Today is Earth Day. So what do we know about Earth? Terra, to give Earth its Latin name, is the third planet out from Sol (aka the Sun), a medium sized yellow star in an outer spiral arm of the Milky Way galaxy. Earth is a rocky planet of 12, 756 km in diameter and it orbits 150 million kilometers from the Sun. It is approximately 4.6 billion years old and has a single, relatively large satellite named Luna (aka the Moon). The present atmosphere of Earth is about 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and 1% water vapor and other gases. The most notable feature of Earth is that it is home to a huge variety of life that has dramatically shaped its physical features. Life appeared very early in Earth’s history, perhaps as early as half a billion years after the planet’s formation. However, it took several billion more years for multicellular life to appear and evolve into more complex forms, with one of the most recent to appear (only a few hundred thousand years ago for the present species) being a type of ape that in the last few millennia has developed an agricultural civilization and in the last couple of centuries has seen explosive population growth and rapid advances in technology. I refer, of course, to our own species, Homo sapiens, i.e., humans.
Virtually all the information in the previous paragraph is well established fact, and all of it we know due to science. In the last couple of centuries, our understanding of the planet we live on and its place in the universe, as well as the history of our own species, has advanced hugely due to science. Science is distinct from belief systems such as religions, as it is based on observation, evidence and analysis. That isn’t to say that science (or more accurately, scientists, who after all are only human) never gets things wrong, much less that it has answers to everything. But over time, science has given us a very good, if still incomplete, understanding of many aspects of reality, and since it is firmly based on logic and evidence, it is far more reliable than any other way of explaining things.
The above may seem self-explanatory to most knowledgeable people, but it is still necessary to emphasize it, because not only is there still a very large segment of humanity who doesn’t accept significant portions of our scientific understanding of the world, but the US government itself has largely fallen under the control of people with an anti-science attitude. This is why Marches for Science have been organized for today around the US and the world, because despite the self-evident benefits that science brings to humanity and the obvious advantages of having a more accurate, science-based understanding of the world around us, there are many people in power (and ordinary people who support those people) who deny scientific explanations of reality.
Climate change is just one example of an issue where this anti-science attitude has caused and continues to cause great damage, but as it is the most important and urgent, it is worth special attention. In fact, it isn’t necessary to be a scientist or have a detailed knowledge of climatology to understand the basics of climate change. Simply put, certain gases in our atmosphere trap heat, causing Earth’s atmosphere to act as a blanket that raises the planet’s surface temperature. Essentially, the atmosphere is transparent to visible light, the form which most of the energy Earth gets from the Sun takes, but the Earth radiates most of the energy back in the infrared, i.e., as heat, and like the glass in a greenhouse, these gases – naturally referred to as greenhouse gases – are opaque to infrared radiation, so they trap the heat, making the planet’s surface hotter. This is not a bad thing, as without this greenhouse effect Earth would be much colder, certainly too cold for human life. But too much of a greenhouse effect is not a good thing either, as the example of Venus illustrates. Venus is physically very similar to Earth, but due to a runaway greenhouse effect it has an extremely thick atmosphere primarily consisting of carbon dioxide and surface temperatures of over 450 degrees Celsius, far higher than temperatures on Mercury, even though the latter is closer to the Sun. The chief greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane (the gases that make up most of the atmosphere, nitrogen and oxygen, are not greenhouse gases). Of the three main greenhouse gases, water is the least efficient at trapping heat while methane is the most efficient, but because water is by far the most plentiful, it contributes the most to the greenhouse effect, followed by carbon dioxide. Methane does contribute substantially, despite only being present in trace amounts, though unlike the other two gases it breaks down into its component elements relatively quickly, so it doesn’t accumulate as easily.
So we know that carbon dioxide and methane are greenhouse gases. This is a fact that has been known to science for a very long time and is clearly demonstrable experimentally. Furthermore, these two gases are major contributors to the greenhouse effect. This is also well established. We also know that human industrial activity, mostly involving the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil, produces large amounts of carbon dioxide, and that other types of human activity, such as livestock raising and leaks from natural gas (i.e., methane) production results in the release of methane. What’s more, we know that the amount of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere has gone from around 270 or 280 ppm (parts per million) in pre-industrial times to around 400 ppm today, a very substantial increase. Finally, we know that average global temperatures have increased by a significant amount over the past century, with a particularly rapid increase over the last few decades. Though some try to question this latter fact, they can only do so through cherry-picking of data, and even that has become pretty hard to manage as the data showing warming becomes more overwhelming.
To repeat, we know the following facts:
1. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that contributes significantly to the greenhouse effect, as is methane
2. Human industrial activity produces large amounts of carbon dioxide and significant amounts of methane
3. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from less than 300 ppm in pre-industrial times to about 400 ppm now
4. Average global temperatures have also increased significantly over the same period, particularly in recent decades.
The conclusion is obvious. Human activity is warming the planet at a rapid rate. While an increase of 1 degree Celsius or so, which is approximately how much warmer the last couple of record-breaking years have been over the 20th century average, may not seem like much, it is actually a very large amount, as changes of just a few degrees can make the difference between an ice age in one direction and the melting of the polar ice caps in the other. This is why we have to take climate change seriously and do so now.
Those who want to challenge this obvious conclusion attack the science in different ways. One is to emphasize the uncertainties. Of course there are always some uncertainties; in a sense, science is all about uncertainties, as it involves trying to find answers to all the things we don’t yet know. What’s more, good scientists always acknowledge the uncertainties that exist, because claiming to be sure when the evidence doesn’t support it is bad science. So, for example, there is still some uncertainty about the exact ratios of the three main greenhouse gases’ contributions to the greenhouse effect. But that doesn’t change the fact that carbon dioxide and methane are both major greenhouse gases. Some cite the fact that we still can’t predict the weather with a high degree of certainty to cast doubt on climate models. But in fact it’s easier to identify long-term climatic trends than to predict day-to-day variations in chaotic weather systems. Some talk about how “the climate is always changing” or how there have been times in Earth’s past where the planet has warmed and carbon dioxide levels increased without humans being present. This ignores the obvious points that just because the climate has changed for reasons other than human action in the past doesn’t mean the current changes aren’t caused by humans, any more than the fact that forest fires happened before there were people means that humans never cause forest fires, and that very slow, gradual change is one thing, rapid change that is too fast for us or individual ecosystems to adapt to is something else entirely.
Then there’s the frequently repeated claim that a few decades ago scientists were talking about global cooling and that they only recently started talking about global warming. This one is just plain false. As far back as the 19th century it was pointed out that human burning of fossil fuels could lead to an increase in global temperatures, and more than half a century ago this was widely acknowledged among scientists. The media stories in the late 1970s about the possibility of an impending ice age did not represent a widely held consensus among scientists, and in fact the very idea was prompted in part by the well understood fact that in the absence of other factors human production of carbon dioxide would cause temperatures to rise. Temperatures had risen slowly but steadily for most of the first half of the 20th century, but they stopped increasing for a few decades after that. So one suggestion, if not a widely accepted one, was that a natural cooling trend was counteracting the human effects on temperatures, and if it continued it might lead to an ice age. But there were other explanations, such as that other pollutants, such as those that made up the smog so commonly seen in industrial nations in the 1960s and 1970s, were blocking sunlight and balancing out the effects of carbon dioxide and methane production. This latter explanation seems more likely, though I don’t know if it is the one most climatologists accept today. In any case, the warming trend started up again by the 1980s and is now proceeding at an unprecedented pace, so whatever the explanation for the pause in the warming trend in those decades, the planet is clearly not cooling.
Of course science tells us many other things that we need to pay attention to, such as the effects of human activity on ecological systems (e.g. through overfishing, elimination of predators, introduction of invasive species, and so forth), the effects of chemicals and other substances we produce on human health (e.g. pesticides, chemicals in food and other products we use daily, and lead and other pollutants in our environment), the effects of overuse of antibiotics on the spread of diseases, and much more. Again, some people may want to deny what science can tell us on these issues due to ulterior motives, while many others simply prefer to ignore it because that’s easier than doing something about the problems. But we ignore science at our peril, as the long-term consequences of letting these problems fester are sure to be much worse than the difficulties of tackling them now.
But coming back to the planet that we celebrate on Earth Day, science tells us more things about it. One is that Earth itself is in little danger from anything we may do. The planet will be here for billions of years more, whether humanity survives or not. Another is that life on Earth is almost sure to survive in some form even if we drastically alter the environment for the worse. Life on Earth is pervasive and appears even in the most seemingly inhospitable environments. Unless we somehow set off a runaway greenhouse effect like that that transformed Venus into the place it is today, some life will survive the worst we can do. Life on Earth has been through a number of mass extinctions like the one that killed off the dinosaurs (and most other species on Earth at the time) and has always rebounded; at worst humanity will just be the first species to cause a mass extinction of other species on its own. Even the global warming we cause won’t be permanent, as the carbon cycle will eventually result in the excess carbon dioxide getting absorbed into limestone (though as this takes thousands of years, our transformation of the environment can easily destroy our civilization and wipe out many other species in the meantime). But if we as a species want to survive, and if we want to maintain our present day civilization, we’d best heed what we can learn from science.
Showing posts with label Environment and Climate Change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Environment and Climate Change. Show all posts
Saturday, April 22, 2017
Friday, April 22, 2016
From Space X to Starshot, Plus Some Sobering Earth Day News
There have been two exciting bits of news in the field of space exploration in the last few weeks, though one of them is considerably more immediate than the other. The first is that after several attempts that narrowly failed, Space X finally managed to land one of its rockets on a floating barge at sea. This is only the second time a rocket used to launch objects into orbit has landed again successfully and the first time anyone has landed a rocket at sea. A few months ago, Space X landed a rocket on land, and its rival Blue Origins has landed and reused a rocket, though theirs was a suborbital one. While landing a suborbital rocket is a significant achievement, it is still easier than landing one that has been used to boost an object into orbit, as the latter return to Earth at a much higher speed. And naturally landing a rocket on land is easier than landing one on a moving platform at sea. But as Space X founder Elon Musk and others have explained, if these rockets are to be fully reusable, it will often be necessary to land at sea, as returning to the original launch site to land requires more fuel than may be left in the rocket, depending on the circumstances of the launch.
So why is this a big deal? A rocket costs tens of millions of US dollars or more, and yet up till now, every rocket that has been launched has been a one-shot deal. If Space X is able to regularly reuse rockets, that will reduce the costs of launching objects into space dramatically. This will lead to space becoming more widely accessible, and will open up all sorts of possibilities. Of course, one success doesn’t mean that Space X will manage to land and reuse all of their rockets in the future, but even if they do so with a significant percentage, that will make a big difference. Maybe within as little as a decade, advances by companies like Space X will lead to a huge increased human presence in space. Besides that, watching a rocket land on a barge is cool, all the more so when the barge is named for one of the humorously and idiosyncratically named intelligent spaceships from Iain M. Banks’s Culture novels, in this case “Just Read the Instructions” (Space X’s other barge is named “Of Course I Still Love You”).
The other exciting piece of space news is admittedly much less likely to lead to any actual results in the near future, but if it does come to fruition, it could potentially be as exciting as a human mission to Mars. This is a project announced by Nobel laureate Steven Hawking and Russian billionaire space enthusiast and physicist Yuri Milner called Breakthrough Starshot. They propose to develop and launch a fleet of miniature spacecraft equipped with light sails, and to use a giant laser array to accelerate them to a significant fraction of the speed of light (as much as 0.2c, or 20% of light speed) in the direction of Alpha Centauri, the star system nearest to the Sun. The spacecraft will be tiny – a mere centimeter or so in size – which is what will make it possible to accelerate them to such a high speed. The basic technology for the project already exists, but it will still need considerable refinement and improvement, and there are numerous engineering obstacles to overcome, from construction of the laser array to avoiding overheating the spacecraft to aiming the spacecraft. It will probably take several decades before anything is actually launched, even assuming the difficulties can be overcome.
If Hawking, Milner and their cohorts succeed, however, it could be a transformative moment for humanity. As I have discussed before, even Alpha Centauri is incredibly far away. A spacecraft like New Horizons, which recently flew by Pluto after a nine year journey from Earth, would take many tens of thousands of years to reach Alpha Centauri. The Starshot miniature spacecraft would get there a thousand times faster, perhaps arriving as soon as half a century from now. While such tiny ships would be limited in what they could do, they should at least be able to take a few pictures and gather basic data. If there are planets orbiting either of the main components of the Alpha Centauri system, that would be incredibly exciting. Even if the only planets present are uninhabitable ones, it would be extremely dramatic to get our first relatively close up pictures of an alien world outside our solar system. But if there is an Earth-like planet in the habitable zone of either star, pictures of it would almost certainly inspire an all-out effort towards further interstellar exploration, perhaps even eventually by humans – though without some unforeseeable breakthrough, that will take centuries, even with the knowledge of a potentially habitable (or even inhabited!) planet a few light years away to motivate us.
But we will certainly not be able to launch any large scale interstellar missions in the coming centuries or even take advantage of cheaper space travel to colonize the Moon or Mars in the coming decades if our civilization can’t survive climate change. As it’s Earth Day, I’ll close with a much more sobering piece of news. Not only was this past March the warmest March on record, making it 11 months in a row that a new monthly record has been set, it surpassed the average by more than any month ever. While even past record setting months have seen a few parts of the globe where temperatures were noticeably cooler than average, it was warmer than average nearly everywhere last month, and in many places regional temperatures also set an all-time record for the month. While part of this is because of El Nino, this past year has been far warmer than 1998, the last year with a strong El Nino, and the first three months of 2016 have been easily the warmest three month period ever. If this keeps up, 2016 could beat 2015 as the hottest year ever, just as 2015 beat out 2014. Even with the end of El Nino, global temperatures are unlikely to drop back to the levels of even the 1990s any time soon. Since even if humans do manage to colonize space in the near future the Earth will remain the home of the vast majority of humanity, we really have to get cracking if we want to keep it livable in future centuries.
So why is this a big deal? A rocket costs tens of millions of US dollars or more, and yet up till now, every rocket that has been launched has been a one-shot deal. If Space X is able to regularly reuse rockets, that will reduce the costs of launching objects into space dramatically. This will lead to space becoming more widely accessible, and will open up all sorts of possibilities. Of course, one success doesn’t mean that Space X will manage to land and reuse all of their rockets in the future, but even if they do so with a significant percentage, that will make a big difference. Maybe within as little as a decade, advances by companies like Space X will lead to a huge increased human presence in space. Besides that, watching a rocket land on a barge is cool, all the more so when the barge is named for one of the humorously and idiosyncratically named intelligent spaceships from Iain M. Banks’s Culture novels, in this case “Just Read the Instructions” (Space X’s other barge is named “Of Course I Still Love You”).
The other exciting piece of space news is admittedly much less likely to lead to any actual results in the near future, but if it does come to fruition, it could potentially be as exciting as a human mission to Mars. This is a project announced by Nobel laureate Steven Hawking and Russian billionaire space enthusiast and physicist Yuri Milner called Breakthrough Starshot. They propose to develop and launch a fleet of miniature spacecraft equipped with light sails, and to use a giant laser array to accelerate them to a significant fraction of the speed of light (as much as 0.2c, or 20% of light speed) in the direction of Alpha Centauri, the star system nearest to the Sun. The spacecraft will be tiny – a mere centimeter or so in size – which is what will make it possible to accelerate them to such a high speed. The basic technology for the project already exists, but it will still need considerable refinement and improvement, and there are numerous engineering obstacles to overcome, from construction of the laser array to avoiding overheating the spacecraft to aiming the spacecraft. It will probably take several decades before anything is actually launched, even assuming the difficulties can be overcome.
If Hawking, Milner and their cohorts succeed, however, it could be a transformative moment for humanity. As I have discussed before, even Alpha Centauri is incredibly far away. A spacecraft like New Horizons, which recently flew by Pluto after a nine year journey from Earth, would take many tens of thousands of years to reach Alpha Centauri. The Starshot miniature spacecraft would get there a thousand times faster, perhaps arriving as soon as half a century from now. While such tiny ships would be limited in what they could do, they should at least be able to take a few pictures and gather basic data. If there are planets orbiting either of the main components of the Alpha Centauri system, that would be incredibly exciting. Even if the only planets present are uninhabitable ones, it would be extremely dramatic to get our first relatively close up pictures of an alien world outside our solar system. But if there is an Earth-like planet in the habitable zone of either star, pictures of it would almost certainly inspire an all-out effort towards further interstellar exploration, perhaps even eventually by humans – though without some unforeseeable breakthrough, that will take centuries, even with the knowledge of a potentially habitable (or even inhabited!) planet a few light years away to motivate us.
