|
|
Perspective
Winning the War Against
Global Warming
by
Niraj Chandra
Make no
mistake. The fight against global warming is a full-fledged war, with
strong armies poised for battle on either side. There are minor
skirmishes and engagements, attacks and counter-attacks, strategies and
counter-strategies, deceptions, victories and defeats. But above all,
there is the fog of war - the cloud of disinformation that makes real
success difficult for anyone.
On one side of the battle, there are large numbers of environmentalists,
mainstream scientists, engineers and climatologists. They are supported
by most of the media, many celebrities, some politicians, laypersons
and, surprisingly, quite a few civil servants.
Opposing
them are the oil producers, automakers, processing industries, and other
big businesses that want to preserve the status quo for as long as they
can, to maintain their profitability. This group can, rightly, be called
the global warmers. They have the money and the power, and they can
easily buy into the political system. But right now, the global warmers
are on the run, facing a major onslaught from the environmental groups,
and their tactics are getting increasingly defensive.
Their first line of defense is to deny the very fact of global warming.
Generously funded “think tanks” produce reports that question the very
accuracy of the statistical data that supports the notion of global
warming. However, this position is getting less defensible as signs of
global warming are now unmistakable- the break-up of the polar ice caps,
the melting of glaciers and the drying up of lakes and rivers throughout
the world.
The second line of defense is to deny that human beings are responsible
for global warming. This again is done in reports that question the
science behind the climate change models. They point out that different
computer models produce different results and there is no absolute proof
that human activity causes global warming. But this argument, too, is
wearing thin, as more people realize that environmental pollution cannot
possibly be good for the planet – it will definitely have harmful
effects, most probably in the form of global warming.
The next defense -indeed a very successful one - is to steal the thunder
from the opposition, by using their terminology. This gives the
appearance of action when there is none, or very little. Thus every
business uses words like energy efficiency, or sustainability. Any new
product or service that comes out is “green”. We have green power, green
politics, green communities, and green meetings.
Yet another tactic is simple diversion- moving the focus away from the
issues that matter to others that have a lesser impact. Most of the
environmental damage today is caused by air and water pollution from
industrial sources, industrial wastes, emissions from commercial
vehicles, burning of fossil fuels, depletion of natural resources, and
energy consumption in large buildings. But public attention is, instead,
directed towards voluntary energy savings, mostly at the individual
level. We are encouraged to re-cycle more, use energy efficient light
bulbs, use renewable energy, and generally reduce our environmental
footprint. All these things are important but it is doubtful how much
impact they will have in the absence of any real enforcement. Much more
needs to be done -- tightening up of regulations, more commuter trains,
less buses, and reduced dependence on fossil fuels. In addition, we need
stronger incentive programs to induce people to make better
environmental choices.
In the long run, the global warmers cannot prevail, because the
consequences would be far too disastrous. But we need action right now,
before climate change becomes irreversible.
September
9, 2007
Top
|
Perspective
|
|