Over the past three decades, concern over global climate change—often labeled global warming—has grown to the point that today, this issue plays a significant role in international politics. It’s already clear that climate change will be fundamental to the primaries leading up to the 2020 U.S. presidential election. The unifying factor driving the political and social debate is that climate change is believed to be a direct result of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide (a potent greenhouse gas). Without question, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased dramatically since the advent of the industrial age, and with it a rapid increase in the combustion of first coal and later oil.
Science is all about drawing conclusions from data, and although the daily media and political rancor is dominated by the conclusion that climate change is real and it’s happening now, I’m still eager to see the underlying data (my education and professional experience are in chemistry and chemical engineering).
Two important questions demand solid answers—is the climate changing in an abnormal fashion, and if so, is the change induced by human activities (anthropomorphic climate change)? Answering these questions is immensely difficult. For example, over the geologic record, we know with certainty that the Earth’s climate has changed multiple times. So, changing climate could be a natural artifact, or it could be an unnatural event tied to industrialization.
However, some experiments are simply too risky to undertake, and if there is reasonable probability that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming and rising ocean levels, then it’s likely a good idea to reduce carbon emissions.
But the foregoing discussion on anthropomorphic climate change misses the big picture. What if climate change is merely a symptom of a more invasive problem? I’m referring to the general impact of human activity on our ecosystem, planet Earth. The oceans are filling with plastics; deforestation has transformed large areas that used to be jungle into farmland; rivers and groundwater are polluted with pesticides, herbicides, and antibiotics; and black soot from flaring gas (associated with oil production) is blanketing the Arctic ice, causing it to melt faster.
Over the last 2,000 years, global population has risen from about 250 million to about seven billion. Just over the last 200 years, the population has exponentially increased from 1 billion at the beginning of the 19th century. That’s an increase of six billion people inhabiting the planet in only 200 years!
What are the impacts of these seven billion people on our ecosystem? If human activity is causing damage to the environment (such as global warming), is the root cause really the number of people? If so, what can be done to reduce the population to a sustainable level? This last question is especially troublesome and has deep implications. It is a weighty topic that deserves thought and consideration, but I wouldn’t suggest using this as a conversation starter at your next cocktail party (unless you don’t care about getting invited back).
This question of human-caused environmental damage is at the core of Lethal Savage. In addition to being entertaining, I hope that the story is also thought-provoking, even just a little. And who knows, if you find yourself at that cocktail party, wanting to start a stimulating discussion on anthropomorphic climate change, you can always use Peter Savage as a segue!
DE