| Back to Table of Contents | |
Back to Partisan Home |
| Previous Section | Next Section |
Global warming has such a nice ring to it, doesn't it? The inhabitants of many cities in the northern hemisphere would be able to wear shorts in April rather than May, the growing season of much of the world would be extended; the evenings would be balmier and you'd need a jacket less often.
The reality of climate change is completely different and far more complex; more heat waves and extreme heat, heat related deaths increase by a factor of two to three, half to three quarters of the alpine and sub alpine forests disappear and nearly all the snow pack is lost, disrupting water supply systems.
This sounds like a scene from the film "The day after tomorrow." It is actually an article published by the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, discussing the impact of climate change on California. This was the best case scenario generated by the climate model they used. The worst case scenario painted a far more chilling picture.
The effects of climate change will not be restricted just to California or the US. They will be seen the world over and are already being experienced today. Rice production is already falling in Asia because the nights are too warm during the growing season and corn and soybean production may fall as well. Some parts of the world could potentially become much colder due to changing ocean currents.
There is an overwhelming body of research, literature and scientists that are calling for action to be taken on the problem of global climate change and the greenhouse gases (mostly carbon dioxide and methane) that cause it. Nearly all scientists agree that the enormous increase in use of fossil fuels (oil and coal) over the past 250 years has led to a buildup of carbon dioxide and methane in the upper atmosphere. These gasses trap the earth's heat in a "greenhouse" effect.
Yet the skeptics imply that the scientific community is divided over climate change and its causes. This is simply not the case. Every one of the nearly 1,000 climate change articles published in the prestigious journal Science since 1993 supported the notion that humans are to blame for global warming and climate change. The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency (US), the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), the UN (United Nations) and EU (European Union) adopt the same position. Even the White House admitted in August 2004 that "emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases were the only likely explanation for global warming". Yet, there is a general reluctance to tackle the problem especially in the US.
The Kyoto Protocol, which came into effect on February 16, 2005 aims, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and thus slow down global climate change. One hundred and forty-one countries have signed the protocol. The US, which emits more greenhouse gases than any other country, refuses to join them.
The reasons most frequently cited for not adopting the Kyoto Protocol are economic ones which are often nonsense. The Climate Group (www.climategroup.org) has published a report entitled Carbon down, profits up, which documents the financial benefits of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. This concept is not a tricky one to grasp; a Honda Civic uses a lot less gasoline than a Hummer and therefore saves you money.
Another reason given to not adopt the Kyoto Protocol is that scientists can't accurately predict, to the finest detail, how and when the planet's climate will be changed by the rapid increases in greenhouse gas levels that we have seen in recent decades. This is in fact true, but it's a strange argument to make. It's like saying that we shouldn't retrofit for earthquakes because one can't accurately predict where the earthquake will strike, how much damage will be caused or how many people will lose their life.
The overwhelmingly consensus of opinion among climatologists is that the climate of the earth is changing and will continue to change more dramatically over the coming years, and it will be a change for the worse, not better. Recent reports suggest that we may reach the point of no return, in terms of global climate change, in less than ten years.
Perhaps the real reason that so little is being done by governments to tackle this issue is that we as citizens are not organizing to change the catastrophic course of production and consumption which has escalated since the end of World War II. We have seen the auto industry wipe out public transportation. The drive to lower labor costs has led to replacing natural and organic materials with production of synthetics and plastics which do not biodegrade as fast.
Solving the problem of increasing greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change is not simply a case of trading our current vehicle in for one that uses less gasoline (although that would be a fantastic start), but of the need for a whole manufacturing and lifestyle shift in the developed countries. Living even a simple existence by western standards uses up an enormous amount of our natural resources the way our society is organized.
To stop this runaway production and over-consumption which is the major contributor to global climate change we would have to: eat less meat (to reduce the methane being generated by the animals we keep for food), preserve more forests to remove more of the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, reduce our appetite for air travel, automobiles and electricity, which all produce vast quantities of carbon dioxide, and invest in new technologies and the infrastructure of developing countries, so that they do not continue to lead us down the path to catastrophic climate change.
Such a revolution is unlikely to occur in the near future. I just hope that by the time we are willing to make the conversion that it's not too late. In the meantime can we call it climate catastrophe rather than global warming?
[Michael Pitcher teaches chemistry at Shasta College.]
This piece is accompanied by a cartoon by Gary Huck of Huck/Konopacki Labor Cartoons. The cartoon shows a roast bird lying on its back with a long neck going backwards into the ground. The caption reads, "The Ostrich Meets Global Warming...". The cartoon, from the December 2004 packet, should be on the web until the December 2005 packet is published.
The same corporate forces and economic system that exploit and brutalize the world's working class people are destroying the world's biosphere. These social policies and ecological destruction often overlap. Socialism is necessary to end the ecological destruction caused by capitalism. Our goal is a society that is in harmony with nature as it is in harmony with its own people.
We therefore favor:
-- Peace and Freedom Party platform
| Back to Table of Contents | |
Back to Partisan Home |
| Previous Section | Next Section |