Global Warming: A Missed
Opportunity
After seven years of gradually attracting the necessary signatories, the Kyoto Accord on global warming went into effect on February 16. A commitment to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in the developed nations, the accord required ratification by nations accounting for 55 percent of greenhouse emissions. Why did it take so long to ratify the accord? The delay was due to the refusal of the U.S.to sign on. Who is the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases? The U.S., of course. Of the developed countries, the only other holdout was Australia. The staunchest U.S. ally in the Iraq war, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, is taking a completely different tack on the global warming issue, becoming a champion of resisting climate change and pressing the U.S. to sign on. The reason given for U.S. refusal was that the restrictions would hurt the American economy. One can wonder at an economic system in which the supreme goal, often the only one, is to turn over the production of goods and services as efficiently as possible and thereby accumulate the maximum quantity of wealth. In such a system, measures are voluntarily pursued which are known to bring poverty, illness, and international conflict, as long as they help the economy. Of course, historically the wealth has been accumulated by the elite, while the suffering has fallen to the masses. Now the game is changing, however. When “boosting the economy” results in environmental destruction, the wealthy suffer along with the poor. We are locked into an economic system and a largely unexamined cultural framework which work against our own well-being. Is there no way out of it? Some years ago, E.F. Schumacher wrote in Small is Beautiful about a concept he called “Buddhist Economics.” Unlike conventional economics, which is directed toward economic efficiency (producing the maximum amount of goods and services at minimum cost), it would seek to maximize certain indicators of quality of life. These indicators need not be subjective, like level of happiness, for example. Rather, they would be measurable quantities like longevity, literacy, educational level, incidence of various diseases, and the like. From this perspective, it is absurd to argue that clean air would be a nice goal, but not so clean that it hurts the economy--that is, dollars are more important than lungs. We need to change our way of thinking. We need to look at the way we do things as with “newborn eyes,” not taking anything for granted, but seeing everything as if for the first time. We need to say to ourselves, “Suppose I were a newly arrived alien from another planet, how would I assess the way humans do things?” In fairness, it must be acknowledged that something like global warming seems so abstract and so far into the future that it is usually passed over in favor of what are seen as more immediately pressing issues. Scientists point out that average global temperatures have risen about one degree (F) in the last century. It seems ludicrous to concern ourselves with such an insignificant rise—until we are told that a single degree is already ten percent of the difference between our present climate and our last ice age and that the emissions from our industrial society are now raising the temperature at an exponentially higher rate. It is also often thought that predictions of specific effects from global warming have not yet been demonstrated and that more research is needed. In response, the part of prudence has always been to prepare for the worst and be ready to be happily surprised rather than to risk disaster unprepared. Furthermore, although it is difficult to demonstrate specific effects, more and more evidence is accumulating that harmful effects of various kinds will probably follow, even if precise predictions are uncertain. For example, a study based on a computer model of the kind used to predict weather indicates that global warming will worsen air pollution in the temperate zone by increasing the prevalence of temperature inversions. A normal temperature profile at the surface of the earth shows a linear decrease in temperature with altitude. As a result, warm exhaust gas rises as it finds cooler air surrounding it and is thus flushed away from the surface. At night, however, the surface cools more quickly than the air above it, with the result that a layer of warm air lies above cooler air, a condition known as a temperature inversion. Under these conditions, rising exhaust gas encounters a layer warmer than itself and remains trapped under this lid. Fortunately, the inversion normally dissipates with the warmth of the sun, but not always rapidly nor fully. An important mechanism for clearing the inversion, at least in the temperate zone, is the movement of convection currents carrying warm air from the tropics to the poles and replacing it with cold air. This large scale flushing away of polluted air is powered by the temperature difference between the hot and cold zones. The study showed that global warming would slow that process down. The Kyoto Accord will not solve the global warming problem, but it is generally understood to be a meaningful first step. It has shown that nations can come together and see their own interest in the common interest, that they can deal constructively with a threat which will harm all equally. It would have been a golden opportunity for the nation which is responsible for consuming the most fossil fuels and producing the most greenhouse gases to weigh in with the rest of the world community. Unfortunately, it was an opportunity missed. Dom Roberti |