Apologies for the dearth of posts of late, not to mention the banality of those that have made it up. I've been so very busy. Busy busy busy.
I recently finished the third part of Elizabeth Kolbert's excellent series of articles for The New Yorker on global warming. (Part I, Part II, Part III)
I can't really recommend these enough. Instead of thinking of them as long magazine articles, think of it as a very short book. If you only read one, though, read the last one.
The conclusion, basically, is that we're killing ourselves. Further, the United States is not only the cause of more of the problem than any other country, but also presents to biggest obstacle - in the form of George W. Bush - to doing anything about the problem. It's one shocking statistic and example of U.S. irresponsibility in the face of clear evidence after another.
Let's put it this way.. Imagine that we are the dinosaurs, living 65 million years ago, but instead of being dumb as sticks, we're smart and we've learned - literally beyond all doubt - that a massive space rock is hurtling directly at the Earth. It won't get here for about 100 or maybe even 200 years, but it's undeniably coming, and it will cause unbelievable destruction, possibly pushing our entire species to extinction.
This is, almost literally, the situation we find ourselves in. Of course, climate change is not as dramatic as a comet smashing into the planet, and we can't predict exactly how events will play out nor exactly when, but the end result is no less severe, and of that we're certain.
So the question is, what do we do about it? Should we just assume, correctly, that we'll personally be dead before anything really bad happens and just go about our business of getting stuck in tar pits? Or should we all get together and do something about it?
Nearly every government on earth is choosing the second option, but our government is choosing the first. And because of the massive part we play in the whole scenario by virtue of our greed and short-sightedness, our choice renders the choice of everyone else nearly moot.
Some things to think about:
• Experts estimate that if we made carbon emissions carry a financial cost of about $100 per ton, many of the alternative energy sources we already have at our disposal would become economically viable. Assuming this cost were passed on from the energy industry to you and me, the price of a kilowatt-hour if coal-generated power would rise by about 2 cents, or about $15 a month to the average American family.
• The "Star Wars" missile defense program - which hasn't yielded anything close to a working system - has cost us about $100 billion. Imagine investing $10 billion a year into alternative energy sources for 10 years. Good chance we'd come up with something a bit more useful than a collection habitually errant missiles.
• Republicans and their strategists are specifically and deliberately confusing the public about global warming. Consider this from a memo by Frank Luntz circulated a couple years ago: "The scientific debate is closing (against us) but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science. Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming in the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly." Luntz also advised, "The most important principle in any discussion of global warming is your commitment to sound science."
The use of the phrase "sound science" tickles the public's misconception about the nature of scientific research in general, and is the same technique used in the evolution "debate." The goal of science has never been and never will be to find absolute truth. Again, a theory is not simply an opinion.
• Countless energy industry front groups with Orwellian names like the "Greening Earth Society" and "Americans for Balanced Energy Choices" have websites that spew misinformation, like this, "Predicting weather conditions a day or two in advance is hard enough, so just imagine how hard it is to forecast what our climate will be."
Their point is, as always, to confuse people and sow the seeds of doubt. It's the same strategy they use for nearly every issue that they know they would lose terribly if people knew the truth. They reinforce people's preconceived ideas and prejudices to further their own selfish goals, and they do it with malice aforethought.
The only way for the world to begin to really do anything about this problem is for the United States to lead the way. Instead, we are the greatest obstacle. We pulled out of the Kyoto agreement because we didn't think it was fair that developing countries didn't have to curb their emissions at the same time that we did. We've insisted that we'll only agree to reductions that apply to everyone.
The problem with this logic is that it's completely self-serving. We have been an industrialized society for over 100 years. We have reaped the benefits of using massive quantities of fossil fuels and depositing the byproducts into the atmosphere - everyone's atmosphere. Our technology has progressed rapidly and we are now a post-industrial nation. We have the knowledge and the capital to switch to cleaner energy sources.
Developing countries deserve a chance to catch up. If required to live up to the same standards as we are immediately, their growth will be forever crippled relative to the more modernized countries. They should be required to move forward to alternative sources quickly, but their contribution to this problem thus far has been minimal. It's our mess, and we should lead the way in cleaning it up.
This process is certainly not ideal, but that's a pathetically flimsy excuse for not doing anything at all. We have to start somewhere.
Note that this man is a member of a center-right, Christian political party. And lookee, he's advocating actual Christian morals. Weird.
Fixing this problem will not be easy, and there's some chance that we won't even be able to fix it. There is also a chance that things won't get as bad as we think as fast as we think. The point, though, is not to wait for what the Bush administration likes to call "sound science" — by which they mean science that supports their position, regardless of the source — the point is to take what we know, which is a lot, and act.
Robert Socolow of Princeton University explains that society has faced choices like this before.
This is exactly right. And comparing those who refuse to acknowledge the problem and consistently oppose any attempts at a solution to those who opposed the abolition of slavery as a threat to the economy is perfectly apt. It's a matter of what we're willing to sacrifice to maintain the economic status quo. From my knowledge of history, it's not the societies that stick their heads in the sand that thrive, on the contrary, this is a sign of a culture on the decline. Societies that move forward face giant challenges with innovation, ingenuity, and without fear. We're on the wrong side of history on this, and we're dragging the entire planet along with us.
Socolow again...
(emphasis mine)
