Global Warming as Global Distraction
I don’t doubt the earth may be getting a bit warmer (30 years ago we were predicting an ice age) but that probably isn’t that big of a deal in terms of the Earth (it may suck for a time, but, it probably doesn’t mean the end of our existence as I believe we will adapt.) The Earth has certainly been warmer in the past and it certainly has been cooler. Humans live in very hot areas and in very cold areas already, what’s a few degrees among friends?
However, I posit that global warming really is just a big distraction from the real problem, namely that we are polluting ourselves to death. Think about it, we can live in warmer areas, we can move north and inland, but you really can’t eat, drink and breathe stuff filled with toxins for all that long without some serious side effects. Just look at the effect on smaller predators who consume too much toxins. They get sick, their children get sick, etc. etc. You see it in humans already in the rise in cancer, auto-immune disorders, asthma, childhood allergies, etc. You see it in the lakes in NY that are now dead because of acid rain. You see it pretty much anywhere you go hiking in the lower 48. You see it along roadsides, in dumps, at the beach, everywhere you go. Worse yet, is the places you don’t see it: in your food, air and water.
Global warming, alas, is the least of our worries in the context of global pollution.
So, if all the global warming hype gets people to pollute less, that is good, I guess, but the problem is there is too much doubt around it and it is still too hard to predict the future. Pollution, however, is in plain sight everywhere you go and is easy to test for and easy to see the harm, whether it is aesthetic or not.
March 28th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Hi Grant
I agree that pollution is a problem, but you are over emphasizing the dangers. You have to reconcile your argument with the fact that human life expectancy has increased greatly this past century while pollution levels increased. Cancer, for example, is more prevalent since we are living long enough to get it — we are not dying from other things like polio. How can we tell the difference between an increase in cancer due to toxins, due to better detection, and due to not dying young?
You mention that we adapt to temperatures, but then you do not leave room for the biosphere to adapt to the pollutants. You also seem to be suggesting that roadside garbage and garbage that we see everywhere we go is the same as toxins. They are different beasts. If it is in plain sight, then we would not need to test for it.
Don’t get me wrong. I agree with you that we should fight pollution. I live in Sudbury, Ontario which has many lakes with varying levels of acidification that affect biodiversity. A few lakes are dead. Many are slowly recovering with great effort. The smelting here affected lakes all the way to North Bay. Soil erosion, from cutting down all the trees, and heavy metals in the soil are both problems here. The situation is improving, but more needs to be done.
I also think that the ends do not justify the means. Getting people to worry about the non-pollutant CO2 is not the way to go. Atmospheric CO2 is beneficial, and, as you suggest, the biosphere will adapt to any of its effects. When it comes to air pollution, people should worry about the real problems like real toxins that have a negative effect like sulphur dioxide and, more generally, smog. As well, worrying about fake air pollution will only distract people from other real areas of concern like soil and water pollution as you point out. We have to convince people to fight pollution not some phantom menace. Once more people figure out that AGW is a fraud, then they will be too skeptical of other ’scientific’ claims. We have to fight the misinformation now, so people remain focused on the real problem of actual pollution.
What would really help me is to know where the pollutants are coming from, so I can help by boycotting certain materials, products, or companies. Of course, that is difficult to prove. People mistakenly railed on DDT and many millions of people died from malaria as a result.
John M Reynolds
March 28th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Good points John. I would say, though, that there is an increasing trend towards cancer and other diseases at a younger age. Asking any woman in their 40s and 50s about auto immune disease, etc. Women and children are the canaries in the mine, so to speak.
Also, the “life expectancy” average that is so often quoted when saying we are living longer is a bit of a myth, as I understand it. Yes, we probably are growing a bit older, but significant reductions in infant mortality is the thing that has raised the life expectancy number that is so often quoted. My understanding is, back in the “day” (100 years ago), as they say, if you survived childhood, chances are you’d live a pretty long life.
