Three atoms—one carbon and two oxygen—bond to create a molecule that
has defined an era: the age of industry. In the last 150 years, carbon
dioxide emissions have soared as we have grown reliant on fossil fuels
like coal, natural gas and oil.
Sea levels are rising, crops are
failing and diseases like malaria are spreading as the planet chokes
under a heady cloud of man-made carbon dioxide.
This chart maps 150 years of carbon dioxide emissions. CDIAC/Statista
According to data released by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Carbon
Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC), humans have pumped more
than 400 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere since
1751. About half of this total, the CDIAC reported,
was released from the late 1980s onwards. The use of solid and liquid
fossil fuels—sources like coal and oil—produced about three-quarters of
the total. In 2014 alone, burning fossil fuels and creating cement
released about 9.9 billion tons of carbon dioxide. This level was an
all-time high.
After more than 30 years in operation, the CDIAC closed its doors last
September. Its data has since been exported to a number of other
centers, including the NOAA’s Ocean Carbon Data System and the California Institute of Technology.
An oil refinery produces petroleum and gas. Christopher Furlong/Getty Images
This year already, scientists have warned about melting Arctic ice, extreme weather facing the U.S., and the collapse of marine life. French President Emmanuel Macron advocated for a transition to a “low carbon” global economy last week when he addressed members of the U.S. House and Senate.
“I believe in building a better future for our children, which
requires offering them a planet that is still habitable in 25 years,” he
told the audience. “Some people think that securing current industries
and their jobs is more urgent than transforming our economies to meet
the global change of climate change. I hear these concerns, but we must
find a smooth transition to a low carbon economy.”
His words came
in sharp contrast to those of President Donald Trump, who has vowed to
take the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement.
The U.N. will meet in Katowice, Poland at its Climate Change Conference (COP 24) in December to try and address some of the problems of climate change. Experts are currently discussing policy options and technological innovations in Bonn, Germany, in advance of the meeting.
A chunk of ice falls from the
Perito Moreno Glacier at Los Glaciares National Park, near El Calafate
in the Argentine province of Santa Cruz, on March 10, 2018. AFP/File / Walter Diaz
A NASA program that cost
$10 million per year to track carbon and methane, key greenhouse gases
that contribute to global warming, has been cancelled, a US space agency
spokesman said Thursday.
The end of the program -- called the
Carbon Monitoring System (CMS) -- which tracked sources and sinks for
carbon and made high-resolution models of the planet's flows of carbon
-- was first reported by the journal Science.
"Now, President Donald Trump's administration has quietly
killed the CMS," the report said, describing the move as the latest in a
"broad attack on climate science" mounted by the White House.
The
journal said NASA "declined to provide a reason for the cancellation
beyond 'budget constraints and higher priorities within the science
budget.'"
It also quoted US space agency spokesman Steve Cole as
saying there was no mention of the CMS in a budget deal signed in March,
which "allowed the administration's move to take effect."
Cole,
responding to a request for comment from AFP, said Trump proposed
cutting the CMS project and four Earth science missions last year.
After
much deliberation, Congress decided they wanted those four space
missions to be funded, writing them into the budget bill they passed in
March 2018, he said.
But since CMS was not among them, it was cut
as proposed, Cole said, describing the entire process as a joint effort
by lawmakers and the executive branch.
Existing grants would be allowed to finish but no new research would be supported, he said.
Trump
has already announced the US pullout from the 2015 Paris climate
accord, a deal signed by more than 190 nations to slash polluting
emissions from fossil fuels.
Cole told AFP that Trump has proposed
cancelling another Earth science mission, the Orbiting Carbon
Observatory 3 (OCO-3), for next year, though it did receive funding for
fiscal year 2018.
According to Kelly Sims Gallagher, director of
Tufts University's Center for International Environment and Resource
Policy in Medford, Massachusetts, the CMS cuts jeopardize efforts to
verify the emission cuts agreed to in the Paris climate deal.
