Climate
Change: What Really Matters
Last week,
it was reported that the United States Òhas rejected GermanyÕs bid to get [the
major industrial countries] to agree to tough cuts in climate warming
emissionsÓ (Lovell, Reuters, 6/25/07). The proposed cuts amount to roughly 50
percent below 1990 levels by 2050 and are apparently supported by British Prime
Minister Tony Blair, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and many other world
leaders. Once again, regarding emissions of greenhouse gases, it appears that the
U.S. Administration has decided to stick firm to its policy of voluntary cuts
and no timetables — a position that it has held for a long time, well
before President Bush came to office. With all the talk about impending climate
change, and with the U.S. Administration and the U.S. Congress unwilling to
deal with it, is it any wonder that many people are confused about what is
going on?
Seeped in the climate change issue for about 14 years
(commencing with my dissertation work on the subject), I have witnessed a lot
of things. In the mid-1990s, climate change and its closely associated Òglobal
warmingÓ were largely communicated by the mainstream media as having large
uncertainties. Therefore, while important, it was more a matter requiring
further research before something definitive could be said or done. Ten years
later, following Hurricane Katrina and the constant breaking of all-time (i.e.,
last 100 years) global annual temperature records, it seems that most are now
asking ÒNot If?Ó but ÒHow Much?Ó This shift in perspective, over a fairly short
period of time, represents a significant change and one that has the potential
to get us to reevaluate our current way of doing things and move us in a
direction that is safer, healthier, and wiser.
It is very important to stay abreast of the happenings
surrounding climate change for many reasons. Evidence is coming in so quickly
from all corners of the globe. Peruvian glaciers are melting for the first time
in thousands of years. Growing seasons are lengthening in many areas. Many
scientists even warn that there is the possibility of catastrophic change in
the next 100 years. But opportunities to contribute positively are also more
available than ever before. While it takes quite a bit of concentration to see
through the muck and manipulation found in this issue because of the many
political and economic forces involved, it is absolutely necessary that we do.
With many
scientifically-related topics these days, it is very easy to become confused.
For example, attempt to answer these questions: Is fat good for you? Is coal a
clean energy source? Is our tap water healthy to drink? Is cancer on the rise?
I suspect that as you attempted to answer these questions, you tried to draw
from what you have recently heard about these issues. And, in so doing, you
were left saying, Òwell, it depends,Ó or Òyes and no.Ó According to many of the
prominent media agencies and reporters, there is considerable uncertainty
associated with these questions, all of which seemingly should have definitive
answers by now.
There are
two main reasons why some scientific questions never quite have solid,
unequivocal answers. One stems from the inherent uncertainty in science. While
most scientists donÕt mention this often, all scientific claims are
conditional. This means that every conclusion can potentially be shown to be
misguided, incorrect, imprecise or otherwise limited in application. In fact,
this recognition that all scientific claims cannot be held absolutely is one of
sciences greatest strengths. A scientific perspective can be altered as new
research and evidence are brought to bear on a question. As an example, a great
deal of early research strongly suggested that excessive fat intake (via food)
was not good for cardiovascular (i.e., heart) function. This perspective was
modified when science demonstrated (with a preponderance of evidence) that some
fats (known as high-density lipoprotein (HDL)) are actually good for the heart
and others (known as low-density lipoprotein (LDL)) are often detrimental to
heart function. Scientific perspectives on climate change have changed too over
the past 30-40 years as more and more research is performed and hypotheses
tested. Some of this change has added to the confusion that people have on the
issue, something not lost on those that want to Òmuddy the watersÓ and delay
political responses (as we shall see).