But we will certainly not be able to launch any large scale interstellar missions in the coming centuries or even take advantage of cheaper space travel to colonize the Moon or Mars in the coming decades if our civilization can’t survive climate change. As it’s Earth Day, I’ll close with a much more sobering piece of news. Not only was this past March the warmest March on record, making it 11 months in a row that a new monthly record has been set, it surpassed the average by more than any month ever. While even past record setting months have seen a few parts of the globe where temperatures were noticeably cooler than average, it was warmer than average nearly everywhere last month, and in many places regional temperatures also set an all-time record for the month. While part of this is because of El Nino, this past year has been far warmer than 1998, the last year with a strong El Nino, and the first three months of 2016 have been easily the warmest three month period ever. If this keeps up, 2016 could beat 2015 as the hottest year ever, just as 2015 beat out 2014. Even with the end of El Nino, global temperatures are unlikely to drop back to the levels of even the 1990s any time soon. Since even if humans do manage to colonize space in the near future the Earth will remain the home of the vast majority of humanity, we really have to get cracking if we want to keep it livable in future centuries.
Sunday, December 20, 2015
Paris Agreement on Climate Change
In my last post, I talked about the climate conference in Paris. Now the summit is over and an agreement was reached by the attending countries (regrettably not including Taiwan, thanks of course to China, which acts as if it would rather see human civilization collapse due to runaway climate change than recognize Taiwan as an independent nation) to limit the global temperature increase to less than 2 degrees Celsius, with a goal of holding the rise in temperatures to 1.5 degrees. This is in many ways an impressive, landmark agreement, as it is the first time that almost all the world’s nations have committed to fighting climate change and set specific goals to mitigate its effects. For this reason, the agreement is being widely celebrated, not only by the leaders who signed it but by many environmental groups and non-governmental organizations. However, there has been some criticism of the agreement as falling short of the truly revolutionary transformation that is needed and for lacking in specific binding steps that countries must take within specific time frames. While I haven’t read the agreement or even seen a detailed summary of it, from what I’ve heard, there is merit to both the positive and negative views of it.
It is certainly fair to say that the agreement is about as good as or even better than could have been realistically expected, considering factors such as political inertia, diversity of interests, and outright obstruction from some parties both inside and outside the negotiations. Past climate conferences have not produced anything nearly as far reaching as this agreement, and the fact that a goal of limiting the temperature increase to less than 2 degrees was included was a pleasant surprise, as the conventional wisdom before the summit was that a 2 degree limit was the best that was likely to be agreed to. As I understand it, the agreement also talks of a target of reducing net carbon emissions to zero by 2050, a big improvement over the vague declarations of the past. It seems that to a point at least pressure from NGOs, civil society, and the nations that will bear the brunt of the effects of climate change, particularly the small island nations whose very existence is in danger, was able to push the negotiators in the right direction.
On the other hand, those who say the agreement falls short have a point as well. Global temperatures have already risen by about 1 degree Celsius over pre-industrial levels. Even if we stopped all production of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and methane immediately, temperatures would still continue to rise for some time afterwards, as the gases already produced would remain in the atmosphere (though methane persists for less long, leading some to point out that stopping methane production – including putting a stop to fracking – would have more immediate benefits as far as limiting temperature increases). Scientists have stated that in order to keep temperature increases to a manageable level, global fossil fuel use needs to have peaked no later than 2020, only five years from now. Given this situation, it is fair to question whether an agreement that doesn’t actually require countries to take immediate action will be able to meet its stated goals. Countries are required to report on their progress every five years, but as far as I am aware, there are no sanctions or penalties for failure to make progress. In other words, while the stated goals may meet expectations, there is no guarantee that they will actually be met. Also, while there is general talk of lower net carbon emissions to zero, there is apparently no specific mention of one necessary step to reach that goal, namely eliminating or at least heavily reducing the use of fossil fuels. Finally, the aid being offered to developing countries by developed ones falls short of what they are likely to really need.
It should be noted that one reason for the lack of binding measures and sufficient funding for developing nations is the US Republican Party. US Secretary of State John Kerry openly admitted that the main reason the US negotiators didn’t want specific language of this sort was that it would mean that US Congress – dominated by climate changing denying Republicans – would have to review the agreement. So while Kerry and US President Barack Obama aren’t to blame for the agreement’s shortfalls (at least no more than most of the other similarly overcautious leaders), the Republicans and their supporters, along with the fossil fuel industry and certain oil producing countries such as Saudi Arabia, are largely responsible for the agreement not being all it could have been. Though to some extent it is not surprising that those who have a vested interest in today’s fossil fuel industry would be reluctant to accept the need to change, it is still extremely irresponsible and selfish, and in some instances possibly even criminal, such as in the case of Exxon’s funding of climate change denialism despite having been warned by its own scientists of the threat of climate change as early as the 1970s and 1980s. As for those who are actually delusional enough to not accept that there is a problem, some may eventually come around, but in any case anyone in leadership positions who is either unable or unwilling to accept the science should definitely be voted out or replaced so they can’t continue to obstruct efforts to make change.
Despite the major caveats discussed above, the agreement should be viewed as an important step in the right direction. While it could be a lot better, it is a global acknowledgement of the seriousness of the problem and provides a framework for further progress. What’s important now is that we all work with the many activist groups focused on this issue to put pressure on our governments to not only fulfill the commitments they made in this agreement but also accelerate their progress toward a clean energy future while we all work to change our societies to make them more sustainable. If we are to avoid potentially disastrous consequences, we have to immediately start building on the limited progress that the Paris Agreement represents.
It is certainly fair to say that the agreement is about as good as or even better than could have been realistically expected, considering factors such as political inertia, diversity of interests, and outright obstruction from some parties both inside and outside the negotiations. Past climate conferences have not produced anything nearly as far reaching as this agreement, and the fact that a goal of limiting the temperature increase to less than 2 degrees was included was a pleasant surprise, as the conventional wisdom before the summit was that a 2 degree limit was the best that was likely to be agreed to. As I understand it, the agreement also talks of a target of reducing net carbon emissions to zero by 2050, a big improvement over the vague declarations of the past. It seems that to a point at least pressure from NGOs, civil society, and the nations that will bear the brunt of the effects of climate change, particularly the small island nations whose very existence is in danger, was able to push the negotiators in the right direction.
On the other hand, those who say the agreement falls short have a point as well. Global temperatures have already risen by about 1 degree Celsius over pre-industrial levels. Even if we stopped all production of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and methane immediately, temperatures would still continue to rise for some time afterwards, as the gases already produced would remain in the atmosphere (though methane persists for less long, leading some to point out that stopping methane production – including putting a stop to fracking – would have more immediate benefits as far as limiting temperature increases). Scientists have stated that in order to keep temperature increases to a manageable level, global fossil fuel use needs to have peaked no later than 2020, only five years from now. Given this situation, it is fair to question whether an agreement that doesn’t actually require countries to take immediate action will be able to meet its stated goals. Countries are required to report on their progress every five years, but as far as I am aware, there are no sanctions or penalties for failure to make progress. In other words, while the stated goals may meet expectations, there is no guarantee that they will actually be met. Also, while there is general talk of lower net carbon emissions to zero, there is apparently no specific mention of one necessary step to reach that goal, namely eliminating or at least heavily reducing the use of fossil fuels. Finally, the aid being offered to developing countries by developed ones falls short of what they are likely to really need.
It should be noted that one reason for the lack of binding measures and sufficient funding for developing nations is the US Republican Party. US Secretary of State John Kerry openly admitted that the main reason the US negotiators didn’t want specific language of this sort was that it would mean that US Congress – dominated by climate changing denying Republicans – would have to review the agreement. So while Kerry and US President Barack Obama aren’t to blame for the agreement’s shortfalls (at least no more than most of the other similarly overcautious leaders), the Republicans and their supporters, along with the fossil fuel industry and certain oil producing countries such as Saudi Arabia, are largely responsible for the agreement not being all it could have been. Though to some extent it is not surprising that those who have a vested interest in today’s fossil fuel industry would be reluctant to accept the need to change, it is still extremely irresponsible and selfish, and in some instances possibly even criminal, such as in the case of Exxon’s funding of climate change denialism despite having been warned by its own scientists of the threat of climate change as early as the 1970s and 1980s. As for those who are actually delusional enough to not accept that there is a problem, some may eventually come around, but in any case anyone in leadership positions who is either unable or unwilling to accept the science should definitely be voted out or replaced so they can’t continue to obstruct efforts to make change.
Despite the major caveats discussed above, the agreement should be viewed as an important step in the right direction. While it could be a lot better, it is a global acknowledgement of the seriousness of the problem and provides a framework for further progress. What’s important now is that we all work with the many activist groups focused on this issue to put pressure on our governments to not only fulfill the commitments they made in this agreement but also accelerate their progress toward a clean energy future while we all work to change our societies to make them more sustainable. If we are to avoid potentially disastrous consequences, we have to immediately start building on the limited progress that the Paris Agreement represents.
Monday, November 30, 2015
Paris Climate Summit
The most important thing going on in the world right now is the climate summit in Paris, which will help determine whether or not we will be able to avoid or at least ameliorate the severe disruption that will result from anthropogenic climate change. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have already reached 400 ppm (they were less than 300 ppm in the 19th century, when the Industrial Revolution was first getting into full swing), methane levels are also rising, and the average global temperature has already increased by about one degree Celsius. This year has seen an almost constant stream of record hot months, and is certain to be the hottest year on record, beating out 2014, which is the current record holder. Even if the current summit produces an unexpectedly strong, binding agreement, we will almost certainly see a further increase in the average global temperature of about 1.5 degrees Celsius. Unfortunately, even the more modest target of a 2 degree Celsius increase, regarded as the maximum that we can afford if we want to avoid catastrophic disruption, will prove difficult to meet if the world’s political leaders don’t start showing more boldness than most of them have demonstrated so far. Humanity has to decisively break free of its dependence on fossil fuels, which means standing up to the wealthy and politically well-connected oil and coal interests, and we also need to make major changes in how we feed everyone. Without immediate steps along these lines, we’re likely to see temperature increases of over 2 degrees Celsius, possibly much higher.
Even a complete lack of action would not result in anything like the extinction of humanity, much less all life on Earth. For that matter, the planet’s natural climate balancing mechanisms, such as the carbon cycle, will probably eventually undo much of the damage. But the key word is “eventually”; we’re talking about thousands or even tens of thousands of years, a short time period as far as the Earth is concerned, but a very long time in comparison with human history. This is why the argument made by climate change deniers that what climate change is occurring is not big deal because the climate is “always changing”. The problem is that thanks to us, it is changing as much in just a few centuries as it might normally in many thousands of years. The Earth and Terran life in general can adapt to these changes, but it will take a long time to do so. The changes that will result just within this century from continued inaction will in the meantime flood low-lying areas all around the world, including cities and densely populated areas that are home to hundreds of millions of people, crops that feed hundreds of millions more will have their production disrupted, some small island nations will disappear entirely, and many species will become extinct. While humanity as a whole is adaptable and will almost certainly survive, suffering will be widespread. In fact, if change is severe enough, modern human civilization could be in danger. While some of humanity will probably be able to go on as usual even if millions die and hundreds of millions are made homeless, it’s possible that disruption will reach a scale where even the world’s developed nations will descend into chaos. After all, it’s highly probable that the climate change that has already occurred contributed to the current problems in Syria. If global temperatures rise by as much as 4 degrees Celsius, the world may end with a dozen places as messed up as Syria and tens or even hundreds of millions of refugees trying to get into the world’s wealthy nations. This is even aside from the changes experienced by those nations themselves, including densely populated areas becoming uninhabitable. Can human civilization endure the strains that will result? Maybe, but it’s far from certain.
I’ll admit that I’m fairly cynical about whether we will be able to hit even the 2 degree target, which is already on the high side. There’s still too much apathy and outright resistance by the foolish and the selfish. But this doesn’t mean I agree those who just throw up their hands and say we can’t do anything so we shouldn’t bother trying. Every little bit we do now may save millions of lives in the future, so we should do as much as we possibly can as soon as we possibly can.
Even a complete lack of action would not result in anything like the extinction of humanity, much less all life on Earth. For that matter, the planet’s natural climate balancing mechanisms, such as the carbon cycle, will probably eventually undo much of the damage. But the key word is “eventually”; we’re talking about thousands or even tens of thousands of years, a short time period as far as the Earth is concerned, but a very long time in comparison with human history. This is why the argument made by climate change deniers that what climate change is occurring is not big deal because the climate is “always changing”. The problem is that thanks to us, it is changing as much in just a few centuries as it might normally in many thousands of years. The Earth and Terran life in general can adapt to these changes, but it will take a long time to do so. The changes that will result just within this century from continued inaction will in the meantime flood low-lying areas all around the world, including cities and densely populated areas that are home to hundreds of millions of people, crops that feed hundreds of millions more will have their production disrupted, some small island nations will disappear entirely, and many species will become extinct. While humanity as a whole is adaptable and will almost certainly survive, suffering will be widespread. In fact, if change is severe enough, modern human civilization could be in danger. While some of humanity will probably be able to go on as usual even if millions die and hundreds of millions are made homeless, it’s possible that disruption will reach a scale where even the world’s developed nations will descend into chaos. After all, it’s highly probable that the climate change that has already occurred contributed to the current problems in Syria. If global temperatures rise by as much as 4 degrees Celsius, the world may end with a dozen places as messed up as Syria and tens or even hundreds of millions of refugees trying to get into the world’s wealthy nations. This is even aside from the changes experienced by those nations themselves, including densely populated areas becoming uninhabitable. Can human civilization endure the strains that will result? Maybe, but it’s far from certain.
I’ll admit that I’m fairly cynical about whether we will be able to hit even the 2 degree target, which is already on the high side. There’s still too much apathy and outright resistance by the foolish and the selfish. But this doesn’t mean I agree those who just throw up their hands and say we can’t do anything so we shouldn’t bother trying. Every little bit we do now may save millions of lives in the future, so we should do as much as we possibly can as soon as we possibly can.
Saturday, September 19, 2015
The Syrian Refugee Crisis, Climate Change and a Grim Future
The refugee crisis on the borders of Europe has dominated international news in recent weeks, with attention focused on the flood of hundreds of thousands of refugees, mostly from Syria but also from countries like Afghanistan and Eritrea, who have been trying to get into the European by boat from Turkey to Greece and overland through the Balkans, sometimes with tragic consequences. There are a lot of issues related to this topic that are worth addressing, such as the failure of the international community to do more to end the war on Syria (while much of the blame goes to Russia and Iran for their insistence on propping up the murderous Assad regime, the West could certainly have done and being doing more) or to do more for the millions of refugees still stuck in camps in the region, not to mention the poor response of Europe and the US to the immediate crisis, not only the disgustingly nationalistic and xenophobic actions of people like Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and his supporters, but also the failure of countries like the UK and the US to offer to take in much larger numbers of refugees (kudos to Martin O’Malley for being the first US presidential candidate to call for the US to offer a home to a substantial number of the refugees). But I’d like to focus on an aspect of this crisis that has been less discussed, except on a few more progressive and environmentally oriented sites, namely the relationship between the Syrian crisis and climate change and what it bodes for the future.
While it is of course an exaggeration to say that climate change was the sole or even the major cause of the Syrian crisis (the Assad government’s violent response to peaceful protests, for one thing, had more than a little to do with it), it is almost certain that it was a contributing factor. The distinction between a sole cause and a contributing factor is one that some people have a hard time comprehending, especially when talking about climate change. It is impossible to directly attribute any weather event entirely to climate change, but that doesn’t mean climate change is not affecting these events. For example, we can’t say that any particular typhoon or hurricane was “caused” by climate change in the sense that we can be sure it wouldn’t have happened without the global warming caused by humans, but we can say that climate change makes typhoons more likely and increases their severity. Another example of this is drought, such as the extremely severe one afflicting the west coast of the United States, particularly California. This drought might still have occurred if humans had not changed the climate, but it almost certainly would not have been as severe. What’s more, if warming trends continue, such droughts will become more common.
