FRAMING GLOBAL WARMING
I am far from an expert on Global Warming, and unlike the droves who ingenuously claim to be, I promise - for your credit - not to claim the same emotional high ground "they" so often do. As a fellow Voxer with some interest in the issues of Global Warming, all I can honestly promise to you is my opinion.
First, I find the political argument about whether or not Global Warming is caused by human activity irrelevant because Global Warming is occurring and causing problems for us regardless of its causes.
Second, I don't believe that humanity can do anything to restore the range and mean of global temperature to some optimum state measured over the past two centuries because we don't yet even understand the planetary systems that we would have to control.
Third, in light of the very real environmental problems before us which we can realistically address, I have issue with folks that make Global Warming out to be the BIG problem of our times.
In my opinion climate change is going to compound our basic environmental woes, and while we may not be able to control global climate I do believe we have a chance to adapt to the changes that are going to be thrust upon us in the coming centuries if we get to work. I think environmentalists will better serve the rest of humanity by politicizing the real environmental problems that directly impact us right now.
I believe the big environmental problems in need of solutions are water scarcity, declining fisheries, loss of arable land, and the rise of epidemics (which studies have shown are created by humans - not the disease mind you but the epidemic). I am sure the likes of Jared Diamond or Geology Byotch will claim I am missing some critical issues here, and I might even grudgingly admit that loss of biodiversity and deforestation are also major problems in need of addressing for their own sake. But I'm talking political strategy here, and survival. These are the issues that directly impact human survival today. The common person can understand that the problem impacts them, and the experts could conceivable solve them.
So why - as common citizens - are we making a big fuss about Global Warming in the abstract when we've got tangible problems to address like droughts throughout the United States? I am not asking for an answer for this. The question is asked with eyes raised in frustration at what I see to be stupidity.
Disclaimer: In order to avoid derailment by actual experts taking umbrage at my undermining of Global Warming as "the issue of our times", I must say that I do not have a problem with experts studying the problems of climate change and seeking solutions. I am talking about what I see to be the misplaced focus of us common folk here upon a problem which is - as far as we are concerned - intractible.
Comments
Somewhat opposing point of view presented as a critical analogy:
Jon Smith has been a heavy smoker for the last 30 years. In the recent years he has developed a variety of diseases, which may or may not be related to his smoking habit (after all no all smokers get lung cancer, and not all lung cancer patients are smokers, right?)
1) The political argument about whether or not smoking damages health is irrelevant because the health problems are already occurring and causing problems for Jon regardless of its causes.
2) I don't believe that Jon can do anything to restore his health to the state he enjoyed in his early 20s because we don't yet even understand all the bodily systems that we would have to control.
3) In light of the very real health problems before him which he can realistically address, I have issue with folks that make Smoking out to be the BIG problem for Jon. While Jon may not be able to control his addiction, he has a chance to adapt to the changes that are going to be thrust upon him in the coming years if he gets to work. The big health problems in need of solutions are bad breath, elevated blood pressure, lung cancer, etc.
P.S.
Please, don’t get me wrong – I respect your opinion and I do not wish to oversimplify it. I am just trying to present a different point of view using this analogy. I even agree with you regarding the need to address the immediate environmental problems. But the fact of the matter is that without addressing the underlying cause, our actions would have only an extremely limited effect. Quite possibly not all of Jon’s problems are related to his smoking, but I think that any doctor in his case would begin the healing process with a strong suggestion to stop smoking immediately.
Smoking is a primary factor for lung cancer and emphysema while Global Warming is a contributing factor to droughts, loss of arable land, and the decline of fisheries. That makes for a big difference. Global Warming is not the underlying cause of these problems. Population pressure and high levels of consumption are actually more significant factors in all of these cases.
Please don't get me wrong either. I am not saying to abandon all interest in Global Warming. Nor am I calling for scientists to stop studying it. But I do think it needs to be put in perspective.
Today we have environmental problems that severely impact our lives such as the drought in Atlanta for example. Often environmentalists in the media will call upon this as an example of Global Warming. In my view that is a complete waste of time, and dishonest. While the drought in the South East may have Human caused climate change as a factor, even if we stopped the use of all fossil fuels world wide today, it would not solve the problem today nor for years to come. BUT adjustments to building codes, land conservation, regional planning, water management, and water markets would make a huge difference right now. Hell, merely changing laws to allow cisterns in any building with a roof nation wide, and require them in all new development would make a major difference.
