|
I am fortunate to be able to speak and write on the science, economics, and law of environmental issues and there are a few statements that I find myself making repeatedly to varying audiences:
Global weather patterns are so complicated and there are so many diverse interactions that we should not try to oversimplify the science here. Further, we may never be able to prove the relationships in such a manner that the theory of GHG interaction becomes a scientific law. Nonetheless, this is no reason to allow some to dismiss GHG interaction theories. We must continually reinforce the science and design reasonable policies.
In the most aggressive climate models, the interaction between human behavior and changes in climate patterns is delayed by decades. While we want to believe that the rhetoric and policy of the current or immediately previous administration has resulted in the weather patterns we are now observing, it just is not true. By most reputable models we see, we are effectively sleeping in the bed we made 30+ years ago. So while it may be cute to argue that Florida is suffering from a different Bush or that New Orleans was the result of W's or Bush Sr's or even Reagan's policies, it goes further back to a point when we didn't even consider the possibility of human interaction.
As a pro-environment lobbyist, what concerns me more is that we are currently suffering from the law of unintended consequences. We had no idea that we could actually impact long term climate patterns 40-50 years ago. Now it looks like what we did then is really having an impact now. So, what unintended consequences will we suffer as a result of our actions over the past 20-30 years when we were more aware of the potential of human interaction? This is the question that scares me.
We must maintain a pro-active approach to both the science and the marketing of the science. It is far too easy to be reactive, and frankly I see this too much among my fellow environmental brethren. We have our first hurricane and we all want to use it to critique the republican policies of the past 20 years. This does nothing good, it is far too simplistic, and only causes us to lose our audience. The opposition, be they the right or even moderates, are wont to say "Look at those guys, they are so far out there, nothing makes any sense".
Being reactive is easy, it requires little thinking or effort. It also provides little benefit and frankly hurts a cause that is important to us all, whether we accept it or not.
However, everyone can help. You can all do the following:
1. Know your GHG footprint. Once you learn your GHG footprint, you will find easy ways to reduce it.
2. Carpool. Too many wanna be environmentalists are buying small cars but still driving alone. They feel good that their hybrids (which have a number of hidden environmental costs) get them 40 mpg, but they drive alone. I would rather see four people in a Suburban, getting 10-14 mpg than one person in a Corolla that gets 30-35 mpg. It is the mileage and emissions per passenger mile that is important. Additionally, the single driver negatively impacts the scene due to the additional traffic and less efficient use of our transportation system that result from the congestion.
3. Buy GHG offsets. Some states are allowing retail electricity buyers to purchase GHG offsets from their electric service providers. This can help make your electricity usage GHG neutral. Contact your utility, if they do not provide this service, contact your state energy or regulatory commission and get this changed. Beyond the utility providing it, people can contact organizations like the NRDC to help steer them in the right direction.
4. Think nuclear. This is an issue that is dividing the environmental lobby. The issue of waste storage and handling is certainly vexing, but we are looking at a GHG clean energy source. If you, like me, think that GHG are the major environmental issue facing us, then nuclear power cannot be dismissed.
Sorry for getting on the soap-box. I just find that the vitriolic nature of some of the rhetoric from those who claim to support the environment increases the opposition and actually hurts the cause.
FH
|