Global Warming, Here and Now
Sometimes we are too focused on statistics and discount rates, on climate patterns and economic costs of Kyoto, to pay much attention to what’s happening in our midst, especially among the most poor and vulnerable. I’ve mentioned the precarious nature of some Pacific islands on numerous occasions. But how many of us, fed on a diet of Britney Spears and OJ Simpson, pay any heed to what’s going on in Africa at the moment? Both east and west Africa are facing a devastaing crisis, the worst floods in a generation, affecting the lives of over a million people. In northern Ghana alone, 300,000 people have been forced to flee from floods. A Ghanaian official noted that entire villages have been wiped off the map. Hundreds of thousands more in Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, and Sudan are also affected. And of course, harvests have been lost, and outbreaks of cholera and malaria seem inevitable.
Is the greater prevalence of extreme weather patterns evidence of global warming? Of course, this is the murkiest area in the whole climate change debate, but the evidence seems to answer in the affirmative. The latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) drew attention to the consequences of rising temperatures being felt in the here and now, and named Africa as one of the most vulnerable areas. Too often in this whole debate, we tend to be short-sighted and insular. Why worry about global warming when last winter was so cold, when there were so few hurricanes this summer? Unfortunately, global warming affects the whole world, not just the small part that the US media cares about, and (as noted by the Stern review), the most vulnerable will pay the greater price. They already are.
I believe that the reluctance to take policy actions, surely justified on a probabilistic analysis (given the huge downside should the consequences of global warming be realized), reflects a basic unwillingness of a materialistic society to countenance any sacrifice in present consumption. Surely, we need to take a long-term view, and a global view.
Well said, MM! Since Vox Nova is featuring more and more movie trailers and videos, maybe you can post a link to an older flick which I think was called “The Long March,” though it’s not popping up on IMDB. It tells the story of a group of Africans marching toward the fortress Europe in an attempt to escape the dire lack of any economic opportunity whatsoever. If somebody were shooting a long march today, climate change and its impact might be the key motivation to march north, trying to move to precisely those countries that bear the responsibility for this climate change. Not that economic opportunities in the South have improved all that much, but if we thought that living on a dollar or less a day was bad, having whatever little assets you had being swept away or dried up is even worse. Time to open our doors – are we ready?
It is generally regarded as the duty of the conservative to have no heart, just as it is the duty of the liberal to have no brains, so let me go ahead and be the ogre who asks: Doesn’t the phrase “worst flooding in a generation” suggest this does indeed happen with a certain regularity, say, every generation?
Let me emphasize, I am not saying we don’t have a duty to stewardship towards the environment, both at the small level (not driving a more gas guzzling car than necessary) and at the large level (switching from fossil to nuclear fuels for power production).
But attributing every weather-related disaster to human-caused global warming (especially in situations where it’s moderately clear that what we’re seeing is simply a low frequency event that happens with a certain regularity) is precisely the sort of highly unscientific thinking which makes people suspicious that global warming agitators have primarily political motives.
MM,
I agree with you about the likelihood of global warming, the potentially drastic consequences of its continuing unabated, and the main reason for dismissing concerns about it.
I think another reason for the dismissal by many on the right and by many Catholics is that they see the environmental movement as enemies – people who want to impose immoral family planning practices to limit population growth to protect the environment and who use one environmental “sky-is-falling” story after another for their political benefit (although 30 years of green politics have scarcely actually paid off for the democrats in the US). Because of the antipathy towards some strains of environmentalists, however, too many Catholics and conservatives neglect our own traditions of environmental stewardship and material sacrifice, just as dislike of Marxism leads them to ignore (or at least minimize) the traditional social teaching of the church.
I will say, along with what DarwinCatholic has said, that when Al Gore attributed Hurricane Katrina to global warming, I was highly sceptical, and I have the same concerns about other such claims. After all, climate is such a complex thing to model. At the same time, one does wonder about the confluence of so many problems.
Somewhat Eurocentric, so I don’t know how it applies to Africa, but from the Wall Street Journal:
“After the 2002 floods of Prague and Dresden, Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder all argued that the floods proved the need for Western governments to commit themselves to Kyoto. Mr. Lomborg agrees that global warming increases precipitation. Yet to the extent that more precipitation has already increased river flows, it has done so largely in the fall, when rivers are at low levels and there is little risk of flood. Truly bad floods have historically accompanied colder climates, since plentiful snow and a late thaw produce ice jams that block rivers and produce high water levels. These sorts of floods have in fact decreased in the 20th century, at least in part because of global warming.
….
While we’ve had fewer floods in the 20th century, the floods we do have get more attention because of the huge economic losses that now accompany them. The losses have nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with the ever-growing numbers of people who migrate to flood-prone areas.”
http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110010597
It strikes me as imprudent to look at the situation in Ghana and claim that the moral response here for us is to reduce carbon emissions instead of directly giving these people aid. This entire situation was caused by rainfall. Rainfall. As you said yourself, the connection between rainfall and global warming is tenuous. Rainfall is going to happen anyway. Shouldn’t we work on addressing the results of rainfall, directly, instead of global warming, which is at best an indirect long-term intervention?
Are you all following what is going on with the Arctic sea ice levels? Basically, the northwest passage is open (free of ice) for the first time in history. Bottom line: “the ice-covered area is currently around 3 million sq km, which is about 1 million sq km less than the previous minimum levels recorded in 2005/6. Over the last ten years the sea ice coverage has shrunk by around 100,000 sq km per year, so a drop of 1 million sq km in just one year is an enormous change.” Source: http://www.bensaunders.com/archives/2007/09/17/northwest-passage/.
