Saturday, February 03, 2007

It's The Ecology, Stupid!

From the BBC, via Warren Ellis' blog, comes this article on a recent scientific report regarding the latest findings as to whether or not the current climate change is being caused by humans. It's now categorized as "very likely" to have human actions as its primary cause, which translates to the 90-100% probability range.

Lest any reader of this blog react to this news with, "No, duh!" let me relate a recent story from work. I was on the elevator with a co-worker who didn't hesitate to voice the opinion that while climate change is occurring, it's just part of a cyclical thing that Man has no influence over, so why should we even worry about it? I can see how that might appeal to some, for at least a couple of reasons: it frees us from any guilt over the abuse we're putting the planet through, and it plays into the typical Canadian humility that always assumes that we're just part of some much larger whole that we have little influence over (see: the U. S. of A.) And this was not a stupid or uneducated person making the aforementioned statement. Which means it really is important that news stories like this come out and start to permeate our species' thick skulls on this topic. Otherwise no one's ever going to start making any sacrifices, what with all the rationalizations available to them on a daily basis!

1 comment:

cjguerra said...

I am so skeptical when people say things like "there's nothing we can do..." when clearly we have been doing something for a long time now. Whether the human influence is changing the environment is not terribly important.

The thing that has always stuck with me in an "environmental" vein was an article I read in high school. It was a short article in the local paper stating that Ontario Hydro (then the main power generator in Ontario) was going to be cutting their emissions by 2-5% next year, a reduction totaling 300,000 - 300 million metric tonnes.

Can't remember the exact values, but the point is that it was the reduction from a single plant and the reduction was trivial (compared to total emissions) and the reduction was in metric tonnes. I couldn't believe we were throwing output measured in tonnes into the atmosphere at all, let along millions of tonnes per year. It's staggering. And we shouldn't do it - don't soil your own bed.

I am also aware that there are natural processes that eject much more into the atmosphere. These are called volcanoes and they can dwarf the output of all electricity generation in an hour, let alone a year. And the Earth has handled it. There's just one little thing I'd like to point out to those who support that argument:

The Earth can support what we're doing. Eventually it will find a balance. However that new balance doesn't have to support life.