How worried should we be about climate change?
A personal commentary for anyone who is interested.
What will happen if we just go on with our lives as if nothing is changing? If we believe we should change our ways, by how much should we change? And if we have to change, how long have we got?
Suggested answers range from “Business as usual” to “It may be too late” and “For some it is too late”.
The first response is typified by ex-Vice President Cheney and his oil and gas industry colleagues who have just increased the industry’s funds for lobbying and advertising by 50%. Also by the US speaker who confidently asserted that unlimited fusion power would be available before things get tough in about thirty years time – cold comfort for the 300,000 dying and 3 million people already said by the Global Humanitarian Forum to be affected each year by abnormal heatwaves, floods, fires and storms.
The gloomiest view I’ve read is that of the eminent but controversial scientist Dr James Lovelock. In “The Vanishing Face of Gaia” he postulates, at worst, the near-extinction of mankind as a result of the combination of our massive over-population of the planet and global warming. I’m condensing his arguments unmercifully to say he believes we must base our expectations more on the inexorable rise in the levels and acidification of the oceans, because these variables cannot fluctuate as rapidly as the temperatures used for most climate modelling. The best he can foresee is the survival, “sometime later in this century” of remnants of human population in ‘lifeboat islands’ such as the British Isles, Tasmania and New Zealand.
Between the above extremes, over a quarter of a million internet references tell us that governments are edging towards recognition of a need to reduce global CO2 emissions more severely: Maryland for example wants to cut 25% of their 2006 level by 2020; the Alliance of Small Island States 85% of 1990 levels by 2050. The intergovernmental conference in Copenhagen in December will be a critical event in setting the international policy agenda and a vast amount of preliminary work is underway, far too much for a part-time amateur to study.
Should we just sit back and await the outcome? I think not. When there is doubt about the wisdom of a course of action, engineers act to minimise the risks to life. Scientists are not always able to persuade governments to do likewise. And democratic governments are always cautious about telling us bad news – “don’t want to frighten the horses”. So my answer to the question in the title is: although we cannot hope to digest all the evidence and studies on climate change, we should be worried enough to want to persuade our government to over-react now rather than risk deferring action until it may be too late.
We should all think how we can influence our government. For example, campaigns by the Women’s Institute, Youth Groups and the churches could send a message to the government that action was expected and that initiatives to “Play it safe” would be welcomed, not opposed. We should all make it clear in any way we can that action to safeguard our children’s future will be welcomed even if it means goodbye to some of our freedoms and pleasures, such as frequent overseas holidays and, in my case, return trips to Australia every couple of years. And while exerting that influence we should also remember to “Think global. Act local” and save energy in our homes and at our work.
Geoff Feasey
15th June 2009
Loading ...