Preparing For
Global Warming
By Carl Pope
04 October, 2005
San Francisco Chronicle
When I set out on a monthlong trip to
Asia this summer, I wasn't prepared for time travel.
My journey turned
out to be a tour of catastrophic weather-related disasters: devastating
floods in Bombay; vast drought-related fires and smoke in Sumatra; and,
upon my return, Hurricane Katrina. Most climate scientists have been
predicting that global warming would spawn an increasing number of these
events in the future. Seeing all three catastrophes at once led me to
one conclusion: That future is now.
There is no way
to link any of these individual tragedies to global warming, just as
you can't link any one cigarette to lung cancer. But the implications
of climate change and the high costs of doing nothing are impossible
to ignore. Conservative estimates peg the cost of the Katrina recovery
at $70 billion.
The global-warming
cynics have tried to distract us with the argument that because we don't
know exactly how global-warming pollutants will change the climate,
we don't need to act quickly to reduce emissions. They also claim that
we would be better off trying to adapt our societies to global warming
instead of taking precautionary measures to prevent it. They speak of
adaptation, an after-the-fact concept, not preparedness. They emulate
Neville Chamberlain rather than Winston Churchill.
But the successive
tragedies in Bombay, Malaysia and New Orleans show how thin the climate-variation
band is that complex societies can handle. How could the 17 million
people of Bombay prepare for 36 inches of rainfall in 24 hours? Well,
they could do some things -- such as not build highways that choke natural
river beds, ban plastic bags that clog storm drains and protect their
mangroves. But if we keep pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere,
and 36 inches becomes 48, even those measures won't keep up.
Adapting to global
warming is futile, but preparedness is imperative. Every city and state
should assess its vulnerability to extreme weather and climate change
overall. If California is likely to have less snowmelt, we need more
water conservation and less unplanned development. If a faster snowmelt
means that the Central Valley's levees are at a risk even greater than
those of New Orleans, we need to spend the money to strengthen them.
If higher sea levels mean re-engineered sewage-treatment plants, we
should set aside the money to pay for them now. If catastrophic fires
and hurricanes are inevitable, we must tighten our building codes and
require developers to build more defensible homes.
But preparedness
alone is a stopgap. We need prevention, and the only way to limit our
overall vulnerability is to rein in the greenhouse pollutants that are
driving global warming. I am willing to bet that Americans everywhere
would be willing to do their part, if given the chance.
I'd put my money
on people such as Savannah Rose Walters, age 12, of Odessa, Fla. After
learning that Americans waste 4 million gallons of oil every day by
not properly inflating their tires, Savannah got such companies as Sears
and Goodyear to donate 1,000 tire gauges and launched a local public-education
campaign to get people to "Pump 'Em Up!"
People are so hungry
for global-warming solutions that Jerry's Famous Deli in Studio City
delivers your rye-bread in a hybrid. Or consider the renaissance in
public transit in cities such as Denver, Salt Lake City and even Los
Angeles. If 1 in 10 Americans regularly used transit, the United States
would reduce its oil consumption by 40 percent, according to figures
from the Center for Transportation Excellence. If you don't have faith
that Americans will do their part, remember that a third of California
residents responded to the 2001 energy crisis by reducing their energy
demand by at least 20 percent.
But individual Americans
can only do so much without the leadership of government. People can
buy a more efficient car or air conditioner, but they can't design one.
Our government should set the pace for technological innovation, starting
with our cars. Automakers have, but are not fully using, hybrid and
other existing technology to make cars, trucks and SUVs run cleaner
and go farther on a gallon of gas. If the federal government simply
required automakers to use the best available technology, all vehicles
could average 40 miles per gallon within 10 years.
Federal lawmakers
should take a cue from states and cities that are already leading the
way. California and several other states already require automakers
to make cleaner vehicles. Charlotte, N.C., just decided to convert its
entire municipal fleet to hybrid vehicles. More than 175 mayors across
America, including San Francisco's Gavin Newsom, signed a Climate Protection
Agreement committing their cities to reduce global-warming emissions.
After Katrina, our
country has never been more ready to embrace a new energy future to
make us more secure in every way. In failing to recognize this, our
leaders in Washington have exposed themselves as dangerously out of
touch.
There's an old saying
that everyone talks about the weather, but no one ever does anything
about it. If our federal government doesn't act now to reduce global-warming
pollution (adopting the same emissions standards for cars as California
would be a huge first step), that's exactly what future generations
will say about us.
Carl Pope is executive
director of the Sierra Club.
© 2005 San
Francisco Chronicle