"If
you cannot measure emissions reductions, you cannot be confident that
countries are adhering to the agreement," she told the journal Science.
Canceling the CMS "is a grave mistake."
Cole,
however, said in an email that the "winding down of this specific
research program does not curb NASA's ability or commitment to
monitoring carbon and its effects on our changing planet."
"In fact, GEDI, a new ecosystem carbon-monitoring instrument, is set to launch to the International Space Station this summer."
The effects of climate change are inextricably entwined with health:
WHO estimates 7 million deaths from breathing polluted air indoors and outdoors;
Impact of weather-related natural disasters;
Negative effects on crop yields and food security;
Changing patterns of vector-borne diseases;
The shaping of social and environmental determinants of health.
2018 marks 10 years of the UK's 2008 Climate Change Act, which mandated reduction of UK carbon dioxide emissions by 80% by 2050 to 1990 levels, and legislated an independent Committee on Climate Change.
The effects of climate change are inextricably entwined with
health: ranging from the WHO estimate of 7 million deaths from
breathing polluted air indoors and outdoors; through the impact of
weather-related natural disasters; negative effects on crop yields and
food security; and changing patterns of vector-borne diseases; to the
shaping of social and environmental determinants of health.
2018 marks
10 years of the UK's 2008 Climate Change Act, which mandated reduction
of UK carbon dioxide emissions by 80% by 2050 to 1990 levels, and
legislated an independent Committee on Climate Change.
Internationally,
this past decade saw completion of the first phase of the Kyoto
Protocol, the establishment of the 2010 Green Climate Fund, and the
adoption of the 2015 Paris Agreement within the UN Framework Convention
on Climate Change, collectively setting national and international
targets towards mitigating the effects of climate change.
Building
on local, national, and international progress to turn climate change
policy into public health actions maximises cobenefits for health.
Local
authorities and health professionals have already cooperated for many
years in the UK: climate change legislation is a common and shared
interest, but these groups must engage in stronger partnerships and
dialogue.
There is bureaucratic complexity in national government
cross-departmental sharing of policy—including key players from the
Departments of Environment, Food, & Rural Affairs, Transport,
Health, Business, and Energy & Industrial Strategy—but such sharing
is essential for effective results.
The Climate Change Act and
accompanying committees facilitate this, and there is support from
health professionals, seen in the work of the Lancet Countdown and the UK Health Alliance on Climate Change.
Pressing
challenges for UK policy makers exist around the interlinked policies
of travel and air pollution.
From the lack of joined up infrastructure
to quantifying the impact of health-related travel in the UK, health
needs to be better embedded into decision making.
For example, although
individual-level public health advice has long been to undertake more
active travel through walking and cycling, urban planning and rural
infrastructures are widely variable, traffic safety is frequently poor,
and levels of outdoor air pollution are dangerous.
Air
pollution policy is at a crossroads.
The UK Government is in the final
stages of developing a new draft clean air strategy that would bring the
1956 and 1968 Clean Air Acts up to date.
An environment act, which is
yet to be drafted, is also being precipitated by the UK's 2019 departure
from the European Union, and has the potential to influence local and
national land use, industry output, agriculture, and urban planning.
Government departments need the support of the health community to link
these initiatives and to keep health firmly on cross-departmental
agendas.
Internationally, new data
published on May 2 by WHO reporting the air pollution levels in 4300
cities found that nine of ten people globally are breathing polluted air
(defined by WHO as exposure to small particulate matter of 2·5 μm or
less in diameter [PM2·5], in concentrations higher than an average mean of 40 μg/m3).
WHO data should be used to inform policy to support cross-sectoral
solutions for transport, land use, urban housing, and energy
infrastructure.
Against this backdrop, WHO has called for health to be
the top priority for urban planners—with more than half of the world's
population already living in cities.
In China, the urban population is
expected to reach 71% by 2030, bringing a host of urban health
implications.
