I have had a long debate with a colleague who is a skeptic about anthropogenic climate change. We’ve been going back & forth about it for months. She’s bright, seems to be generally concerned with a lot of things going on in this world, has some scientific background & interest, but tends to be skeptical about a lot of what she hears & reads in the media (with good reason), and at the same time intrigued by alternate, contrary views (as often am I). The conversation recently turned to mass extinction.
Here is my penultimate message to her:
I’m not saying that any species has died of global warming yet. I’m saying that most extinctions & reduction in numbers have been caused by human activity of one sort or another (or a combination of them), and that climate change will exacerbate mass extinction by increasing some of the environmental pressures already initiated by humans by other means (& most of the other means have not abated).
And her penultimate message to me:
What mass extinction?
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
In the past 540 million years there have been five major events when over 50% of animal species died.
Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event 75% of all species became extinct.
Triassic–Jurassic extinction event 70% to 75% of all species went extinct
Permian–Triassic extinction event Earth's largest extinction killed 90% to 96% of all species
Late Devonian extinction: 70% of all species
Ordovician–Silurian extinction event 60% to 70% of all species
“Over 98% of documented species are now extinct” – this is normal and natural!
And my last, relatively long message:
Note that the borders of some of these eras & epochs are partially defined by extinction events. I think the whole Holocene can be considered one big extinction event.
We’re on target for such a mass extinction, if the activities of man continue as they are. If we consider animals larger than man, I’m pretty sure that already more than 50% have perished since man has appeared and started to dominate the landscape. Think about a group of mammals, and chances are that a larger member of that group has been extinguished since man’s ascent (and there’s also a good chance that the largest remaining species are in danger of extinction). As for the smaller animals, I have no idea. I do know that a large number of amphibians, which comprise the smallest class of terrestrial vertebrates, have become extinct, and a lot more are imperiled. And that the endangerment extends to many plants, fish & invertebrates. [Think about a world without tuna. We’re quickly getting there. Salmon? Some of the things that we’re doing or contemplating doing endanger particular salmon habitat. Sardines? They’re at their lowest level ever measured. Mollusks? Ocean acidification has caused many to lose their shells, thus imperiling them. Starfish? Millions are disintegrating; we don’t know why. Coral? These foundations for rich marine communities are fading away at an alarming rate.] But extinction is accelerating, and key members of various ecosystems are being endangered, which could affect the whole ecosystem, thereby snowballing the rate of extinction. So I stand by my statement that we’re in the midst (actually the early stages) of the 6th great mass extinction. I doubt that it can be averted by now, but I still hope we take strong measures to minimize it, and that’s not only by focusing on climate/greenhouse emissions, but also actively curtailing other activities known to kill species & reduce their habitat. They’re all so interrelated.
One advantage of focusing on climate change is that so many other trends are affected by it, but climate change isn’t all that’s affecting many of those other issues. I think environmentalists thought that climate change would be the environmental issue that would galvanize the population & leaders to take action to alleviate because of its existential threat, and in the process reduce other types of environmental degradation, but it seems that they’ve made a mistake by not enumerating a lot of other environmental issues that might move certain individuals. I mean, why do we never hear about mountaintop removal in the media? This is something that is both shocking & abominable that we’d even consider it, and is about the most environmentally destructive method of extraction conceivable, yet coal mining companies are going ahead with it with impunity. Why aren’t the health & environmentally toxic effects of coal from point of extraction through transportation through production through consumption emphasized? It’s not just the fact they’re the single greatest emitter of carbon that should get people riled up. They sicken & kill lives, including humans’. Why aren’t we holding companies fully liable for all the environmental harm & harm to human health that they cause with their release of toxins in the air & poisons into our waterways? And deforestation is so bad in so many ways. Consider the continual illegal burning of forests in Sumatra & Borneo, that are destroying forests & the animals that inhabit them, mainly for the purpose of raising plantations for palm oil. This is (or I should probably say “was”) the world’s greatest area of diversity of both plants & animals, is/was a great source of medicinal products, it’s a huge source of carbon sequestration, and its burning, particularly in areas in peat, emits tremendous quantities of carbon, and every year Malaysians & Singaporeans have to wear face masks to cope with all the particulate matter in their air due to the smoke from these fires blowing over their land. And this is happening in one of the countries most vulnerable to the disastrous effects of climate perturbations, warming & sea rise. And don’t get me started on the oceans, which are a huge mess in so many ways. And why aren’t we hearing much about how oil & gas extraction is drying up & poisoning our underground aquifers which, along with global warming & current industrial/monocultural agricultural practices, will accelerate our imminent global water & food crisis?