How much is the lifestlye of overconsumption really worth?
MM,
Don’t you mean the NW Passage is open for the first time “in RECORDED history”? ABC (Australian) news used the phrase “fully navigable for the first time since monitoring began 30 years ago”. Big difference.
The other respondants here (DC, Zak, AP) are evidence of a much more measured response to this. Like them, I agree that addressing relief to those in areas stricken by disasters is a moral obligation where possible. But I suspect the real reasons why things are made to appear so bad in the media are:
1) Desire for a “good story”;
2) Fact that environmental news is now ‘news’, so we feel like it’s happening more now, when in fact it’s just that we’re hearing about it at all that’s new;
3) Denser human populations in disaster prone areas (flood plains, coastlines, fault zones) result in higher human and economic costs than previous similar events would have;
I agree with you that we need to take a more long-term and global view to mitigating the effects of climate change, even if (as I believe) it is more a result of natural cycles than anthropogenic influences. But to say countries don’t act because they are unwilling to reduce consumption is too simplistic. Far more likely is simply the fact that people and societies tend not to act until the threat is imminent to themselves — it’s simple inertia, unfortunate but not sinister. I am certain you don’t mean to imply that the US is ‘unique’ in being this ‘materialistic society’ that won’t do what it ‘should’, else why do China and India insist that they should be exempted from carbon limits while the West should pay?
RM
It strikes me as imprudent to look at the situation in Ghana and claim that the moral response here for us is to reduce carbon emissions instead of directly giving these people aid.
Why not do both?
Katerina–
Why would you respond to the situation in Ghana by reducing emissions if we don’t even know that the two are connected? If you read the whole paragraph that was written instead of exerpting a sentence and throwing in your unproven assumption that the two are connected and you will understand why it appears that American Papist would not think it necessary to do both.
I think bringing up China and India is a distraction. The US taking the initiative on climate change is leadership. When Bush wants to do something that most Americans and most foreign countries disagree with, then he says he’s leading – not paying attention to polls or a narrow view of national interest. But when limiting our consumption through a carbon tax (something that’s supported even by the libertarian and long-time global warming sceptical editors of the Economist) and other measures comes up, suddenly, we’re crippled unless we act multilaterally. Well China and India won’t take big steps until the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases and consumer of oil takes significant action, and an energy bill filled with subsidies for oil companies isn’t exactly the action needed. Price carbon-based energy at the proper level (reflecting the added costs from climate change and the geopolitical insecurities that result from the distribution of oil and natural gas reserves around the world) and suddenly alternative sources of energy are more attractive, innovation is spurred, and people will find ways to use less energy. You also then have a chance of convincing others to do so too.
Actually, there is a reason for bringing up India, China and the third world — though it’s not necessarily an excuse to do nothing in the meantime. Although the US and Europe are currently the largest greenhouse producers, thats partly because they are by far the world’s largest economies. When you look at the emissions per billion dollars in GDP, you see that the US and Europe are already the worlds most efficient economies in regards to greenhouse emmissions, while areas with the highest emmissions per billion in GDP are Africa, China, parts of South East Asian, India, and a few regions of South America.
Two things add to this. First off, dirty technology is much cheaper and easier than clean technology. We know this, because the US and Europe went through that phase as well. Even in our own country, it’s the poor folks driving thirty year old Buiks who often have the highest “carbon footprint” while some Yuppie with his hibrid of TurboDiesel burns a third the gas to go the same distance.
The other element is de-foliation. The US and Europe are generally stable or adding foliation, but there’s still massive clearing going in on developing nations.
So it’s all very well to clean up our act here, and we should. (Hint: driving a hibrid only saves you a few gallons over driving a standard sub-compact — but 20% of our CO2 emmissions come from power generation, and switching from coal and natural gas to nuclear would make a huge difference.) However, if we were really to be serious about reducing future CO2 emmissions, we’d be telling the undeveloped world to stay undeveloped — which obviously is a major problem in regards to justice.
That’s why I think that some of the most interesting research to be done out there has to do with CO2 reclamation and consumption rather than simply turning lights off or buying a Prius.
Darwin– Europe is far ahead of the US on energy efficiency. Also, your comment about “staying underdeveloped” tells me you need to read the Stern review. I know it’s a convenient argument (I get to keep overconsuming and develop the rest of the world too) but when the effects of global warming it, it will be the least among us that bear the brunt.
Just to be clear — I’m saying that it would not be just to tell the developing world to stop developing, and that is why it may be necessary to sit tight and see how serious (and how human caused) the warming trend turns out to be, and also put more work into reclaiming/consuming CO2.
We should absolutely be more efficient (and indeed, it will show that the environmental movement is serious when it gets over its hate of nuclear power) but we should also be clear that even extreme care on the part of the developed world will barely make a dent compared to the CO2 output of four billion more people wanting in to the modern age. Even if we in the US abandonded technology entirely and lived in caves, the industrialization and defoliation of the developing world would still continue to increase CO2 output.
First Things had a post on this today – http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=853.
All you need to know about the latest First Things pile of manure can be found in the following sentence: “though the potential negative consequences of global warming are worthy of serious consideration, they need to be put in the proper perspective of the potential benefits”. Now I get it. In other words: we are the elect, we can do to the earth as we please. And note also the subtle theological mockery of recent Vatican statements. First Things seems more Calvinist than Catholic sometimes– on war, on economics, on global warming…