This brings us back to Syria. Over several years preceding the uprising against Assad, Syria and its neighbors had been hit by one of the worst droughts in recorded history. This caused great suffering among ordinary Syrians, so naturally there was a high level of discontent. It didn’t take much for this discontent to erupt into first mass protests and then, when the government reacted violently, open rebellion, and the widespread nature of the hardships meant that more Syrians were receptive to the call to revolt. Of course it is impossible to state for sure that the rebellion wouldn’t have occurred or have been as widespread without the drought, just as it is impossible to say that anthropogenic climate change alone caused the drought itself. But it is almost certain that climate change exacerbated the drought, and it is highly probable that the drought was at least one cause of the rebellion. This is hardly without precedent; many rebellions, migrations, and other upheavals throughout history have been shown to have natural disasters such as famines, floods and so forth as a major cause. What is different about the Syrian crisis is that this drought was almost certainly worsened by global warming, a worldwide problem that humanity is still failing to address properly.
The reality is that f we do not take dramatic steps in the immediate future, current warming trends will continue, which means that droughts, floods, and other weather events influenced by climate change will become more frequent and severe. This in turn means that the refugee crisis that we are seeing now is just a harbinger of worse things to come. Either we take immediate action to deal with climate change, or in coming decades we can expect to see many refugee crises, whether caused directly by natural disasters or by wars that result from them, some of which will be as bad as or even worse than the one we are seeing now. For example, right-wingers in the US like to rail against undocumented immigrants from Latin America (despite the historically low numbers coming in recent years); climate change is expected to cause severe droughts not only in the western US but in Mexico and Central America. If that happens the US is likely to see a flood of migrants in numbers out of the worst nightmares of American xenophobes. So it is highly ironic that it is for the most part the exact same people that most fear and hate refugees and migrants that are preventing action on climate change. Of course given the complex nature of the relationship between climate change and refugee crises, it will be hard to change the attitudes of people who seem to even lack the intellectual capacity to understand and accept the simple reality of climate change itself.
While it is of course an exaggeration to say that climate change was the sole or even the major cause of the Syrian crisis (the Assad government’s violent response to peaceful protests, for one thing, had more than a little to do with it), it is almost certain that it was a contributing factor. The distinction between a sole cause and a contributing factor is one that some people have a hard time comprehending, especially when talking about climate change. It is impossible to directly attribute any weather event entirely to climate change, but that doesn’t mean climate change is not affecting these events. For example, we can’t say that any particular typhoon or hurricane was “caused” by climate change in the sense that we can be sure it wouldn’t have happened without the global warming caused by humans, but we can say that climate change makes typhoons more likely and increases their severity. Another example of this is drought, such as the extremely severe one afflicting the west coast of the United States, particularly California. This drought might still have occurred if humans had not changed the climate, but it almost certainly would not have been as severe. What’s more, if warming trends continue, such droughts will become more common.
This brings us back to Syria. Over several years preceding the uprising against Assad, Syria and its neighbors had been hit by one of the worst droughts in recorded history. This caused great suffering among ordinary Syrians, so naturally there was a high level of discontent. It didn’t take much for this discontent to erupt into first mass protests and then, when the government reacted violently, open rebellion, and the widespread nature of the hardships meant that more Syrians were receptive to the call to revolt. Of course it is impossible to state for sure that the rebellion wouldn’t have occurred or have been as widespread without the drought, just as it is impossible to say that anthropogenic climate change alone caused the drought itself. But it is almost certain that climate change exacerbated the drought, and it is highly probable that the drought was at least one cause of the rebellion. This is hardly without precedent; many rebellions, migrations, and other upheavals throughout history have been shown to have natural disasters such as famines, floods and so forth as a major cause. What is different about the Syrian crisis is that this drought was almost certainly worsened by global warming, a worldwide problem that humanity is still failing to address properly.
The reality is that f we do not take dramatic steps in the immediate future, current warming trends will continue, which means that droughts, floods, and other weather events influenced by climate change will become more frequent and severe. This in turn means that the refugee crisis that we are seeing now is just a harbinger of worse things to come. Either we take immediate action to deal with climate change, or in coming decades we can expect to see many refugee crises, whether caused directly by natural disasters or by wars that result from them, some of which will be as bad as or even worse than the one we are seeing now. For example, right-wingers in the US like to rail against undocumented immigrants from Latin America (despite the historically low numbers coming in recent years); climate change is expected to cause severe droughts not only in the western US but in Mexico and Central America. If that happens the US is likely to see a flood of migrants in numbers out of the worst nightmares of American xenophobes. So it is highly ironic that it is for the most part the exact same people that most fear and hate refugees and migrants that are preventing action on climate change. Of course given the complex nature of the relationship between climate change and refugee crises, it will be hard to change the attitudes of people who seem to even lack the intellectual capacity to understand and accept the simple reality of climate change itself.
Tuesday, August 18, 2015
The Clean Power Plan, Presidential Candidates in the US and Taiwan, and Jimmy Carter
There are a number of current topics that I’d love to have to time to talk about in some detail, but due to lack of time I will just offer a few brief comments on each. In some cases, I may find a chance to come back to them and talk about them in more depth in the future. In my last blog post I talked about the Iran nuclear agreement, which, as I observed, is imperfect but worth supporting, especially given the lack of realistic alternatives. Aside from the nuclear agreement (which is the work of a number of countries, not just the US and Taiwan), US President Barack Obama has announced another important initiative in the last few weeks, one which is at least as important as the Iran deal, and that is his (or rather the EPA’s) Clean Power Plan. This takes a big step toward fighting climate change and reducing pollution by setting strict limits on carbon emissions. As might be expected, there has been loud opposition from polluting industries and the right wing politicians in their pockets, but the truth is if put into effect the plan will be to the benefit of almost everyone except those who directly profit from polluting industries like coal. It won’t even be that difficult for most utilities to comply with the plan, and of course it will make the air much cleaner, not to mention reduce the US’s carbon emissions and thereby help reduce the risk of catastrophic climate change. In fact, if anything the plan may not be ambitious enough. The truth is we need to quickly reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and methane if we are to avoid warming that will have dramatic (and in the near term at least mostly negative and even highly destructive) effects all over the world.
Speaking of President Obama, much of the news from the US has been focused on the candidates to take over for him when he leaves office, even though the actual election isn’t until late next year. Taiwan is also having a presidential election, though it is at the beginning of the year, so the similar focus on election politics is a little more justifiable. In both races the most likely winners are women who are imperfect but acceptable choices, if not super exciting (Hillary Rodham Clinton in the US and Tsai Yingwen in Taiwan). On the other side there are some completely awful choices (the entire bunch of Republican candidates in the US and Hong Xiuzhu and James Soong in Taiwan). The US race also has at least one quite exciting candidate and a couple others who have some excellent positions on certain issues (Bernie Sanders, Martin O’Malley and possibly Lawrence Lessig), though their prospects for actually winning are uncertain. At some point in the future, I would like to go over these races in more detail. For now regarding the US race I will just note that while I think Clinton has said many of the right things on numerous issues and I expect that I will vote for her if she ends up winning the Democratic nomination as expected, Sanders is better than Clinton on the majority of issues and offers a much better prospect of real change – if he could get elected. O’Malley stands out especially on the environment, having gone into even more detail than Sanders on the steps he would take to deal with climate change (though what Sanders has said so far on the issue has also been great, whereas Clinton has been good but regrettably vague on a few key points). Lessig, who only announced his prospective candidacy, is running on the single issue of making a radical overhaul to the US election system, promising to resign once he gets his program passed. Though the seems like a rather quixotic campaign, he is perfectly correct about the need for major reforms, and I’ll admit that the idea that someone I’ve met and briefly spoken to (I helped translate for him in an interview session with a few reporters in Taiwan when he came to promote Creative Commons) may run for president of the US.
Talking of US presidents, a sadder piece of news is that former US President Jimmy Carter announced the other day that he has cancer that has already spread through much of his body. Since he is already 90 years old, his prospects of surviving advanced cancer are probably not very good. But he has done a lot of excellent work since leaving office in 1980, and indeed is one of the best ex-presidents the US has ever had, so he can look back on a life of real accomplishment. The job he did as president is not highly rated by most people, but even this is a bit unfair. He did have some flaws, particularly his inability to delegate well and his difficulty in establishing good relations with Congress, though some of the fault for that was on the side of Congress. Carter was a true outsider, unlike some politicians since who have run under that label, and that made it harder for him to get things accomplished. But many of the problems that he faced in his presidency were not his fault and it is questionable whether he could have done much else about them. Many of his ideas were good, such as making human rights a more important factor in foreign policy, even if the execution left something to be desired. In fact, if he had been reelected it’s quite possible that in a number of areas the US (and even the world) would be considerably better off. In Carter’s day there were some prospects of a move away from rampant capitalism and excessive reliance of fossil fuels, for instance, but with the election of Ronald Reagan that all went out the window and instead the US got supply side economics and severe backsliding on the environmental front, not to mention an overly aggressive foreign policy. Movement toward renewable energy basically came to a halt for the next two decades. The parody newspaper The Onion captured the contrast well on its faux front page from 1980. Under the article headline “Campaign ‘80” there are pictures of Carter and Reagan and quotes representing their political agendas. Carter’s is “Let’s Talk Better Mileage” while Reagan’s is “Kill the Bastards”. In the article, Carter talks about renewable energy, urban renewal, mass transit, job, infrastructure, and job training programs for disadvantaged minorities while criticizing Reagan’s proposed cuts to social programs and tax breaks for the wealthy, but Reagan just keeps repeating “kill the bastards.” The article is subtitled “Which Message Will Resonate with Voters?” Of course we know which one did, but even granted that the article greatly exaggerates the contrast for comic effect, I can’t help wondering what the world would be like if things had gone differently. Perhaps we wouldn't even need a Clean Power Plan. In any case, today Americans would do well to heed some of President Carter’s recent messages, such as his warning that the US has become an oligarchy. Maybe the US really does need to elect someone like Bernie Sanders, who at least would attempt to put America back on the path towards a greener, more egalitarian and more democratic society.
Speaking of President Obama, much of the news from the US has been focused on the candidates to take over for him when he leaves office, even though the actual election isn’t until late next year. Taiwan is also having a presidential election, though it is at the beginning of the year, so the similar focus on election politics is a little more justifiable. In both races the most likely winners are women who are imperfect but acceptable choices, if not super exciting (Hillary Rodham Clinton in the US and Tsai Yingwen in Taiwan). On the other side there are some completely awful choices (the entire bunch of Republican candidates in the US and Hong Xiuzhu and James Soong in Taiwan). The US race also has at least one quite exciting candidate and a couple others who have some excellent positions on certain issues (Bernie Sanders, Martin O’Malley and possibly Lawrence Lessig), though their prospects for actually winning are uncertain. At some point in the future, I would like to go over these races in more detail. For now regarding the US race I will just note that while I think Clinton has said many of the right things on numerous issues and I expect that I will vote for her if she ends up winning the Democratic nomination as expected, Sanders is better than Clinton on the majority of issues and offers a much better prospect of real change – if he could get elected. O’Malley stands out especially on the environment, having gone into even more detail than Sanders on the steps he would take to deal with climate change (though what Sanders has said so far on the issue has also been great, whereas Clinton has been good but regrettably vague on a few key points). Lessig, who only announced his prospective candidacy, is running on the single issue of making a radical overhaul to the US election system, promising to resign once he gets his program passed. Though the seems like a rather quixotic campaign, he is perfectly correct about the need for major reforms, and I’ll admit that the idea that someone I’ve met and briefly spoken to (I helped translate for him in an interview session with a few reporters in Taiwan when he came to promote Creative Commons) may run for president of the US.
Talking of US presidents, a sadder piece of news is that former US President Jimmy Carter announced the other day that he has cancer that has already spread through much of his body. Since he is already 90 years old, his prospects of surviving advanced cancer are probably not very good. But he has done a lot of excellent work since leaving office in 1980, and indeed is one of the best ex-presidents the US has ever had, so he can look back on a life of real accomplishment. The job he did as president is not highly rated by most people, but even this is a bit unfair. He did have some flaws, particularly his inability to delegate well and his difficulty in establishing good relations with Congress, though some of the fault for that was on the side of Congress. Carter was a true outsider, unlike some politicians since who have run under that label, and that made it harder for him to get things accomplished. But many of the problems that he faced in his presidency were not his fault and it is questionable whether he could have done much else about them. Many of his ideas were good, such as making human rights a more important factor in foreign policy, even if the execution left something to be desired. In fact, if he had been reelected it’s quite possible that in a number of areas the US (and even the world) would be considerably better off. In Carter’s day there were some prospects of a move away from rampant capitalism and excessive reliance of fossil fuels, for instance, but with the election of Ronald Reagan that all went out the window and instead the US got supply side economics and severe backsliding on the environmental front, not to mention an overly aggressive foreign policy. Movement toward renewable energy basically came to a halt for the next two decades. The parody newspaper The Onion captured the contrast well on its faux front page from 1980. Under the article headline “Campaign ‘80” there are pictures of Carter and Reagan and quotes representing their political agendas. Carter’s is “Let’s Talk Better Mileage” while Reagan’s is “Kill the Bastards”. In the article, Carter talks about renewable energy, urban renewal, mass transit, job, infrastructure, and job training programs for disadvantaged minorities while criticizing Reagan’s proposed cuts to social programs and tax breaks for the wealthy, but Reagan just keeps repeating “kill the bastards.” The article is subtitled “Which Message Will Resonate with Voters?” Of course we know which one did, but even granted that the article greatly exaggerates the contrast for comic effect, I can’t help wondering what the world would be like if things had gone differently. Perhaps we wouldn't even need a Clean Power Plan. In any case, today Americans would do well to heed some of President Carter’s recent messages, such as his warning that the US has become an oligarchy. Maybe the US really does need to elect someone like Bernie Sanders, who at least would attempt to put America back on the path towards a greener, more egalitarian and more democratic society.
Saturday, June 20, 2015
Pope Francis and Climate Change
The Catholic Church has a long history, and in much of that time it has not been a force for good, but rather has stood for corruption, repression and stubborn conservatism. Even in The Decameron, Giovanni Boccaccio’s 14th century work, the portrayal of the church is for the most part very negative. In modern times, the Catholic Church retains some exceptionally backward ideas about contraception, women, and homosexuality, among other things. I remember once years ago when Time magazine selected Pope John Paul II as its Man of the Year, one political cartoonist parodied their choice by drawing a magazine with John Paul II on the cover as Man of the Year, but with the name of the magazine changed to Behind the Times. While for the most part the Catholic Church is not nearly as radically right wing as many evangelical Protestant churches, given its size as the single largest Christian denomination in the world and indeed the world’s largest hierarchally-organized religious sect, with the Pope exercising ultimate religious authority over a billion people, its conservative bent has meant has acted as a major hindrance to progress on many issues. In other words, my overall view of the Catholic Church has tended to be negative. However, this has changed somewhat since Pope Francis took charge. While the Catholic Church still has many negatives, Francis has shown that with the right kind of leadership it can still be a strong force for good, a message he has reinforced with his recently released encyclical on climate change and the environment.
In the short time he has been in charge, Francis has managed to drastically change the image of the Catholic Church and the tone of its pronouncements, even if the substance of its teachings has not changed much. To a large degree, this has been due to a change in emphasis. Past Popes like John Paul II and Benedict XVI seemed to focus much more on defending some of the Church’s more conservative positions, such as its views on contraception, abortion and homosexuality. Francis, while not actually abandoning or contradicting these positions, except to express greater tolerance of those with views contrary to the Church’s teachings, has chosen to emphasize issues such as social justice and fighting poverty, areas where even in the past the Church has done much good. The problem in past years has been that the Vatican and much of the rest of the hierarchy has seemed to care much less about social justice than fighting for socially conservative positions or even covering up its own flaws, such as all the sexual abuse scandals that have come to light in past years. Symptomatic of this warped emphasis is the fact that many priests who had been found to be guilty of sexual abuse went unpunished, while one American nun who performed an emergency abortion in a hospital to save a woman’s life was excommunicated, though she was eventually reinstated. Another example is the case of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, the American association of nuns that was punished by the Vatican for placing too much emphasis on social justice rather than the church’s teachings on issues such as abortion. However, despite initially allowing the inquiry (or perhaps we should say Inquisition) into the group’s work to continue, he ended it in April of this year and met with a delegation of the nuns for almost an hour. Also, he has removed some of the more conservative church officials from power and seems to genuinely be attempting to change the Church’s overall direction, thereby allowing it to play a more positive role in society.