Answers to
some scientific questions also change or vary because so much political and
economic power rests on them. For example, if ÒcleanÓ coal is thought to exist,
this has incredible potential to push public opinion and investment in
directions that motivate more coal exploration and extraction. If it doesnÕt
exist (a position of which I am a proponent based on the history of ÒdirtyÓ
coal and a holistic look at the entire coal energy enterprise), then we may be
compelled to adopt a solar-dependent energy policy. Since the burning of fossil
fuels is the primary contributor to enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations in
the atmosphere (which is the main driving force behind present and future
warming of the planet), conclusions founded on climatological research have
enhanced weight and significance in our society. And given our current world
environment, where fossil fuel industries (that is, coal, petroleum, and
natural gas) are among the most profitable on the planet, it is no wonder that
climate change research and its outcomes and pronouncements are hotly
contested. (Take for instance that Exxon-Mobil was the most profitable
corporation in 2006, with profits exceeding $39,000,000,000; the second most
profitable company was an astounding $17 billion dollars behind!) A shift away
from fossil fuels (or even a call for major energy conservation — in the
form of turning down our heat or the widespread purchase of hybrids) will cut
significantly into these profits; hence, so few politicians are wiling to
advocate such a position. Furthermore, we should not expect the mainstream
media (who is owned by a few giant conglomerates as well) to be able to be able
to present us with anything but biased and politically or
economically-motivated perspectives on a topic on which so much rests.
With all of
this apparent uncertainty and bias, is there any possibility of getting useful
and objective information on climate change? I believe there is, but one has to
be an assiduous and astute listener and reader in order to arrive at it. For
most of us, so much noise and sensationalism flood our consciousness that we
donÕt know whom to believe or what to do about it. So, letÕs look at what is
known and where it might lead us.
The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a good place to start. This
organization, founded in 1988 by the United Nations Environmental Programme and
the World Meteorological Society, has been examining and synthesizing climate
change research for nearly twenty years. The IPCC, which consists of more than
a thousand international scientists, publishes comprehensive summaries of the
current state of climate research. Their most recent report, entitled IPCC
Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), though not yet completed, is to be finalized later
this year. However, policymaker summaries for three of the four components of
AR4 were published earlier this year and these contain updated information about
past and future climate change; all of these reports can be found (for free;
what a concept) in their entirety at: <www.ipcc.ch>. Climate changes are
expected because global atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses are now
larger than have been witnessed on the planet for at least the last 650,000
years (taking us back before our species was even here). Based on a series of
climate models (all of which parameterize the climateÕs many contributing
variables), world temperatures are projected to rise an additional 2-12¼F
during the 21st Century, after having risen over a degree in the previous
century. (The wide gulf in uncertainty owes itself to: (1) a range of emissions
scenarios (i.e., how quickly we will reduce greenhouse pollution); and, (2) different
outputs of different climate models.) Sea levels are expected to rise an
additional 7-23 inches (though this projection doesnÕt include any appreciable
melting of the ice sheets on Greenland or Antarctica, which, though unlikely,
would greatly increase sea level). Regional changes, while not known precisely
at this point, are expected to deviate (sometimes greatly) from these global
averages.
In response
to these climatological changes, other important changes are anticipated as
well. Tropical diseases will spread extensively into new, warmer environs;
presently, this has been observed with the spread of West Nile Virus in the
U.S. and malaria thriving at higher altitudes in parts of Africa. Agricultural
outputs may increase in some northerly latitudes (such as central Canada) but
significant reductions are expected in many highly productive areas of the
world (due to increased frequency of drought and intensified heat waves). This
latter change will spell disaster to the majority of the worldÕs people who
depend on locally grown food. Intense suffering by the worldÕs masses isnÕt
likely to improve relations between the ÒhavesÓ and the Òhave-nots.Ó Lastly,
habitats will change as new climatological norms take root worldwide. Given the
current damage occurring in ecosystems due to overharvesting, the introduction
of synthetic chemicals (poisons), and the explosion of invasive species, many
ecosystems are not likely to adapt very well to these climatological changes.
Bottom
line, when it comes to climate change these are the things that people should
keep in mind:
á
Current scientific work
strongly suggests that significant climate change will occur in the next 100
years. Most of this change is attributable to humans who have put buried carbon
(in the form of fossilized organisms from millions of years ago) back into the
atmosphere in a very short period of time. Thus, we call this form of climate
change ÒanthropogenicÓ (ACC).
