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