Never
doubt the power of seemingly small things
By Peter
Schwartzman
When
one examines the world we live in, one finds tons of examples where seemingly
small things have a tremendous impact on the Earth and humans as well.
Recognizing some of these might bring us to a better understanding of how the
planetÕs systems operate and how human cultures have and do function. If small
contributions are shown to be so significant, we might be more apt to avoid
making additional changes to the system, especially when they are unnecessary.
Similarly, if certain small changes will have a positive impact, perhaps we
will make more of an effort to adopt them. Look at this list and consider what
new and meaningful thoughts they provoke. As they have become more deeply
imbedded in my mind, I have become more motivated to be a ÒsmallÓ contributor to
change as well. (Some of these things have been mentioned in my previous
essays, which started in July of 2001. So hopefully, they wonÕt all surprise
you.)
Less than 1% of the EarthÕs atmosphere keeps the
Earth habitable. If we selectively
removed just 1 out of every 100 molecules of gas in the atmosphere, the Earth
would freeze solid as global temperatures would drop over 50 degrees
Fahrenheit. This is because the dominant gases in the atmosphere (namely,
nitrogen and oxygen) contribute very little to the maintenance of heat on the
planet. It is the greenhouse gases that absorb the EarthÕs radiant energy and
reradiate much of it back towards the surface.
The primary agent driving climate change this century
will be an addition of one part in over three thousand gas molecules. Yes, that is right. The greenhouse gases that we are
anticipated to add to the atmosphere this century will change the atmosphere by
much less than 1%. Another way to visualize what is expected to happen is as
follows: Consider a piece of paper containing 3,500 small black dots. Each dot
represents a molecule of gas currently in the atmosphere. One red dot in this
sea of black dots represents all the carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane,
ozone, and other trace greenhouse gases. By 2100, we will have added one more
red dot to this Òsea.Ó It is this ÒminuteÓ (almost imperceptible) change is
expected to increase global temperatures several degrees making the Earth
warmer than it has been in the past few million years! If this warmth alone
wasnÕt worry enough, the concomitant expansion of tropical diseases, rising sea-levels,
increasing strength of hurricanes, and melting of glaciers and permafrost
should be sufficient to raise consciousness worldwide. In this way, the
atmosphere seems much more fragile than we might have previously thought.
A class of gasses that we produced in the 20th
Century had the potential to wipe out large numbers of living things. Even though it never reached concentrations larger
than 0.000003% of the atmosphere, chloroflurocarbons (CFCs) were thought to be
harmless until the 1980Õs. Forty years after their initial use, we discovered
that they aid in the destruction of the ozone layer (a very thin layer of gas that
absorbs harmful ultraviolet light preventing it from penetrating to the
surface). With significant reductions in upper atmospheric ozone, it is
believed that many forms of life would suffer catastrophic losses. Fortunately,
after having observed the ozone levels declining, we made a strong, multinational
effort to discontinue the use of CFCs. Unfortunately, we are still producing gases
that do damage to the ozone layer (the replacements for CFCs still have the
ability to do this; and CFCs are still available illegally), but at least we
stopped manufacturing the greatest threats.
Growth of the worldÕs human population at current
rates will see the global population swell to nearly 20 billion people by 2100. The best estimates we have suggest that our species
is increasing by 80 million people every year—this is because we are
growing by 1.2% annually (a figure known as the population growth rate or PGR),
down from over 2% annual growth in the early 1960Õs. Actually, our PGR is
expected to continue to decline over the next several decades largely because
of increased access to contraceptives and improved economic opportunities for
women. Therefore, the above figure of 20 billion is probably much too high.
According to the most informed models, world population in 2100 will be between
6-14 million with the likely estimate being a bit more than 9 billion. This
final estimate still amounts to a ~40% increase over the current population.
So, in summary, an annual growth rate of less than 1% (which looks very small)
will be sufficient to put incredible pressure on resources, many of which are showing
signs of severe limitation already. (As I have argued at length in other
writings, the more significant pressure on resources comes from continued
expansion of affluence and greed, not population.)
The preference for boy babies rather than girl
babies resulted in 100 million girls going Òmissing.Ó In many parts of the world, particularly in parts of
the Middle East, China and India, social and economic pressure dictates that
sons are preferred. This has meant that millions of daughters have been selectively
aborted before birth or after birth, or so neglected during their lives that
they end up dead at a very young age. Whatever way they are eliminated, these
females end up ÒmissingÓ from the population. Though the number of ÒmissingÓ
females is astounding (millions more than the total human deaths due to World
War I and II combined), little is said about it and even less is done about it.
For example, rather than stand up for human rights, and put pressure on China
to deal with this problem, our nationÕs leaders (in the 1990Õs) decided to give
this most-populated country Òmost favored trade status.Ó
There is a very easy way to raise enough money to
solve most of the problems created by poverty and inequality. The simple truth is we have so much wealth in the
world right now. In the United States alone, the annual production of goods and
services (as measured by the Gross National Product) is approximately $11
trillion (which works out to $37,000 for each woman, man, child living here).
This is an incredible amount of money. If we were to ÒgiveÓ just 1% of it to
provide clean water, healthy food, vaccines, etc, this would amount to over
$100 billion in aid.