á
Many of the anticipated
changes will be detrimental to human life as well as ecosystem health. The
people most likely to suffer are the people who are the least able to respond
to change (i.e., those that lack money and political power). Given that nearly
half of the planetÕs humans currently live on $2 or less a day, future climate changes
are expected to wreak havoc on billions of people. Such havoc will undoubtedly
affect all of us. Consider the 600 deaths in ChicagoÕs 1995 heat wave, the
35,000+ deaths in EuropeÕs 2003 heat wave, and the nearly 1,000 (confirmed)
deaths in the U.S. due to West Nile Virus as evidence of how difficult it may
be for anyone to adapt to climate change. Those fortunate enough to not suffer
directly from climate change will still feel the ÒpainÓ of those less fortunate
— via higher food prices, the spread of disease, violent insurrections,
etc.
á
Scientific understanding
of thresholds (those points beyond which further change to forcing agents
causes radical changes to climate and EarthÕs habitability) remains very weak.
However, evidence that thresholds existed in the past (as recently as 20,000
years ago) suggests that continued tampering with the EarthÕs atmosphere may
well trigger catastrophic changes in addition to the ones already expected.
á
Most importantly,
attempts to deal with climate change as a singular issue are terribly
misguided. Climate change is occurring, and will continue to occur, on a planet
that is increasingly modified, simplified, and destroyed by human activities.
Monoculture crops (of corn and soy), mountain-top removal (for coal), and
overburdened fisheries are but three of the many destructive and unsustainable
practices underway. The Earth and its ecosystems are resilient but the
modifications and stresses being placed on them are unparalleled in all of
human history. In fact, many of these changes (in terms of extinction rates,
habitat alteration, and atmospheric gas composition) may soon be on the scale
reserved for cataclysmic events such as occurred 65 million years ago
(resulting in the ÒendÓ of the dinosaurs). Thus, discussions about climate
change that donÕt include the multitude of other present environmental
stressors cannot be considered honest attempts to understand or deal with the
current plight that we face.
á
Stopping climate change
in the 21st Century is now impossible; too much gas has been added to the
atmosphere. However, immediate and sustained changes in how humans live
(particularly, in terms of the amounts and forms of energy use) will likely
slow climate changeÕs momentum. Any delay (in the progress of anthropogenic
climate change) will allow ecological systems to adapt better to future climate
change and improve opportunities for humans to respond as well.
á
Current economic systems
do not take into account the external costs of current practices. For example,
excessive health costs (and lost production due to loss of work) and the high
levels of ecological destruction associated with coalÕs extraction and use must
be included in the true costs of coal. If these costs were properly
incorporated, coal would no longer be a viable energy source (and so it would
remain in the ground). Economic accounts that do not include these costs are
extremely short-sighted and in need of immediate repair (or overhaul).
á
Many technological
ÒfixesÓ are not likely to materialize and are not actually necessary. ÒCleanÓ
coal and ÒsafeÓ and ÒdemocraticÓ nuclear are oxymorons — they donÕt (and
are unlikely to ever) exist. Currently wind and solar energy technologies are
sufficient to provide us with all the energy we will ever need, and this is
despite political environments that have been extremely unsupportive to
renewable energy R&D since the 1980Õs. The main juggernaut to implementing
these technologies is an economy and political system that refuses to subsidize
them in comparison to the huge subsidies received by their competitors (oil,
coal, and nuclear) over the last several generations. And, perhaps most
importantly to blue-collar workers who have seen their pay go down (and costs
continue to rise), renewable energies are great providers of good paying jobs
— some manufacturing the wind blades and solar panels, some installing
and maintaining them, and some marketing them. (The huge job creation potential
of renewable energy has been demonstrated by several studies now and it owes
itself to the more decentralized, less hierarchical nature of these energy
forms.) Rhetoric (in the media, from politicians, etc.) that stipulates that
either climate change/global warming is not a serious issue or it is one that
we cannot afford to tackle right now (because of economic costs) owes itself to
a system that is owned and run by corporate interests who are making billions
the way things are (directly, through consumer purchases, and secondarily,
through war expenditures — that will lead to future energy ÒthieveryÓ and
profiteering).
So
whatever you think about climate change, donÕt despair. Solutions exist and
they need your help to come to fruition. There are mighty forces acting to
prevent this change, but no force in history is more powerful than an informed
citizenry.
5/31/07