Climate Change—Hubris, Rhetoric, & Facts
Doesn’t the state of political discussion amaze and confound you? I certainly think so. It’s one thing to debate or argue different positions; that’s fine. It is another thing entirely to just shout slogans. Let’s take, for example, the shouting over global climate change (or “global warming”).
According to some, those who are labelled, by themselves or by others, as "environmentalists" are also "socialists." And, according to this line, if environmentalists are socialists, then environmentalists must be opposed to capitalism, free markets, and God only knows what else.
Right?
Fiction or Fact: Earth is an Organism
Gaia: Pagan Religion or Science?
For a minute, I’ll set aside the issue of global warming—only because it is but one of a myriad of circumstances that affect life on our Earth.
In the 1960s, Dr. James Lovelock, an English independent research scientist then working with NASA, began formulating what he later termed the Gaia Hypothesis to explain the interconnections between the biosphere and physical components of Earth. To some, this hypothesis treats the Earth and all things living on it as if it is a single organism.
Lovelock named his theory “Gaia” at the suggestion of his friend and neighbor, Nobel prizewinner William Golding. Gaia Conferences are about the science of Earth and its systems, not throwbacks to pagan Greek mythology or religion.
A simple description of the hypothesis articulated by Lovelock is that the organism is:
“…a complex entity involving the Earth’s biosphere, atmosphere, oceans, and soil; the totality constituting a feedback or cybernetic system which seeks an optimal physical and chemical environment for life on this planet.”
Lovelock postulates that the biota on Earth, automatically and unconsciously, control the conditions for life by a cybernetic, homeostatic feedback system.
Not surprisingly, Lovelock’s hypothesis is controversial among scientists, biologists, and ethologists. Many others champion and defend the Gaia Hypothesis, of course.
Lovelock v. Gore, et al
James Lovelock does not subscribe to any belief that governments and nations can do much, if anything, to reverse climate change, or global warming. Neither does he blames humans for the change in climate temperature. In a BBC interview of March 30, 2010, Lovelock said:
“We’re not really guilty. We didn’t deliberately set out to heat the world.”
The Vanishing Face of Gaia
Additionally, Lovelock holds that:
- Global temperatures move in “jerks and jumps” that make it unpredictable despite computer models
- Science, as a career, places scientists at risk of modifying data to fit organizational needs
- Renewable energy makes good business, but “it doesn’t really work”
- “Save the planet”—by human actions—“is a lot of nonsense”
The BBC interviewer interrupted Lovelock, pointing out that Dr. Lovelock differentiates between the survival of Earth and that of humans. Lovelock agreed, saying:
“The sensible thing to do is to enjoy life, while you can.”
It’s obvious that Dr. Lovelock is both a very pragmatic and a very resigned man. One thing he points out is that humans who live in regions of the Earth that can no longer support the production of food will migrate to survive. From that, he expects more and more conflicts—wars—will result from massive migrations because people just won’t sit back and die.
Read this NASA presentation about The Atmosphere and Atmospheric Ozone.
Fact or Fiction: Disappearing Glaciers
Some who deny the existence or significance of global climate change point to a report in The Sunday Times of January 10, 2010 (©Times Newspapers Ltd, London) asserting that glaciers in the Himalayas are not retreating as dramatically as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported. Thus, the deniers claim that glaciers are not retreating and that such claims are “proven” false.
If you read the article, however, you’ll find that the element of the IPCC report that is questionable is the claim that Himalayan glaciers will disappear by the year 2035, based on the rate of retreat posited in an article published in 1999 by New Scientist, a science journal.
What’s Missing?
There is no assertion among scientists that glaciers are not retreating, and retreating dramatically, across the globe. The photos here show the Grinnell glacier in Glacier National Park; the top picture of the glacier is from 1940 while the lower image is from 2004. This particular glacier is about 500 acres less in size today than it was before our entry into World War II.
No More Glaciers in Glacier National Park?
In an article published by National Geographic News, a US Geological Survey ecologist speculates that, considering the current rate of retreat, glaciers may disappear from Glacier National Park by 2020.
Why Is This Important?