The Tsinghua-LancetCommission on Healthy Cities in China: unlocking the power of cities for a healthy China
recommends addressing urban planning, calling for better integration of
health into all civic policies, and the integration of multisectoral
policies.
The recommendations have universal importance and should be
read and acted on by all those with responsibility for urban health, and
are not limited to China.
Cooperation and sharing of goals, targets,
and measurements across diverse sectors will support effective action on
climate change—especially environmental pollution.
Climate
change legislation is a central concern across government at all
levels, and is not solely about the changing climate, but is embedded in
public health policies.
The Climate Change Act plays an important part
in the UK, and can continue to act as a beacon to inform other
countries' national approaches within the Paris Agreement framework.
Health professionals have a responsibility to influence and contribute
to policies at local and national levels that demonstrate commitment to
public health, as this will define how future societies take shape
around our world.
CleanTechnica - Kurt Lowder
Did the title anger you or make the
hair on the back of your neck stand up? Does it seem foolish or careless
to make that statement since people could become complacent about
climate change?
Perhaps. However, this article is not so much about definitively making this statement, but to question if maybe soon we should.
Of late, I feel increasingly confident that environmentalists will be able to make that claim soon. A few experts, like Tony Seba and Ramez Naam, are starting to make this claim. I have been weary of it, but increasingly I think they are right.
Why? Because the exponential growth of renewable energy and energy
efficiency would require an act of war to stop it. Wind, solar, and
batteries are all dropping in price with no sight in end. Additionally,
self-driving electric taxis are just around the corner, meaning
eventually we will need 80% fewer cars on the road.
Moreover, I think it is likely that,
to be effective environmental advocates, at some point we have to start
saying something like, “We will prevent catastrophic climate change.”
Why? Because many people for their own sanity have to ignore the fear
caused by climate change to simply get through their day. On the other
hand, many are desperate for a “Yes, we can!” attitude.
As a refresher, allow me to give an
example of how quickly renewable energy prices have dropped. I began
following solar closely in 2014 when people across the world marveled
how the record low price for a solar farm fell below 6 cents per kWh. In
November 2017, the record low fell to 1.77 cents per kWh.
This project is not yet built, but is on its way. I almost feel like a
ticker tape parade is in order for solar dropping below two cents per
kWh. It was only a few short years ago that I saw mainstream projections
that this feat would not occur until 2050.
At least in the USA, we have a large
number of people who do not think climate change is real or think that
it is something minor and there is no urgency.
Roughly speaking, the rest of the
population thinks climate change is real and, generally, many have an
understanding that it is very serious. Nevertheless, some large portion
of those people have become fatalistic. They feel there is nothing they
can do about it, and for their own sanity, they choose to ignore it.
These people are potential early adopters, but they feel they cannot
make a difference to this massive calamity.
The human mind evolved in small
hunter-gatherer groups of fewer than 150 individuals. The human mind is
not meant to handle 24/7 global news. Most people are struggling to just
get through their daily lives and are simply not equipped to take on
the challenge of climate change. The drumbeat coming out of the
environmental community is that if things to do not change, civilization
is likely to collapse — that’s hard to deal with.
My hypothesis is that if we begin say
something like, “We will prevent Catastrophic Climate Change,” two
important things will happen. First, over time, the deniers will become
less intense and dogmatic in their opposition to renewable and energy
efficiency. Solar and wind power have high approval numbers, but most
people have no idea how much the price of these technologies have fallen. This message can help them to learn that.
Surprisingly, many deniers are all
for renewable energy if it is not subsidized. Frequently, they just shut
down when you try to explain externalities or fossil fuel subsidies to them. We might consider not even bringing up climate change to them. We might just instead focus on convincing them of the economic benefits of wind and solar along with the health benefits. To open their mind, it is crucial to state that subsidies for these technologies will soon come to an end.
The second thing that may happen is
people who do believe in climate change but are fatalistic about it can
finally begin to be active in supporting the solutions to climate
change. Even if they start out small, they can collectively make a large
difference.
