In one of my previous posts, I highlighted the multi-dimensional scope and scale of the environmental crisis facing the world today.
One aspect of that crisis is the possibility of climate change as a result of global warming.
Recently the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) released the first part of its Sixth Assessment Report on Climate Change. It’s difficult reading as all the signs seem to be pointing to faster-than-expected warming of the earth’s average near-surface temperature, with a more than 1.5 degree Celsius increase likely by 2030. You can find a helpful summary here.
Anthropogenic (human-induced) climate change is undoubtedly the most debated aspect of all environmental concerns. There isn’t an ecological issue (and there are more than a few) that gets people as agitated and defensive as this one does.
The science concerned, like all other forms of science, is subject to ongoing scrutiny and will inevitably draw criticism and a certain amount of opposition. This isn’t a bad thing. If any form of scientific theory is to be trusted, it must first be thoroughly and regularly tested. The fact of the matter is that all scientists, from astronomers to geologists to biologists, have a wide range of views on the science that informs their respective disciplines, and there is as much disagreement and debate within each of these fields as there is within climate science.
That said, I think a significant part of our problem is a simple misunderstanding of the issue itself.
Right now, the single biggest question concerning climate change is not “Does climate change happen?” but “Are we as human beings capable of, and therefore responsible for, climate change?”
Although primeval history provides evidence that not all climate change has anthropogenic roots (causes include solar variations, plate tectonics, volcanism and orbital changes), there is an argument being put forward that the current (and projected) size of the human population, as well as our increased levels of consumption and industrialisation, will inevitably lead to climate change of some kind. This is both logically plausible and scientifically verifiable.
The fact of the matter is that climate change is a naturally occurring phenomenon that has been around for as long as the earth has been in existence. However, the question we are wrestling with now is whether or not 7.8 billion highly industrialised, highly consumptive and technologically empowered human beings can affect the climate. It’s a situation our planet has never faced before, so we have no precedent for it.
This “anthropogenic cause” is what is at the heart of the issue, and I am certain it’s a debate that will, unfortunately, rage on for decades to come. I say, unfortunately, because my personal conviction is that any delay in meaningful action could prove to be devastating. Sadly our almost religious devotion to the holy grail of economic progress will ensure that regardless of what scientific proof may emerge in support of anthropogenic climate change, there will always be an opposing voice (and vote).
Climate change, however, is just one of many environmental concerns. Deforestation, desertification, species loss, pollution, habitat destruction and resource depletion are all very real and present dangers that have somehow been eclipsed by the media spotlight on global warming and climate change.
Whether anthropogenic climate change is possible, probable or inevitable (or not), the environmental concerns I have just mentioned clearly do have anthropogenic roots and are directly linked to the size and activities of the human population. The consequences of these are potentially as far-reaching as the possibility of climate change and deserve immediate attention and action as well.
Those who argue that there is no environmental crisis on the grounds that anthropogenic climate change is debatable need to recognise that it is merely one dimension of a complex and multi-faceted environmental challenge facing the earth today.