This latest encyclical is a powerful example of the kind of positive role the Church can play in the world under Francis’s leadership. In essence, Francis has declared that fighting climate change and protecting the environment is a moral issue, one that it is intimately tied to fighting poverty and struggling for social justice, as it is the poor and disadvantaged of the world that will suffer – indeed are already suffering – from the effects of climate change, which, as he notes, is "a global problem with grave implications: environmental, social, economic, political and for the distribution of goods [that] represents one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day". He reviews the scientific consensus on climate change and points out the urgency of doing something about it now, noting "it is remarkable how weak international political responses have been". He condemns the short-sighted greed that has led to not only to our continued pumping of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere despite our growing awareness of the harm they are causing but also other sorts of environmental destruction in so much of the world and declares that we need to radically adjust our priorities. He calls out over-consumption by the wealthy nations of the world as being a major cause of our current problems and calls on people to stop viewing endless economic growth and acquisition of material goods as “progress”, but instead to work to improve quality of life. Indeed, aside from being a much needed call to action on climate change, the encyclical is also an indictment of the entire system of rampant capitalism that ruins the environment and tramples on the poor and disadvantaged in the name of short term profit, as "economic powers continue to justify the current global system where priority tends to be given to speculation and the pursuit of financial gain". He notes that claims that God gave the world to humans to exploit at will are bad theology, arguing "we must forcefully reject the notion that our being created in God’s image and given dominion over the earth justifies absolute domination over other creatures", as it is clear that the Bible calls on humans to be good stewards of the Earth and its resources and that "responsibility for God’s earth means that human beings, endowed with intelligence, must respect the laws of nature and the delicate equilibria existing between the creatures of this world."
While I have not read the entire encyclical (and at 191 pages I may not ever get around to doing so), I agree pretty much completely with all the excerpts and paraphrases I’ve seen so far, with one notable exception, one that shows that Francis, for all his progressive pronouncements, still holds to some of the Church’s more backward teachings. At one point, he criticizes the view that overpopulation is to blame for the environmental problems we face and that we just need to limit population growth. Of course, few if any people with an understanding of the issues believes that overpopulation alone is the problem or halting population growth alone is the solution. Of course, as Francis says, over-consumption, waste and inequality, not to mention the short-sighted pursuit of profits that leads people to extract and burn destructive fossil fuels rather than search for alternatives, are at least as much the issue as population, if not more. There is no question that we could easily feed, clothe, house and educate all of the world’s seven billion plus people if we distributed our resources more equitably and used them more wisely. But it is also unquestionable that this would be much easier if there were far fewer people, and it will become much harder if the population keeps increasing at anything near the current rate. While so far our food production has managed to keep pace with our population growth, thanks to innovations such as the “green revolution” in agriculture, it is foolish to just assume it will continue to do so. No matter how environmentally sustainable our lifestyles, seven billion people cannot help but create a rather substantial strain on the Earth’s carrying capacity and great pressure on the habitats of other species, and of course it will be worse with eight, nine or ten billion. So even if we do everything else Francis suggests, population growth must still be restrained – not coercively, like in China, but through education and read availability of contraceptives and other forms of birth control, especially to women. This of course is the unspoken reason for Francis’s dismissal of overpopulation as an issue; admitting it was a problem would be an admission that the Church’s teaching on contraception is wrong and even harmful. While Francis appears to be far more willing than his predecessors to tolerate the use of contraception by Catholics, already quite common despite the Church’s position on them, he doesn’t seem to be prepared to actually overturn this, probably the most harmful of the Church’s teachings.
But despite this one notable flaw, if Catholics and even non-Catholics could take what the encyclical teaches to heart, the world would definitely be a better place. Of course, many will not, and even before its release right-wingers, conservatives, climate deniers, fossil fuel profiteers and others (many of which groups also happened to be targets for sharp criticism in the encyclical), began attacking it. Catholic Republicans like Rick Santorum and Jeb Bush questioned the appropriateness of the Pope addressing an issue such as climate change, saying he should stick to moral teachings. This is despite Francis’s convincing framing of human stewardship of the Earth as a moral issue, which makes at least as much logical sense than declaring homosexuality or even contraception to be a moral issue – indeed, I would say that these two only become a moral issue when people attack the former or try to reduce availability of the latter, because it is such attacks that are immoral. These Republican critics decry the Pope getting involved in what they call a “political” issue, but they don’t seem to object to the Church making pronouncements on abortion, which is at least as much a political issue as climate change. Indeed, as everything is some sense political, saying the Church should not express a viewpoint on political issues is tantamount to saying it should not express a viewpoint on anything. Furthermore, climate change is, or should be, much less a political issue than it is; it is only the climate deniers who reject the overwhelming scientific evidence who make it into a political issue. Or rather, the real political issue with climate change is not whether to do something about it, but what exactly we should do, and how we should distribute responsibility for taking action.
It’s worth pointing out that while the extreme right wing views of certain prominent Catholics like Santorum, Bush, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, or the various Catholic leaders who spoke against the birth control mandate in the Affordable Care Act might give the impression that most American Catholics take very conservative positions on issues such as climate change or homosexuality, polls show that in fact Francis’s position on climate change is more in accord with most American Catholics than with these political “leaders”, and many also support same-sex marriage (something that is true of many Catholics in other countries as well, with Catholic countries like Spain and Ireland being leaders in legalizing same-sex marriage). As is the case with the views of American Jews on Israel, where most ordinary Jews support a negotiated two-state solution and are willing to see Israel receive constructive criticism but many major Jewish organizations (with the notable exception of J Street) take a hardline position that admits of no criticism of Israel, it seems sometimes that the most extreme Catholics are the loudest and so give a misleading impression of the views of Catholics in general (for that matter, the same is true of Protestants, as many mainline Protestant churches favor action on climate change and support same-sex marriage, unlike some of the most outspoken Protestants who wave their opposition like a banner).
This encyclical, with its broad acceptance of the scientific consensus and its solid summary of the science itself, is also a reminder that despite some of the black marks in its past like the suppression of Galileo and the burning at the stake of Giordano Bruno, Catholics as individuals and even the Church itself has often played a positive role in advancing science. Many important scientific ideas, including genetics and the Big Bang, were first proposed by Catholics, and the Church itself accepts basic scientific ideas such as evolution, unlike many evangelical Protestants. Francis, who apparently has a background in chemistry, has consulted widely with scientists on climate change and indeed seems to have almost as much of a personal interest in science as the Dalai Lama, a religious leader who he has much in common with. Both of them accept that it makes no sense for religion to attempt to oppose itself to science, but rather to use science to help find ways to make the world a better place. With this encyclical on climate change, Francis has helped point out to both Catholics and non-Catholics ways in which we can work together to do just that.
In the short time he has been in charge, Francis has managed to drastically change the image of the Catholic Church and the tone of its pronouncements, even if the substance of its teachings has not changed much. To a large degree, this has been due to a change in emphasis. Past Popes like John Paul II and Benedict XVI seemed to focus much more on defending some of the Church’s more conservative positions, such as its views on contraception, abortion and homosexuality. Francis, while not actually abandoning or contradicting these positions, except to express greater tolerance of those with views contrary to the Church’s teachings, has chosen to emphasize issues such as social justice and fighting poverty, areas where even in the past the Church has done much good. The problem in past years has been that the Vatican and much of the rest of the hierarchy has seemed to care much less about social justice than fighting for socially conservative positions or even covering up its own flaws, such as all the sexual abuse scandals that have come to light in past years. Symptomatic of this warped emphasis is the fact that many priests who had been found to be guilty of sexual abuse went unpunished, while one American nun who performed an emergency abortion in a hospital to save a woman’s life was excommunicated, though she was eventually reinstated. Another example is the case of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, the American association of nuns that was punished by the Vatican for placing too much emphasis on social justice rather than the church’s teachings on issues such as abortion. However, despite initially allowing the inquiry (or perhaps we should say Inquisition) into the group’s work to continue, he ended it in April of this year and met with a delegation of the nuns for almost an hour. Also, he has removed some of the more conservative church officials from power and seems to genuinely be attempting to change the Church’s overall direction, thereby allowing it to play a more positive role in society.
This latest encyclical is a powerful example of the kind of positive role the Church can play in the world under Francis’s leadership. In essence, Francis has declared that fighting climate change and protecting the environment is a moral issue, one that it is intimately tied to fighting poverty and struggling for social justice, as it is the poor and disadvantaged of the world that will suffer – indeed are already suffering – from the effects of climate change, which, as he notes, is "a global problem with grave implications: environmental, social, economic, political and for the distribution of goods [that] represents one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day". He reviews the scientific consensus on climate change and points out the urgency of doing something about it now, noting "it is remarkable how weak international political responses have been". He condemns the short-sighted greed that has led to not only to our continued pumping of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere despite our growing awareness of the harm they are causing but also other sorts of environmental destruction in so much of the world and declares that we need to radically adjust our priorities. He calls out over-consumption by the wealthy nations of the world as being a major cause of our current problems and calls on people to stop viewing endless economic growth and acquisition of material goods as “progress”, but instead to work to improve quality of life. Indeed, aside from being a much needed call to action on climate change, the encyclical is also an indictment of the entire system of rampant capitalism that ruins the environment and tramples on the poor and disadvantaged in the name of short term profit, as "economic powers continue to justify the current global system where priority tends to be given to speculation and the pursuit of financial gain". He notes that claims that God gave the world to humans to exploit at will are bad theology, arguing "we must forcefully reject the notion that our being created in God’s image and given dominion over the earth justifies absolute domination over other creatures", as it is clear that the Bible calls on humans to be good stewards of the Earth and its resources and that "responsibility for God’s earth means that human beings, endowed with intelligence, must respect the laws of nature and the delicate equilibria existing between the creatures of this world."
While I have not read the entire encyclical (and at 191 pages I may not ever get around to doing so), I agree pretty much completely with all the excerpts and paraphrases I’ve seen so far, with one notable exception, one that shows that Francis, for all his progressive pronouncements, still holds to some of the Church’s more backward teachings. At one point, he criticizes the view that overpopulation is to blame for the environmental problems we face and that we just need to limit population growth. Of course, few if any people with an understanding of the issues believes that overpopulation alone is the problem or halting population growth alone is the solution. Of course, as Francis says, over-consumption, waste and inequality, not to mention the short-sighted pursuit of profits that leads people to extract and burn destructive fossil fuels rather than search for alternatives, are at least as much the issue as population, if not more. There is no question that we could easily feed, clothe, house and educate all of the world’s seven billion plus people if we distributed our resources more equitably and used them more wisely. But it is also unquestionable that this would be much easier if there were far fewer people, and it will become much harder if the population keeps increasing at anything near the current rate. While so far our food production has managed to keep pace with our population growth, thanks to innovations such as the “green revolution” in agriculture, it is foolish to just assume it will continue to do so. No matter how environmentally sustainable our lifestyles, seven billion people cannot help but create a rather substantial strain on the Earth’s carrying capacity and great pressure on the habitats of other species, and of course it will be worse with eight, nine or ten billion. So even if we do everything else Francis suggests, population growth must still be restrained – not coercively, like in China, but through education and read availability of contraceptives and other forms of birth control, especially to women. This of course is the unspoken reason for Francis’s dismissal of overpopulation as an issue; admitting it was a problem would be an admission that the Church’s teaching on contraception is wrong and even harmful. While Francis appears to be far more willing than his predecessors to tolerate the use of contraception by Catholics, already quite common despite the Church’s position on them, he doesn’t seem to be prepared to actually overturn this, probably the most harmful of the Church’s teachings.
But despite this one notable flaw, if Catholics and even non-Catholics could take what the encyclical teaches to heart, the world would definitely be a better place. Of course, many will not, and even before its release right-wingers, conservatives, climate deniers, fossil fuel profiteers and others (many of which groups also happened to be targets for sharp criticism in the encyclical), began attacking it. Catholic Republicans like Rick Santorum and Jeb Bush questioned the appropriateness of the Pope addressing an issue such as climate change, saying he should stick to moral teachings. This is despite Francis’s convincing framing of human stewardship of the Earth as a moral issue, which makes at least as much logical sense than declaring homosexuality or even contraception to be a moral issue – indeed, I would say that these two only become a moral issue when people attack the former or try to reduce availability of the latter, because it is such attacks that are immoral. These Republican critics decry the Pope getting involved in what they call a “political” issue, but they don’t seem to object to the Church making pronouncements on abortion, which is at least as much a political issue as climate change. Indeed, as everything is some sense political, saying the Church should not express a viewpoint on political issues is tantamount to saying it should not express a viewpoint on anything. Furthermore, climate change is, or should be, much less a political issue than it is; it is only the climate deniers who reject the overwhelming scientific evidence who make it into a political issue. Or rather, the real political issue with climate change is not whether to do something about it, but what exactly we should do, and how we should distribute responsibility for taking action.
It’s worth pointing out that while the extreme right wing views of certain prominent Catholics like Santorum, Bush, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, or the various Catholic leaders who spoke against the birth control mandate in the Affordable Care Act might give the impression that most American Catholics take very conservative positions on issues such as climate change or homosexuality, polls show that in fact Francis’s position on climate change is more in accord with most American Catholics than with these political “leaders”, and many also support same-sex marriage (something that is true of many Catholics in other countries as well, with Catholic countries like Spain and Ireland being leaders in legalizing same-sex marriage). As is the case with the views of American Jews on Israel, where most ordinary Jews support a negotiated two-state solution and are willing to see Israel receive constructive criticism but many major Jewish organizations (with the notable exception of J Street) take a hardline position that admits of no criticism of Israel, it seems sometimes that the most extreme Catholics are the loudest and so give a misleading impression of the views of Catholics in general (for that matter, the same is true of Protestants, as many mainline Protestant churches favor action on climate change and support same-sex marriage, unlike some of the most outspoken Protestants who wave their opposition like a banner).
This encyclical, with its broad acceptance of the scientific consensus and its solid summary of the science itself, is also a reminder that despite some of the black marks in its past like the suppression of Galileo and the burning at the stake of Giordano Bruno, Catholics as individuals and even the Church itself has often played a positive role in advancing science. Many important scientific ideas, including genetics and the Big Bang, were first proposed by Catholics, and the Church itself accepts basic scientific ideas such as evolution, unlike many evangelical Protestants. Francis, who apparently has a background in chemistry, has consulted widely with scientists on climate change and indeed seems to have almost as much of a personal interest in science as the Dalai Lama, a religious leader who he has much in common with. Both of them accept that it makes no sense for religion to attempt to oppose itself to science, but rather to use science to help find ways to make the world a better place. With this encyclical on climate change, Francis has helped point out to both Catholics and non-Catholics ways in which we can work together to do just that.
Sunday, May 18, 2014
Some Links: Chinese Aggression, Climate Change and More
Among the numerous events that have been happening around the world in the past few weeks, there are a couple that I have been paying particular attention to. Since I haven't had time to write extensively about them, I'm going to settle for providing some links plus a few brief comments.
One important story is China's recent aggression in the South China Sea. Here are a few news articles on the subject:
http://news.yahoo.com/vietnam-escalates-dispute-china-over-oil-rig-141520053.html
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/south-china-sea-tensions-flare-160100602.html
http://news.yahoo.com/chinas-oil-rig-move-leaves-vietnam-others-looking-210853575.html
http://news.yahoo.com/us-senators-china-sea-actions-deeply-troubling-233542282.html
http://news.yahoo.com/vietnam-allows-anti-china-protest-over-oil-rig-045751418--finance.html
http://news.yahoo.com/large-protests-vietnam-over-china-oil-rig-050459736.html
http://news.yahoo.com/philippines-releases-photos-chinese-reclamation-053311309.html
http://news.yahoo.com/high-seas-vietnam-china-play-tense-game-052350219.html
Now as I have noted in the context of the similar dispute between China and Japan over the islands to the northeast of Taiwan, I have little sympathy with the claims of either side. As far as I am concerned, there is no reason these uninhabited rocks and coral reefs should belong to anybody. One of the unfortunate consequences of the modern nation-based international system (derived from Europe) is that every tiny piece of land in the world outside of Antarctica is presumed to belong to, or at least claimed by, some nation or other, even if no one has ever lived there. It would be better if all these nations left these places mostly alone, making some agreements about fishing rights (though since overfishing is a big problem, even that should be kept to a minimum), and any oil and gas that is there should be left under the ground, for reasons that should be obvious, considering the other major story I discuss below. So I don't really support the claims of the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei or Taiwan, and I certainly don't sympathize with Vietnamese rioters randomly attacking Chinese workers (and even Taiwanese factories). However, recently, China has been the one aggressively pushing its absurdly broad claims (it claims the entire sea, practically all the way up to the coasts of the surrounding nations, even though in many cases the territory it claims is many hundreds of kilometers from China). China is clearly using its size in an attempt to bully its neighbors. I hope the other countries will eventually have the sense to join together and oppose Chinese imperialism in this area together.