Another
huge source of potential money could come by including a minimal tax on the
trade of stocks in the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). Currently, the total
value of traded stock on the NYSE (each year) is approximately $21 trillion. If
there was a very small tax levied each time a stock was traded (say one penny
per dollar of equity), this would raise $210 billion. This money would go a
long way to solve the worldÕs problems. People would no longer go hungry or
thirsty, and the worldÕs children wouldnÕt get preventable diseases. My idea
isnÕt so crazy. James Tobin, Nobel Prize Economist, offered something similar
to it in the early 1970Õs. Tobin believed that this tax would serve as a
stabilizing force in our economic system as well by discouraging rampant
speculation which leads to dangerous bursts and bubbles in the economy.
Our
inability to raise these sums and alleviate suffering and disease worldwide indicates
our collective greed. How long can the excuse Òwe donÕt have enoughÓ remain the
accepted myth that it is?
The inefficiency of our cars/trucks is shockingly
low despite a hundred years of technological development. Consider that only about 1% of the fuel that is burned
by your personal car/truck actually is used to move you (Lovins). The other 99%
(or $2.97 of that $3 gallon of gas) is wasted in the friction between the road
and tire, the movement of the massive steel box, and in the heating of the
engine and brakes. Much more efficient cars exist (with some getting well over
50 miles per gallon), but these vehicles receive very little marketing in the
U.S. because they simply use too little gasoline (and their provide too little
profit to the oil companies). Public transportation is also a much more
efficient way to move humans from place to place, yet most public
transportation systems are neglected and severely underfunded. We hear that
efficiency is a key element in the decisions that govern our infrastructure.
This is also huge myth. If we are so efficient, why do we use twice the energy
per capita as residents of Japan or France both of whom have a standard of
living similar to ours?
Elections can be extremely close and their outcomes
very significant as well. In November
2000, we lived through the closest presidential election in U.S. history.
Everything depended on the result of Florida. (I am here overlooking any chicanery
that may have occurred, and mounting evidence suggests how huge this assumption
may be.) In the end, if 269 voting Floridians had vote for the Democrat instead
of the Republican candidate, G.W. Bush wouldnÕt have become president. Whether
you are happy or sad about the outcome of the election, you surely would admit
that the U.S. would now be in a very different situation today if those voters
had changed their votes. The differences between the two candidates couldnÕt be
starker in terms of their philosophy regarding the protection of the
environment; just witness GoreÕs dedication to environmental matters post-election.
The amazing thing about the aforementioned voters is that they amount to a mere
0.005% (or one in every 22,300 votes) of all votes casts. Never again should
anyone think that a vote doesnÕt count.
The extremely small amounts of lead that were added
to gasoline fuel were sufficient to cause massive health problems. Typically, the lead that was added to gasoline from
the 1920Õs to the 1980Õs constituted only 0.08% (or one part lead for every
1200+ parts gas) of the fuel. However, so much gas was burned every day for
over sixty years that dangerous levels of lead was measured in our blood, bones
and breasts. It is estimated that close to 70 million children in the United
States had toxic exposures due to this lead; additional poisonings occurred as a
result of lead added to paint (Kitman). Sadly, this poisoning continues worldwide
where leaded gasoline is still common. Lead is still added to propeller plane
fuel in the United States as well. Does anyone consider it a problem when small
planes fly above our skies in Galesburg? Why not? Remember, it takes very
little lead to cause serious mental impairment. Just because a few planes donÕt
look like they might do damage, should we have a sense of comfort? How many
children would have to be impaired before we would decide that this plane
flying is superfluous? I suspect most of us would say, Òeven if one child is
impaired, we should stop.Ó Who is going to find out how many are being
impaired? Does anyone care?
Small
improvements in our collective behavior can have incredibly large positive
impacts. Consider the following
examples. If every household in the United States changed one of its
incandescent bulbs to a compact fluorescent bulb, the effects would be astonishing.
Enough energy would be saved to power more a city with over a million people.
It would also reduce greenhouse emissions in such a quantity that it would be
equivalent to removing over one million cars off the road! And even more
amazing, the energy saved is enough to shut down two coal power plants in the
United States (Fishman). If every person in the U.S. recycled one more aluminum
can this year than last, this would save an equivalent of 150 millions of
gasoline! Consider that next time you think about throwing an aluminum can
away! (Why donÕt they teach this stuff in schools?)
So as you
see, there is a lot of power in seemingly small things. Never again should you
say, Ò1% is a trifle,Ó or, Òthat little change wonÕt matter.Ó The reason being:
Ò1% might be all we need to survive,Ó and, Òlittle changes might just Ôbreak
the bankÓ or Òprovide the cure.Ó
Works
Cited
Fishman, C. (2006) ÒHow Many Lightbulbs Does it Take
to Change the World? One.Ó Fast Company, Sept.
Kitman,
J.L. (2000) ÒThe Secret History of Lead.Ó The Nation, March 20.
Lovins,
A.B. (2006) ÒMore Profit With Less Carbon.Ó Scientific American, Sept., 74-83.
Peter Schwartzman (email: pschwart@knox.edu) is associate professor
and chair of the Environmental Studies Program at Knox College. He is a
climatologist with publications in the area of climate change and human
population growth. An avid Scrabble¨ player, he is also the founder and
maintainer of a website dedicated to peace and empowerment (www.onehuman.org), natural spaces (www.blackthornhill.org), and clean air and
energy (www.chicagocleanpower.org).
9/27/07