Friday, June 02, 2017

We can't ignore climate change - or our role

The President, as Presidents can do, withdrew from an executive agreement signed by his predecessor.  OK, that's legal. It does not make it wise.
In the Industrial Age, we have poured 600 billion tons of carbon products and compounds into the atmosphere.  Now, the atmosphere weighs about 5.5 quadrillion tons, so it's not like we've replaced the whole shebang, but chemical reactions are tricky things.  Just as you cannot ignore 25 µg of LSD in your 80kg body (it will probably kill you), you can't ignore 400 ppm of carbon compounds.  We haven't had that much in hundreds of years, and climate scientists are almost universal in their agreement this is enough to be really, really scary.  It's not that 400 is a magic number that tips us into a pit of no return.  But as one JPL expert. Dr. Michael Gunson, puts it, "Passing the 400 mark reminds me that we are on an inexorable march to 450 ppm and much higher levels. These were the targets for 'stabilization' suggested not too long ago. The world is quickening the rate of accumulation of CO2, and has shown no signs of slowing this down. It should be a psychological tripwire for everyone." As another NASA expert, Dr. David Crisp, says,  (400ppm) "brings home the fact that fossil fuel combustion, land use practices, and human activities have increased the CO2 concentration in Earth’s atmosphere by more the 20 percent since I was born."
It's not a conspiracy.  There has never, in human history, been a situation where 95 percent (or so) of scientists in a given field were all in on a conspiracy.  A large majority of scientists can be wrong (see: continental drift), and the self-correction mechanisms of science work a lot slower and clunkier than we would like, but we're talking about decades of near-consensus despite bringing online more and more accurate tools and measurements without budging the needle one bit on the "consensus-o-meter." We're talking about research that's gone on long enough that a new generation of climate scientists has come in since the early alarms were sounded, eager to find new things, and what they found was the same thing - only worse.
We have to act.  Yes, some of the hand-waving about the magic of renewables is wishful thinking: we cannot change the global economy easily or painlessly.  Any time you see a headline like "Germany Ran On 100 percent Renewables Today" it's always a result of cherry-picked data. The task ahead of us is orders of magnitude harder than putting up more windmills.  But we still have to address it.  

One GOP Congressman said God will fix it. Le'ts talk about God for a minute. I believe in God, although I don't read the Old Testament literally.   God did do something: he gave us the brains to solve our problems if we muster the will.  
Let's take Exodus. Whether you think the flight through the Red Sea is literally true or is a story written to emphasize God's love for His people, the lesson is that same.  If Moses was going to get everyone across that sea before it closed in on the Egyptians, he had the sense to hurry, to leave behind possessions, to help the old and slow keep up, and otherwise to get organized really fast under pressure and execute the plan he needed to execute. If God wields the power He displays in parting the sea, it must also be true that He could have reached down, made the escape route permanent, and crushed the Egyptian army so Moses could take his time. But God doesn't do that: He creates just enough of an opportunity that Moses and company could take advantage of it if they did all they could for themselves.  They did, and we can do no less. A common Christian precept is "God has no hands but ours." We are entrusted with the stewardship over the planet and our fellow creatures, and no one is going to save them if we don't. 

The President is not entirely wrong when he says the U.S. is called on to do more sacrificing than most nations. We are. But that's because we have the means.  Just as the U.S. needed to take a leading role against the Axis in WWII, because we had the industrial might to do more than the outnumbered British or the conquered French, we have to take a leading role against this enemy.  In some ways, it's not fair.  But the facts on the ground don't change.  Those who can do the most have to do the most.  The President doesn't like the idea of the U.S. surrendering some sovereignty, but we are really not: as the accords are not binding, we can choose how much to contribute or how much to change. The other nations can't force us to, say, contribute $200 billion over the next whatever vs. $100 bliion (or $300 billion).   We can and msut take a leadership role, but we decide the details of that role.

Let's forge on. 

Scary graph from NASA


1 comment:

Laurence Clark Crossen said...

Really, the optimum CO2 content is 1000, so we are way below optimum. Every bit more is a "blessing." AGW is an example of liberal pseudoscience.