The Greenhouse Effect (March 23, 2001)
by
I’d like to begin with an apology. This is going to
be the strangest Oneg Shabbat I’ve ever been a part of. We used to celebrate the coming of this special day
with songs and stories when
I was a kid, not with lamentations on the
human condition. Moreover, some
of the things I’ll say may offend or hurt some of you. My only defense, on
both counts, is my sincere conviction that I’m telling you the truth, and that
the truth must be told by all of us who are aware and who care.
I’ve been
studying environmental problems for about a quarter of a century. Soon after this journey began, I realized
that, when it comes to
ecology, everything is
connected to everything else. In
particular, besides science, the greenhouse effect is inextricably linked to politics, campaign financing, the media, and
psychology. It’s part of a complex
network which can’t be captured in any single Sevel Shabbat lecture.
Here, I can
only skim the surface, question some of your answers, and arouse your curiosity. If you wish to find out more about the subject, I urge you to go consult some of the references below, starting
with my own greenhouse website.
I must emphasize that I plan to focus tonight on broad historical
outlines, on such
questions as the future of humanity and the future of American democracy. I care little what Mr. Bush is doing now
about the greenhouse effect, nor
what Mr. Clinton had been
doing before, because, as
you’ll see later, Bush and
Clinton are mere figureheads in a complex
network of power. My focus tonight is in the system that shapes their
political decisions and
deprives them of independence. To put it differently, I could have predicted
the broad outlines of what Mr. Bush would do, if elected president, before he
was elected, and I can predict what
he will do in the future. You’ll be able
to make the same predictions, once my talk is over. As you will see, George W. Bush and
Bill Clinton have nothing to do with my
topic—the healing of the earth and of American democracy.
The most striking thing about the greenhouse effect (and
environmental issues in general) is the great disparity which exists between
the consensus of scientists on the one hand, and the views held by the public, politicians, and media on the
other hand. They might as well not be
talking about the same thing! Thus, In
1992, over fifteen hundred of the world's scientists--including more than half
of all living Nobel Prize winners--signed The
World Scientists' Warning to Humanity.
This document reflects growing concerns about the state of the
biosphere:
Human
beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict harsh and often
irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices
put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and
animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to
sustain life in the manner that we know.
Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our
present course will bring about.
In an unusual joint statement of the same
year, the Royal Society of London and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences
concurred:
The
future of our planet is in the balance.
Sustainable development can be achieved, but only if irreversible
degradation of the environment can be halted in time. The next 30 years may be crucial.
The facts speak for
themselves. The chances of contracting
cancer, emphysema, or asthma are far higher now than they were a century
ago. Human sperm counts in many
localities are worrisomely low. Many of
us suffer from premature hearing loss traceable to excessive noise. We work longer hours than our parents did and
spend more time getting to and from work.
We are troubled by the effects of such things as lead and dioxin on our
children's intelligence and health. We
think twice nowadays before plunging, on hot summer days, into possibly
contaminated rivers, lakes, or seas. We
can no longer experience true wilderness.
We are uneasy about poisons in our food and drinks; in our homes and
workplaces; in our air, water, and soil; in our brains and livers; in our pets,
domestic animals, lawns, and farms.
We are surrounded by signs of global environmental
decline. Worldwide, some species of
frogs, salamanders, and penguins are declining.
We have apparently learned nothing from the extinctions of the dodo and the great auk, of the passenger pigeon and the
moa. The continued existence in the wild
of the most human-like minds we know of--those of apes, cetaceans, and elephants--is in
doubt. Entire fisheries are
collapsing. Every hour we add 10,000
people to our numbers, acting as if there are no such things as carrying
capacity and future generations; as if we have learned nothing from the
environmental failures of earlier civilizations. We squander numberless resources
unnsustainably, acting as if each and every resource is replaceable. We continue to produce plutonium and other
long-lived poisons, even though we know that nothing on earth can be safely
sequestered for millennia. We continue
to litter space. When we fight
pollution, we typically try to partially clean things up after the fact,
instead of opting for the cheaper and healthier path of prevention. More harmful ultraviolet rays from the sun
reach us nowadays, raising the specter of skin cancer and cataract
epidemics. Soil erosion,
desertification, and deforestation are proceeding apace. We are seeing already the first signs of
human-induced climate change, doing little more than crossing our fingers and
praying that dire predictions of sizzling temperatures, floods, tropical
diseases, and mass migrations will prove wrong.
It is in this broader context that the greenhouse effect must be seen.
For the rest of this presentation, I should like to describe the
nature, causes, and
consequences of the
greenhouse effect. Key points to remember here are: No sure
predictions can be made about a system as complex as the biosphere. The greenhouse effect may turn out to dwarf any
tragedy we have seen in our lifetimes.
After describing the greenhouse effect in general terms, I’ll
focus on its cures. The most striking
single observation that can be made about the greenhouse effect concerns its
solutions: we can solve this problem for less than nothing. Thus, a September 25, 1997 voluminous report of
the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), which involved numerous reputable experts,
agencies, and organizations, said in effect that America can become richer by
reducing greenhouse emissions. That is, some
of the most prestigious and staid scientific bodies in the land gave the lie,
once more, to the greenhouse "controversy." Like previous studies, this DOE report again
showed that this controversy is just as legitimate as the tobacco controversy. This DOE study was merely the latest in a
series of such reports. For instance, in
1992 the National Academy of Sciences said that "savings in both carbon
emissions and dollars can be readily accomplished through such simple steps as
adding triple pane windows to existing buildings and improving the design of
hot water tanks. For the United States alone, such measures would cut total CO2
emissions by some 18%, and would save some $56 billion per year." This, let me say in passing, is a
conservative estimate; $200 billion is the actual figure, in all likelihood.
Thus, the
question arises: If we can save $200 billion a year by solving the greenhouse problem,
if we can, in the process, improve our health and the quality of life too, why don’t we solve this problem? To answer this question, we will need to sail through the rough
waters of corporate power, campaign financing, media bias and shallowness, and psychology.
This begs the question: What can you
do? First thing is to continue what you
are doing tonight—educate yourself. Second,
practice and preach energy conservation.
Third, do everything you can to help eliminate private money from
American politics. This will not solve
the problem, to be sure; but without it, our social and environmental problems
are unlikely to be solved
References
1. My global warming website: www.wayne.edu/mnissani/PAGEPUB/gh.htm
2. My biography and some of my publications and classes: www.is.wayne.edt/mnissani/
3.
United States Department of Energy. 1997.
Scenarios of U.S.
Carbon Reductions: Potential Impacts of Energy-Efficiency and Low-Carbon
Technologies by 2010 and Beyond (available online).
4. United States National Academy of Sciences. 1992. Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.