A few news stories don’t make a trend, but it seems as if
the mass media are misreading some short term trends to present a more
optimistic view of our future on earth than we really face.
Much of the news media has covered the news that the average global temperature has failed to rise over the past 15 years,
despite the soaring levels of greenhouse gases we have been pumping into the
atmosphere. While no reporter has quoted
Desi Arnaz yet, the tone of the articles could clearly be captured by his stock
phrase, “Lucy, you have some 'splaining to do.”
The argument that treading water for 15 years disproves or
calls into question the theory of human-induced climate change is absurd for
several reasons. First of all, the earth is still much hotter than it was 150
years ago, much of the icecaps have already melted and we still have
dangerously high levels of carbon dioxide in our oceans. And while the average temperature on earth
may have remained the same over the past 15 years, some parts of the earth have
grown warmer, including the United States and most of Europe and China.
Secondly, those who only look at the last 15 years make the
mistake of trend localization: They are judging changes that take centuries on
the basis of a few years. The earth goes through natural cycles of warming and
cooling. Most phenomena act that way—the stock market doesn’t go up every day
even during a raging bull market and children don’t grow the same amount every
month or even every year, but grow by spurts. The important question is whether
the average temperature on earth would be lower during the current cycle
without the impact of all that additional carbon we are generating. I’m betting
the answer is yes.
There is also the issue of the complexity of life on earth—our
ecosystem comprises a number of cycles and smaller interlocking ecosystems.
It’s possible that the earth has made a partial adjustment, but if we keep
burning fossil fuels at the current rate, sooner or later, the earth will
become less flexible. The increase in drought areas, the thriving of
jellyfish in the oceans, the extinction or threatened extinction of so many
species—so much is happening that tells us we have to change our ways or risk
destroying our planet. By all means, scientists should continue to study the
models that predict global warming. But we shouldn’t use a misinterpretation of
short-term facts as an excuse for keeping our heads in the sand about climate
change.
One environmental challenge—and I see it as the main one—is
the sheer number of human beings walking the planet, about seven billion right
now. It’s very convenient to ignore population control. The religious issues
aside, most economists and politicians love an increasing population because
it’s an easy way to grow the economy and they are addicted to growth. Any
campaign to stabilize or reduce the population requires a plan to address how
an economy may thrive without growth—in a solid state or even shrinking. My
idea of thriving clearly doesn’t mean “growing bigger” but rather producing a
high quality of life and economic opportunities for all its members.
Like the end of easy oil, reaching a population level that
is unsustainable is the unspoken fear. It’s the elephant in the room that no
one wants to talk about. Many people,
then, must have breathed a sigh of relief to learn the news that the standard
forecast for population growth may be too high.
But like the report of a stable temperature over 15 years,
“not as bad as” still doesn’t mean “good.” Instead of predicting that the world’s population will reach 10.9 billion by 2100, the latest statistical model says our population will peak at 8.7 billion by around 2055 and then decline to 8 billion by the turn of the next century. The models are based on the theory that as
nations develop their citizens have fewer children. It’s a corollary of the
idea that animals follow one of two reproductive strategies—have a lot of
offspring and pay them no attention, or have a few and put a lot of energy into
helping them to survive. In human terms, when people get wealthier, they tend
to have fewer children. The experience
of Europe, the United States (except our immigrants) and Japan seems to support
this idea.
The only problem is that even our current population of
seven billion is too high. Half that amount is too high. The earth cannot carry
so many humans on a long-term basis. We use too many of the earth’s
non-renewable resources and leave too many messes in our wake. And imagine if
most of the world raised its standard of living to the levels of Japan or
Western Europe—they might produce fewer offspring but each person would be
using a lot more resources!
I doubt that we will be able to formulate an adequate
response to global warming and resource shortages without lowering the
population on earth substantially.
Historically there have been three ways that human
populations have decreased: war, famine or epidemics. Let’s hope that instead of riding these three
horses of the Apocalypse, most countries will instead decide to pursue
aggressive policies to reduce our population in a more peaceful way: birth
control. More people must make the decision to have one child in their
lifetime, be it by following a new social norm or a draconian law.
So don’t believe that there’s good news about global warming
and populations trends. These recent optimistic news reports are the equivalent
of learning that you won’t die in six weeks, but in eight weeks—if the trends
stay lucky.
No comments:
Post a Comment