We really only need a few more early
adopters for climate change solutions until they reach the point where
they become overwhelmingly the best economic decision to make
everywhere.
For example, maybe you cannot
convince someone to buy an EV, but maybe you can convince them to
refrain from buying a new car anytime soon, because EVs will be very
cheap in just a few short years. Of course, automated electric taxis
will be available soon and they an affordable, safe, and enjoyable
method of transportation.
I think it is important that
environmental activists spend some time out of our echo chambers. At
times, we tend to be angry and self-righteous about our understanding of
climate change. I think in many ways we need a “keep it simple, stupid”
mentality.
Too often, I try to win the argument.
Having to be right is a character defect of mine that gets me in
trouble far too often. It is an easy mistake to fall into when
considering the horrors that climate change present.
I think we need to be humble in our
environmental advocacy. It is a misconception that being humble means
being weak. Confidence is actually a part of humility. Soon, or even
now, I think we need to confidently state, “We will prevent catastrophic
climate change. Moreover, our efforts to do so will greatly increase
our standard of living.”
Throughout history, an inspiring lesson is often repeated. Societies
that face difficulties often surpass those that do not. Take the Aztecs
for example, who were forced to settle in the unwanted swamps of
Mesoamerica because that was the only territory that was available to
them. To grow enough food, they built artificial islands
called Chinampas, which floated in the swamp and in effect watered
themselves. In facing this adversity to survive, they had to innovate.
In the end, they became the most dominant civilization in their region —
in large part because they had to face this big challenge.
Think about how well Europe rebuilt itself after being decimated in WWII.
The whole world is coming together to face this challenge. Our linear
minds dictate to us that we are behind schedule, but we are catching up
fast. While environmental degradation is sad, I am in absolute awe of
our understanding of it and the efforts made to prevent it.
Jane Goodall in her book Hope for animals and their worldquoted
the maxim: “While there is life, there is hope.” The book details how
so many brilliant minds are working tirelessly to save our Earth. I
often watch this video clip when I need a resurgence of hope, and a reminder that we must have hope to succeed.
Almost every climate scientist agrees human-caused climate change is a
major global threat. Yet, despite efforts over the past 30 years to do
something about it, emissions keep increasing.
Any successful coordinated international response will require action
from businesses. However, some organisations, especially those in
sectors that significantly contribute to environmental degradation such
as the oil industry, seem rather reluctant to embrace the challenge.
Those climate initiatives they have embraced were more often than not
prompted by litigation risks or enforced by governmental policies rather than a result of an intrinsic “green” commitment.
This isn’t the impression the industry likes to give off, of course,
and it’s no wonder oil companies’ statements on corporate social
responsibility and environmental reporting tend to highlight their
greenest side. Yet the fact these documents give the oil firms the
opportunity to construct their own narrative means they are a useful source for my research in applied linguistics.
When a huge volume of language is analysed, features and patterns can
emerge that would be invisible to the casual human reader.
My latest study
looked at the “climate change reality” constructed by oil industry in
its corporate reporting, what language was used to create this reality,
and how this changed over time. This sort of analysis of language is
important. Language not only mirrors the social world but acts as a lens
through which objects, situations and people are given meaning.
Features and associations that are foregrounded can point to some level
of significance, while what is kept in the background or not mentioned
at all can highlight a lack of interest.
‘Climate change’ or ‘global warming’? ‘Fixable problem’ or ‘unavoidable risk’?Giorgiogp2 / NCDC, CC BY-SA
This is why I used corpus-linguistic tools – essentially, using a
computer to analyse vast amounts of text for certain patterns – to
investigate nearly 500 corporate documents produced between 2000 and
2013 by major oil companies (including all the big names). This
comprised some 14.8m words published in corporate social responsibility
and environmental reports and relevant chapters in annual reports.
That’s a lot of words – roughly equivalent to 25 copies of War and Peace.