The other story I've been paying particular attention to is climate change, where there have been a number of new and very sobering pieces of news. The US government released a report on the US climate which showed that the climate change is already affecting the US, and if nothing is done it will have an even more devastating effect in the future. Another report noted that access to water will soon become a major problem worldwide. Then in the last few days, there were the reports that the West Antarctic ice sheet has already started an irreversible collapse that will ultimately raise sea levels by at least 1.2 meters and perhaps as much as more than that over the next few centuries, even if we act quickly to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. If we continue business as usual, on the other hand, we can surely expect the ice to melt much more quickly. And for an excellent skewering of the way the American media still treats climate change as if it were a debatable issue, be sure to check out this clip from John Oliver.
Another piece of news worth mentioning is the election victory of the Narendra Modi-led BJP in India. Modi's rhetoric in recent years has been fairly moderate and the long-time ruling party, Congress has a lot of problems with corruption and ineffectiveness, so on the surface this result may seem like a good thing. But the BJP is still a Hindu nationalist party, and Modi himself,a leader of Gujirat, failed to take effective action to stop the horrendous massacre of thousands of Muslims in 2002, to put the best possible spin on what happened (there are some who think he deliberately let the massacre happen). He'll have to do an awful lot of good as prime minister to even begin to make up for that black mark in his past.
Of course the story that has been dominating world news lately, even more than those mentioned above, is that of Boko Haram's kidnapping of over 200 Nigerian girls. Thanks to the campaign to raise awareness of the incident, there is now a lot of pressure on the Nigerian government, and Western and neighboring African governments as well, to try to do something to stop Boko Haram and recover the girls. It won't be easy, however, not least because the Nigerian military itself has committed all sorts of serious human rights violations and so is highly distrusted by the people of the region where Boko Haram operates. Still, with sufficient effort by all parties and a more circumspect, civilian-friendly approach by the Nigerian military, there is some hope that Boko Haram can be defeated or at least severely weakened, and most or all of their victims rescued.
One important story is China's recent aggression in the South China Sea. Here are a few news articles on the subject:
http://news.yahoo.com/vietnam-escalates-dispute-china-over-oil-rig-141520053.html
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/south-china-sea-tensions-flare-160100602.html
http://news.yahoo.com/chinas-oil-rig-move-leaves-vietnam-others-looking-210853575.html
http://news.yahoo.com/us-senators-china-sea-actions-deeply-troubling-233542282.html
http://news.yahoo.com/vietnam-allows-anti-china-protest-over-oil-rig-045751418--finance.html
http://news.yahoo.com/large-protests-vietnam-over-china-oil-rig-050459736.html
http://news.yahoo.com/philippines-releases-photos-chinese-reclamation-053311309.html
http://news.yahoo.com/high-seas-vietnam-china-play-tense-game-052350219.html
Now as I have noted in the context of the similar dispute between China and Japan over the islands to the northeast of Taiwan, I have little sympathy with the claims of either side. As far as I am concerned, there is no reason these uninhabited rocks and coral reefs should belong to anybody. One of the unfortunate consequences of the modern nation-based international system (derived from Europe) is that every tiny piece of land in the world outside of Antarctica is presumed to belong to, or at least claimed by, some nation or other, even if no one has ever lived there. It would be better if all these nations left these places mostly alone, making some agreements about fishing rights (though since overfishing is a big problem, even that should be kept to a minimum), and any oil and gas that is there should be left under the ground, for reasons that should be obvious, considering the other major story I discuss below. So I don't really support the claims of the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei or Taiwan, and I certainly don't sympathize with Vietnamese rioters randomly attacking Chinese workers (and even Taiwanese factories). However, recently, China has been the one aggressively pushing its absurdly broad claims (it claims the entire sea, practically all the way up to the coasts of the surrounding nations, even though in many cases the territory it claims is many hundreds of kilometers from China). China is clearly using its size in an attempt to bully its neighbors. I hope the other countries will eventually have the sense to join together and oppose Chinese imperialism in this area together.
The other story I've been paying particular attention to is climate change, where there have been a number of new and very sobering pieces of news. The US government released a report on the US climate which showed that the climate change is already affecting the US, and if nothing is done it will have an even more devastating effect in the future. Another report noted that access to water will soon become a major problem worldwide. Then in the last few days, there were the reports that the West Antarctic ice sheet has already started an irreversible collapse that will ultimately raise sea levels by at least 1.2 meters and perhaps as much as more than that over the next few centuries, even if we act quickly to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. If we continue business as usual, on the other hand, we can surely expect the ice to melt much more quickly. And for an excellent skewering of the way the American media still treats climate change as if it were a debatable issue, be sure to check out this clip from John Oliver.
Another piece of news worth mentioning is the election victory of the Narendra Modi-led BJP in India. Modi's rhetoric in recent years has been fairly moderate and the long-time ruling party, Congress has a lot of problems with corruption and ineffectiveness, so on the surface this result may seem like a good thing. But the BJP is still a Hindu nationalist party, and Modi himself,a leader of Gujirat, failed to take effective action to stop the horrendous massacre of thousands of Muslims in 2002, to put the best possible spin on what happened (there are some who think he deliberately let the massacre happen). He'll have to do an awful lot of good as prime minister to even begin to make up for that black mark in his past.
Of course the story that has been dominating world news lately, even more than those mentioned above, is that of Boko Haram's kidnapping of over 200 Nigerian girls. Thanks to the campaign to raise awareness of the incident, there is now a lot of pressure on the Nigerian government, and Western and neighboring African governments as well, to try to do something to stop Boko Haram and recover the girls. It won't be easy, however, not least because the Nigerian military itself has committed all sorts of serious human rights violations and so is highly distrusted by the people of the region where Boko Haram operates. Still, with sufficient effort by all parties and a more circumspect, civilian-friendly approach by the Nigerian military, there is some hope that Boko Haram can be defeated or at least severely weakened, and most or all of their victims rescued.
Friday, November 15, 2013
Learning to Live on the Earth (with Links to Various Interesting Stuff)
I talk a lot about the environment on this blog, because in some ways it is more important than any other issue. After all, if humanity can't find a way to live on the Earth without catastrophically disrupting the environment, it won't matter much whether we can solve our other problems or not (though I support colonizing space, that can only involve a tiny fraction of humanity for the foreseeable future). The terrible tragedy in the Philippines is just one example of how destructive the environment can be, and while this particular typhoon may not have been directly caused by global warming, if we continue to heat up the planet, we can expect more of this and other kinds of environmental disasters. The following are some links to various interesting things on the Internet related to humanity's relationship to the environment and the Earth.
First, there are a couple of news stories here and here about how carbon dioxide levels have reached highs not seen for nearly a million years, that is, since well before modern humans evolved. What's more, these records will soon be broken, even if we take immediate action to drastically reduce carbon emissions – and there is little sign of that happening. Unfortunately, in the world's largest economy, the United States, there is still a large contingent of stubborn ignoramuses who insist that there isn't even a problem, and enough of them are in Congress to block most substantial action. Even on the other side of the political divide, while President Obama has done quite a few good things on the environment where he has had the power to act without going through Congress, his environmental record still has a few serious black marks, such as his administration's continued promotion of corn-based ethanol. As for other countries, though Europe has been more proactive in fighting climate change, even they could do better, and most other nations are doing no better than the US or even worse (though there is less excuse for failing to act when you are a wealthy nation like the US).
Then there's this fascinating map simulating births and deaths around the world in real time (for a larger and more detailed version, click here). Of course the map isn't capable of tracking actual births and deaths, but with sufficient statistical information on birth and death rates around the world, it can simulate them fairly closely (as a side note, I should point out one serious flaw on the map: Taiwan is labeled as a "Province of China", an absurd label that crops up on some websites from time to time apparently due to use of country codes from the UN [which of course goes along with Chinese propaganda with respect to Taiwan], though Taiwan's current flag also appears and it is in effect treated as what it is, a separate country). The most fascinating – and disturbing – aspect of the simulation is the contrast between the birth and death rates. In only four minutes, a thousand new babies have been born, but in the same space of time, fewer than five hundred people have died. In other words, in only four minutes, the world's population has increased by over five hundred. In ten minutes, it has increased by almost 1,500. At that rate, it only takes five days to add a million people to the world's population. This rapidly increasing population only increases the environmental problems we face, including climate change. It is no surprise that it has been suggested that one of the best short term ways to fight climate change is contraception, or at least radically reducing the birth rate. I wholeheartedly agree.
But to conclude on a more pleasant note, NASA recently published a new image compiled from pictures taken by the spacecraft Cassini while in orbit around Saturn. The pictures were taken while Cassini was on the dark side of the planet and so Saturn was eclipsing the Sun, allowing the much fainter inner planets to be seen (normally the glare of the Sun drowns them out). So in this picture, in addition to an incredible back-lit view of Saturn's rings and a few of its satellites, we can see a small red dot, a slightly bigger white dot, and a similarly-sized blue dot (with a faint grey dot attached). These are, respectively, Mars, Venus, and the Earth itself (plus the Moon). This is, more or less, how our planet looks from Saturn, at a distance of over a billion kilometers. A picture like this helps put humanity's problems into perspective, but it's also a reminder of how small the Earth really is on an astronomical scale. If we can learn to treat the Earth's resources as the limited, precious things they are, perhaps humanity can survive for a long time into the future and find ways to solve all its other problems.
First, there are a couple of news stories here and here about how carbon dioxide levels have reached highs not seen for nearly a million years, that is, since well before modern humans evolved. What's more, these records will soon be broken, even if we take immediate action to drastically reduce carbon emissions – and there is little sign of that happening. Unfortunately, in the world's largest economy, the United States, there is still a large contingent of stubborn ignoramuses who insist that there isn't even a problem, and enough of them are in Congress to block most substantial action. Even on the other side of the political divide, while President Obama has done quite a few good things on the environment where he has had the power to act without going through Congress, his environmental record still has a few serious black marks, such as his administration's continued promotion of corn-based ethanol. As for other countries, though Europe has been more proactive in fighting climate change, even they could do better, and most other nations are doing no better than the US or even worse (though there is less excuse for failing to act when you are a wealthy nation like the US).
Then there's this fascinating map simulating births and deaths around the world in real time (for a larger and more detailed version, click here). Of course the map isn't capable of tracking actual births and deaths, but with sufficient statistical information on birth and death rates around the world, it can simulate them fairly closely (as a side note, I should point out one serious flaw on the map: Taiwan is labeled as a "Province of China", an absurd label that crops up on some websites from time to time apparently due to use of country codes from the UN [which of course goes along with Chinese propaganda with respect to Taiwan], though Taiwan's current flag also appears and it is in effect treated as what it is, a separate country). The most fascinating – and disturbing – aspect of the simulation is the contrast between the birth and death rates. In only four minutes, a thousand new babies have been born, but in the same space of time, fewer than five hundred people have died. In other words, in only four minutes, the world's population has increased by over five hundred. In ten minutes, it has increased by almost 1,500. At that rate, it only takes five days to add a million people to the world's population. This rapidly increasing population only increases the environmental problems we face, including climate change. It is no surprise that it has been suggested that one of the best short term ways to fight climate change is contraception, or at least radically reducing the birth rate. I wholeheartedly agree.
But to conclude on a more pleasant note, NASA recently published a new image compiled from pictures taken by the spacecraft Cassini while in orbit around Saturn. The pictures were taken while Cassini was on the dark side of the planet and so Saturn was eclipsing the Sun, allowing the much fainter inner planets to be seen (normally the glare of the Sun drowns them out). So in this picture, in addition to an incredible back-lit view of Saturn's rings and a few of its satellites, we can see a small red dot, a slightly bigger white dot, and a similarly-sized blue dot (with a faint grey dot attached). These are, respectively, Mars, Venus, and the Earth itself (plus the Moon). This is, more or less, how our planet looks from Saturn, at a distance of over a billion kilometers. A picture like this helps put humanity's problems into perspective, but it's also a reminder of how small the Earth really is on an astronomical scale. If we can learn to treat the Earth's resources as the limited, precious things they are, perhaps humanity can survive for a long time into the future and find ways to solve all its other problems.
Friday, October 18, 2013
Factual Versus “Balanced”: The L.A. Times and Climate Change Deniers
A few weeks ago, the Letters Editor for the L.A. Times wrote an explanation of why letters repeating a falsehood about the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) did not get printed in their paper. He noted: “Letters that have an untrue basis (for example, ones that say there’s no sign humans have caused climate change) do not get printed.” Not surprisingly, the parenthetical example of letters that would not be printed because they were untrue had climate change deniers frothing at the mouth. The editor made a response to their criticism in which he concluded: “Simply put, I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page; when one does run, a correction is published. Saying 'there’s no sign humans have caused climate change' is not stating an opinion, it’s asserting a factual inaccuracy.”
It seems that in most news reports nowadays journalists bend over backwards to be balanced by presenting both sides of any argument or controversy. While this may be the proper approach in many situations, there is often a difference between being "balanced" and being objective. Simply put, in many debates to give both sides equal time is to create a false equivalence between an argument based on facts and one based on falsehoods. When that happens, the media is not doing its job of informing the public; if anything it is confusing it. Admittedly, there are some "debates" where one side is so blatantly spouting nonsense that most media sources will not attempt to be "balanced". For example, only extreme right wing news sources would present assertions that Barack Obama is a Muslim or was born in Kenya as anything other than false. But many of them do allow those that assert that climate change is unrelated to human activity or even that it is not occurring at all equal time. But in reality, while it is possible to debate how much the climate is changing and to what degree humans are responsible, the L.A. Times editor is absolutely correct to say that the statement that there's no sign (i.e., evidence) humans have caused climate change is factually inaccurate. There is plenty of such evidence, no matter how much some people may like to deny it.
Climate change is not the only issue that suffers from such efforts by the media to be "balanced". For example, as with the original issue that the L.A. Times editor was discussing, many right-wing falsehoods about the Affordable Care Act have been printed unchallenged by the media. Likewise, implications that Social Security is in part responsible for the US government budget deficit are often not called out for the untruths that they are. Another example that irritates me is when articles about Tibet will say something like "China says that Tibet has been part of its territory for centuries, but Tibetans say it was independent for much of that time". If the journalists would bother to do a little historical research, they'd know that what the Tibetans say is true and what the Chinese government says is false. Similar example appear in articles about other disputes that involve history. While in some cases there really is room for interpretation, in others one side's claims are simply false and should be treated as such.
Since the L.A. Times case involves letters to the editor, some right wingers have called the paper's editorial position a suppression of freedom of speech. This is absurd. Again, we are not talking about opinions here, we are talking about facts. If someone writes a letter to the editor claiming that Obama was born in Kenya, or that the so-called face on Mars is an artificial construct, or that aliens crash-landed in Roswell, or that the Earth is less than ten thousand years old, or that the Moon is made of green cheese, why would any self-respecting newspaper print it? Those who really want to hear arguments based on blatant falsehoods can find plenty on the Internet or on shows hosted by people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. But, as I noted earlier, the real media's main purpose is, or at least ought to be, to inform the public, which in turn allows the latter to develop informed opinions about important issues. At least in the case of climate change, this move by the L.A. Times is a small step in the right direction, and I'd encourage people to sign this petition urging other newspapers to follow suit. Only a public well informed as to the actual facts, rather than just opinions of varying reasonableness, can choose the leaders and policies needed to solve the important problems we face.
It seems that in most news reports nowadays journalists bend over backwards to be balanced by presenting both sides of any argument or controversy. While this may be the proper approach in many situations, there is often a difference between being "balanced" and being objective. Simply put, in many debates to give both sides equal time is to create a false equivalence between an argument based on facts and one based on falsehoods. When that happens, the media is not doing its job of informing the public; if anything it is confusing it. Admittedly, there are some "debates" where one side is so blatantly spouting nonsense that most media sources will not attempt to be "balanced". For example, only extreme right wing news sources would present assertions that Barack Obama is a Muslim or was born in Kenya as anything other than false. But many of them do allow those that assert that climate change is unrelated to human activity or even that it is not occurring at all equal time. But in reality, while it is possible to debate how much the climate is changing and to what degree humans are responsible, the L.A. Times editor is absolutely correct to say that the statement that there's no sign (i.e., evidence) humans have caused climate change is factually inaccurate. There is plenty of such evidence, no matter how much some people may like to deny it.
