unwilling to support clean energy legislation because they receive support from coal and energy companies in their states, it will certainly be difficult to pass such a bill before December.

My experience at the Power Shift Summit showed me that we are in a tricky situation but not a hopeless one. The fact that so many senators, including Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., remain on the fence about this issue means that we have a great opportunity to influence policy. If the United States passes or is leaning toward passing legislation that greatly reduces our greenhouse gas emissions, other nations will see that it is economically and politically feasible for them to follow suit, resulting in a strong international climate treaty at Copenhagen.

Which brings me to my last feeling of the weekend: an urgent desire for action. There is not much time, but we do have the incredible opportunity to affect change. At Power Shift, several of the workshops and speakers discussed how to influence policymakers effectively. Those who attended the conference will certainly bring these skills back to campus to push Senator McCaskill to support clean energy legislation. In fact, students have already begun taking action by attending the 350 Action @ the Arch rally and the campus sustainability fair this Saturday.

As important as these events were, we cannot stop here. We need to let Senator McCaskill know that we need to pass clean energy legislation by calling her office, writing letters, writing editorials, and spreading the word about this important issue. Influencing the vote of one senator may not seem like a drastic enough action for the massive problem of climate change, but it is one small step toward creating a global climate treaty. Senator McCaskill may be the deciding vote in passing clean energy legislation in the Senate, and U.S. action may be the deciding factor in creating a strong international accord that will be able to curb global warming. Last November, students made history by voting in record numbers to elect Barack Obama as president. This fall, we can make history again by influencing the establishment of a global climate treaty.

Amy is a sophomore in Arts & Sciences. She can be reached via e-mail at flutearp@gmail.com.