Global Warming: A Pragmatic Perspective

Last week I wrote a fairly silly post (it's been edited, by the way,) so now I have to write a super-serious post. Sorry guys, that's just how it works. Actually, I figure that since I've applied to become a 'Residence Sustainability Coordinator', and because I've done more research and thinking since my last attempt on the topic, I've decided to try and tackle the subject again.

I'm not going to cover the causes or consequences of Global Warming in any detail, because there are many excellent resources out there that do a better job than I could do. There are a few disturbing consequences that I'd liked to share. First of all many ecosystems will not adapt well to increased temperatures. Marine ecosystems, and the humans that depend on them, will suffer because coral only lives at certain temperatures, and coral is a vital part of coastal marine ecosystems. If temperatures increase unchecked, the Arctic may disappear within our lifetime, and most of the animals living there will go extinct. According to the WWF, up to a million species could go extinct by 2050. However, global warming will also impact people. Droughts and hurricanes will become more severe and more frequent, and people depending on a declining ecosystem will suffer as well. I'm not listing these facts because I want to scare you, but because they seem to be the most compelling arguments to take action.

We should take three courses of actions to either reduce emissions or lower the global temperature. Even if emissions are stabilized now, the Earth will continue to warm for several centuries, so research should be conducted into effectively reducing current levels of greenhouse gases as well as reducing future emissions. This research is being conducted by companies and by governments. Companies perform R&D based on market research, and they sell technologies to other companies or governments, so they are not easy to influence. Governments, however, are supposed to follow the people's demands, so you should pressure your government into investing much more into research.

While company's R&D divisions are far removed from the public, their sales divisions are completely dependent on the public's actions. Therefore you should support companies that are reducing emissions and suggest improvements to companies that are not. A great book about how emissions can be cut drastically (by 90%) is called "Heat" by George Monbiot and is definitely worth reading for ideas. For instance, concrete produces huge amounts of CO2 and has many economical and eco-friendly substitutes. Also, supermarkets are hugely inefficient because everything is brightly lit and their food has to be cooled without cooling the entire store. Delivery systems cut out this waste and benefit both supermarkets and consumers. Suggest to other retailers that they follow Walmart's example and cut costs by cutting energy consumption. Getting companies to reduce their emissions is not hard to do, because the best ways to be green also save money, but would be possibly the most effective way to cut emissions.

The last course of action involves cutting our own emissions. We all know these actions because they're what most environmentalists talk about, but while many changes are not very hard to implement (I wrote about some of them on my other blog), major changes definitely are. I fly across the Atlantic four times a year, and so I have the choice of either never seeing my family or significantly contributing to Global Warming. Driving to work seems to be only acceptable method of transportation for the majority of people, even though this leads to smog and CO2 emissions. Is everyone that takes transatlantic flights or drives to work a horrible person? No, because it's the system that's seriously flawed, not the consumer. Whenever we buy anything, we don't calculate the value of the resources used, the labor that went into it, the profit that the company needs to make, etc.: it's all already included in the price we pay. The social and environmental damage is not usually included in the bill because neither the producer nor the consumer has to pay. There's no surcharge for the CO2 produced for what we're buying, and unfortunately there's no good system for adding that amount. A taxation system would be fiendishly complicated, and a rationing system (the other suggestion I've seen) would be unpopular and still complicated. Ultimately, all we can do is make sure there are no small changes we can make in our own habits, and focus on the other two courses of action mentioned above.

Global Warming is a serious problem, and our actions within this lifetime will have a huge impact on the following centuries. If we do everything that we can to address the problem, then I think that the most serious consequences can be averted, and eventually Global Warming will not be a concern. I also believe that we will avoid disaster because people are good and will do what is necessary. As we learn more about the consequences of Global Warming and how we can prevent it, the future can only look brighter, and I intend on having the best possible future.