Using software program Sketch Engine, I looked at how frequently the key corporate terms
“climate change”, “greenhouse effect”, and “global warming” were used
in each year to reveal how patterns of attention changed over time.
My analysis shows that the most frequently adopted term in the
studied sample is “climate change”, while other terms such as “global
warming” and “greenhouse effect” are rarely used. The preference for
“climate change” and near absence of “global warming” reflects patterns
observed in public and media discourse, too.
The use of the term “climate change” experienced peaks and troughs
over time, with most mentions between 2004 and 2008, and fewer and fewer
mentions since 2010. Less attention to climate change in public debates
and overt anti-climate change attitudes on the parts of some
governments in recent years might have contributed to the decline in
attention given to climate change in corporate reporting.
The rise and fall of ‘climate change’ (frequency per million words).Sylvia Jaworska, Author provided
I then looked at words used alongside “climate change” to gather
clues as to the company’s attitude towards it. This showed a significant
change in the way it has been portrayed. In the mid-2000s, the most
frequent associated terms were “tackle”, “combat” and “fight”, showing
climate change was seen as a phenomenon that something could be done
about.
However, in recent years, the corporate discourse has increasingly
emphasised the notion of “risks”. Climate change is portrayed as an
unpredictable agent “causing harm” to the oil industry. The industry
tends to present itself as a technological leader, but the measures it
proposes to tackle climate change are mainly technological or
market-based and thus firmly embedded within the corporate world’s drive
for profits. Meanwhile, social, ethical, or alternative solutions are
largely absent.
It seems that climate change has become an elusive concept that is
losing its relevance even as an impression management strategy. The
proactive stance of a decade earlier is now offset by a distancing
strategy, often indicated through the use of qualifying words like
“potential” or “eventual”, which push the problem into the future or
pass responsibility to others.
In doing so, the discourse obscures the oil sector’s large
contribution to environmental degradation and “grooms” the public to
believe that the industry is serious about tackling climate change.
From turgid battle cries to hypocritical spokesmen, it’s no wonder they turn so many Americans off.
Illustration:
Phil Foster
Politicians, bureaucrats, activists, scientists and the media have
warned Americans for decades that the Earth is headed toward climate
catastrophe.
Yet surveys consistently show that less than half of U.S.
adults are “deeply concerned” or “very worried” about climate issues.
If, as Leonardo DiCaprio insists, climate change is the “most urgent
threat facing our entire species,” why do a large percentage of
Americans not share his fear? Climate crusaders tend to lay fault with
nonbelievers’ intransigence.
But this is its own form of denial and
masks the real reason: poor salesmanship.
The promotional efforts of the climate catastrophists have
lacked clarity, credibility, and empathy. These are the cornerstones of
effective persuasion.
Successful advocacy campaigns use lucid names to
frame and sell their issues—“living wage,” “welfare queen” or “death
tax.” Climate can be confounding; it is long-term weather, but
environmentalists chide anyone who dares call it that.
Since Earth’s
climate is always fluctuating, the word “change” muddles it with
redundancy. Swapping between “climate change” and “global warming”
confuses the public.
A good battle cry can rally the troops, but
the Paris Agreement’s aim is “to strengthen the global response to the
threat of climate change by keeping a global temperature rise this
century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to
pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5
degrees Celsius.”
That is a far cry from “Remember the Alamo!” And
Americans are always turned off by the use of metric units. In the U.S.,
Toyota wisely markets the 2018 Prius’s fuel economy as 52 miles a
gallon, not 22 kilometers a liter.
American TV audiences bought Carl Sagan’s explanations of how the universe works because of his obvious
scientific expertise. Bold statements about complex systems are always
more plausible when they are made by people with impeccable credentials.
As a Harvard sophomore, Al Gore received a D in a natural=sciences course. Mr. DiCaprio dropped
out of high school in 11th grade.
The rank hypocrisy of many of
the environmental movement’s superstars also alienates potential
followers. Messrs. Gore and DiCaprio lead lavish, jet-setting lives. It
is hard to heed Tom Steyer’s demand to ban offshore oil and gas drilling when Farallon, his
hedge fund, invested hundreds of millions of dollars in coal mining.