Climate change is not the only issue that suffers from such efforts by the media to be "balanced". For example, as with the original issue that the L.A. Times editor was discussing, many right-wing falsehoods about the Affordable Care Act have been printed unchallenged by the media. Likewise, implications that Social Security is in part responsible for the US government budget deficit are often not called out for the untruths that they are. Another example that irritates me is when articles about Tibet will say something like "China says that Tibet has been part of its territory for centuries, but Tibetans say it was independent for much of that time". If the journalists would bother to do a little historical research, they'd know that what the Tibetans say is true and what the Chinese government says is false. Similar example appear in articles about other disputes that involve history. While in some cases there really is room for interpretation, in others one side's claims are simply false and should be treated as such.
Since the L.A. Times case involves letters to the editor, some right wingers have called the paper's editorial position a suppression of freedom of speech. This is absurd. Again, we are not talking about opinions here, we are talking about facts. If someone writes a letter to the editor claiming that Obama was born in Kenya, or that the so-called face on Mars is an artificial construct, or that aliens crash-landed in Roswell, or that the Earth is less than ten thousand years old, or that the Moon is made of green cheese, why would any self-respecting newspaper print it? Those who really want to hear arguments based on blatant falsehoods can find plenty on the Internet or on shows hosted by people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. But, as I noted earlier, the real media's main purpose is, or at least ought to be, to inform the public, which in turn allows the latter to develop informed opinions about important issues. At least in the case of climate change, this move by the L.A. Times is a small step in the right direction, and I'd encourage people to sign this petition urging other newspapers to follow suit. Only a public well informed as to the actual facts, rather than just opinions of varying reasonableness, can choose the leaders and policies needed to solve the important problems we face.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Seven Billion Humans
According to United Nations estimates, the world's human population reached seven billion yesterday. As there have been many news stories about this over the past month, many people are already aware of this, but I suspect a large percentage of them haven't really thought about how incredible that number is -- and how scary.
Numbers in the billions, whether referring to people, money, or other things, are thrown about so often in news stories that it's easy to forget how big a number a billion really is. For instance, if you started counting at one number a second, you could count to a million in a little over 11 days of constant counting, but it would take over 30 years to count to a billion. So seven billion people is a lot of people. What makes this number even more incredible is how much larger it is than previous population totals. Before the development of agriculture about 10,000 years ago, the total human population probably never exceeded 10 million. The world's population grew to several hundred million by the time of the Roman Empire and the Chinese Han dynasty, but it was only with the industrial revolution that it started to grow dramatically. Soon after 1800, the world population first hit one billion. It doubled in a little over a century to two billion, and by 1960 it was three billion. In my own lifetime, the world population has gone from under four billion to today's seven billion. In other words, today there are almost twice as many people in the world as there were when I was born around forty years ago, and there are seven times as many people now as there were just over two centuries ago.
This continual growth has meant that we have had to constantly expand food production at a rapid rate to feed everyone. Not everyone gets enough food, of course, though at present this is a distribution problem rather than an indication of an absolute shortage of food. However, many experts fear we will not always be able to increase food production fast enough to keep pace with population growth. Our growing population has also put a great strain on many other resources, from fresh water to mineral and energy resources. In addition, humans are squeezing out many other species. The biggest reason that many large mammals such as tigers and orangutans are endangered is that we are taking their habitat away with our constant greed for more land to exploit. It is not unusual to read about efforts to cull animals such as wolves and bears because they are "encroaching" on agricultural or ranch land, but in fact in almost every case it is really the humans who originally encroached on the lands that these animals once roamed freely, so one could argue that the culls are aimed at the wrong target, a point humorously made in this Non Sequitur cartoon by Wiley Miller.
Though few would seriously argue for a cull of excess humans, more and more people are starting to openly acknowledge that our environmental problems and overpopulation are closely intertwined, and so advocate measures to slow and eventually stop population growth. Interestingly, it is only recently that a few environmental groups have begun discuss the problem of human population growth head on, as related in this NYT article. The more extreme coercive measures adopted in China are obviously not acceptable, and other issues like gender imbalances and population aging have to be addressed, but it is equal clear that it will be impossible for the Earth to sustain population growth at the current rate forever, especially if more and more people in big countries like China and India demand a standard of living equal to that in the developed world.
Other than sex education, promotion of family planning, and improved access to contraceptives, one of the most effective ways to control population growth is by empowering women. The more control women have over reproduction, the less uncontrolled growth we will see. Of course, general measures to alleviate poverty will also help, as generally speaking more economically developed nations have lower birth rates. In the developed world, it would also be good to see more adoptions and fewer fertility treatments, as there are more than enough children in need of parents for all the couples who want children (though I am aware that the red tape involved makes putting them together a difficult process). However, most efforts at reducing population growth will have to focus on the developing world. Solving this problem won't be easy, but with effort we can ensure that humanity doesn't overrun the world completely and thereby we can make life better for humans and all our fellow inhabitants of the Earth.
Numbers in the billions, whether referring to people, money, or other things, are thrown about so often in news stories that it's easy to forget how big a number a billion really is. For instance, if you started counting at one number a second, you could count to a million in a little over 11 days of constant counting, but it would take over 30 years to count to a billion. So seven billion people is a lot of people. What makes this number even more incredible is how much larger it is than previous population totals. Before the development of agriculture about 10,000 years ago, the total human population probably never exceeded 10 million. The world's population grew to several hundred million by the time of the Roman Empire and the Chinese Han dynasty, but it was only with the industrial revolution that it started to grow dramatically. Soon after 1800, the world population first hit one billion. It doubled in a little over a century to two billion, and by 1960 it was three billion. In my own lifetime, the world population has gone from under four billion to today's seven billion. In other words, today there are almost twice as many people in the world as there were when I was born around forty years ago, and there are seven times as many people now as there were just over two centuries ago.
This continual growth has meant that we have had to constantly expand food production at a rapid rate to feed everyone. Not everyone gets enough food, of course, though at present this is a distribution problem rather than an indication of an absolute shortage of food. However, many experts fear we will not always be able to increase food production fast enough to keep pace with population growth. Our growing population has also put a great strain on many other resources, from fresh water to mineral and energy resources. In addition, humans are squeezing out many other species. The biggest reason that many large mammals such as tigers and orangutans are endangered is that we are taking their habitat away with our constant greed for more land to exploit. It is not unusual to read about efforts to cull animals such as wolves and bears because they are "encroaching" on agricultural or ranch land, but in fact in almost every case it is really the humans who originally encroached on the lands that these animals once roamed freely, so one could argue that the culls are aimed at the wrong target, a point humorously made in this Non Sequitur cartoon by Wiley Miller.
Though few would seriously argue for a cull of excess humans, more and more people are starting to openly acknowledge that our environmental problems and overpopulation are closely intertwined, and so advocate measures to slow and eventually stop population growth. Interestingly, it is only recently that a few environmental groups have begun discuss the problem of human population growth head on, as related in this NYT article. The more extreme coercive measures adopted in China are obviously not acceptable, and other issues like gender imbalances and population aging have to be addressed, but it is equal clear that it will be impossible for the Earth to sustain population growth at the current rate forever, especially if more and more people in big countries like China and India demand a standard of living equal to that in the developed world.
Other than sex education, promotion of family planning, and improved access to contraceptives, one of the most effective ways to control population growth is by empowering women. The more control women have over reproduction, the less uncontrolled growth we will see. Of course, general measures to alleviate poverty will also help, as generally speaking more economically developed nations have lower birth rates. In the developed world, it would also be good to see more adoptions and fewer fertility treatments, as there are more than enough children in need of parents for all the couples who want children (though I am aware that the red tape involved makes putting them together a difficult process). However, most efforts at reducing population growth will have to focus on the developing world. Solving this problem won't be easy, but with effort we can ensure that humanity doesn't overrun the world completely and thereby we can make life better for humans and all our fellow inhabitants of the Earth.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Japan and other disasters
In my first blog entry this year, I talked about a number of negative developments occurring in several parts of the world. More recently, I talked about the mostly positive developments in the Arab world. Unfortunately, things are looking less rosy now, both in the Arab world and elsewhere.
The big disaster on everyone's minds now is the one in Japan. First there was the big earthquake and the huge tsunami it caused, which between them killed several thousand people and caused untold damage. This has been followed by the ongoing disaster at the nuclear power plants in the area, which already is the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl. I'm not sure what most of us can do to help the victims of the earthquake, though of course donations to the various organizations helping out certainly won't hurt. One might think that a country like Japan wouldn't need much in terms of monetary donations, but international organizations that are providing assistance like Doctors Without Borders can always use more funds, especially if they enable them to transport more supplies and qualified people to the region. Unfortunately, in disasters like this, all the money in the world doesn't do any good without the logistical capability to get help to where it is needed. Though speaking of disaster-hit countries in need of aid, I hope that in addition to helping out Japan, those with the means to donate substantial amounts don't forget places like Haiti, which still needs help more than a year after its own earthquake. This is an advantage in simply donating to one of the better international aid organizations, which can then direct its resources wherever they are needed.
The nuclear disaster is causing a great deal of concern, some of it warranted, some of it less so. Though there is reason to suspect that the Japanese may be understating the seriousness of the situation, it seems that at this point, radiation levels are not at dangerous levels except within a range of under 100 kilometers from the damaged plants. Though this is a large area, places like Tokyo are still reasonably safe. Radiation levels there are said to be as much as 10 times higher than normal, but that's still not very high. Though I don't have the numbers in front of me (and I don't want to take time to look them up now), I would suspect that people on long-distance airplane flights receive considerably more radiation exposure than they would get from spending an equivalent amount of time outside in Tokyo now. Of course if the situation gets worse, that may change. Even so, I would think that even a worst case scenario would not present a serious danger to people outside of Japan. Unlike Chernobyl, the Japanese plants has containment domes (though apparently the pools containing the spent fuel rods are not covered by the containment domes, so they have potential to release more radiation into the environment), so it is not likely to be more deadly than that, and even exactly how many deaths can be attributed to Chernobyl is highly controversial, though a conservative estimate is several thousand.
I point this out because it doesn't seem useful to panic over the dangers of radiation from the disaster at this point, though people who live in the region surrounding the plants have good reason for concern. However, I agree with those who think that this disaster should encourage everyone to rethink the use of nuclear power (or at least fission power; if fusion power becomes practical, I am definitely in favor of it) to solve our energy problems. I have always had doubts about the wisdom of relying on nuclear power; even aside from the danger of accidents like this, the problem of nuclear waste has never been adequately solved. I think the focus should remain on alternative energy like solar and a general reduction in energy use, especially in societies like the US that waste it profligately. While some use of fission power is probably unavoidable in the short term, I don't think countries should be increasing their reliance on it, and certainly greater attention to safety in plants that are already operating is warranted.
Moving on from Japan, the situation in the Arab world is looking worse as well. The rebels in Libya are losing ground to Gaddafi, which is not something anyone sensible wants to see. While Gaddafi may have tried to make nice with the West in the past few years, if he overcomes the rebellion, he will no doubt do as he has indicated and stick to dealing with tyrant-friendly countries like China and Russia. It's also worth remembering that aside from oppressing his own people, Gaddafi has no qualms against using innocent foreigners as pawns, such as when he held several Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor on false charges of infecting Libyan children with AIDS, or when he detained two Swiss citizens in revenge for Switzerland's arrest of his son, even though the charges were dropped. But if Gaddafi does survive, the international community, including the US, has to take a large share of the blame for its slowness to act, particularly in the setting up of a no-fly zone to neutralize Gaddafi's air force.
One of the reasons for hesitation was the lack of a mandate from the UN Security Council, but this may never come, given the likelihood that China and Russia would veto any resolution authorizing any military action. In a case like this, I could see going ahead if such a resolution just gets a majority vote, even if the tyrant-friendly permanent members veto it. This may seem to contradict my view on the US invasion of Iraq, which I thought was wrong in part because it didn't have UN support. But there were a number of differences in that case. For one thing, Bush couldn't even get the support of a majority of the council (the administration ended up withdrawing its resolution rather than suffer the spectacle of having a majority vote against it). But more importantly, this is an urgent matter. There was no urgency in getting rid of Saddam Hussein, as he was not at the time actively assaulting his populace with military force (he had done so after the first Gulf War, but no one did anything to stop him then). In this case, a delay of a week has already cost the rebellion dearly, and another week may be fatal. While full support from the UN Security Council would be ideal, this frequently proves impossible to get when it really matters, largely because of the veto power wielded by the five permanent members. I would like to see this eliminated or at least heavily watered down, as no one nation (including the US) should be able to obstruct action that most other countries agree on.
Of course I don't think the US should act unilaterally to establish a no-fly zone. Even though we aren't talking about an actual invasion, I don't want to see more unilateral military action by the US in that part of the world. But if a coalition of neighboring states, particularly the members of the Arab League (which has already called for a no-fly zone), will actively support it, the US can establish one with the help of France and Britain, which are both pressing for action. But whatever they are going to do, they should do it quickly, before Qaddafi succeeds in crushing the rebellion.
[Update: It seems I was too pessimistic about the chances of a no-fly zone being approved by the UN Security Council, as a resolution including one was passed (though of course China and Russia were among the 5 council members who abstained). It no doubt helped that the US finally decided to strongly support this step. What remains to be seen is whether it is too late to reverse the momentum. If a no-fly zone had been put into place a week ago when momentum was on the side of the rebellion, it's quite possible Gaddafi would have fallen quickly. But now the result may be a stalemate.]
The situation in Bahrain has also deteriorated. The government has cracked down on the protesters again, this time with help from Saudi troops. Though the government had made some concessions, it hadn't gone far enough in meeting the protesters' demands, and now it is trying to end the protests by force. Secretary Clinton apparently condemned the crackdown, but I hope her words are being backed by strong behind-the-scenes pressure, not tacit behind-the-scenes support. Again, we'll have to see how things play out, but it may yet turn out that the 2011 revolutions in the Arab world are like those in 1848 in Europe, most of which failed in their immediate goals of overthrowing the authoritarian regimes of the time, though their repercussions are sure to be felt long afterward, just as was the case with the 1848 revolutions.
The big disaster on everyone's minds now is the one in Japan. First there was the big earthquake and the huge tsunami it caused, which between them killed several thousand people and caused untold damage. This has been followed by the ongoing disaster at the nuclear power plants in the area, which already is the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl. I'm not sure what most of us can do to help the victims of the earthquake, though of course donations to the various organizations helping out certainly won't hurt. One might think that a country like Japan wouldn't need much in terms of monetary donations, but international organizations that are providing assistance like Doctors Without Borders can always use more funds, especially if they enable them to transport more supplies and qualified people to the region. Unfortunately, in disasters like this, all the money in the world doesn't do any good without the logistical capability to get help to where it is needed. Though speaking of disaster-hit countries in need of aid, I hope that in addition to helping out Japan, those with the means to donate substantial amounts don't forget places like Haiti, which still needs help more than a year after its own earthquake. This is an advantage in simply donating to one of the better international aid organizations, which can then direct its resources wherever they are needed.
The nuclear disaster is causing a great deal of concern, some of it warranted, some of it less so. Though there is reason to suspect that the Japanese may be understating the seriousness of the situation, it seems that at this point, radiation levels are not at dangerous levels except within a range of under 100 kilometers from the damaged plants. Though this is a large area, places like Tokyo are still reasonably safe. Radiation levels there are said to be as much as 10 times higher than normal, but that's still not very high. Though I don't have the numbers in front of me (and I don't want to take time to look them up now), I would suspect that people on long-distance airplane flights receive considerably more radiation exposure than they would get from spending an equivalent amount of time outside in Tokyo now. Of course if the situation gets worse, that may change. Even so, I would think that even a worst case scenario would not present a serious danger to people outside of Japan. Unlike Chernobyl, the Japanese plants has containment domes (though apparently the pools containing the spent fuel rods are not covered by the containment domes, so they have potential to release more radiation into the environment), so it is not likely to be more deadly than that, and even exactly how many deaths can be attributed to Chernobyl is highly controversial, though a conservative estimate is several thousand.
