A 'progress' report on climate change
Like the crew and passengers on the Titanic when it was cruising through the North Atlantic on the evening of April 14, 1912, far too many Americans presently believe that we can navigate our way through the most imminent threat before us by using a marginally feasible “third option” for avoiding disaster.
In facing our threat posed by anthropogenic global warming, most of the proposed responses presently on the table can be broken into one of three categories. These are:
1. Take immediate and exceedingly forceful corrective actions (that is, “walking the walk” even if short-term costs are high).
2. Continue full-steam ahead with business-as-usual (while denying the existence of the threat).
3. Token and half-measures for corrective action (while “talking-the-talk”).
In considering the possible outcomes of these responses, it is worth recalling the thought processes that led to the Titanic’s undoing on that fateful evening 99 years ago. The Titanic’s captain, Edward Smith, did not take the prudent and most responsible option (No. 1) of stopping or greatly reducing his speed that evening. This was the maiden voyage of the largest passenger ship ever built and its owners were hopeful that its first crossing would also set a speed record. Being a competent ship captain, he also did not chose option 2, which would have been simply to set a course, proceed with full speed, and allow the entire crew to go to bed. Instead, he chose a form of option 3.
Captain Smith decided that he could proceed with near-maximum speed and still avoid iceberg collisions using the conventional methods of night-time vision on that calm, crystal-clear, but moonless evening. The Titanic was equipped with enough lifeboats for only its first-class passengers. Thus, the “safety net” the Titanic offered for all of its passengers was the notion that the Titanic was essentially “unsinkable.”
As we all know, the lookouts on the Titanic then did see a huge iceberg dead ahead, but because of the great inertia of the Titanic, were able to slow down and turn only enough to avoid a straight-on collision. While a collision of that sort would have crushed the bow portions of the ship and would undoubtedly have killed many passengers, it would not have sent the entire ship to the bottom.
The gentler glancing blow they did suffer with that iceberg, however, sliced open several sections of the Titanic’s flotation system and the entire ship sank in less than three hours. Only 32 percent of the 2,223 on board survived.
The lessons of the Titanic are worth remembering today as we consider the three general responses listed above to the threat posed by our increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. While all of our professional scientific organizations have clearly recommended option 1, up to this point in time neither of our political parties has had the courage to embrace it — undoubtedly due to its short-term financial downsides.
The Republicans have “led the charge” for option 2, and the Democrats have been the “backbone” of option 3. Unfortunately, it is not at all clear whether there will be any differences in outcomes by following option 2 versus option 3. As Captain Smith’s unfortunate decision illustrates, maybe the half measures offered by option 3 will produce even worse results than option 2 — for reasons that are not yet appreciated.
In addition, with use of either option 2 or 3, the passengers on board are encouraged to slumber while our ship sails on. The sleeping potion taken by the followers of option 2 is outright denial of the problem and that of the followers of option 3 is the notion that something is being done that will adequately address the threat. Thus, almost everyone sleeps as our ship sails on, full steam ahead, thereby adding even larger amounts of carbon dioxide to our atmosphere every day.
That level is already about 36 percent higher than it has ever been in the previous 3 million years and is increasing at a rate of 0.6 percent per year. The delayed heating effects of these changes will last essentially forever on a time scale of relevance to human. The Earth has far greater inertial force than the Titanic had once it gets rolling in a certain direction — it takes thousands of years for biological carbon to return to its geological forms.
We now live in a new geologic era called the “Anthropocene” in which Man is “in control” (so to speak) of the Earth’s climate. We do have the knowledge, if not the wisdom, to do this in a manner that maintains, rather than destroys, human-friendly conditions on the surface of our planet. Essentially all of the qualified scientific watchmen on our planet are now shouting “STOP!” — whatever costs and sacrifices are required.
What part of the above do people not understand?