The Worst Generation?

As I attended my local Remembrance Day service, the standing-room-only audience expressed gratitude for those who had lost or risked their lives and was proud of the generation which had met the totalitarian challenge to democracy in World War II.  Tom Brokaw, the US news anchor, has written a book in praise of this age group entitled The Greatest Generation.
While members of subsequent generations have risked their lives in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and peacekeeping missions, these engagements have not always had well-defined and satisfying outcomes, and the perceived threat was not as great as that of the two world wars.

My generation is being called upon to deal with a different threat.  Beyond the global flashpoints of a military threat, we are facing an environmental crisis.  And our threat has even more at risk.  As frightening as a world dominated by fascism might have been, a world of runaway global warming could be far worse.  James Lovelock, creator of the Gaia hypothesis, predicts in his 2006 book Revenge of the Gaia that 90% of the human population will perish by the end of this century.  He foresees that our global civilizations will descend into a dark age as a result of a temperature increase of as much as 10 degrees Celsius.

There is a general consensus among climate specialists that we could successfully bring about the 80% reduction in carbon emissions (below 1990 levels) by 2050, a reduction that it now appears would be required to successfully meet the threat facing our generation.  And the sacrifice we are being called to make is less that that asked of the Greatest Generation.  They were asked to risk their lives; we are being asked only to risk our lifestyles.  If we fail to act, there will be an opportunity for a book about us titled The Worst Generation.

But there are increasing indications that we will fail to meet our generation’s challenge.  The nations of the world will meet in Copenhagen this month in what may be the last opportunity to reach a global agreement to reduce our use of fossil fuel, reduce the consequent emissions of CO2, and keep the temperature of earth below the tipping points at which a much warmer earth becomes unavoidable. 

The outcome of the Copenhagen conference will determine whether the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere continues to climb from 280 parts per million in 1850, to 380 ppm today, to 500+ ppm by 2050, and 700+ ppm by 2100.  A growing consensus of scientists worries that levels above 350 ppm will lead to irreversible climate changes.

You might be aware of the "skeptics" or "deniers" who dispute that human activity is contributing to global warming.  I have read much of their literature in hopes that they were right.  I would be much happier to learn that the whole concern is just a big mistake.  Unfortunately, as I review their claims, none stand up against the conclusion that our use of fossil fuels is endangering the earth and this threat must be stopped.

The global warming argument, at its most basic, has three parts: 1) since 1850, humans have been burning increasing amounts of fossil fuels whose CO2 emissions have been building up in the atmosphere and oceans; 2) higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere strengthen the greenhouse effect leading to a higher equilibrium temperature; and 3) we are starting to see some consequences of the early stages of a warmer earth.

The skeptic/deniers do not refute any of these three points.  Some of them repeatedly make false or distorted statements.  But mostly, they repeat assertions which, while true or partly true, are not relevant to the three parts of the global-warming argument listed above.  I call these statements “so-what” statements because, even if true, they don't alter the conclusion that increasing human burning of fossil fuels will lead to dangerous heating of the earth. 

Here are some samples of “so-what” statements from a denial site (www.climatescienceinternational.org ):

1. Global climate is always changing in accordance with natural causes and recent changes are not unusual.
2. Research that identifies the Sun as a major driver of global climate change must be taken more seriously.
3. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant – it is a necessary reactant in plant photosynthesis and so is essential for life on Earth.

The first part of number 1 is true; climate is always changing.  What’s new is a likely doubling of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere resulting from the burning of fossil fuels.  One has to ask if the complete summer melt of the Arctic Ocean is not unusual.

The Sun is a major factor in determining Earth’s climate.  Variations in the orbit of the Earth around the Sun have been identified as the trigger which sets off an ice age.  Variations in the intensity of the Sun’s output have also been measured.  However, one has to respond “so what” since it has nothing to do with the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, due to fossil fuel use, which is creating an additional source of Earth warming.

Number 3 is totally nonsensical.  It’s like saying no one can drown because water is required for life.

In the 1930's a number of people argued against the Nazi threat and advocated appeasement.  A number of concessions were made to Hitler to avoid confrontation.  When the threat was finally recognized, even more difficult action was required against a stronger foe.  Hopefully, the statements of today's skeptics and deniers will be analyzed and rejected so that we can take timely action.

I would hope that my grandchildren would gather on November 11, 2070 to commemorate my parents and grandparents for their commitment and sacrifice to save democracy, and also to commemorate my generation for our commitment and sacrifice to save the environment in which human civilization has flourished.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/hide comment form

Write comment

Name

Email

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Add Comment