One major reason that the retreat of glaciers is important to humans is that, when ice disappears, it leaves water. Water in the form of glacial lakes, that is. Lakes that increase in size significantly with each passing year. Lakes that will, at some point, overwhelm the moraine dams that hold them back today. The resulting floods spell death and destruction to lower communities and impose costs on governments and peoples around the world who provide relief and reconstruction assistance afterwards.
Not all melted ice results in water, of course. A significant amount becomes water vapor. As the global temperature warms, additional water vapor affects the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere of our Earth.
Fiction or Fact: Founders Found Less Forests
Another way of stating this is to claim that there is more forest land in the United States today than when the eastern seaboard was colonized by Europeans.
That claim, if made, is specious as well as fictitious. When Jamestown was founded in 1607, the Great Eastern Forest extended from Florida into Canada and west to the Mississippi River. Today, although much of that area is forested, most of that is secondary growth; extremely little of the original, old-growth, Forest remains. In fact, the extent of forest land today is estimated to be 70% of what was in forest when Europeans arrived.
Of course, if you compare photos of some (selected) areas from the 1860s with photos of the same areas today, you’ll notice a starkly clear difference: the modern photograph will show much more forested land. It is impossible to assert that the area had more trees during or before the American Civil War than today.
Why?
Areas such as Harpers Ferry needed charcoal for industry (in this case, the foundry that was the basis for the federal Arsenal). By 1860, the forest on Loudoun Heights, Maryland Heights, and in the Panhandle south of Harpers Ferry had been harvested to feed the foundry. Other woodland was removed for agriculture, too. The foundry ceased operation in 1861, when Confederates removed the machinery to Charlotte, North Carolina to make rifles and small arms for the rebellion. The heights on the ridges opposite the almost deserted town were not agriculturally viable, so the woods returned.
The fact is, that comparing photos of one era with current images does not disprove the loss of forest lands. There’s always social and historical contexts to consider, too.
Fact or Fiction: Environmentalism is Socialism
Apparently, to some, environmentalism is socialism and environmentalists are socialists and, of course, socialism is the enemy of freedom and the United States. If this was true, then Theodore Roosevelt (pictured here with John Muir) was one of the most egregious socialists the citizens of this nation have ever elected to high office.
I think, rather, that these are defensible statements:
- Not all environmentalists are socialists
- Some environmentalists are capitalists
- Environmentalism is not socialism per se
What is Environmentalism?
Environmentalists generally advocate the preservation, restoration, or improvement of the natural environment; especially : the movement to control pollution [Merriam-Webster]. Environmentalists usually organize to exert influence on the political processes and systems in their countries to further their goals, such as controlling pollution.
One example of this is the British response to The Great Smog of 1952. London had always been known for its thick fog—the Boy Scouts of America was founded because an American businessman was helped during a fog by a British Scout. The smog that hit London in December, 1952, however, was a disaster caused by the prevailing climate, temperature inversion, and the fact that almost all homes were heated by coal fire. Government passed the Clean Air Act in 1956 that forced a change from coal to electricity and paraffin for heating.
What is Socialism?
The classic definition of socialism is that it is a political-economic theory that advocates collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods [Merriam-Webster]. Despite the current hysteria over the epithet, the only instances of government-sponsored socialism have occurred during war, for instance:
- World War I
- Food Administration
- Fuel Administration
- Railroad Administration
- War Industries Board
- War Labor Board
- War Shipping Board
- World War II
- War Production Board
- Office of War Mobilization
- War Manpower Commission
- Maritime Commission
- Office of Price Administration
- War Food Administration
Notes
- None of these agencies was truly socialist; industrialists were appointed to manage each.
- It is not surprising that some ideologues attempt to brand environmentalists as socialists; socialism is the new communism to right-wing fear mongers.
- Similarly, left-wing fear mongers label conservatives as fascist.
- As humans, we usually try to resolve issues or solve problems, and most of us see that environmental catastrophe could occur from global warming.
- Perhaps Professor Lovelock is correct in his belief that hubris guides us; that all we can do realistically do is enjoy life while we have it.
- I hope there is more that we can, and will, do constructively.