Protect The Planet, And Hurry
By Lawrence Smith Jr.
08 March, 2007
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Eleven of the 12 highest annual global temperatures ever recorded have occurred since 1995, convincing many of the world's leading scientists and environmentalists that global warming has begun in earnest.There are, of course, skeptics: among them, equally qualified experts who remain unconvinced of the existence of incontrovertible meteorological evidence that the foreseeable future will bring an overheated planet with catastrophic flooding, health epidemics and wildlife extinction.
Heat-trapping greenhouse gases -- primarily carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by human activity, mostly from the burning of fossil fuels -- have long been identified as the principal catalyst behind rising temperatures.
Those who argue against rushing to global warming judgment have support from industries with a substantial stake in fossil fuels -- a cheering section with deep pockets to spin disinformation campaigns against the usual suspects, corporate-bashing environmental alarmists.
To establish a worldwide consensus on the issue, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Program in 1988 established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC recently released its fourth assessment since 1990 on the causes and consequences of climate change.
Drawing from the research of 2,500 scientists from more than 100 countries, the panel asserted that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal." It further announced with 90 percent certainty that greenhouse gases generated by human activity account for most of the global rise in temperatures over the past half-century and, even by the most conservative estimates, are heading towards unsustainable levels.
According to the IPCC, a rise of more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit would have a devastating global impact, including large-scale melting of ice sheets and species extinctions. The report forecasts at least a 4.5-degree Fahrenheit surge by the end of this century.
Meanwhile, the Bush administration, which routinely shrugs off climate change warnings as long on hype but short on evidence, shows no sign of budging from its opposition to mandatory limits on carbon emissions and appears content to rely upon additional research aimed at developing technological advances to address the issue.
While no one disputes the necessity of such research, many scientists assert that effective technology is at least a decade away and should not preclude immediate conservation measures.
The United States' response to the IPCC assessment is significant for two reasons. First, the U.S., with only 5 percent of the world's population, is responsible for 25 percent of the world's carbon emissions. Secondly, if the highly industrialized United States finally takes the issue seriously, other nations may be more inclined to follow suit.
Despite increasingly louder pleas for thwarting global warming, including calls for taxes on all carbon emissions from the largest factories down to individual households and automobiles, chances are there will be either no legislative action or, at best, token efforts that will accomplish little or nothing. Moreover, even if Congress does enact strong anti-carbon emission legislation, it remains doubtful that the necessary two-thirds majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives could be mustered to override a probable presidential veto.
Meanwhile, there is a contention that global warming is inevitable and striving to prevent it is an exercise in futility. But if human activity is the primary source of soaring temperatures, logic dictates curtailment of this activity or changing the manner in which it is pursued. And this is not a clarion call for bringing all human progress to a screeching halt.
With world population now at 6.6 billion and 2.5 billion more people projected by the middle of this century, providing effective voluntary family planning to the tens of millions of women who lack access to it would be a significant step towards reducing the human-generated release of carbon dioxide -- one that obviously cannot be put on indefinite hold. Also, while placing energy alternatives to fossil fuels on the fast track may require temporary profit loss in some quarters and lifestyle changes for virtually all of us -- what sacrifice is too great in the quest to prevent global self-destruction?
When even tomorrow's weather forecast often enough turns out to be inaccurate, it is fair to question projections of the world's climate 100 years from now. But if the best scientific evidence available overwhelmingly concludes that global warming is an "unequivocal fact," prudence, if nothing else, suggests that we act with all deliberate speed to protect and preserve a planet that we do not own, but for which we have been granted temporary stewardship.
Lawrence Smith Jr. is the president of the Population Institute, a Washington, D.C., non-profit organization.
© 2007 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Get CC HeadlinesOn your Desk Top