To some extent, I do agree with your point on roadside garbage, but here’s my slight spin: People who have no problem polluting the roadside also have no problem with factories spewing toxins or dumping their meds down the toilet or whatever because they simply don’t care about anything other than their own particular convenience at the time (that’s not to say that all roadside garbage is intentional.)
I am in total agreement with your thoughts on the skepticism of other scientific claims. The thing with global warming is, there are probably a whole lot of a people in the northern and southern climes who probably wouldn’t mind it being a little warmer year round (I grew up in Minnesota and lived in upstate NY for a number of years.)
As for DDT, I don’t know. I generally think it can’t be good to use those kinds of pesticides, etc. My experience with nature is that if you respect it, it will take care of itself. It’s when we try to control it, that you get into trouble. You see this ever escalating war of disease versus the need for stronger and stronger solutions. We basically rely on technology to overcome all things. Not saying tech. is bad, I love tech, but it isn’t always the solution.
March 28th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Solving the infant mortality (under one year of age) problem is what allowed Europe to have enough people to colonize the Americas, Australia, and other places. Infant mortality is different from child mortality. That began in the 1700s and 1800s. I was suggesting that the life expectancy has increased on its own since that time. what happened since 1900 was the fertility rate slowly fell, but not fast enough to curb the sky rocketing population. The problem was people started to live a lot longer on average. Yes, kids stopped dying of polio, measles, mumps, rubella, malaria, etc. Now they have a chance of dying from cancer because their life expectancy increased.
Now to bring the argument back, what is causing deaths now is still uncertain. We constantly hear reports that eating this, or drinking that, or not doing this, or doing that will increase or decrease your risk of getting such and such. Many of those causes are carcinogens and other toxins. Some will affect us as well as other animals. The reported risks get exaggerated, so people will take notice, but they become unbelievable over time. We need specifics. What is causing problems with what certainty? We have done much in the ‘west’ to clean up our acts, but we now see reports of companies in China dumping toxins in a field. We have exported our problems there and do not pay enough for the goods for China to deal with these problems. China has to charge us more, but then they won’t be as competitive. The market always wins. We need people to take personal responsibility for fighting pollution by reducing demand, but when that hits the pocket book, many turn away from the cause. The easiest way is to have strong proof to get people to not want the detrimental products. Unfortunately, that proof is difficult to come by.
John M Reynolds
March 28th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
You make a compelling argument that climate change is a distraction from other environmental pollutants, which are also very damaging. However, must we assume that we can’t make a difference in both arenas?
I would hope that as individuals and governments take steps to be more aware of their impact on climate change, that they also become more environmentally conscious as a whole.
In fact, I strongly believe that some of the changes both in society and governance that must be implemented to reduce or stop climate change will also be very beneficial to the other environmental causes that you care deeply about.
March 28th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
John,
I agree we can’t completely know, but I suspect we have a pretty good idea. The hard part about our existence is it usually takes a generation to “study” before we can truly know. So for me, it comes down to common sense: does it make sense to constantly bombard my body with pesticides, etc. or breath in pollutants (not that I have much choice)? Does it make sense to ingest things whose sole purpose is to kill smaller critters even if they are supposedly safe? The thing with the studies on these things is, they only study the effects in the short term. I think there is a long term cumulative effect of all of them together that is much harder to prove. This is the ultimate loophole for the manufacturers of the stuff, you can’t prove any one of them did it, but the combination of them all is a problem, especially when viewed in light of 10’s of years, not 12-18 months.
My wife has an interesting theory that our generation (30’s and 40’s) will be the first generation in recent memory to have a shorter life expectancy than our parents. Time will tell, I guess. I think, however, we are seeing a rise in cancer, autoimmune diseases, asthma, allergies, etc. in people in their 40’s and 50’s, not 80’s. Not only that, but childhood cancer is up, too.
March 28th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Hi “Climate Pact”,
Like I said, if GW gets people to stop polluting so much, then great, but I don’t know that people buy that. Saw a recent study that showed the more people know about GW, the less they cared, b/c they feel overwhelmed. If, instead, we focus on pollution, which is very easy to point to and say, “Hey, that’s polluting, stop it” I think we can make more of a dent.