Climate change activists tend to be aggressive advocates, but
over-the-top selling doesn’t sway people who are undecided. This is as
true for political surrogates attributing society’s ills to the other
party’s candidate as it is for green activists linking all manner of
extreme weather to climate change.
Scientific impropriety has
triggered a popular backlash against the climate change activists.
The
hockey stick chart, Climategate and questions about the integrity of
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration climate data have all
fueled public suspicion. Only 39% of Americans believe climate
scientists can be trusted a lot to give full and accurate information on
causes of climate change according to Pew.
Failed forecasts
diminish believability. A Wall Street firm with multiple wrong market
calls would lose clients. The actual rate of warming has come in below
what climate models projected, casting doubt on future calculations.
Likewise, claims that anyone can precisely estimate what global average
temperatures will be decades from now don’t pass muster with the average
person. There are currently no betting odds for Super Bowl CX in 2076
or S&P 500 futures with December 2099 expiration dates.
The
burden of proof in the climate debate lies with those claiming rising
temperatures stem primarily from human activity and not other factors.
While the prosecution may feel it has a winning case, the jury’s verdict
is what counts.
Labeling dissenting jurors “deniers”—an insidious
association with Holocaust denial—is a losing courtroom strategy. Most
people are naturally disinclined to obsess daily about a phenomenon that
started long before they were born and won’t reach fruition until long
after they die.
It’s true that almost all climate scientists
believe human-caused global warming is real. Similarly, American adults
understand that expert opinions can change or turn out to be
spectacularly wrong. Think of the recently overturned consensus on the
link between egg consumption and coronary heart disease, or the reports
during the 1970s that a new ice age was imminent.
Against this backdrop,
calling skeptics “anti-science” is counterproductive, especially since
skepticism is the essence of the scientific method.
From
2006 to 2016, China increased its annual carbon dioxide emissions 37%
while America’s yearly output decreased far more than any other country.
In the Paris Agreement, China pledged to begin reducing emissions
around 2030, meaning it can spew even more greenhouse gas for years to
come. The U.S. vowed to reduce its 2025 emissions by 28% from 2005
levels.
Yet questioning if the accord is fair to America or will
forestall global warming is reliably met with sanctimonious scorn.
My
advice to the activists is this: you will attract more supporters to
your cause if you can pick a name and stick with it, create a clear call
to action, enlist a convincing spokesman with a small carbon footprint,
tone down the alarmism, and fix the computer models.
Most important,
listen to the doubters, don’t lambaste them.
*Stewart Easterby has worked as a sales executive for three publicly traded technology companies. Links
The doubters and believers aren’t even talking about the same thing.
Some global warming is caused by Jupiter. But most of the blame belongs on the third rock from the sun. Source: Universal Images Group, via Getty Images
As scientific terms go, “climate change” is failing.
Good terms are
specific, descriptive and help people to understand complex concepts.
Climate change is ambiguous, referring perhaps to the most pressing
human-generated environmental problem of the century, or to other kinds
of changes that happen through natural forces and have been going on
since long before humans arose.
Last
week I chatted with Columbia University paleontologist Dennis Kent
about some new work he and his colleagues published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
about the surprisingly big influence of Venus and Jupiter on the
climate of Earth.
The gravitational tug of the second and fifth planets
from the sun act to stretch Earth’s annual orbit like a rubber band,
pulling it into a more oblong ellipse and then back to something very
close to a perfect circle over a cycle of 405,000 years. And that leads
to big changes in our climate – or the climate of whatever creatures
lived here.
The
ambiguity of “climate change” plays into the problems that a Wall
Street Journal op-ed identified last week in a piece headlined “Climate Activists Are Lousy Salesmen.”
This is science, not advertising, and the terms that scientists come up
with aren’t decided by public-relations experts using focus groups.
