Tag Archives: Climate change

Why deny?

The size and age of the Cosmos are beyond ordinary human understanding. Lost somewhere between immensity and eternity is our tiny planetary home. In a cosmic perspective, most human concerns seem insignificant, even petty. And yet our species is young and curious and brave and shows much promise. In the last few millennia we have made the most astonishing and unexpected discoveries about the Cosmos and our place within it, explorations that are exhilarating to consider. They remind us that humans have evolved to wonder, that understanding is a joy, that knowledge is prerequisite to survival. I believe our future depends powerfully on how well we understand this Cosmos in which we float like a mote of dust in the morning sky. — Carl Sagan, Cosmos

All my life, science has fascinated me. Science is the ultimate detective story: look for clues, come up with theories to explain them, then test those theories to determine what is true. The scientific method enables us to navigate around our human fallibilities and learn how the universe actually works.

I admit that I don’t have a lot of patience with people who say they don’t believe in science. Science is not like religion; it doesn’t require faith. The evidence is out in the open, for anyone to see and study.

I can, however, understand why someone would want to pretend that climate change isn’t happening or that it will just go away if we ignore it. The problem is huge and scary, and doing something about it will require sacrifice and change, which we humans aren’t very good at.

But I can’t understand how someone can really look at the scientific evidence — even the photographic evidence — of climate change and still loudly, vehemently deny it, even aggressively try to convince people who do accept the science that not only are we wrong, but there is something wrong with us for wanting to act. What do these deniers have to gain by convincing the world to do nothing? Even if they are right — which they are not, but even if — there are many benefits to acting now, not least of which is reducing our dependence on dwindling fossil-fuel resources. But if they aren’t right, what are they arguing so passionately against? Nothing less than the future of the human race. Why would anyone want to be on that side of history?

I recently read something — a short piece in a giveaway magazine, but the message stuck with me. The gist was that as long as we’re fighting one another, our problems will seem insurmountable. But if we can come together and realize that we have common goals, we become more powerful than our problems. The author was optimistic we could do this. I look at the world and I’m not so sure. But I have to have hope, at least for my two-year-old’s future.

Despite all the evidence to the contrary, I still keep my faith in the human race.

Related Articles

Responses to Climate Change: My Thoughts

In my previous summary on what we know about climate change, I wrote that there are three main responses: mitigation, adaptation and geoengineering. Of these, we hear the most about mitigation. Cap-and-trade policies, carbon-emission reduction treaties and development of alternative sources of energy are all efforts to mitigate how much carbon dioxide we put in the atmosphere, the primary cause of global warming.

While mitigation is a worthwhile long-term goal, it cannot be our only pursuit. Even if we were to completely stop all carbon emissions tomorrow, the damage is already done. Greenhouse gases will take some time to clear out of the atmosphere, so global warming will still continue for some time. How feasible is halting all carbon emissions, anyway? We’d essentially have to ask countries like the United States to change their culture and infrastructure overnight, while making countries like India and China halt all development. That’s not at all realistic, or likely to happen.

It seems clear that some kind of climate change will occur — beyond the damage that has already been done — because total mitigation just isn’t possible. The questions are: How severe will it be, what will the specific effects be, and who will they most impact? That’s why we should devote an equal amount of our resources — or even more resources — to the other two approaches: adaptation and geoengineering.

There is a fourth response that some advocate, which is restoration of damaged areas. I’m not sure how that would work. How can we rebuild a glacier? We can reduce deforestation and plant new trees, however, and we should support all efforts to do so. But that cannot be our primary response.

Since we don’t know exactly what the effects of climate change will be in different areas of the world, it’s difficult to put adaptive solutions in place now. But we can certainly start preparing by researching likely outcomes and developing effective solutions. Research areas should include energy, obviously, but also agriculture/food production and water desalination, to name a couple of low-lying fruit. Private businesses could play a large part in this R&D effort, as long as they are incentivized to do so.

A number of geoengineering proposals, from the feasible to the outlandish, are already out there. These range from building huge artificial “trees” to act as carbon sinks to spraying sea water or even aerosols into the atmosphere to deflect energy into space. Again, more research is called for, as the risks and benefits of each proposal are still unclear, and other workable solutions may present themselves. Some would argue that the side effects of any geoengineering effort are unknown and potentially risky. True, but so are the side effects of doing nothing. If the situation grows desperate enough due to our inaction, then desperate solutions will be employed, by somebody.

In any event, it seems that the best use of our resources is on research and development in the areas of adaptation and geoengineering, as well as — or even surpassing — carbon-emission reduction. The governments and corporations that invest in these areas will be ahead of the curve when the full effects of climate change begin to manifest.

Ideas and facts for this article came from:

So what might happen when peak oil comes?

A commenter on my peak oil article said that she thought that peak oil might mean a “move sideways,” rather than a move back, to other types of fuels and alternative energy sources.

