As we hear the results of the Climate Conference in Copenhagen, it is clear that the discussions, side-taking and overall determination by well-meaning environmental groups everywhere will shape our future.
With even the National Petroleum Council and the Independent Petroleum Association of America admitting “there is a growing consensus that our planet, probably because of natural forces and climate cycles but very likely reinforced by human emissions of greenhouse gases, is still experiencing a period of gradual warming,� it seems certain that politicians will decide, finally, something has to be achieved to thwart possible global catastrophe.
However, these same well-meaning people quite often look for quick solutions, hand-wringing placebo statements and financial solutions to a problem that will not be solved that way.
u u u
A man once said, “Democracy is the worst form of government until you look at all the rest.� Humans are a difficult bunch to form into a unified group, so democracy, where a majority opinion rules, seems the fairest way to govern.
In the case of the environment, with the complexity of climate data on which even the National Center for Atmospheric Research facility’s three Cray supercomputers cannot reach a formula conclusion (warming change or no change, over what period of time) we’re stuck with opinion. And most of this opinion is based on poorly funded research, guesswork, grandstanding hyperbole (Al Gore) and hate rhetoric — all of which may be absolutely right or absolutely wrong — or somewhere in between. But there are some basics that everyone can agree on because they are fact:
1. There is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, 385 parts per million, than for the past 1 to 15 million years (the time frame is not sure; the 15 million years was measured in Greenland; the 1 million on Hawaii, nowhere on earth was less than 1 million).
2. There are more humans alive — eating, moving about, working, consuming — than have ever been alive on the planet before 1900 collectively.
3. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction (Newton’s law).
u u u
So, if you can start there, the inescapable fact remains that we are affecting our planet in ways that it has never been subjected to before, and those effects will have a reaction, somewhere, somehow. If every person can start with that understanding, the logical next step is simple: Measure the reaction, compare it to previous data, known and to be discovered, and take responsibility for the reaction.
In the end, Copenhagen is all about responsibility, or should be. If you turn on a light bulb — as is your right — you are causing pollution somewhere on the planet. You are not some power plant, not some mine where they dig up the minerals, not some truck that drives the components to a factory or bulb to market. However, your one light bulb is your responsibility.
And how do you exhibit your responsibility? Do you go back and live in a cave? Waking only with the sun? No, you demand that your politicians represent the majority who want them to know, for sure, with the best minds on the planet, what exactly the reaction of this human interaction and consumption is so you can darn well have that light bulb burning and bright. Once they know the real facts, the next step will be easy. If a train is coming down the tracks at you, you know to get off the rails, to change your ways.
u u u
And that is why Copenhagen is a mess and will not actually solve anything. The science, the fact gathering, has been restricted for decades by big industry, yet there are those on every side who are certain their best guess is right. But the very best scientists in climate evaluation admit their facts may be as much as 35 percent off (on all sides). That is not good enough. You need to know, your kids need to know. Your future depends on it.
The most vocal pro-environmentalists are right that we need to act now, because if their dire predictions are right, we’re headed for extinction. That is not hyperbole, it is a possibility. When the dinosaurs became over-populated, it took 25,000 years (not a meteor) to reduce the oxygen they breathed by 14 percent and their evolution could not keep up, so most of them could not survive as species (not all — see 25-foot crocodiles in Australia and Africa; or all the birds left behind). If we change the air we breathe, our fate may be the same — never mind flooding via global warming (or the inverse with an ice age).
So, Copenhagen should be — for each of us paying attention — a call to arms to take personal responsibility, to have us arm the scientists with the best tools and funds necessary to make accurate predictions upon which they can all agree. Good science is not opinion; science reaches factual conclusions — if democracies empower scientists to do so without political oversight. It is time for the majority to demand real science takes over climate evaluation.
Peter Riva, formerly of Amenia Union, lives in New Mexico.
