“It really doesn’t matter that much”
Is climate change for real? Are the oceans really rising
and the glaciers shrinking? While most of would definitely answer the above questions
in the affirmative there are still many amongst us who would still say that they aren’t
that sure. They call themselves the ‘Climate Change Sceptics’.
As has been rightly pointed out if we look at the history of mass extinctions we would learn that right now we are in the midst of the sixth major mass extinction. So, obviously there have been changes in the earth’s climate before this right? Yes, that is true; but that’s not the whole story.
As has been rightly pointed out if we look at the history of mass extinctions we would learn that right now we are in the midst of the sixth major mass extinction. So, obviously there have been changes in the earth’s climate before this right? Yes, that is true; but that’s not the whole story.
It has been estimated that within the last five hundred years,
at least eighty mammal species have gone extinct; this from a starting total of
approximately 5,570 species. Now compare this to the average extinction rate
for mammals of less than two for every million years. I am sure you don’t need
any help with the math; it’s clear as daylight that the present rate of
extinction is far greater than the average extinction rate previously. The
other question is the reason behind this extinction? I’m am pretty sure,
climate sceptic or not there is absolutely no doubt that this extinction is
anthropogenic. In case of any lingering doubts one can easily check into the
history behind the extinction of the dodos, the Javan and the Caspian tigers,
the cheetahs in India and numerous other plant and animal species (even if the
example was about the extinction of mammals this phenomenon is not limited to
mammals alone).
Then should you be worried?
Allow me to digress a bit and explain this with a short story. There is an oft
quoted example where the earth is compared to an aeroplane and human beings to mechanics.
We sit inside the aeroplane and then slowly start to unfasten all the screws in
the whole aeroplane. Let us say, we start from the inside first and get rid of
all the seats. No doubt the aeroplane will still fly. We then continue our
experiment for a little while further and keep testing each time if the
aeroplane still flies. Slowly once we had rid ourselves of all trivial screws
we will eventually need to start medalling with the screws that keep the whole
structure together. Eventually we reach a point where every new screw
unfastened could be our last. If we go ahead and unscrew both engines the
result is quite obvious. It isn’t going to matter that there are still so many
screws left to unfasten. The whole system is definitely going to crash. Now, to
explaining why I used this metaphor. Compare each screw lost to a species gone.
The disappearance of one species isn’t obviously going to bring to whole
eco-system down. However, slowly as more species start to disappear the web of
life would start to become unsustainable. The predator-prey relationships would
begin to become skewed favouring one side over the other, in the end leading to
a dramatic collapse of the whole complex web of life. This is not taking into
account the fact that most niche species and species in symbiotic relationships
would be dead long before we ever got to this stage.
 | |
|
 |
| Victor Summerhayes and Charles Elton's 1923 food web of Bear Island |
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EltonFW.jpg |
Then is conservation important? Altruism isn’t a trait
everyone is blessed with. Why worry about saving the earth, conserving minerals
and electricity etc.? If I have the money then what pray is your problem, aye?
The wars on oil don’t directly affect me; they are being fought in far-away
lands. Just ensure that it still remains affordable and cheap. Kill as many as
you want for it! Why should the displacement of tribal people in some distant
and remote place bother me? I need those rare earth metals, for my music player
to work don’t I?
There are economists who claim that the cost of investing into green and eco-friendly technologies will cripple us so much that financially most large industries will have to shut shop. I don’t claim to know too much economics but I am sure that money spent on investing in better effluent discharge, better energy efficiencies etc. will probably do more good than harm. It has been proven worldwide that it is better to invest in more efficient technology now and pay less every month on maintenance than ending up footing higher recurring costs. If you add to it other benefits like lower particulate emissions, and less toxic discharges, it makes more sense to go green than to resist. The motivation really doesn’t matter; you could be an environmentalist or be in it for selfish reasons of leading a more luxurious life. It is better to conserve now and have something for the future. Think of it as an investment. What is likely to be in high demand a decade from now will also obviously also fetch you a good price a decade from now too.
Here is one of the most persuasive
letters to the editor I have read in recent times. The reply was to an article
by Friedman in the New York Times titled, “Is it Weird Enough Yet?” Here is an
excerpt from it;
“The French philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal, in what has
become known as Pascal’s wager, suggested that even people who did not believe
in God should act as if they did, since being wrong could be catastrophic.
I would say to the climate skeptics[sic]: If you do not believe in climate
change but act as if you did, even if you are right, the result would be a
society with clean, sustainable jobs, less dependence on Mideast oil and
healthier lives. But if you are wrong and we do not act immediately, the
results would be catastrophic.”
PHILLIP GOTTSCHALK
Montville, N.J., Sept. 14, 2011
Montville, N.J., Sept. 14, 2011
Mukund Palat Rao
(September 20, 2011)
P.S Here is two interesting videos you might like to
watch
The first video is
from the Rio Summit of ’92.