Such a move would take some time, and I don’t think it will be an easy transition for our culture, which is based in so many ways on cheap and easy access to oil. I think the immediate impact would be on driving and other forms of transportation that rely on cheap gas, as well as shipping of products. Where I live right now, you have to have a car to get anywhere, and alternative fuels are likely to be more expensive then gas is now. So I see a fundamental shift in how we think about getting to places and getting the things that we need shipped to us.

A longer term impact will be on products that require petroleum, such as plastics and fertilizers, but I feel we have time to develop alternatives (or learn to live without). Some industries may go away entirely, but I wouldn’t mourn the bottled-water industry if it failed, for instance.

I can’t help but think that peak oil may actually be a positive event in the long run, as it may help reshape the way we live in positive ways and address many of the problems of modern life. For example, the obesity epidemic is caused in part by how need and opportunity to move our bodies has decreased with the advent of the car, and in part by access to cheap, high-caloric, highly processed food made possible by cheap gasoline for shipping and processing. Isolation from the community has become a problem that we may solve ourselves once we become less mobile by necessity. Also, if we aren’t spewing fossil fuels into the air anymore, it can only positively impact the problem of climate change.

Not that it will be all rainbows and unicorns. But here are some other changes I think might be brought about as a result of peak oil.

Small-scale changes in the way we live:

  • The way we work would change as rush hour becomes cost-prohibitive, accelerating moves to nontraditional work schedules and telecommuting. You may no longer have to live near your job.
  • In the suburbs, neighborhood networks might arise for exchanging goods and services, such as childcare, home repair, tailoring, restaurants and small stores, perhaps ignoring zoning or other laws. Some suburban neighborhoods could effectively transform themselves into small towns.
  • If suburbs are not able to provide local access to necessities and public transportation, they may be abandoned, and people may move back into city and town centers.
  • There will be more people gardening and owning small livestock such as chickens and goats, as well as more community gardens, even in urban and suburban settings. Already here a roving goat service is available for yard cleanup. But it is naive to think that each family can supply its own food, so we may have to dedicate more land to farming and grow more food locally.
  • Pastimes such as recreational shopping and travel will likely decrease as transportation and product costs rise. We will turn more to entertainment that can be delivered digitally.

Larger-scale changes we may see in our culture:

  • Inflation will rise. We will probably have to pay more for everything except digital goods. Our days of cheap food will probably be over. As a result, we will buy less, which will impact the foundations of our consumerist economy. I don’t know what the economic or political ramifications might be, but I think this shift would be good for our species in the long run.
  • Some industries will be negatively impacted and may go away altogether. I think we would see a steep decline in air travel, tourism and some consumer goods (particularly unnecessary items) causing economic problems as some businesses fail.
  • An increased investment in public transportation will be required. Personal transportation may become a luxury item.
  • Trains may become important again, especially if they can be designed to run efficiently on alternative fuels.
  • Manufacturing, especially of necessary goods like clothing and electronics, may be re-localized if overseas shipping costs become prohibitive. Goods may cost more, but on the flip side, we should see some outsourced jobs return.
  • Manufacturing may also be scaled down to serve local markets. New technology may make it possible to run a factory out of your garage.

In the end, it comes down to how we react and where we place our priorities. Do we take a short-term or long-term view? Do we approach the problem with optimism or pessimism? It’s up to us to decide whether and how we adapt.

Related articles by Zemanta

What will the Earth be like in 2050 if we do nothing about climate change?

Today is Blog Action Day. The subject this year is climate change. This is my contribution.

My son was born in 2008. In 2050 he will be 42 years old, still young and healthy, perhaps with children of his own.

In 2050, if carbon emissions continue to grow at today’s rate, the Earth’s temperature will rise an average of 2 degrees Centigrade by the year 2050. By 2050, outputs of corn, rice and wheat could be severely curtailed. Rising sea levels, water shortages and famine could create up to 1 billion homeless refugees. Natural disasters, such as hurricanes, droughts and floods, will increase, while we will lose many species of plants and animals forever. Disease, particularly insect-borne diseases, will spread to more areas. The effects of global warming will be most felt in developing areas, destabilizing these regions and leading to more conflict. This is the world I’m leaving to my 18-month-old son and his children. This is the world you are leaving too.

But if we halve our carbon emissions by 2050 compared to 1990, global warming can be contained within the all-important 2-degree increase. Scientists predict that keeping the temperature rise under 2 degrees will contain global warming and mitigate its worst consequences.

Scientific evidence tells us that climate change is real and happening, and it is largely due to human causes. I believe it is the greatest crisis that has ever faced our species. Sometimes, when I think about what is happening to our planet, I feel a profound sense of hopelessness. To effectively address global warming and to curb the effects, we will have to come together in a way that humanity has never been able to before. But more often, I feel a sense of optimism. I know that one of our greatest strengths is that when we put our minds and will to something, we will accomplish it.

At the Nature Conservancy’s Planet Change site, learn more and then spread the word.