Why We Must Act on Global Warming

“SO MUCH FOR GLOBAL WARMING,” A FRIEND REMARKED WHILE DISCUSSING the frigid winter suffered in eastern Canada in 1994. With that dismissive comment, he had leaped from a single observation to a conclusion that is simply not warranted.

During the run of extremely hot summers of the late 1980s, concern about global warming reached a peak. But the fact that six of the hottest years on record occurred in the ’80s did not constitute “proof ” of global warming. That run of hot years could simply have been part of a normal pattern of fluctuations. Those hot years did not prove anything any more than one cold winter did. I reminded my friend that while the East was freezing, British Columbia was experiencing record high temperatures. Global warming is about global, not regional, temperatures.

It is going to take a lot more data collecting and hypothesizing to prove whether or not global warming really is a threat. So should we hold off doing anything, as many economists and businesspeople suggest, until the evidence is in? At a conference in Geneva in 1990, more than seven hundred atmospheric experts from all over the world agreed that we are putting unprecedented amounts of greenhouse gases into the upper atmosphere and that all signs indicate the world has warmed over the past century.

Human beings are adding more greenhouse gases into the upper atmosphere than can be removed annually. By trapping heat on Earth, greenhouse gases have kept the planet at a temperature in which life flourishes. More of these molecules will increase the effect.

The long-term consequences of this excess in greenhouse gases are hard to predict. As the Earth heats up, it is acknowledged, there will be greater evaporation from the ocean surfaces. This will lead to greater cloud cover and, as that spreads over the Earth, sunlight will be blocked. That, some conclude, will lead to a cooling rather than a heating of the Earth, and that is a reasonable hypothesis.

Others suggest that with rising temperatures, there will be greater turbulence in the air as different parts of the planet heat up at different rates. Convection currents could sweep upward and create tall columns of clouds rather than flat horizontal sheets. That would expose even more clear sky, so the Earth would heat up even faster. This too is a valid possibility.

The fact is we don’t know what will happen. By tweaking parameters and factors in complex computer models of the atmosphere, we can get predictions ranging from an impending ice age to catastrophic heating. In view of the range of possibilities, many scientists suggest that the highest priority is to increase research funds so that evidence can be gathered to make better predictions. That suggestion is inadequate, however, if it is then assumed that we can carry on with business as usual until the data are all in.

Human numbers and technology have expanded to a point where we are changing the biophysical features of the Earth. With little from the past to guide our actions, we are playing a crap game with the only home we have.

We have to learn to live within the mechanisms that keep a balance among the components of complex ecosystems. In many areas of human activity, that means cutting back and hoping that the regenerative powers of nature will redress our damage. That’s what we’re doing with CFC damage to the ozone layer and overfishing off the Atlantic Coast. We have to reduce logging of old-growth forests and change agricultural practices that degrade soil and poison the land. And we have to decrease greenhouse gas output because the atmospheric changes, whatever they are, will have massive consequences and must be minimized.

The shocking fact is that studies in Canada, the United States, Australia, and Sweden all reach the same conclusion: a significant reduction of the output of carbon dioxide, one of the main greenhouse gases, will enhance health and the environment while saving billions of dollars. Unfortunately, the costs of reduction must be paid immediately, but the benefits accrue only years later, beyond the time frame of political vision. So there is little political incentive to do the best thing.

We have no choice but to act now to minimize the extremities of our uncertain future. But first, we’ve got to stop making assumptions about climate because of a change in temperature over a single week, month, or season.

Update

The fossil fuel industry continues to support a handful of naysaying scientists who speak out against the reality of human-induced climate change and therefore consider implementation of the Kyoto Protocol an expensive waste. But overwhelmingly, scientists throughout the world continue to call for serious action to reduce greenhouse gas production. The findings and recommendations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which includes more than 1,500 climatologists, have been strongly supported by the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, the Royal Society of Canada, and the Royal Society of London, among many other organizations representing the leading scientists of many countries. In December 2002, after a rancorous debate fueled by the opposition of Alberta’s premier, Ralph Klein, the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association, and the petrochemical industry, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and the government ratified the Kyoto Protocol.

A study jointly supported by the World Wildlife Fund of Canada and the David Suzuki Foundation (Habitats at Risk: Global Warming and Species Loss in Globally Significant Terrestrial Ecosystems) showed that the warming that is already happening requires plants and animals to move north to remain within their optimal temperature range. Many plants simply cannot move fast enough, and animals often encounter open roads, fields, buildings, and fences that act as barriers to movement. The study concludes that most of the national parks in Canada will be significantly affected as their species composition undergoes radical change.

Another study, jointly produced by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the David Suzuki Foundation (Confronting Climate Change in the Great Lakes Region), showed that the 60 million people living around the Great Lakes water basin will be strongly affected by global warming as well.

The warnings are many, yet there is also plenty of evidence to suggest that meeting the challenge of climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions is an opportunity. Reduced emissions will improve health, save money through energy conservation, and open new opportunities in alternative energy and in efficiency. Power Shift: Cool Solutions to Global Warming and Kyoto and Beyond: The Low Emission Path to Innovation and Efficiency, reports for the David Suzuki Foundation by energy expert Ralph Torrie, demonstrate that using technology already available (that means imminent technologies such as hydrogen fuel cells are not considered), Canada could reduce total greenhouse gas emissions by more than 50 percent in thirty years. Clearly, cutting-edge technologies that exploit energy like hydrogen will soon become available and make the job easier and faster. The initiatives needed to meet the challenge of climate change are not economic or technological; rather, it is necessary to overcome the mind-set that immediately assumes it can’t be done or will be ruinously costly.