Most of the burden of explaining climate changes, past and present, has
fallen not to “activists” but to scientists, whether or not they have an
interest in or aptitude for persuasion. According to historians,
the same people who were fascinated by dramatic natural climate changes
were the ones to discover that burning up lots of fossil fuel was
likely to cause a short-term spike in the global temperature. The start
of that spike is already measurable.
Research on human-generated and natural climate changes are related,
and many of the same people still study both kinds in order to get a
better handle on where things are headed in the coming decades,
centuries and millennia.
Back
in the 19th century, scientists started to investigate signs in the
geologic record that dramatic ice ages had been occurring every 40,000
years or so, during which glaciers crept over much of the Northern
Hemisphere.
Eventually, they realized that these are driven by what Kent
calls an ice age pacemaker – the interplay between the tilt of the
planet’s axis and our planet’s distance from the sun. Those factors
change the way sunlight is distributed, concentrating more or less over
the Northern Hemisphere, where there’s more land and the potential to
build up glaciers.
Glaciers reflect sunlight, absorbing less of its heat
energy than dark surfaces would, which makes the cold periods colder
worldwide. Similarly, warmth releases carbon dioxide, which acts as a
greenhouse gas traps solar heat and amplifies warm periods.
Adding
to all this complexity is the subject of the new paper – a
405,000-year-long cycle caused by our fellow planets. Kent said that
basic Newtonian physics shows that Venus and Jupiter actually change
Earths’ orbit significantly.
At its most oblong, the long axis of the
orbit is five percent longer than the shorter one. During that more
oblong part of the cycle, the Earth strays farther than normal from the
sun (twice a year) and also flirts closer to the sun than usual (twice a
year). So other natural changes reach greater extremes – the ice ages
colder and the periods in between warmer.
What Kent and his
colleagues did was expand the record of those cycles by digging out
cores of Earth hundreds of feet long from Arizona and Northern New
Jersey. They used the natural clocks provided by radioactive materials
and signs of reversal of the Earth's magnetic field to figure out when
and how the climate changed. The cycles, he said, go back more than 200
million years, to the time when dinosaurs first appeared.
We are
currently in the rounder, more even phase of our orbital cycle, Kent
said, meaning the ice ages should be relatively mild. We’re also in
between ice ages and could go into a new one in a few thousand years,
though some think that human-generated global warming will be enough to
offset it.
And herein lies the confusion.
People hear "climate change"
and think, what’s the big deal? The climate has been changing for
millions of years. Or they note that scientists used to think we were
headed into another ice age. But the time scales matter. Fossil fuel
burning and other human-generated changes are likely to warm the overall
planet’s temperature by more than 4 degrees Fahrenheit over the coming
decades. The next ice age isn’t expected for a few millennia. That’s a
long time to wait for a potential cooldown.
One
could distinguish the current, more rapid climate change by calling it
"anthropogenic climate change," but that term makes people trip over
their own tongues, so it’s understandable that people shorten it.
There’s also the term "global warming," which is a little more
descriptive, but scientists say it fails to capture changes in rainfall
patterns, wind and currents that go along with the general trend of
warming.
The Wall Street Journal piece was right about a sales
problem. It’s too bad there isn’t a catchy term or acronym — such as WMD
or GMO — to describe the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
from fossil fuel burning, deforestation, domestic cattle and other human
activities.
The complexity of climate science may always be at odds with the simplicity that's key to inspiring action.
Remember
the hole in the ozone layer? It was more of a thin spot, but in the
1980s, that dramatic term may have helped spur a global movement to
reduce certain pollutants staved off disaster.
It's too late to
prevent anthropogenic climate change, or unnatural climate change, or
global warming -- call it what you will.
But it isn't too late to slow
the warming, and perhaps even reverse it. If only someone could sell the
idea.
*Faye Flam is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. She has written for the
Economist, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Psychology Today,
Science and other publications. She has a degree in geophysics from the
California Institute of Technology.
