With the steady decline of the traditional media it is understandable that many folks would react to the issue of climate change with a healthy dose of skepticism. We have been burned too many times to assume that the hype and hysteria over this issue won’t soon be replaced by some new ‘threat to the future of civilization,’ and the actual impacts of global warming ultimately prove to be less severe and more manageable than currently believed.
And then there are the scientists. These are the folks who said avian flu would cause a world wide pandemic and the Y2K computer bug would bring global commerce to a halt. Just 35 years ago they said we were headed for a new ice age. So today it’s global warming. And tomorrow it will be something else.
But we certainly have seen a change in our climate. Anybody who remembers the 1960’s, or who looks at the records or listens to the recollections of senior citizens will tell you that something is happening. And the change is not subtle – in some places it is startling. Glaciers and polar ice are in full retreat. Eleven out of the last 12 years are among the warmest in modern history. The oceans are in fact rising, increasing four to eight inches through the twentieth century. And the number and intensity of storms certainly seems to be on the rise.
But isn’t the climate always changing? Has there ever been a period when the climate was not in transition? And isn’t it the height of human arrogance to believe that systems as vast as the oceans and the atmosphere could be significantly affected by us? Certainly, if such changes are taking place the role we humans play can be no more than marginal. And if we have little influence over the cause, what real prospect do we have to affect a cure?
If the climate is in fact changing shouldn’t we use our resources to adjust to the change, and set aside efforts to prevent it?
I always thought it ironic that the word ‘science’ is contained in the word ‘conscience’, as though one were the opposite of the other. And in a sense it is true, since skeptics are the conscience of science. Science is a continuous process of seeking the truth through ideas, experiment and debate. So the climate skeptics play a vital role in helping us all get closer to the truth. They point out the flaws, the places where a theory falls flat on its face, and force the advocates to rethink their assumptions and methods.
A few years ago the global warming skeptics rejected the notion that the Earth was warming. But the evidence is now overwhelming, so much so that no responsible scientist – advocate or skeptic - would argue against it. So now the debate has moved to causes. Is the warming the result of human-caused releases of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses, or something else? Perhaps the sun is producing more heat and the 33 percent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide since the industrial revolution is just coincidental.
Science needs skeptics to challenge the majority view, but for now the overwhelming majority of qualified experts believe that greenhouse gasses released by human activity are at least largely the cause of global warming. Even the most outspoken skeptic will concede that greenhouse gasses must be at least partially at fault.
So if human activity is at least partially to blame, does it not make sense that we should consider reducing our emissions? Everywhere this has been investigated, opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have been found and in many cases the measures create an economic benefit, not a burden. After all, saving energy usually saves money. If we can reduce emissions through cost-neutral measures what rational argument is there not to do so?
But what if the majority of scientists are right? What if the media, in spite of their affection for the sensational, are right or worse yet, have understated the threat? Clearly we need to get serious about adapting to this new world. And just as clearly whatever opportunity we have to reverse the dramatic rise in atmospheric greenhouse gas levels must be seized now or in the immediate future. Because if the majority of scientists are right, the environmental, social and economic impacts will be on a planetary scale. And that is not hype.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Jeff,
Your response to the issue is clear, logical and balanced. The problem is that none of these adjectives apply to the response of the activists fighting global warming. Their approach to the problem has nothing to do with scientific method or constructive public debate. They believe that modern (primarily American) society is evil and is destroying the world. Even if we all decide we must do something about global warming, how do we establish the right policies and institutions to get the job done? Taking the route of the "enviros", which draws so many other social issues into the mix, will only result in umpteen unanticipated consequences, mostly related to ill-advised regulation.
A clean environment costs money. Much of the third world is filthy because they cannot afford to keep the place clean. They are too occupied just keeping people fed. We, in our wealthy First World, can afford the luxury of a clean environment. But to pull is off we need strong collaborations with the sources of that wealth - business. Yet so many Vermonters - including many avid environmentalists - hate business. Punishing corporations is at the top of their agenda. Witness their hated of OMYA, even though the company's product is one of the best available to clean up smokestack emissions. If environmental responsibility was really the primary focus, these people would take great pride in the contribution this Vermont industry is making to a cleaner world.
Instead, OMYA moves to Cincinnati.
Matthew Sternberg
People should read this.
Post a Comment