|
|
|
Facing the "Inconvenient Truth" Why Policymakers Need to Address Global Warming Joanna Friedman While walking along Nassau Street, I passed by a shop window with a sign declaring “let it snow!” Given that it was January and I was strolling outside in a t-shirt, I couldn’t help but agree. I often joke that I suffer from seasonal affective disorder – except in reverse: I get depressed in hot, sunny weather. You would think that someone who grew up in Texas (where the heat index can exceed 100 degrees for months on end) would be accustomed to sweltering heat. I suppose I am somewhat acclimated to such temperatures but that doesn’t mean I enjoy them. When I came to Princeton almost four years ago, I was excited at the prospect of witnessing a sizeable snowfall every winter and building snowmen taller than a foot high. For the most part, I haven’t been let down; however, this winter season was different: it’s been a disappointment for me, probably a welcome change for others, but certainly an aberration for us all. To be sure, we’ve seen (or felt) warm years before. From a global perspective, the warmest year on record is 1998 (well within the memory of the current student body) but 2006-2007 is on track to become the hottest period yet. If we analyze climatic data country by country, we encounter some fairly startling results. For instance, 2006 was England’s warmest year since 1659. I’m guessing that no one living almost 350 years ago contemplated the possibility of global warming. Today, however, the topic increasingly pervades popular culture. Perhaps the most notable example is Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth (released in 2006), which propelled the threat of global warming into the spotlight (incidentally, the companion book of the same title reached #1 on the New York Times bestseller list on several weeks). But one hardly needs to keep abreast of documentaries or PBS nature shows to be reminded of global warming’s palpable effect on public opinion. The other side of the debate is well represented, as evidenced by the recent South Park episode, “Two Days Before the Day After Tomorrow”, parodying the alarmist view of environmental activists with respect to the dangers posed by rising global temperatures. One wonders if even young kids watching “Ice Age” and “Ice Age 2: The Meltdown” are now vaguely aware of the importance of climatic change in the adult world. It seems that in this era of widespread political apathy (at least compared to the tumultuous 60s), one of the few issues that does spark our interest is the weather – the often mundane, yet universal, staple of polite conversation. Few people would contend that mankind’s actions have left no mark whatsoever on the earth’s climate. Rather, the heated debates (pun intended) tend to center on questions like “to what extent is the current situation a product of normal historical temperature fluctuations?” or “what, if anything, should we (whether as individuals or governments) do to abate greenhouse gas emissions?” Many of you might be pleased to learn that the Princeton Environmental Institute has a project aimed specifically at finding ways to capture CO2 emissions: The Carbon Mitigation Initiative. While most of the scientific community concurs that global warming exists and that it stems largely from human-induced pollution, political circles reveal a different story – one marked by vocal opposition to the theory of anthropogenic global warming. Progressively minded citizens might (understandably) remain pessimistic about the future given that we live in a nation where swaying the administration to acknowledge a connection between pollution and global warming often seems harder than pulling teeth. It is not far-fetched to presume that many individuals are cynical and/or bitter about Bush’s intentions. The president may be well into his second term but his Texas oilman persona does not fade easily. Perhaps President Bush has been “soft” on global warming because he didn’t wish to antagonize powerful supporters (and friends) in the fossil fuel and auto industries. Lamentably, Bush is not the only leader facing scrutiny for failure to recognize the empirical data suggesting that harms are real. Australia’s Prime Minister was under attack because he refused to admit a connection between the country’s drought (which the New Zealand Herald dubbed the “worst [in] 1000 years”) and global warming. The drought has reached such epic proportions that the Premier of Queensland announced that the state will incorporate recycled sewage into the population’s drinking water. In case you were wondering, Australia, like the US, did not ratify the Kyoto agreement. Although the controversy surrounding global warming is likely to continue indefinitely, there is some reason to be hopeful for change in the near future. President Bush recently met with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and assured her that he is “committed to promoting new technologies that will promote energy efficiency and do a better job protecting the environment.” The president added that he believes there is “a chance now to put behind…the old stale debates of the past”, referring to disputes between the US and the European Union on the Kyoto Protocol. Of course, there is an age-old dichotomy between rhetoric and action. Bush’s remarks may ultimately amount to nothing more than hot air. Still, in light of the Democratic Party’s midterm success, one can reasonably conjecture that Republicans are now willing – if only out of necessity – to confront the problem of global warming. Should Americans expect a 180 degree turn in the conservative stance? Not quite, but achieving a higher degree of energy independence will almost certainly prove more and more crucial as the years go by (look for this matter to resurface in the 2008 election). After all, therein may lie a key solution for posterity insofar as the US can gradually wean itself off of fossil fuels. Governments are sometimes perceived as slow-to-react behemoths, but regardless of this reputation, the average person can take immediate and proactive measures, whether through replacing old light bulbs with more efficient fluorescents, carpooling or riding public transportation, turning off heaters and air conditioning units when not at home, etc. These are hardly novel ideas (and the list of specific, run-of-the-mill recommendations could go on ad infinitum) but they speak to the collective action problem that exists at virtually all levels of society – from the individual who doubts that his behavior alone will yield a tangible effect, to the international community where leaders hesitate to cooperate because they know that unless they can secure commitments from other governments, they will impair the competitiveness of homegrown industries. But how long can the collective action problem persist given changing public opinion and growing interest? In 2006, ABC News conducted a survey and found that 85% of Americans believe that global warming is occurring. Meanwhile, a paper in the journal Geophysical Research Letters calculated that estimates of temperature increase by groups such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may have been underestimated by almost 80%. Most Americans are probably unfamiliar with findings published in a journal of the American Geophysical Union, but they do hold opinions on global warming and it seems that those opinions are now, more than ever before, out of sync with the views of Bush and many other Republicans. Barring the existence of an infallible oracle, it is impossible to predict the precise effects of global warming. Policymakers can, however, make informed decisions and should not presume that because we cannot definitively answer certain questions, taking action is unwarranted. Although bizarre weather patterns (such as the unseasonable warmth here in Princeton) may not appear particularly daunting at first glance, they call attention to the variable and fragile nature of the planet’s ecosystems. We are reminded of this truth on a daily basis as more news stories crop up, detailing environmental damage that stems from rising temperatures in every corner of the earth. On January 5, 2007, Reuters reported that the largest lake in China is on course to disappear within the next two centuries and that glaciers on the nearby Qinghai-Tibet plateau lose an area equal to double the size of Beijing’s downtown district each year. Environmental changes like these never occur in a vacuum – they affect life forms in myriad ways and therefore cannot be dismissed. Rather than treat the expansion of tropical diseases, increase in sea level and flooding, decline in agricultural productivity, and species extinction (to name a few potential effects) as doomsday scenarios, it is in everyone’s interest to allay problems that transcend political boundaries before we find ourselves in a situation that could prove impossible to remedy. Joanna Friedman is a senior in the English department. |
| Send us a comment via email. |
|
|