Global Warming Discussions On The Airplane
Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 02:49:00 PM PDT
Had a discussion on the airplane with someone (a former Alaska fisheries field researcher, for God's sake) and heard a repeat of the same environmental myths I hear over and over.
So, for all of us who believe in changing attitudes one person at a time, here are some quick responses to those myths, and some helpful, if stunning, facts...
First, let's applaud a NYT op-ed for giving prominent year-end coverage to two global warming stories and quickly memorize a few factoids from them.
An op-ed appropriately entitled
While You Were Sleeping, summarizes two of this year's huge discoveries:
1. Greenhouse gases are higher than they have ever been. EVER.
(okay, not truly "ever," but check this out--)
To find out whether human activities are changing the atmosphere, scientists took ice cores from ancient glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica. Bubbles of air trapped in the ice provided a pristine sampling of the atmosphere going back 650,000 years. The study, published last month in the journal Science, found that the level of carbon dioxide, one of the greenhouse gases that can warm the planet, is now 27 percent higher than at any previous time. The level is even far higher now than it was in periods when the climate was much warmer and North America was largely tropical. Climatologists said the ice cores left no doubt that the burning of fossil fuels is altering the atmosphere in a substantial and unprecedented way.
Did everybody catch that? Key facts:
- Ice core samples going back 650,000 years.
- 650,000 years is 2-3 times longer than the emergence of homo sapiens as a species.
- Carbon dioxide levels are 27% higher than at any previous time.
- This was reported in the journal Science.
When the NYT originally reported this Science story, as
I diaried here, they quoted climatologists stating that CO2 and climate are coupled -- chained together -- one may lead, or the other may lead, but they move in tandem. This leaves no doubt that a massive climate correction is upon us.
On to the op-ed's second point:
2. Polar ice melting is causing the Gulf Stream to shut down.
One of the more alarming possible consequences of global warming appears to be already under way. The rapid melting of the Arctic and Greenland ice caps, a new study finds, is causing freshwater to flood into the North Atlantic. That infusion of icy water appears to be deflecting the northward flow of the warming Gulf Stream, which moderates winter temperatures for Europe and the northeastern United States. The flow of the Gulf Stream has been reduced by 30 percent since 1957, the National Oceanography Center in Britain found. Perhaps you'll remember that in the film "The Day After Tomorrow," the collapse of the Gulf Stream produces a violent climate shift and a new ice age for much of the Northern Hemisphere. Climatologists don't foresee a future quite that catastrophic, but something worrisome, they say, is afoot.
Key facts:
- The flow of the gulf stream has been reduced by 30% since 1957.
- FYI, the gulf stream is the reason that Britain is warmer than Siberia.
I'm not going to belabor these points, only because I'm more interested in talking about two myths that are going around.
I diaried more on both these stories back when they first came out. Also, Doolittle diaried that
2005 was the warmest year on record. Please check these stories out if you're interested to learn more.
Two more points to review and commit to memory, then we get on to the good stuff:
1. As the International Herald Tribune reported in September (as covered by Grist),
Europeans are already preparing their infrastructure for climate change.
While Americans quibble ignorantly over whether climate change is really happening, Europeans are already adapting to it. Swedish foresters are being told to plant trees that will thrive in warmer temperatures. Planners of a new subway system in Copenhagen, Denmark, raised all structures to accommodate an anticipated 1.5-foot rise in sea level over the next century. New docks in Hamburg, Germany, and Rotterdam, Netherlands, are also being built with rising oceans in mind. Austrian ski resorts short on snow are planning hiking trails and golf courses. Jacqueline McGlade, executive director of the European Environment Agency, says Europe's Arctic and southernmost reaches are especially vulnerable to global warming. Changing conditions may turn people from those regions into climate refugees, forced to move toward the continent's center. "Our resilience is quite low in the face of climate change," she says.
2. As a Nature article from a year ago reported (as covered by BBC news), climate change could drive a million species extinct:
Climate change could drive a million of the world's species to extinction as soon as 2050, a scientific study says.
The authors say in the journal Nature a study of six world regions suggested a quarter of animals and plants living on the land could be forced into oblivion.
They say cutting greenhouse gases and storing the main one, carbon dioxide, could save many species from vanishing.
The United Nations says the prospect is also a threat to the billions of people who rely on Nature for their survival.
These are dramatic and quite disturbing, I think. They leave no question in my mind that we are quite dramatically changing the future of life on this planet.
In this airplane discussion, I heard all the myths of environmental discourse in one 10 minute package. So, for all of you out there who are trying to have these same conversations, here are my rebuttals to those points. I'd love to hear yours.
Myth #1. We're changing the planet, not killing it.
- Quite true. I concede this one pretty quickly. And it's the toughest one to counter. The physical structure -- rock, water, minerals -- will still exist. Evolution will continue.
- Does this person give any value to the suffering of humans and other species? The changes that are occurring will quite likely lead to suffering, mass migrations, starvations, etc. And Merlot Democrat informs us of a WashPost report showing that already, global warming causes about 150,000 deaths a year, to climb to over half a million by 2030.
- Will the earth still be habitable to humans once it's changed? Good question.
- Does this person give any value to the existence of other species? This one takes some thought. Is an island, right after a volcanic eruption, as "good" as an island teeming with a multitude of species? Many would say yes. I personally am not comfortable being that volcano. True, life will evolve again. But it took 65 million years for the 4000 mammal species we now have to evolve. A million species. Wow.
Myth #2. Scientists aren't certain global warming is occurring.
I take this one on head-on. Which scientists disagree? This person didn't really know.
You want to know which scientists think global warming is occurring?? "In recent years all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements," as the WP reported almost exactly a year ago, in Undeniable Global Warming.
This includes:
- the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Program,
- the National Academy of Sciences,
- the American Meteorological Society,
- the American Geophysical Union, and
- the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
A National Academy of Sciences report begins unequivocally: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise."
But, other possible responses to this argument include:
- Sometimes I make a little joke. "I think tobacco industry scientists still won't admit that smoking causes cancer."
- What level of certainty do they want? We know greenhouse gasses have increased. We know climate change is occurring. We're guessing the two facts are related. We know the ice caps are already melting. What do they need to know before they'd say that we ought to take some steps?
- Do they have any optional insurance -- car insurance? homeowners insurance? Most people take actions to prevent disaster even if they're not SURE a fire is going to burn down their house.
- What would it hurt to act? We could cut household electricity use in half just by conservation measures.
- I ask, "Why should someone have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is occurring? Isn't it enough to suggest that there's a decent probability?" Or "Shouldn't the industries -- who have a lot more money, btw -- have to provide pretty good research suggesting that it won't occur?" (True, it's hard to prove a negative, but I haven't seen anything that comes close.) These are casual ways of discussing the Precautionary Principle, which shifts the burden of proof -- no longer should a victim have to prove harm IS occurring, the active party should have to prove their activities WON'T cause harm.
These are just a few myths and a few responses, in hopes of sparking some discussion.
What were your holiday discussions about environmental issues like? I'd love to hear!
P.S. Yes, I know air travel contributes to global warming. :(
