Changing climates, changing minds
By Kurt Smemo PhD, Soil Biogeochemist, Holden Arboretum
The scientific consensus surrounding the existence and causes of global warming leaves little room for debate. Indeed, such consensus is unprecedented in the scientific community, and it is underscored by recent publication of the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report. This report, which was compiled by experts, based on thousands of scientific publications and approved by the governments of hundreds of nations, states that the evidence for global warming is unequivocal and that human activities are highly likely to blame. Nevertheless, the public and political debate rages on and is often more heated than the atmosphere itself! How can this be?
The simplest answer: The public has had little access to unbiased information and many political leaders are fearful of acknowledging the problem because the solutions might be economically disruptive. The more complicated answer: Our culture finds it difficult to comprehend both the global scale and complexity of the issue. For example, we all contribute to the problem, but not all parts of the globe will experience the same degree of warming. Changes in precipitation patterns associated with warming may have greater impacts than the actual temperature changes. A warmer world may actually mean colder and snowier winters in Ohio.
Media and special interest groups often tell us that scientists cannot agree on the issue, yet the truth is that thousands of scientists and tens of Nobel laureates are pitted against a mere handful of credible detractors. The only serious debate among scientists is just how much temperatures will rise and how precipitation patterns will change.
Acknowledgement of the problem and its causes is even more difficult for political leaders because acceptance comes with the moral obligation to confront the problem and develop solutions. Instead, they argue that uncertainty about climate change still exists and the changes necessary would hurt our economy and way of life. They rely on the assumption that the public will not force the issue if faced with potential tax increases.
We also hear that global warming is part of a “natural cycle.” This ignores our understanding of the earth’s past and current climate system. It also assumes that the current rate of warming on earth, particularly at the poles, and the observed changes in atmospheric chemistry are coincidental. Such a coincidence defies explanation, is highly improbable and does not represent the kind of odds with which we should want to wager our future.
Even if we made drastic behavioral changes today, a certain degree of warming from past human activities is inevitable. Many parts of the world already are dealing with changes in local and regional climate; and people, organisms and ecosystems will have to adapt to those changes. However, that does not mean that we should throw up our hands and do nothing. We have the opportunity to take actions that will minimize the amount of future change. Predictions call for an increase in average global temperatures of 4-11 °F by the end of this century. Such a temperature change would cause disruption of agricultural productivity, redistribution of human populations, drastic sea level rise and loss of many animal and plant species. Extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, may also become more severe and less predictable. In the long run, I feel that none of these things are good for human well-being and such devastating consequences outweigh the potential short-term economic effects of reducing our reliance on petroleum and cheap energy.
So what can we do as individuals in the absence of political will at the government level? The first step is letting your elected leaders know that voters care about this issue. Let them know that if they do not want to address it, we will vote for somebody who does in the next election. Moreover, vote with your wallet or pocketbook. Manufacturers and energy companies produce the products we demand. If we demand more responsible and earth sensitive products and energy solutions, they will provide them. We can use capitalism to our advantage by creating the market for new products and industries.
Unfortunately, the most obvious solution is also the most difficult one, and involves cultural and lifestyle changes. As Americans, our dependence on fossil fuel and consumerism has made us the single largest contributor of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. One American uses as much energy per year as seven people in China. Fortunately, most of us could change our personal habits and reduce our energy use by at least 50 percent, without affecting our standard of living. Indeed, some solutions, like driving less and living closer to work, can actually increase our quality of life and save us money. Consider improving the energy efficiency of your home. By changing the light bulbs in your house from incandescent to compact fluorescent bulbs, you could use 75-80 percent less energy on lighting. Making sure the windows in your home are in good condition and properly insulating the walls and ceilings will save significant energy and money. Purchasing a fuel efficient car or hybrid instead of an SUV could reduce your transportation cost and energy use by at least 50 percent, potentially saving you thousands of dollars a year. To learn more about what you can do, calculate your ecological footprint or visit climatecrisis.net.
Finally, the most important thing that all of us can do is be informed citizens. Seek out objective information, backed by science, and dismiss information from special interest groups. Always be skeptical of what you see on the Internet unless it is from a known reputable source without a particular agenda, regardless of which side of the issue it is on. The cost of addressing climate change now is much less than the price we will pay in the future if we do nothing in the face of uncertainty. We buy car insurance because we want to protect our families and property just in case, not because we know for certain that we will have an accident.
Fortunately, most of us could change our personal habits and reduce our energy use by at least 50 percent, without affecting our standard of living. Indeed, some solutions, like driving less and living closer to work, can actually increase our quality of life and save us money.
Originally printed in Holden Arboretum's Leaves magazine. Reprinted with permission.
