Man, Nature, Henson, and Kolbert
My perception of climate change has experienced a tremendous evolution this semester – both from the multifaceted social issues I learn about in my environmental public policy class, and from the unique perspective of nature I have been gathering through this class.
I really liked the Henson piece because it was so informative, and it filled in a lot of the holes of knowledge I still had about the topic of climate change. Henson begins with a discussion on the development of public thought toward climate change in the 1970’s and 1980’s. A culmination seemingly occurs in 1985 and 1988 with the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole and occurrence of a massive drought in Middle America respectively. As in many major events in human history, the world needed a wake-up call (or two) to get the ball rolling in its acknowledgment of a global warming predicament (as opposed to a global freezing problem). Because the metaphorical fire alarm can’t drone on forever, however, the problem of global warming has receded and surfaced and ebbed again within the consciousness of human society. We make a big deal out of “finding solutions to the crisis at hand,” but most modern lifestyles are dependent on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases for energy! Henson mentions this dilemma when he discusses the “shallow” support for climate-change action, and reluctancy to forgo the luxury provided by carbon-based products for energy efficiency.
Henson also spends a significant amount of time considering the viewpoint of global warming skeptics – a position with which I have a difficult time sympathizing. After reading his discussion, however, I thought the addition of counter-views of global warming made Henson’s argument stronger. What was most shocking to me, however, was the extent to which some people will go to deny even the possibility that we are endangering the earth with greenhouse gas emissions. After the release of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, Henson explains how the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) created TV ads with the running tagline: “Carbon dioxide: They call it pollution. We call it life.” Additionally, he presents the general arguments of skeptics as mainly prioritizing the economy ahead of the environment. And the diversity of skeptics’ arguments is really interesting as well: from economic benefits of non-action, to the influence of solar variation, to excess carbon dioxide “feeding” plants, to Michael Crichton.
Henson also notes the lack of creative literature devoted to “exposing” climate change. I have never even considered this seemingly massive hole in social protest, and am curious why there has not been a larger movement from poets and playwrights and novelists. On the other hand, per the topic of our course, there have been several types of art media and photography and “projects” promoting respect of the natural environment. After a succinct, yet descriptive discussion of climate change issues, Henson ends on a hopeful note. Like him, I hope that interest in the climate crisis will continue, and with the U.N. Climate Change Conference fast approaching, I hope there will be a focused, cooperative push for global solutions.
After reading Henson’s overview of sorts, I moved on the Kolbert – a very entertaining read in my opinion. The observations she makes really drew me into the visceral reality of what climate change really means to the people who literally see it every day. In the chapters we read from her book, Kolbert smoothly transitions from first-hand experiences in the Arctic to personal interviews with political figures that are directly shaping the global “fight” against global warming. What’s more, the perspectives she offers are very personalized. She demonstrates the minutiae of consequence that we will see on a much larger scale if we allow the progression of global warming to continue. Like Henson, Kolbert offers excerpts of history concerning the societal concern for the warming of the climate. In Chapters Two and Three, she mentions Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius and Keeling, who created the Keeling Curve of CO2 concentration over time. Essentially, although Keeling recognized the adverse effects of fossil fuel emission into the atmosphere, he predicted that the actual effect on our climate would negligible for quite a while – 3,000 years! BUT- at the rate we are going, Kolbert points out – we will double pre-industrial levels of CO2 by 2050 (2,850 years ahead of Arrhenius’s prediction).
During Kolbert’s experience at Swiss Camp, she follows Steffen and his studies of the ice in the Arctic. By 2003, she mentions, the average global temperature increase was so significant that 5 feet of ice were lost. Soon, her interactions with the local researchers suggest, there will be little ice left to study. She discusses the powerful metaphor (but shoddy science) evident in the movie, The Day After Tomorrow, and the interestingly delicate system of the thermo-haline circulation – of whose power over and relation to global warming I was not aware.
In Chapters Seven and Eight, Kolbert allows her readers to see more of the policy side of the climate change debate – how society is still able to run with a clean conscience despite glaciers melting in the Arctic and carbon dioxide emissions threatening an irreversible change in the average global temperature. She calls the manner by which our society functions, “Business as Usual” – the passive acceptance that “Yea, things are going to change, but I’m comfortable with my lifestyle, and I’m not willing to change that!” In a unique coincidence, my public policy professor discussed the theory of Socolow and Pacala in class the other day: the concept of “wedges” needed to mitigate the harm being done to the environment. Socolow and Pacala prescribe a strict adherence to the wedges system, or we undoubtedly pay for it later. The overriding message of Socolow, Kolbert says, is that “the longer we wait and the more infrastructure we build without regard to the emissions it will impact, the more daunting our task will be.” Our world has been working toward “decarbonization” for the past few decades, but we need to move faster.
Kolbert also discusses an interview she had with the George W. Bush Administration’s representative to the Kyoto Conference, of which the United States and Australia were the only two industrialized nations that rejected the protocol. In a year, she mentions, the average American produces the same greenhouse gases as 99 Bangledeshis – a disgusting fact. If anything, evidence like this should push the conscience of the United States closer to fighting the “war against climate change.” However, until we can maintain a political hold on the stability of our economy, I think the United States will be reluctant to accept the sacrifices that must happen in order for our country to significantly impact a decline of our carbon emissions. The problem that is beginning to emerge, however, is China: the largest (by far) emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, due to its rapid economic build-up.
In reading these two works (as you can probably tell by the length of this blog response) I experienced frustration at the “tragedy of the commons” that we experience when trying to confront global climate change and a deep concern for “where we can go from here…” I think there is great potential for artistic media to increase public awareness, and I think that there is a huge window of opportunity to begin a widespread effort of introducing alternative sources of energy. So many facets of our social reality play a role in the drama of global climate change – so many in fact, that we should be able to unite them in the fight to remedy this crisis, but the politics of our world are so divided that it will take a tremendous push for change to occur at the rate that is necessary.
Discussion:
1. After reading these articles, what reservations do you have toward the ability of global society to remedy global warming?
2. Why do you think people are so adamantly opposed to believing that there is a problem to begin with?
3. What can you do in your daily life to disrupt “business as usual?”
4. How do the people we have spoken with, the art we have seen, and the scientific developments we have learned about contribute to the “culture” of global climate change?