I point this out because it doesn't seem useful to panic over the dangers of radiation from the disaster at this point, though people who live in the region surrounding the plants have good reason for concern. However, I agree with those who think that this disaster should encourage everyone to rethink the use of nuclear power (or at least fission power; if fusion power becomes practical, I am definitely in favor of it) to solve our energy problems. I have always had doubts about the wisdom of relying on nuclear power; even aside from the danger of accidents like this, the problem of nuclear waste has never been adequately solved. I think the focus should remain on alternative energy like solar and a general reduction in energy use, especially in societies like the US that waste it profligately. While some use of fission power is probably unavoidable in the short term, I don't think countries should be increasing their reliance on it, and certainly greater attention to safety in plants that are already operating is warranted.
Moving on from Japan, the situation in the Arab world is looking worse as well. The rebels in Libya are losing ground to Gaddafi, which is not something anyone sensible wants to see. While Gaddafi may have tried to make nice with the West in the past few years, if he overcomes the rebellion, he will no doubt do as he has indicated and stick to dealing with tyrant-friendly countries like China and Russia. It's also worth remembering that aside from oppressing his own people, Gaddafi has no qualms against using innocent foreigners as pawns, such as when he held several Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor on false charges of infecting Libyan children with AIDS, or when he detained two Swiss citizens in revenge for Switzerland's arrest of his son, even though the charges were dropped. But if Gaddafi does survive, the international community, including the US, has to take a large share of the blame for its slowness to act, particularly in the setting up of a no-fly zone to neutralize Gaddafi's air force.
One of the reasons for hesitation was the lack of a mandate from the UN Security Council, but this may never come, given the likelihood that China and Russia would veto any resolution authorizing any military action. In a case like this, I could see going ahead if such a resolution just gets a majority vote, even if the tyrant-friendly permanent members veto it. This may seem to contradict my view on the US invasion of Iraq, which I thought was wrong in part because it didn't have UN support. But there were a number of differences in that case. For one thing, Bush couldn't even get the support of a majority of the council (the administration ended up withdrawing its resolution rather than suffer the spectacle of having a majority vote against it). But more importantly, this is an urgent matter. There was no urgency in getting rid of Saddam Hussein, as he was not at the time actively assaulting his populace with military force (he had done so after the first Gulf War, but no one did anything to stop him then). In this case, a delay of a week has already cost the rebellion dearly, and another week may be fatal. While full support from the UN Security Council would be ideal, this frequently proves impossible to get when it really matters, largely because of the veto power wielded by the five permanent members. I would like to see this eliminated or at least heavily watered down, as no one nation (including the US) should be able to obstruct action that most other countries agree on.
Of course I don't think the US should act unilaterally to establish a no-fly zone. Even though we aren't talking about an actual invasion, I don't want to see more unilateral military action by the US in that part of the world. But if a coalition of neighboring states, particularly the members of the Arab League (which has already called for a no-fly zone), will actively support it, the US can establish one with the help of France and Britain, which are both pressing for action. But whatever they are going to do, they should do it quickly, before Qaddafi succeeds in crushing the rebellion.
[Update: It seems I was too pessimistic about the chances of a no-fly zone being approved by the UN Security Council, as a resolution including one was passed (though of course China and Russia were among the 5 council members who abstained). It no doubt helped that the US finally decided to strongly support this step. What remains to be seen is whether it is too late to reverse the momentum. If a no-fly zone had been put into place a week ago when momentum was on the side of the rebellion, it's quite possible Gaddafi would have fallen quickly. But now the result may be a stalemate.]
The situation in Bahrain has also deteriorated. The government has cracked down on the protesters again, this time with help from Saudi troops. Though the government had made some concessions, it hadn't gone far enough in meeting the protesters' demands, and now it is trying to end the protests by force. Secretary Clinton apparently condemned the crackdown, but I hope her words are being backed by strong behind-the-scenes pressure, not tacit behind-the-scenes support. Again, we'll have to see how things play out, but it may yet turn out that the 2011 revolutions in the Arab world are like those in 1848 in Europe, most of which failed in their immediate goals of overthrowing the authoritarian regimes of the time, though their repercussions are sure to be felt long afterward, just as was the case with the 1848 revolutions.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
People in denial prevent action against climate change
As a follow up to my previous post, I'd like to say a little bit more about the climate change issue. First, as explained last time, I feel compelled to talk a little about something that really shouldn't be an issue, namely the reality of climate change. I'd be tempted to say that those who deny the reality of climate change are like people who claim the Earth is flat or that it's only a few thousand years old (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/sumerians_look_on_in_confusion_as). However, while the evidence for climate change is overwhelming, I'll grant that it isn't quite as completely overwhelming as the evidence against those ideas. A better analogy is the fact that smoking is harmful, something that many long tried to deny (and a few still do). This analogy is particularly appropriate as in the case of climate change as in the case of the health hazards of cigarettes, those with a vested interest in preventing action from being taken are most prominent among those attempting to sow doubt in the minds of the public regarding the scientific evidence.
The climate change deniers come in two camps, those who try to deny that global temperatures are increasing at all, and those who deny that the increase is due to human activity. There are also some who out of ignorance, stupidity or intellectually dishonesty (i.e., they are motivated by ideology to completely deny everything having to do with climate change), straddle both camps. Those who deny that there is a real warming trend tried to use the hacked emails from the climate research center in East Anglia to cast doubt on the temperature data. As I pointed out in my previous post, despite their desperation to find evidence that scientists were cooking the books, so to speak, the few things they did find were taken completely out of context and did nothing to disprove the science. What's more, this center is not the only place conducting climate research, nor is it the only source of such temperature data. Though it is one of the major centers for collecting global temperature data, there are several others, including NASA. All of these places have come up with the same results. Some attempt to cast doubt on the credibility of all of these research centers despite the large amount of data they have, but when it comes right down to it, no one has reliable global temperature data that differs markedly from that of these centers, and in fact, as the video I referred to last time (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY) points out, the few actual scientists who question the current consensus about climate change generally accept that there has recently been a warming trend (i.e., they are in the second of the two camps). So there is much less reason to question the credibility of all the mainstream climate research centers than there is to question that of their critics.
Some also cite "evidence" that seems to question global warming such as cold winters in particular areas, cooling trends in certain regions, and so forth. In fact, these misleading arguments are one of the reasons why "climate change" is now the preferred term. As is commonly stated by scientists, an increase in the overall global temperature has complex consequences around the world. While most places will warm up, some places will actually get cooler. Likewise rainfall patterns will change, so some places will become drier and others wetter, and so on. Also, a lot of people confuse weather and climate. Climate, roughly speaking, is average weather over a long period of time. So even if the climate warms somewhat, you can still have very cold days and even cold winters. The key is the overall climate, not weather on any given day in a particular location. This also why arguments like "they can't even be sure if it'll rain tomorrow, how can they tell if the Earth is warming" are ignorant. In fact, while modelling climates is not easy, it is a lot easier than predicting short-term weather (just as it's easier to predict certain things about a population than it is about an individual person). Of course the reverse is true as well. Some are far too ready to attribute every weather event (a hurricane, a drought, a hot spell) to global warming. While global warming may influence some such things, it's impossible to say for sure, and in many cases it's merely a short term variation unrelated to the overall climate. Basically, individual weather events are not good arguments either for or against climate change, unless they can be shown to be part of a trend.
An example of climate change deniers misleadingly citing local trends is Antarctica. Studies have shown that outlying parts of Antarctica are clearly warming, while the central part of the continent actually cooled slightly. Deniers cite the latter point as evidence against global warming, while ignoring the former. However, cooling in one region does not mean that the globe as whole is not warming. In fact, there are many reasons for such local variations. In this case, I have recently read that the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica means a certain amount of heat that would otherwise be trapped is escaping, meaning that area has cooled slightly. So in this case, our previous disruption of the atmosphere is counterbalancing our ongoing disruption (though of course only a crazy person would suggest such a balance is a good thing, given the hazards created by the lack of an ozone layer). What's more, one of the scientists whose study of Antarctic temperatures has been cited by deniers as evidence against global warming has been quoted as refuting assertions that his work disproves global warming.
Then there is the recent claim that the globe has actually been cooling over the last decade. This claim (using the same temperature data that the deniers claim to doubt) is based on disingenuous use of the year 1997 as a starting point. That year,global temperatures were being affected by El Nino, which combined with the general warming over the 20th century made that year the hottest on record. This means, of course, that years since then, when there has been no El Nino effect, have not been as hot. However, if you use either 1996 or 1998 as a starting point, you still see a warming trend. So basically the "global cooling" claim is based on a highly misleading use of statistics, as was shown when statisticians were given the data without being told what it was and yet they still all agreed that the data showed an upward trend (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091026/ap_on_bi_ge/us_sci_global_cooling and http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091026/ap_on_sc/us_sci_global_cooling_methodology). What's more, despite 1997 still being the hottest year (a record that is expected fall in the next few years), the decade that is just ending was still overall the hottest ever, hotter even than the 1990s (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091208/ap_on_sc/climate).
Another thing climate change deniers like to bring up is the fact that there was a period following the middle of the century when global climate actually cooled slightly. They point to a few articles in the mainstream media a few decades back talking about the possibility of a new ice age, and imply that climate scientists and the media are simply prone to exaggerate any recent trend in temperatures into a non-existent apocalyptic threat. They also seem to imply that the whole idea that the globe is warming due to human activity (anthropogenic global warming, as it is called) is something that only appeared in the last couple of decades.
In fact, the idea that human industrial activity could lead to an increase in temperatures goes back over a hundred years. It was apparently first hypothesized by Svante Ahrrenius in 1898, when human production of greenhouse gases was a small fraction of what it is now (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/climate_timeline;_ylt=Ai.JKlZRotSa4KFFyX2z7bxH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTE2aWNwa29sBHBvcwM1BHNlYwN5bi1yLWItbGVmdARzbGsDLWtleWRhdGVzYWJv). And by the 1970s, the predicted increase in temperatures over the first part of the 20th century had already been observed. A downturn in temperatures beginning in the 1940s which wiped out some of the increase had also been observed, but by no means all scientists agreed that a new ice age was the cause. Nor did this decrease cause them all to discard the idea of anthropogenic global warming. Isaac Asimov, best known as a science fiction writer but also a qualified biochemist, wrote a book on science for the general reader back in the early 1980s in which he briefly discusses global warming. He explains how humans were loading the atmosphere with carbon dioxide at a rate 200 times that of the world's volcanoes. He then talks about the downturn in temperatures, which was still happening at the time. He suggests that it was caused by an increase in smog particles in the atmosphere which cut off sunlight, so "it would seem that two different types of human atmospheric pollution are currently canceling each other's effect, at least in this respect and at least temporarily." While I don't know if his explanation for the downward trend (which of course ended about the time he wrote this) is the currently accepted one, but this clearly shows that the idea of anthropogenic global warming was current among scientists in the 1970s and 1980s, despite the slight downward trend in temperatures at the time.
Aside from the clear evidence of an upward trend in global average temperatures over the past centuries, there are plenty of other indications of a warming trend. One well known example is glaciers, which are retreating in many places around the world. Some deniers try to cast doubt on this evidence as well, claiming that some glaciers are growing, or that those that are shrinking are doing so for reasons other than global warming. No doubt a few glaciers are growing, because, as explained above, warming on a global scale can actually cause certain regions to cool, and also in some cases other factors may be at work (as in the cooling trend in some parts of Antarctica mentioned above). Likewise, in a few cases factors other than temperature may cause a glacier to shrink, such as a region becoming significantly drier. However, the fact that a majority of glaciers, in locations all around the world including the Alps, the Andes, Greenland and, most importantly the Himalayas (source of much of the water supply for Asian countries that are home to over a third of the world's people), are shrinking is a clear indication that more than regional factors are at work. Another worrying sign is increased melting of the Greenland ice sheet (which contains a substantial percentage of the world's fresh water) and of Arctic ice. There is no question that these phenomena are occurring, and they are clear indications of a warming pattern. What's more, if they continue, they will have dramatic effects on the climate of the northern hemisphere.
Given all the evidence (and I've only given an extremely cursory overview), there is no question that the average global temperature has been rising over the last century (except the above mentioned period between about 1950 and 1980) and that the warming has accelerated over the last two decades. As mentioned previously, this is even accepted by many of those few deniers who have real scientific qualifications. So the next question is whether this warming is a natural cycle or whether humans are responsible. Some people make the argument that the climate has fluctuated ever since the Earth and its atmosphere formed (i.e., since long before humans existed) and therefore any fluctuations are natural. On the fact of it, this argument is illogical. Yes, the climate has fluctuated throughout geologic history and previous fluctuations have been natural. That does not mean that this fluctuation must necessarily be natural, any more than the fact that you haven't died yet means you can't die. The fact that the climate can and does change without human help does not mean that humans can't affect the climate. Right-wing trolls will sometimes sarcastically comment regarding any mention of climate change in the Earth's geologic past or even other planets that environmentalists, liberals, Al Gore, et al. are no doubt concerned about the case of "global warming" being discussed, implying that because these groups believe in the reality of anthropogenic climate change, they must think all climate change is anthropogenic. This is patently absurd. Climate change is like the course of a river; it can and does change naturally, but humans can also change it, and the fact that it happens one way (naturally or through human action) does not mean it can't happen the other way.
Those who claim that the present warming is not anthropogenic obviously have to come up with another explanation for the unusually rapid increase in temperature. A favorite is solar activity. The theory is that the sun has recently begun putting out more energy, and this has warmed up the Earth. It is true that in the past variation in solar activity has been responsible for global warming, and a number of scientists believe it may also be contributing to current warming. However, after repeated studies, the vast majority of researchers have concluded that greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere by humans are responsible for the majority of the current warming effect.
Others simply claim that since the climate has changed in the past, the fact that it is changing now (whether or not humans are responsible) is no big deal. They point out that the Earth will adjust and life will go on. Certainly it is true that any claim that the Earth itself is in any danger is complete hyperbole. The planet is no danger from humans. The same cannot be said for much of the life on it. Even though the carbon cycle will probably eventually compensate for an increase in carbon in the atmosphere and oceans by locking more carbon into limestone, this process takes tens of thousands of years. In other words, we'll be stuck with elevated temperatures and all the attendant effects for that length of time. While life on Earth couldn't be wiped out by anthropogenic climate change (unless we managed to push greenhouse gas levels high enough to create a runaway greenhouse effect like that Venus experienced), that doesn't mean that we should be casual about the effects. While nature will eventually adjust, many individual species are not likely to adjust fast enough to survive a rapid change in global climate. As for humans, while we are famously adaptable, it's not like we are still a relatively small population of hunter-gatherers who can just move if some regions become less congenial. There are six and half billion people in the world now, and hundreds of millions, even billions, will be negatively affected by climate change. They can't just pick up and move without causing massive disruption. So observing that life on Earth can survive major changes in climate is like observing that it can survive the Earth being hit by a sizable asteroid. It can, but is the extinction of large numbers of species and the death of millions of people (and possibly even the end of modern civilization, if the disruption is bad enough) a price we want to pay?
A review of some basic facts is in order. First, carbon dioxide, methane and other gases are greenhouse gases. That is to say, they all trap solar energy of certain wavelengths in the atmosphere, causing it to heat up. A certain amount of this is good; in fact if it weren't for the greenhouse effect, Earth would be too cold for life. The amount of warming caused by each gas also varies; carbon dioxide is not the most effective greenhouse gas. But too much of any greenhouse gas, including CO2, is definitely a bad thing. To see this, we need look no further than the nearest planet, Venus. Though it is a near twin to Earth in terms of mass, Venus has an average surface temperature of about 450 degrees Celsius, thanks to a thick atmosphere of carbon dioxide, the result of a runaway greenhouse effect which boiled any oceans the planet may once have had and baked all the carbon out of the rocks and into the air. So while carbon dioxide is not the only or even the most potent greenhouse gas, too much of it can create a hellish atmosphere.
Secondly, human activity such as the burning of fossil fuels is currently producing large amounts of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide but also others such as methane. The amount of carbon dioxide produced by humans at present is many times greater than that produced by natural processes, such as volcanic outgassing. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (and in the oceans as well) is increasing noticeably, and it is clear that the main reason is human activity.
Finally, as explained above, the average global temperature has increased noticeably over the past decades. So is there a connection between the human production of greenhouse gases and the increase in temperatures? Well, if many smokers get lung cancer but relatively few nonsmokers do, is there a connection between smoking and lung cancer? If people who have close contact with a sick person also get sick, is there a connection between their illnesses? It seems obvious to conclude that in the first case, just as in the other two, there is a connection. It would be nice to think there isn't, but there's no point in deluding ourselves (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/johann-hari-i-wish-that-the-climate-change-deniers-were-right-14587028.html).
