The graph above has become increasingly noteworthy recently. It is the product of a years-old study by climate scientist Michael E. Mann, which shows a sharp rise in greenhouse gases in the last century, known as the “hockey stick curve.” The discussion of global warming in the media is growing at an exponential rate. Viewers of the film An Inconvenient Truth saw a similar curve to Mann’s hockey stick. Several different studies–often measuring CO2 levels, heat trends, and other climate elements in tree rings, lakebottom sediment, choral layers, and glacial records–have shown similar trends. Some say the earth’s climate is its hottest since the middle ages, some say it is hotter than it ever has been in two millenia. There is one thing that the scientists agree on–that there is something to this study, and if anything is to blame, it is human activities. They even gave Al Gore’s film five stars for accuracy!

This has been a hot topic here in California (no pun intended). On September 27, we became the first state to enact a universal cap on greenhouse gas emissions. However, many business-minded professionals disagree with setting the nation’s first standards on emissions here in our state for fear that it will increase the cost of doing business and send more businesses out-of-state and overseas. While this is a valid concern, does economic prosperity really outweigh the health of our ecosystem? (Believe it or not, it’s not only animals that rely on the environment around them to survive! And what’s the advantage of thriving business and deep pockets if there’s no planet to live and do business on?) I often hear these individuals then try to rationalize their position by saying that the claims are unfounded. “This is a natural part of the earth’s cyclical climate,” they like to say. Thank you, experts.

Across the nation both businesses and politicians are questioning the validity of so-called “global warming.” The House Committee on Energy and Commerce has even gone so far as to put Michael Mann’s hockey stick curve on trial. The Chronicle of Higher Education reports, “Gerald North, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University at College Station, served as chairman of the National Research Council committee that has investigated the hockey-stick curve. Despite finding some problems in the seven-year-old study that was the basis of the curve, the panel determined that it is basically correct in its conclusions, which have been corroborated by more-recent work,” including research by the University of East Anglia-England, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and others, which have all reached similar conclusions. Henry Waxman (D-Ca), said of the investigation, “This committee is doing what the deniers of global warming would have us do: ignore all the important questions and divert ourselves to a ridiculous effort to discredit a climate scientist… It’s back to the tactics of the tobacco industry–manufacture doubt to delay action on an urgent problem.”

So while they still debate it at the Federal level, at least we are taking action here in California. And I think that the California bill, which aims to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020, is good legislation. I’ve tried to show with the above evidence that global warming is a fairly uncontested reality for most scientists nowadays. So not only does that soothe your concerns for accurate science, but here is how I think the bill also solves business’ economic concerns: it sets an emissions standard for California companies, but my understanding is that anyone who wants to supply to California companies must also meet our standards. This means that our legislation will begin to influence other states and other countries as well–hopefully transforming the ethical obligations government and industry worldwide feel they have toward the environment–and not just push business away (even if some companies do move elsewhere, it opens up space for new competition, and competent businesses will always move in where there is space in the market for them). Also, those companies who fail to meet the standard can opt to buy credits from those companies who outperform the standard (thus the trade in “caps-and-trades”). This will actually create a new market here in California (one which a close friend of mine is interested in setting up business in), and thus create more jobs. A writer for TIME magazine recently wrote what I thought was a great assessment of the new bill: “California’s Global-Warming Solution” (a MUST-READ!). If we want to continue to thrive on this planet, then green is the future. Economic, social, and ecological sustainability are in everyone’s interest. I think it’s time we all acknowledge that.