Even if Global Warming was stopped yesterday, the main problems we will be addressing in the next few centuries are still those that I outlined above. Population is still a huge factor in the equation of environmental woes despite the fact that Global Warming now gets all of the attention. And it will remain so until these problems don't matter anymore.
I absolutely agree with you regarding population. I’ve been arguing this point for years (as many people have...) If the human population was capped at say 100,000,000 people - Global Warming would not be an issue to begin with, and one could argue that overpopulation is the root cause of all environmental problems.
Basically my argument is that there are a number of things that contribute to Global Warming: Global Overpopulation, Global Overconsumption, Global Pollution, etc.
On a local level (as in Atlanta) GW is the cause of the local drought. Local drought + local overconsumption + local overpopulation = local water shortage. The drought was caused by GW, but the water shortage has other factors contributing to it.
However, from the Global Overpopulation perspective, any local conservation attempts are little more than Band-Aids. Even if all of us are to get our energy from wind-farms and water from rain barrels and even if all of us are to become vegetarian – how long is it going to be before the consumption levels are going to pass the threshold of tolerance again? 25 years? 50? 100? Without resolving global overpopulation any attempts to solve local and global environmental problems are going to be futile.
Which does not mean that we should not use these band-aids. We should. Even just to buy a little more time, which would be necessary for any humane resolution of the over-population problem. But we should not forget that time is also a resource, and in case of the modern civilization this resource is not infinite either... And this time needs to be used to resolve not only the issue of Global Warming, but the root causes of the Global Warming as well – overpopulation and over-consumption (corporate capitalism).
My stance is that since we can not at present conceivably check GW or our own population growth - it would behoove us to solve the problems right in front of us. Its more than buying time. Its a means to resist local disasters and shift our energy to the stuff that does sustain us. Shifting our energy to these essentials will be (I think) the very thing that enables our society to adapt and survive.
I doubt the big problems will ever be solved. And even if they are, other ones will inevitably present themselves. All the while we still will need to continuously adapt by solving the little problems. Little solutions aggregate into bigger ideas which bring about economic and social reform.
An example of this would be irrigation technology and government. People need more and more food. Food requires irrigation. Individuals can't do this alone so people work together. A kind of government rises over this to ensure that the system is maintained and protected.
The problem in Atlanta is in my view primarily an organization problem. Sure, there may be less water right now due to GW, but why wasn't that planned for? And as the problem compounded why weren't solutions being put into place? Double plumbing for water recycling, cisterns, rationing, raising water prices, adjustments to regional planning and development and any number of the countless strategies that can deal with this problem effectively. Furthermore why aren't the South Western states taking note of this right now and doing something about their out of control rate of development? If the public understood that water shortages are going to be a severe national and global problem in this century, there might be political will to make some much needed structural changes.
I just don't see how focusing on root causes solves these problems. I think if anything, in the mind of regular citizens, it reduces "environment" to a political abstraction with no direct impact upon anyone's life - not in a way that they can understand. Blaming Global Warming is like blaming God. Its just too big to do anything about and thus disassociates yourself from the solution. I leave that stuff to Priests and Scientists. Tangible problems however I think are appropriate for the rest of us.
Although I remain of the opinion that without solving the root causes we will have to solve the same very local problems over and over again, I agree that solving the root causes is extremely complicated if possible at all. Especially in a humane manner of any sort...
My general position nowadays is that I will continue doing everything environmentally and socially responsible on the personal and local level (for the sake of personal consciousness), but on a global scale doing something now is too little too late. I am not even sure if global-environmental-economical-political-social apocalypse is such a bad thing really. From the point of view of future civilization history it might be our only hope, assuming we do better the next time around.
My friend, the great thing about being a human is, we are all very certainly entitled to our own opinions.
And global warming is definitely not the only problem we have, nor the key issue with species extinction, although for polar bears, it most certainly is.
A problem I have with the publicising of the global warming issue is, that deforestation, pollution of the waters, where does the garbage go, and other important issues have fallen to the wayside as far as anything happening. (although deforestation is one of the causes of global warming)
We probably will not be able to go back to an "optimum" temp. that attitude is for the disillusioned. Plus we are coming out of an ice age. What most scientist hope for is, to be able to stabilise what is happening, or at least slow it down and get it back on a natural track.
One of the great things about the publicisation of global warming is that finally some big changes are being made that will conserve energy, which are very necessary and have been for a long time. It is never a good idea to waste anything.
I do adore you for your intelligence and your opinionatedness.
Cheers.
Hey, I know how to make bread. I will get on fine.
: )