Global warming or global warning?

[Rick Shea]

Letter to the Globe and Mail today.

Dear Sir:

In some ways, Margaret Wente is correct in her attempt to undermine extremist views surrounding global warming (“a questionable truth” January 27, 2007). There will be no quick fix for any anthropogenic contributions, and she states that, to a certain extent, we will just have to suck it up and adapt. But at the same time, we need to begin attempts immediately and incrementally to contain any damage we are causing.

Ms. Wente refers to the work of S.F.U.’s Mark Jaccard, whose book Sustainable Fossil Fuels seems to be very much out of step with current politically correct thinking about the environment. Mr. Jaccard acknowledges in his book, though, that fossil fuels are really not sustainable in the long term, and that, even in the short term, “(a) sustainable fossil fuel future does not guarantee a sustainable human presence on this shrinking planet.” (p. 361)

One of the salient points that Ms. Wente and Mr. Jaccard fail to address is population growth. A 40 percent reduction in global emissions will be made up very quickly by a 66 percent increase in population – an increase that would happen before 2050 at our current global growth rate. Such a reduction would have enormous economic consequences, just to keep us treading water with regard to emissions. Even more relevant though is that some countries are growing much more rapidly than others. For example, the U.S. is the fasting-growing among the developed countries and is by far, with the exception of Canada as a close second, the largest per capita user of energy and resources.

But emissions are only one of the issues, and perhaps not even the most important. Along with those emissions, we have unprecedented levels of pollutants released into the environment, record levels of species extinctions, depletion of a host of other resources, extremely toxic and persistent radioactive and other wastes left behind for future generations to deal with; and an abundance of social, political, and other environmental signs warning us that something may be amiss.

There is much more happening here than environmental activists “using climate change to wrap around their message about how they want humans to behave differently.” (Jaccard, quoted in Wente) Our Mother Earth is sending us many messages that we need to behave differently, but we don’t seem to be listening.

Why do we pay so much attention to this one issue, and to those who offer what seem to be reasonable and moderate solutions to our problems? Why do we seem to have a desperate need to believe that we can apply a few bandages and somehow take comfort in business as usual?

In our globalized, corporatized, post-intellectual world, economic throughput and expansion have become more than shibboleths; they are now used as justification for horrendous abuses of people currently on this planet, for our rape of this planet itself, and for our violation of future generations. And deep down, we all know that there is no bandaid that will stop our bleeding, no small sacrifice that will appease the angry demons, no magic pill that will assuage our guilt and calm our psyches, and no middle of the road platitude or potion that will make it all better again so that we can go on in our quiet desperation.

Because deep down, we all know that business as usual is killing us.

Sincerely,

Rick Shea

[Rick Shea]

And, on a similar note, this was sent to the Courier today.

Dear Sir:

Richard Gwyn has missed the mark completely in attempting to analyze “our sudden environmental awareness” in Canada (“Why green became so cool,” January 31).

He attributes the change in public attitude to the idea that we humans are social animals, so that “(c)ombatting global warming is the ultimate collective cause.”

Global warming is only one symptom among many of a much larger illness on this planet. The other symptoms include resource depletion, record rates of species extinction, wars and other types of conflict, environmental degradation and pollution in many forms, high rates of poverty and illiteracy even in so-called developed countries, and a pathological preoccupation with materialism. That illness is, of course, human overpopulation.

We may be social animals but, as more and more people inhabit this planet, we demonstrate every day that each individual life seems to be worth less and less.

No, the real reason for the sudden and noisy jump onto the global warming bandwagon is that we humans wish to assuage our fears and minimize our own guilt for the many other ways we violate this planet. In typical human fashion, we are trying to avoid the really hard decisions and put off the really difficult solutions as long as possible, because it might mean giving up some of our toys, having to acknowledge that freedom comes with responsibilities attached, and admitting that our current way of life is destroying us and the planet.

So Canadians latch on to the issue of global warming, not because they really care about saving the planet and about how serious the issue truly is, but because they are somehow soothed by latching onto the sexy, media-hyped, celebrated cause of the moment.

