Why I’m Green
Whilst I have written on occasion for the Red Team on TalkClimateChange, I am predominantly a Green Team writer – generally believing that environmental concerns should be at the forefront of our agenda. With increasing population and consumption I believe that we are driving down a cul-de-sac, blind to the consequences of our reckless use of the finite resources that support us.
That said, I don’t support blanket environmentalism either. I frequently support the blue point of view, based on the understanding that principle can rarely be put before practicality. Many of us enjoy unprecedented standards of living, have long life expectancies and enjoy more leisure time than ever before. The social and economic systems that have provided these benefits are as fragile as our climate and our transition to a low carbon economy must be carefully managed.
With this in mind, I much enjoyed fellow TalkClimateChange writer Daryl’s story “Red, Green and Blue - Living Together in Me” in which he echoes many of my sentiments, with one exception:
That’s correct, it [manmade climate change] does not exist - the minuscule change in global temperature is insignificant to the planet and to the climate in particular. To even think that we can somehow pick our climate and control the patterns of storms and floods by regulating a gas created or consumed by every living thing on the planet is so amazingly arrogant that it defies explanation.
At the risk of demonstrating the arrogance that Daryl talks of, and incurring the wrath of my learned friend in the process, I would like to set out my opposition to this statement and explain the principles at the root of my green attitudes:
I’ll take each of the specific points in Daryl’s statement in turn:
The miniscule change in temperature is insignificant – Yes, insignificant in that a half of one degree may not sound like a big deal. But in terms of the sensitivities of climatic systems to changes in global temperatures, together with the subsequent dependencies of ecological systems upon our climate these small shifts are a big deal. And yes, the temperature has changed before, but not at a time when 6 billion people were living on the planet, whose infrastructure and way of life were heavily dependent on certain sets of climate parameters.
It’s not about picking our climate – Right, I’d like a balmy 30 degrees for 9 months a year, followed by 3 months of cold fresh snow for Christmas and Winter sports, but unfortunately we will never be able to control a force of nature as strong as our climate. What we can do is influence the rate of change by reducing the vast quantities of greenhouse gas that we currently pump into our atmosphere. The principle here is not so much of control, but of reduction in negative influence.
By regulating a gas created or consumed by every living thing on the planet – “CO2 is not a poison, it’s plant food” is a favourite climate skeptic expression. It’s also very true, except that it conveniently ignores the greenhouse effect - the physics of which are easy to understand: increasing concentrations of CO2 increase the infrared opacity of the atmosphere, reducing the amount of heat which can escape into space. Yes, most of the CO2 in our atmosphere is a result of natural processes, but there exists a delicate natural balance between CO2 producers and consumers. The ever increasing rate at which we are releasing additional CO2 through the burning of fossil fuels has resulted in a 31% increase in its atmospheric concentration since the dawn of the industrial era, upsetting the natural balance and accentuating the greenhouse effect.
Ready for the backlash
Skeptics may easily pour scorn over these assumptions – citing research criticizing the physics of the greenhouse effect based on studies of the upper troposphere, citing temperature patterns which demonstrate anomalies in our climate patters unexplained by contemporary climate models, and disputing current global temperature measurements.
We could stay up all night to argue each specific point, conceding and gaining ground on each individual issue. However, the breadth of the topic and the range of scientific disciplines that it encompasses are such that no one person can claim to fully understand the complete truth, and it is for this reason that I believe a more macro level approach to its analysis is required.
Therefore, my position on the green side of the fence is based on the following three key principles;
Dependence – We are critically dependant on our climate. The production of food, the design of housing, the availability of land and the flow of water are all dependant on our Earth’s weather patterns. The level of this dependence is not always absolute, but is such that accommodating the changes required to mitigate shifts in our climate will be expensive and slow to implement.
Exploitation – Extracting billions of tons of material from the ground, burning it and releasing its stored carbon into the atmosphere, whilst simultaneously exploiting every natural resource on the planet to the limit in order to feed a global society that has ever increasing consumption as a core objective cannot continue indefinitely without consequence.
Management – The processes by which we manage our environment are at best inconsistent and at worst fundamentally flawed. We consistently pander to narrow interests, fail to take a global view, and have little concept of the future when making important decisions concerning the future of the resources that sustain us on this planet. This has to change.
Closing thoughts
Am I an alarmist? Am I ignoring important facts? Am I naive? Am I too gloomy? Or am I just plain wrong?
Well I am almost certainly not 100% correct – nobody is – but based on my best judgment these principles provide enough reason to take action and make changes.
The real debate, of course, is on the precise nature of these changes and our path towards them. Managing this change may be the most complex undertaking of mankind to date, and with so much at stake it is arguably the most critical. It is for this reason, that TalkClimateChange enjoys the views of those such as Daryl who approach the problem from different angles, challenge our assumptions and critique our proposals.
The criticality of the situation deserves such debate, and the proposals and beliefs stated on this website are much stronger for it. But I still think Daryl is wrong about global warming..
Before Daryl jumps in here I’d like to say one thing.
Mark, that was the most eloquent article coming from your side I’ve ever read. Well done!