I hope you by now understand my concern for the environment, the preservation of animals & plants, & our general survival, & I hope you are concerned, too. It is real & it is monumental.
And her last message:
I am pretty much concerned about everything BUT global warming. Let’s work on environmental problems that ACTUALLY exist instead of wasting time debating whether global warming exists or not. The fact is there is nothing man can do to stop any global climate changes or sea level changes.
Let’s work on these proven scientific environmental problems that we can actually do something about (because we cause them).
Radioactive waste, plastic, medical waste, oil spills dumped in the oceans.
Acid rain – remember that? Did it go away, I doubt it but why don’t we hear about it anymore?
Hole in the ozone layer – did that go away too? Why don’t we hear anything about this either?
Electronic waste & heavy metals
Pharmaceuticals in waste water
Agricultural runoff of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers
Dioxin from wood pulp processing, sulfur air pollution
Phosphorus from detergents in water
Chemical waste and waste from metal processing
Thermal pollution of water from nukes
Urban runoff – oil, etc.
Depleted uranium
GMOs
Protection of whales, salmon, etc. from overfishing
Natural gas, oil, coal mining and waste
So this leads me to this question: are we in the environmental movement focusing too much rhetoric on climate change & not enough on the myriad of other environmental problems facing us, getting bogged down on arguments about whether global warming is happening and/or anthropogenic, when we might be more effective on pointing out many other things that are happening to the environment, many of which a large portion of our population may be unaware? And might we be able to reach them and even have success on getting more people taking action by talking about things that are more relevant to them, that they can easily see and get a handle on? I’m sure she’s not the only person skeptical about anthropogenic global warming who is genuinely concerned about other environmental issues. I would by no means stop talking about climate change, but I think we should make sure that these other environmental issues are included in the discussion, and not put all our cards on this one particular issue, as important & far-reaching as it is. It’s such a huge & complex subject, so we need to know how to parcel it out so that our audience can easily grasp it.
Of course, there’s also the nature of science that causes scientists & academics to speak in terms of probability & uncertainty, while politicians & pundits tend to be adamant about what they espouse (witness Boehner, McConnell, Inhoff, Limbaugh) while being dismissive of their opponents’ opinions, making it appear that scientists are less sure about what they say, when it’s really the other way around. Many people respond to the certitude displayed in the speaker’s attitude & rhetoric more than the substance of his or her argument. The evidence is overwhelming for climate change, and if anything, the rate & magnitude have been underestimated by scientists. I’ve noticed that deniers like to pick out an extreme statement made in the past by someone connected with science that turned out to be wrong to indicate that there’s good reason to doubt all scientific predictions (even though most scientists made a forecast that was either pretty much on the mark or underestimating climate change), yet putting a lot of credence on recent remarks made by a few scientists from the same end of the spectrum that was wrong before for what to expect in the future, even if 99% of scientists disagree.
I also think that it’s a good idea to point out more clearly the sources & causes of environmental destruction – not only the actions & substances, but also the people, companies & policies – and link them to other quagmires we face (e.g. our democracy turning into a corporatocracy, the growing disparity between rich & poor, our lagging education system, our huge & growing debt, our crumbling infrastructure, our unemployment problem, our struggling economy), and how our system, as they’ve designed it, is preventing us from making headway in all these problems.
Finally we should distinctly mark out a list of clearly thought out plans for solving our environmental problems: what we must stop doing & how we can change, indicating alternative practices that are more environmentally viable, and link them to the overall betterment of our future (like a better long term economy than we’d have keeping on our current path). The implementation of some kind of carbon tax is one fairly well-publicized method for bringing out our desired results (which would be lower consumption, greater fuel efficiency & a switch to clean energy sources, and ultimately fewer carbon emissions & therefore less severe climate change than we’d otherwise have). But it is by no means all we need to accomplish. We need to tackle more directly other areas that contribute substantially to environmental destruction, such as livestock raising/meat consumption, deforestation, waste disposal, the population explosion, mining, poisons, radiation, wildlife upheaval & extinction…, and show how their resolution would improve other aspects of our lives. We also need to try to enumerate ways to drastically change our economic, political & legal systems that are hindering us from taking meaningful action on environmental & other pressing issues of our time. Some actions may be simple & obvious, e.g. reverse Citizens United, while others may require a lot more explanation how to do. For example, one suggested change in our economic system is ending industrial capitalism. How do we go about it? Clearly it would need careful planning. And of course, many if not most of the solutions would face powerful opposition, so the reasoning behind doing them must be extremely compelling & well thought out.