This is avoidance-driven groupthink at its finest.

Sincerely,

Rick Shea

[John Zeger]

Recently the mayor of San Diego called for reductions in annual carbon emissions in that city by means such as allowing only cleaner burning fuels there. A reporter in the San Diego Tribune was quick to point out that any such reductions would be quickly negated by continued population growth.

[Rick Shea]

Sent to the editor of the local paper today.

February 2, 2007

Dear Sir:

In the current fashionable fuss and furor over greenhouse gases, the focus and fixation on personal automobile use and personal transportation would be humorous if the issue wasn’t so serious.

According to the U.S. energy administration, the largest producers of greenhouse gases, by a huge margin, are industrial, residential, and commercial activities. Even when factoring in GHG emissions from trucking, railroads, air travel, and other modes of transportation, transportation fuels only account for approximately 15 percent of total emissions.

Yet all we seem to hear about in the media are proposed new transportation taxes, increased fuel taxes, penalties for those who drive gas-guzzlers, subsidies for hybrid cars, and so on. Noticeably absent are concrete proposals to penalize commercial and industrial polluters, energy producers (even the nuclear and hydroelectric energy providers produce a significant amount of greenhouse gases in construction and fuel extraction and processing activities), and anyone else other than ordinary citizens.

As usual, the largest sacrifices, and the brunt of the cost, will be borne by us, the people.

Heaven knows that we wouldn’t want to cut into the perks of our politicians, corporate executives, or any other members of the global aristocracy. And we certainly wouldn’t want to cut into the profits of global corporations, or risk harming our economy in any significant way. It is, after all, all about money.

So, whatever you do, do not adopt a “buy local” policy, so that the trucks and ships can continue to travel thousands of miles to bring us produce. Definitely do not take our politicians and corporations to task for continuing with policies and practices that place the economy above the wellbeing of the planet. But do take comfort when you pay inflated prices for everything, including fuel, that you are helping to cure the problems created by lack of government foresight, by corporate greed, and by an economic system that will continue to ensure that the rich get richer.

Don’t worry, be sappy.

Sincerely,

Rick Shea

[nick]

Without a basic change of attitude, and a considerable degree of sacrifice, at the individual level we will not defeat this threat to our planet.

[Rick Shea]

And that is the main point.

Global warming is an extremely serious issue and must be dealt with, but it is not the biggest threat to us and to the planet. The biggest threat is our attitude and how we treat this planet and each other in general.

Unless we change in a fundamental way how we think and what we do, one of the many other ways we threaten this planet will surely get us.

Personally, I don't believe that's alarmist or extremist. I believe that it's a reasonable prediction based upon past and present experience with the arrogance of our species.

[John Zeger]

The important subject of global warming and climate change has finally been getting the attention it deserves, most recently in Premier Gordon Campbell’s throne speech and the overnight greening of Prime Minister Stephen Harper. However, despite the fact that this subject is now fully in the political spotlight, we should not be lulled into thinking that global warming is the sum total of our environmental problems and that solving this problem is enough. Global warming is only the tip of the iceberg that forms such problems, the root cause of which is human over-population and over-consumption.

Even if as a species we successfully halt and reverse the trend towards global warming, we will still continue to face dilemmas such as diminishing agricultural land, water, and other natural resources, problems which will become exacerbated as our numbers increase. This is because, as many experts have said, even at our present global population we are already exceeding our carrying capacity, the capability of our environment to sustain us.

In the weeks and months ahead we will be told that if only we address the problem of global warming that our growth can continue unabated and our well-being will be assured. We will be told that our salvation lies in “green growth” characterized by compact development, conservation, cleaner burning fuels, energy efficiencies, LEED certified construction, and more. While all of these measures are necessary, they in themselves are not sufficient to solve our critical global environmental problems without a concomitant curtailing of human population growth on this planet.

We have repeatedly been exhorted to think globally and to act locally. If we are to take responsible steps towards stabilizing our numbers as a species, such change must come from all levels of government including the local level. We cannot wait for the initiative for population control to come from central governments, but rather should take positive action towards global sustainability now by limiting our city size.