A Clear and Present Danger: Climate Change
In case you missed it, Paul Krugman had a brilliant column in the New York Times earlier this week about the reality of climate change and what the science is telling us.
A couple of paragraphs are especially worthy of attention:
The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even pessimists expected: ice caps are shrinking, arid zones spreading, at a terrifying rate. And according to a number of recent studies, catastrophe — a rise in temperature so large as to be almost unthinkable — can no longer be considered a mere possibility. It is, instead, the most likely outcome if we continue along our present course.
Thus researchers at M.I.T., who were previously predicting a temperature rise of a little more than 4 degrees by the end of this century, are now predicting a rise of more than 9 degrees. Why? Global greenhouse gas emissions are rising faster than expected; some mitigating factors, like absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans, are turning out to be weaker than hoped; and there’s growing evidence that climate change is self-reinforcing — that, for example, rising temperatures will cause some arctic tundra to defrost, releasing even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Temperature increases on the scale predicted by the M.I.T. researchers and others would create huge disruptions in our lives and our economy. As a recent authoritative U.S. government report points out, by the end of this century New Hampshire may well have the climate of North Carolina today, Illinois may have the climate of East Texas, and across the country extreme, deadly heat waves — the kind that traditionally occur only once in a generation — may become annual or biannual events.
In other words, we’re facing a clear and present danger to our way of life, perhaps even to civilization itself. How can anyone justify failing to act?
A “clear and present danger”–that’s a phrase we typically reserve for threats to our national security. And so it is here. Climate change, given the magnitude of its expected impacts, rises to that level. It threatens lives, property, our economy, and–as Krugman rightly observes–our “way of life.”
That’s the classic definition of a national security threat. More Americans need to understand this reality before it’s too late.
4 Comments
Comments are closed.
The danger is clear but it seems that despite the excellent efforts by Al Gore, Paul Krugman and not least the recent book by Nicholas Stern in his “Global Deal: Climate Change and the Creation of a New Era of Progress and Prosperity,” Congress is acting in ways that wil not get us to the necessary actions to effectively respond to the crisis we are facing. We need stronger legislation than is now on the table in Congress to be creditable in Copenhagen in December. President Obama will need to act quickly to strengthen not only the legislation but also our policy and push for new energy technologies.
Finally, we need to get the developing countries on board and this will require high level hands on efforts especially with China and India. We have very little time t6o do all of this!
Harry C Blaney III (FSO Ret.)
Senior Fellow
Center for International Policy
Former Special Assistant to the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality
Excellent comment, Harry. How much more do you think is achievable on the legislative front this year? Do you think there will be a vote in the Senate?
Jim and Readers,
The problem today (August 9, 2009) is that we may be seeing some push-back by the Republicans, right-wing climate change deniers, and some business interests in order to try to undermine the chances of a real deal in Copenhagen.
Our final legislation or follow-ons need stronger elements to provide the necessary “tools” for our delegation to carry off a final agreement that will do the job. It must do more than look good on paper,but has no chance of doing what is needed on a global scale to meet the challenges of what science is telling us we are going to face in the lifetime of this generation and beyond.
We (and I include the rest of the developed world) need to bring to the table a “deal” that can not be refused by the developing world. That includes more devlopment aid to attack poverty and not least the damage which rich nations pollution has done which will impact poor nations more than devloped ones.
The second deal is clearly sharing of environmental/energy technology on a large scale and as soon as possible. This would be a win win for both us and the developing world. Our technolgy and factories would supply the world with clean energy tecnology and put tens or even hundereds of thousands of Americans to work.
Finally, we need early on to undertake those efforts which will get us the greatest “bang for the buck.” This includes reforestation in the developing world, new low carbon energy generation, and energy conservation and better efficiency. Lord Stern’s book (which I will review in the Foreeign Service Journal in September) has outlined a strategy which details much of this and notes the high return economically and in terms of disaster prevention of this early intervention. We have been too modest in our goals and initiatives, perhaps partly due to the economic situation and partly fear of the push-back by conservative forces.
We need to energize key groups to engage with Congress, the media, and informed public to get them to accept a bolder appraoch. This means that the environmental, religious,scientists, national security and foreign affairs organizations will have to do a “full court press” as they have never done
before.
Harry C. Blaney III (FSO Ret.)
Senior Fellow, Center for International Policy
Apologize for my bad english, I deem its a gracious piece of your writing. Kind-heartedly I organize faced alot of difficulties in this condition but your article will definately help me in future. Offer You