Has the debate shifted?
Regardless of whether “natural” or “anthropogenic”, there can no doubt, that Climate Change is one of the biggest threats facing the entire question of sustainability of life and our civilizations on Earth. However, the repeated accusations and denials, in relation to the role of human activities, should no longer arise. Skeptics frequently cite such “data” as the surface of Mars heating up at the same rate as the Earth as “evidence” that the main drivers are natural effects, to enhance claims that not only are we “not responsible” but further that there is very little we can do, in the face of this impending extraterrestrial threat (meaning of course, the variations Sun’s radiation output, magnetic field shifts and eventual red giant phase).
However, when objectively examining all the evidence that has been made available since this debate became “mainstream” about 20 yr ago, one thing has become clear – the question is no longer whether it is human activities or natural variations that are responsible – it is clearly a combination of both.
Even if it turns out that our activities are not the dominant “driving force” of detected climate change, the “business as usual” scenario should not be seen as a reasonable alternative; one way or the other, even if climate variation is predominantly natural or geologic in origin, human activities within the last 200 yr or so (since the “industrial revolution”) are not helping the situation. While paleoclimatological evidence exists to show that there have been dramatic differences in mean sea level and global temperature averages (as well as the extent of tropical-type vegetation) along a geologic time-scale, the critical point, is that many of the factors (“forcers” and “reactors”) in our current environment never existed in the past – many of the culprits (such as CFC) do not occur freely in nature, further to which, the rate of change of the release of naturally occurring GHGs is unprecedented and undeniably a result of human activities.
In that regard, the argument of natural vs anthropogenic factors resembles the biodiversity debate – some may suggest that species evolution, adaptation, optimization and extinction is a natural process of selection, and that it is highly presumptious on the part of humanity to believe that we can influence or do anything about that process. The counter-arguments typically point out that the time frames are important – yes species generally have the capacity to adapt incrementally to changes in their environment over time, but concern over the more recent spate of extinctions is related to the time required to achieve this, since the rate of environmental change is what overwhelms the species (and we have insufficient information to fully ascertain the impacts of such changes on human and ecological health).
As a result, it is very true that global warming and climate change are a natural process on the Earth (and other Solar System entities); the main issue is that the new or additional parameters added by human activities make it very difficult to use past cycles of “Ice Ages” and “Tropical Ages” to predict what is expected if we do nothing and continue the process of natural resource appropriation and conversion at our current rates. So what is important here, is once again time frames – humans, possibly more than any other species, have the capacity to adapt to environmental change, and we have obviously done so many times before.
But even if global warming (or alternatively cooling) is a natural process, there has never been this scale of humans (and related natural resource conversion and re-distribution) on the Earth. The majority of the surface environment of the Earth is essentially uninhabitable (70% water, etc) so if our spatially restricted activity has such a disproportionate impact, then it is our duty and responsibility to make the necessary adjustments if we genuinely hope for the right and privilege of an existence with any semblance of sustainability.
One of the main factors is that while some of the countries regarded as main “polluters” have exercised their prerogative to not sign-on to the various “agreements” in recent years, it does not mean that “we” the individuals are not vested with the decision-making capacity to make our own contribution in our day-to-day lives, regardless of where on Earth we live and work.
|
Linear Mode
