The argument over whether or not there is Global Warming(GW)is useless. It is already here. It is not something that will appear in a few years, we'll deal with when it gets here. It is here, NOW. Katrina like hurrianes will appear regularly, not every so often. This means we need to make decisions that match reality. I brought this up in the "New Orleans" post; if you know that you will get a Category 4 or 5 every 1-5 years in an area on the coast, below sea level is rebuilding woth the investment? We face many similar circumstances on a wider scale.
Two pieces of evidence show the argument is moot, The first is the battle over dominion in the Arctic; any country who borders the area is trying to stake claims to sea-lanes. Why? Because they know the ice is melting and unnavigable areas will open up. Nations do not invest so much for a "maybe". Secondly, the co-insurers, the ones that insure the insurance companies, have already invested enough money to cover major perctange losses on the Gulf Coast and around Cape Cod. Why? Because all evidence points to these areas being lost. Again, not an "if", but a when.
So the discussion shouldn't be about solar panels and super-hybrids. Those are possibilities that may prove valuable later. What we need to address is who gets screwed when land becomes useless, water becomes undrinkable and clean air becomes regional. Katrina proved that our government performs poorly in distasters we expect, especially among the poor, how do you think they will perform when two three category 4 or 5s hit near the same time? Seeing last year's debacle, I would expect a similar result. How can we give ourselves a better chance? By realizing our situation and calling for better preparation.
Taking that information to the next step. In the who get's screwed department, in a world where rich countries already dump their problems on the poor (even in their own nations), who do think will get the short stick? Going to Africa to create jobs becomes a ridiculous comment when what the industrialized world does to the environment now diminishes Africa's ability to suppport life. That's why solving the GW problem helps everyone; no one is isolated and all contribute to it to some degree. Reducing impact improves all our chances no matter present economic inequalities.
Lastly, contention that "science was wrong on climate change before, why should we trust it now?", is nothing but whitewash. Science was wrong about eugenics. Yet similar work brought a deep knowledge of DNA to the point where it is an everyday phenomenon. Science, especially these days with its companion, computing technology, means its predicitive ability gets better all the time. Not many question what the Hubble Telescope tells us about the universe almost weekly. Climatology is under question because it is a politcal hot-potato; critics don't like the answer so they challenge the results. In the last couple of years, however, climate science keeps filling in the details, erasing doubt. At this point anyone who questions the science is not looking at the facts; they're irrefutable. As I pointed out before, the claim for Arctic sea-lanes and insurance companies' projection should spur us to move to a more meaningful discussion.
But as much as we now depend on science, it is not the answer to ending human-made impact. Lifestyle and expectation change will produce the best results. Cities and states all over the planet already recognize the problem and are slowly introducing programs and legislation to address it. Yes, many different technologies that reduce greenhouse omissions exist and may work, but a single solution to ending our effect on the atmosphere is impractical. Instead, changing how we live and what we expect will add up to the many small changes we need. Science did not, by itself, create the situation, nor will it solve it.
No comments:
Post a Comment