HOME
Message Board
CURRENT COLUMNS
- Editor's Corner
- Blogfest 2005
- Commentary
- Commentary Too
- Down The Middle
- Faulking Around
- Global Warning
- This guy walks into a bar...
- Investing 101
- Faulking Opinions
- Off The Rail
- Words
ARCHIVES
LINKS
CONTACT US
 | |||
Global Warning - Dec 22, 2011 - Printable Version
- IT’S A BIRD! IT’S A PLANE! IT’S…
Hell, I don’t know what it is!
by Robin Buckallew
Over the past week, the news was full of the fact that we now have a climate treaty. Governments met in Durban, South Africa, and hammered out a historic treaty, and we are now on track to do something about those nasty greenhouse gases. (Stop me if you’ve heard this one before). News headlines were excited, enthusiastic, rah-rah about the new treaty. We did it! Or at least our delegates did it…they put aside their differences and ironed out the pesky wrinkles of this new treaty in a marathon last minute session, going without sleep to make sure things were just right. And now we all can breathe easier knowing our fearless leaders are on the job. They’ve come through, at great personal sacrifice, and saved the day. So, just what was in this treaty, anyway? Well, you remember the “historic” Kyoto Protocol, with its tiny emission reduction goals and lack of substantial bold action? You do? Well, this treaty wasn’t Kyoto. You remember Copenhagen, which gave us a non-legally binding treaty “historic” lack of goals or targets? Well, this treaty wasn’t Copenhagen. You remember Cancun, with the “historic” treaty that finally brought developing nations on board…or not…and finally got the US and China to agree to reductions…or not? Well, this treaty isn’t Cancun, either. In fact, this treaty is…the sound of one hand clapping.
The newest, latest “historic” climate treaty agrees that in 2015, nations will get together and set binding emissions reduction targets to go into effect in 2020. Break out the champagne, everyone, curfew shall not ring tonight! We’re finally doing something…or so I’m told by the countless breathless news articles, which manage to stick the actual details of the treaty several paragraphs down, where they’re pretty sure only a handful of stubborn climate wonks such as myself will bother to read. The rest of the world can go blissfully about their business, knowing that someone is watching their back, and the climate change thingy is now fixed and everything’s good. OK, got Christmas shopping to do, time to go to Wal-Mart. We can drive the SUV today, because the climate change thingy is all over. They fixed it in Kyoto…no, wait, it was in Copenhagen…or was that Cancun? Oh, I remember now, it was Durban…or Berlin…or Beirut…or something like that. Anyway, it’s all OK now, so I’ll meet you at the Blue Light specials.
Yes, I’m being cynical. Yes, I’m being angry. Yes, I’m being bitter. I think that is the only appropriate response, and I don’t intend to pretend otherwise. Meanwhile, in other news, we are informed that Canada just pulled out of Kyoto, on the pretext that they would be facing a huge fine next year when they hadn’t met their goals…except they wouldn’t. There wouldn’t be a fine. Oh, and since the United States and China aren’t on board, it doesn’t really matter anyway, because if the biggest polluters aren’t playing, then pollution reductions by everyone else are simply irrelevant. What? That is…well, ridiculous. First of all, the US should be part of Kyoto, and I sympathize with those who are trying to do something and resent the fact that we aren’t. I don’t blame them. That is no excuse to stop themselves; no, it’s an excuse to gloat and act self-righteous and lord it over us because you’re doing something. Except they’re really not doing much, and that’s why they’re pulling out. Interestingly, if you look at the per capita figures on emissions, it’s ironic to note that, since 1997, the US per capita emissions have decreased, while Canada has increased. And there are 11 countries that actually emit more per capita than the US; but because they have such small populations, they are way below us in the percentage of total emissions.**
Meanwhile, in poll after poll, global warming (or any other environmental issue) fails to show up as a concern of the public at all. Polls show also that the percentage of the public who accept that the data shows the globe is warming and that humans are causing it has decreased dramatically over the past few years. We continue to demand cheap gas, not clean fuels, and the current Congress continues to slash budget items, with science and energy slashes right at the top of the wish list. Mass transit has also suffered a severe hit, and there is little likelihood that we will see any major change in that at least through the next election cycle. After all, climate doesn’t win elections. Cheap gas does. Which do you think the current crop of incumbents would rather focus on? Yeah, me too.
Unlike other eternal optimists, I have no rosy view that we are going to iron this out and get something in place in time…if there is still time. Michael Mann thinks there is still time; James Hanson isn’t so sure. That’s the problem. We don’t know for sure. There is no crystal ball, no psychic power, no spirit channeling behind climate science; it’s all models and probabilities, and the best we can do is give you a range of estimates and a possibility of time scales. Until we can pinpoint it exactly, where we can say on December 13, 2013, the globe is going to warm by 1°C, and the next day yield on the corn crop is going to drop by 20%, we won’t get anyone’s attention. And we will never be able to say that, at least not until it has already happened. Science doesn’t deal in absolutes; we can’t point to the sky and say it will betray us on a particular day at a particular time. In addition, the changes are not immediate; they are gradual, so we don’t notice them. Oh, we might notice that it’s warmer now in general than it was when we were kids; but it isn’t noticeably warmer than it was last year, so it sort of seems all right, mostly. We’ll worry about that when it’s happening.
It’s happening. The globe has already warmed 0.4°C in the past 30 years; temperatures now are warmer than at any time in the last millennium, according to NOAA. It’s happening, and we haven’t noticed it, and we aren’t worried. Because it happened over 30 years, not overnight. This isn’t like that awful movie, The Day After Tomorrow, where everyone suddenly woke up to a glaciated world. This is real life, and real life is much messier than that. And humans have an amazing capacity for ignoring the inconvenient until they are forced to acknowledge it. We notice a Hummer driving up our tailpipe (unless we’re preoccupied with our cell phone); we notice a burglar in the house. We don’t notice a slowly increasing temperature, and by the time we are forced to notice, it will almost certainly be too late. The time to act is now…actually, the time to act was 20 years ago. Instead, we’re saying we’ll act in 4 years…when we’ll get together to draft yet another “historic” climate treaty. Will this one do something? My guess would be no…unless sea level has already risen sufficiently to put the Ground Zero monument underwater and threaten the beach homes of the rich and oblivious. Of course, at that point, there may be little we can do except adapt.
When I read the articles about the new treaty, I knew why we won’t solve this problem. We won’t solve this problem because it took a group of countries 60 hours of non-stop negotiation to agree to meet again in 2015 to try to draft a treaty that will take effect in 2020. We won’t solve this problem because countries like Canada will use the indefensible non-action of a couple of other countries to defend their own indefensible non-action. We won’t solve this because the United States is more interested in everything else than in dealing with climate change. We won’t solve this because we think any problem that is complicated is impossible, and therefore unworthy of our attention. We won’t solve this because it doesn’t involve the Kardashians, or Charlie Sheen, or Lady Gaga, or Snookie. We won’t solve this problem because we’ve decided not to. It’s really that simple.
**Figures based on fossil fuel burning only; land uses not included.
Voice your opinion on our message board (you don't have to sign up to post).