So where does that leave us? Basically, we can either act as if this is a problem that we need to solve or just ignore the issue and continue behaving the same way. Even if we believed that there was some room for doubt about the cause of global warming, it is clear that taking action is the logical choice. If climate change is being caused by us, drastic action is necessary to prevent the severe consequences of continued warming. If, as the deniers assert in the face of all contrary evidence, humans are not causing global warming, what would be the consequences of taking action against it? We would increase our use of cleaner energy, reduce our dependence on fossil fuels (simultaneously decreasing the attendant pollution -- and here I'm not talking about greenhouse gases but all the even more obvious pollutants), and become less profligate in our use of energy. Yes, there might be some temporary economic pain as we adjust our lifestyles and people have to switch from less environmentally sound professions to more sustainable ones, but in the long run we'd still be better off -- and that's even if there was no climate problem to solve. On the other hand, if we do nothing and continue as we are, we will eventually run out of fossil fuels, other resources will be drained faster as populous nations like China and India start consuming energy at rates comparable to the developed world, and other types of pollution will become more and more of a problem. So even if climate change weren't an issue (which it clearly is), we are better off changing our ways now.
Unfortunately, there are many people with a vested interest in the current system (far more than could possibly have a vested interest in creating a false climate change scare, delusions about socialist conspiracies notwithstanding). Others simply don't want to change their bad habits, and will listen to anyone who assures them that they don't have to. While in most cases delusions about the way things are tend to be relatively harmless (such as superstitions, belief in the supernatural, or the idea that aliens visit Earth secretly), in this case these people can do real harm, as evidenced by Barack Obama's inability to commit the US to major cuts in carbon emissions at Copenhagen, which in turn resulted from the fact that he knows he would never get Congress to agree to major cuts, because it is filled with delusional people like James Inhofe (admittedly few are as bad as him, but they are bad enough). So while the conclusion that action is necessary is obvious enough, we still have to keep making the argument until the majority of people realize this and take action.
The climate change deniers come in two camps, those who try to deny that global temperatures are increasing at all, and those who deny that the increase is due to human activity. There are also some who out of ignorance, stupidity or intellectually dishonesty (i.e., they are motivated by ideology to completely deny everything having to do with climate change), straddle both camps. Those who deny that there is a real warming trend tried to use the hacked emails from the climate research center in East Anglia to cast doubt on the temperature data. As I pointed out in my previous post, despite their desperation to find evidence that scientists were cooking the books, so to speak, the few things they did find were taken completely out of context and did nothing to disprove the science. What's more, this center is not the only place conducting climate research, nor is it the only source of such temperature data. Though it is one of the major centers for collecting global temperature data, there are several others, including NASA. All of these places have come up with the same results. Some attempt to cast doubt on the credibility of all of these research centers despite the large amount of data they have, but when it comes right down to it, no one has reliable global temperature data that differs markedly from that of these centers, and in fact, as the video I referred to last time (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY) points out, the few actual scientists who question the current consensus about climate change generally accept that there has recently been a warming trend (i.e., they are in the second of the two camps). So there is much less reason to question the credibility of all the mainstream climate research centers than there is to question that of their critics.
Some also cite "evidence" that seems to question global warming such as cold winters in particular areas, cooling trends in certain regions, and so forth. In fact, these misleading arguments are one of the reasons why "climate change" is now the preferred term. As is commonly stated by scientists, an increase in the overall global temperature has complex consequences around the world. While most places will warm up, some places will actually get cooler. Likewise rainfall patterns will change, so some places will become drier and others wetter, and so on. Also, a lot of people confuse weather and climate. Climate, roughly speaking, is average weather over a long period of time. So even if the climate warms somewhat, you can still have very cold days and even cold winters. The key is the overall climate, not weather on any given day in a particular location. This also why arguments like "they can't even be sure if it'll rain tomorrow, how can they tell if the Earth is warming" are ignorant. In fact, while modelling climates is not easy, it is a lot easier than predicting short-term weather (just as it's easier to predict certain things about a population than it is about an individual person). Of course the reverse is true as well. Some are far too ready to attribute every weather event (a hurricane, a drought, a hot spell) to global warming. While global warming may influence some such things, it's impossible to say for sure, and in many cases it's merely a short term variation unrelated to the overall climate. Basically, individual weather events are not good arguments either for or against climate change, unless they can be shown to be part of a trend.
An example of climate change deniers misleadingly citing local trends is Antarctica. Studies have shown that outlying parts of Antarctica are clearly warming, while the central part of the continent actually cooled slightly. Deniers cite the latter point as evidence against global warming, while ignoring the former. However, cooling in one region does not mean that the globe as whole is not warming. In fact, there are many reasons for such local variations. In this case, I have recently read that the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica means a certain amount of heat that would otherwise be trapped is escaping, meaning that area has cooled slightly. So in this case, our previous disruption of the atmosphere is counterbalancing our ongoing disruption (though of course only a crazy person would suggest such a balance is a good thing, given the hazards created by the lack of an ozone layer). What's more, one of the scientists whose study of Antarctic temperatures has been cited by deniers as evidence against global warming has been quoted as refuting assertions that his work disproves global warming.
Then there is the recent claim that the globe has actually been cooling over the last decade. This claim (using the same temperature data that the deniers claim to doubt) is based on disingenuous use of the year 1997 as a starting point. That year,global temperatures were being affected by El Nino, which combined with the general warming over the 20th century made that year the hottest on record. This means, of course, that years since then, when there has been no El Nino effect, have not been as hot. However, if you use either 1996 or 1998 as a starting point, you still see a warming trend. So basically the "global cooling" claim is based on a highly misleading use of statistics, as was shown when statisticians were given the data without being told what it was and yet they still all agreed that the data showed an upward trend (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091026/ap_on_bi_ge/us_sci_global_cooling and http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091026/ap_on_sc/us_sci_global_cooling_methodology). What's more, despite 1997 still being the hottest year (a record that is expected fall in the next few years), the decade that is just ending was still overall the hottest ever, hotter even than the 1990s (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091208/ap_on_sc/climate).
Another thing climate change deniers like to bring up is the fact that there was a period following the middle of the century when global climate actually cooled slightly. They point to a few articles in the mainstream media a few decades back talking about the possibility of a new ice age, and imply that climate scientists and the media are simply prone to exaggerate any recent trend in temperatures into a non-existent apocalyptic threat. They also seem to imply that the whole idea that the globe is warming due to human activity (anthropogenic global warming, as it is called) is something that only appeared in the last couple of decades.
In fact, the idea that human industrial activity could lead to an increase in temperatures goes back over a hundred years. It was apparently first hypothesized by Svante Ahrrenius in 1898, when human production of greenhouse gases was a small fraction of what it is now (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/climate_timeline;_ylt=Ai.JKlZRotSa4KFFyX2z7bxH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTE2aWNwa29sBHBvcwM1BHNlYwN5bi1yLWItbGVmdARzbGsDLWtleWRhdGVzYWJv). And by the 1970s, the predicted increase in temperatures over the first part of the 20th century had already been observed. A downturn in temperatures beginning in the 1940s which wiped out some of the increase had also been observed, but by no means all scientists agreed that a new ice age was the cause. Nor did this decrease cause them all to discard the idea of anthropogenic global warming. Isaac Asimov, best known as a science fiction writer but also a qualified biochemist, wrote a book on science for the general reader back in the early 1980s in which he briefly discusses global warming. He explains how humans were loading the atmosphere with carbon dioxide at a rate 200 times that of the world's volcanoes. He then talks about the downturn in temperatures, which was still happening at the time. He suggests that it was caused by an increase in smog particles in the atmosphere which cut off sunlight, so "it would seem that two different types of human atmospheric pollution are currently canceling each other's effect, at least in this respect and at least temporarily." While I don't know if his explanation for the downward trend (which of course ended about the time he wrote this) is the currently accepted one, but this clearly shows that the idea of anthropogenic global warming was current among scientists in the 1970s and 1980s, despite the slight downward trend in temperatures at the time.
Aside from the clear evidence of an upward trend in global average temperatures over the past centuries, there are plenty of other indications of a warming trend. One well known example is glaciers, which are retreating in many places around the world. Some deniers try to cast doubt on this evidence as well, claiming that some glaciers are growing, or that those that are shrinking are doing so for reasons other than global warming. No doubt a few glaciers are growing, because, as explained above, warming on a global scale can actually cause certain regions to cool, and also in some cases other factors may be at work (as in the cooling trend in some parts of Antarctica mentioned above). Likewise, in a few cases factors other than temperature may cause a glacier to shrink, such as a region becoming significantly drier. However, the fact that a majority of glaciers, in locations all around the world including the Alps, the Andes, Greenland and, most importantly the Himalayas (source of much of the water supply for Asian countries that are home to over a third of the world's people), are shrinking is a clear indication that more than regional factors are at work. Another worrying sign is increased melting of the Greenland ice sheet (which contains a substantial percentage of the world's fresh water) and of Arctic ice. There is no question that these phenomena are occurring, and they are clear indications of a warming pattern. What's more, if they continue, they will have dramatic effects on the climate of the northern hemisphere.
Given all the evidence (and I've only given an extremely cursory overview), there is no question that the average global temperature has been rising over the last century (except the above mentioned period between about 1950 and 1980) and that the warming has accelerated over the last two decades. As mentioned previously, this is even accepted by many of those few deniers who have real scientific qualifications. So the next question is whether this warming is a natural cycle or whether humans are responsible. Some people make the argument that the climate has fluctuated ever since the Earth and its atmosphere formed (i.e., since long before humans existed) and therefore any fluctuations are natural. On the fact of it, this argument is illogical. Yes, the climate has fluctuated throughout geologic history and previous fluctuations have been natural. That does not mean that this fluctuation must necessarily be natural, any more than the fact that you haven't died yet means you can't die. The fact that the climate can and does change without human help does not mean that humans can't affect the climate. Right-wing trolls will sometimes sarcastically comment regarding any mention of climate change in the Earth's geologic past or even other planets that environmentalists, liberals, Al Gore, et al. are no doubt concerned about the case of "global warming" being discussed, implying that because these groups believe in the reality of anthropogenic climate change, they must think all climate change is anthropogenic. This is patently absurd. Climate change is like the course of a river; it can and does change naturally, but humans can also change it, and the fact that it happens one way (naturally or through human action) does not mean it can't happen the other way.
Those who claim that the present warming is not anthropogenic obviously have to come up with another explanation for the unusually rapid increase in temperature. A favorite is solar activity. The theory is that the sun has recently begun putting out more energy, and this has warmed up the Earth. It is true that in the past variation in solar activity has been responsible for global warming, and a number of scientists believe it may also be contributing to current warming. However, after repeated studies, the vast majority of researchers have concluded that greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere by humans are responsible for the majority of the current warming effect.
Others simply claim that since the climate has changed in the past, the fact that it is changing now (whether or not humans are responsible) is no big deal. They point out that the Earth will adjust and life will go on. Certainly it is true that any claim that the Earth itself is in any danger is complete hyperbole. The planet is no danger from humans. The same cannot be said for much of the life on it. Even though the carbon cycle will probably eventually compensate for an increase in carbon in the atmosphere and oceans by locking more carbon into limestone, this process takes tens of thousands of years. In other words, we'll be stuck with elevated temperatures and all the attendant effects for that length of time. While life on Earth couldn't be wiped out by anthropogenic climate change (unless we managed to push greenhouse gas levels high enough to create a runaway greenhouse effect like that Venus experienced), that doesn't mean that we should be casual about the effects. While nature will eventually adjust, many individual species are not likely to adjust fast enough to survive a rapid change in global climate. As for humans, while we are famously adaptable, it's not like we are still a relatively small population of hunter-gatherers who can just move if some regions become less congenial. There are six and half billion people in the world now, and hundreds of millions, even billions, will be negatively affected by climate change. They can't just pick up and move without causing massive disruption. So observing that life on Earth can survive major changes in climate is like observing that it can survive the Earth being hit by a sizable asteroid. It can, but is the extinction of large numbers of species and the death of millions of people (and possibly even the end of modern civilization, if the disruption is bad enough) a price we want to pay?
A review of some basic facts is in order. First, carbon dioxide, methane and other gases are greenhouse gases. That is to say, they all trap solar energy of certain wavelengths in the atmosphere, causing it to heat up. A certain amount of this is good; in fact if it weren't for the greenhouse effect, Earth would be too cold for life. The amount of warming caused by each gas also varies; carbon dioxide is not the most effective greenhouse gas. But too much of any greenhouse gas, including CO2, is definitely a bad thing. To see this, we need look no further than the nearest planet, Venus. Though it is a near twin to Earth in terms of mass, Venus has an average surface temperature of about 450 degrees Celsius, thanks to a thick atmosphere of carbon dioxide, the result of a runaway greenhouse effect which boiled any oceans the planet may once have had and baked all the carbon out of the rocks and into the air. So while carbon dioxide is not the only or even the most potent greenhouse gas, too much of it can create a hellish atmosphere.
Secondly, human activity such as the burning of fossil fuels is currently producing large amounts of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide but also others such as methane. The amount of carbon dioxide produced by humans at present is many times greater than that produced by natural processes, such as volcanic outgassing. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (and in the oceans as well) is increasing noticeably, and it is clear that the main reason is human activity.
Finally, as explained above, the average global temperature has increased noticeably over the past decades. So is there a connection between the human production of greenhouse gases and the increase in temperatures? Well, if many smokers get lung cancer but relatively few nonsmokers do, is there a connection between smoking and lung cancer? If people who have close contact with a sick person also get sick, is there a connection between their illnesses? It seems obvious to conclude that in the first case, just as in the other two, there is a connection. It would be nice to think there isn't, but there's no point in deluding ourselves (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/johann-hari-i-wish-that-the-climate-change-deniers-were-right-14587028.html).
So where does that leave us? Basically, we can either act as if this is a problem that we need to solve or just ignore the issue and continue behaving the same way. Even if we believed that there was some room for doubt about the cause of global warming, it is clear that taking action is the logical choice. If climate change is being caused by us, drastic action is necessary to prevent the severe consequences of continued warming. If, as the deniers assert in the face of all contrary evidence, humans are not causing global warming, what would be the consequences of taking action against it? We would increase our use of cleaner energy, reduce our dependence on fossil fuels (simultaneously decreasing the attendant pollution -- and here I'm not talking about greenhouse gases but all the even more obvious pollutants), and become less profligate in our use of energy. Yes, there might be some temporary economic pain as we adjust our lifestyles and people have to switch from less environmentally sound professions to more sustainable ones, but in the long run we'd still be better off -- and that's even if there was no climate problem to solve. On the other hand, if we do nothing and continue as we are, we will eventually run out of fossil fuels, other resources will be drained faster as populous nations like China and India start consuming energy at rates comparable to the developed world, and other types of pollution will become more and more of a problem. So even if climate change weren't an issue (which it clearly is), we are better off changing our ways now.
Unfortunately, there are many people with a vested interest in the current system (far more than could possibly have a vested interest in creating a false climate change scare, delusions about socialist conspiracies notwithstanding). Others simply don't want to change their bad habits, and will listen to anyone who assures them that they don't have to. While in most cases delusions about the way things are tend to be relatively harmless (such as superstitions, belief in the supernatural, or the idea that aliens visit Earth secretly), in this case these people can do real harm, as evidenced by Barack Obama's inability to commit the US to major cuts in carbon emissions at Copenhagen, which in turn resulted from the fact that he knows he would never get Congress to agree to major cuts, because it is filled with delusional people like James Inhofe (admittedly few are as bad as him, but they are bad enough). So while the conclusion that action is necessary is obvious enough, we still have to keep making the argument until the majority of people realize this and take action.
Update -- For those who try to use the recent winter weather in North America to question the reality of global warming, the following article from Time entitled "D.C. Snowstorm: How Global Warming Makes Blizzards Worse" should be required reading: http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100210/hl_time/08599196229400 . As for the minor, though embarrassing, errors in the IPCC report on climate change, as explained in this report (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100210/ap_on_sc/sci_climate_report_woes;_ylt=AviWT1kIzu4HYei22ptbobqHgsgF;_ylu=X3oDMTJrYm5kZ3FlBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMjEwL3NjaV9jbGltYXRlX3JlcG9ydF93b2VzBHBvcwM4BHNlYwN5bl9tb3N0X3BvcHVsYXIEc2xrA3NjaWVudGlzdHNzZQ--), they have no affect on the underlying science on global warming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
