Hot Flash

 

There are those who hold that global warming results from a regular cycle the earth goes through periodically, while others attribute changes to human behavior, such as damage to the ozone layer. As the story goes, they're both right.ⁱ

For some the only way to end the world's problem would be to eliminate the use of fossil fuels and chemicals that may destroy ozone, and if we don't follow those principles we are all doomed. For others, the perceived crisis is a political contrivance, the result of “junk science”; the measures proposed will destroy industry and take us back to the nineteenth century. And, of course, they are both wrong.

But what they have in common is a belief – or even stronger, a conviction – that Truth is on their side.ⁱⁱ They loudly proclaim the virtue of their positions and reinforce the values of their supporters, claiming that they are the path to salvation. They decry the views of their opponents as self-serving, and rally their forces to pursue the only policies that can save our planet. They denigrate the words of those whose ideas are contrary to their own. They are both deaf.

There is no disputing the general worsening of our weather. In some instances this results directly from a warmer climate and the melting of icebergs, while in others the problems seem to be based on other severe weather conditions resulting – floods, winds, waves, and the like – which our meteorologists tell us are themselves all based on the global warming that we are undergoing. There does not seem to be any dispute of the contention that warming is occurring, but there is disagreement about the cure. So I'll answer the question once and for all.

There is no cure.

That's not to say that we should throw up our arms and ignore what is happening around us, only that we recognize that much of it is beyond our control, and rather than overreact to what we cannot master we are better off preparing as best we can for the problems we realistically anticipate. To the degree that we can minimize the human contribution to global warming by lowering fossil fuel use and converting to other energy sources, we should do so. But we should have no illusion that this will solve the problem. And because it will not provide “the cure,” we should not view it as the stick to break the back of the “evil” ones.

What can we do? Apart from seeking what are usually called “alternative energy sources” – and it will be decades before they are of significant help if that ever happens – are we powerless to govern our fate? It's hard to know. Our understanding of the earth's normal cycles – cycles which may last hundreds or thousands of years – is tentative. We may have been through it all before, but there was no analysis of it at the time. We're left with the views of our scientists – views that are at times more political than scientific – that things are going to get worse unless (that itself is political – things are going to get worse even if) we take immediate and draconian steps to avert the crisis. And we should not lament a missed opportunity in the belief that had we taken such steps earlier everything would be fine now. Nothing momentous would have changed. Things are bad and they're going to get worse.

We're left with the knowledge that our best defenses against the inevitable involve improved prediction of problems while putting better warning systems in place, and steps aimed at the prevention of some of those effects. Following Katrina, levees are being constructed in Louisiana, but shouldn't such barriers be built wherever flooding reasonably can be anticipated? And shouldn't building codes be upgraded before stronger buildings are needed? The current economic downturn has resulted in limited construction, but perhaps some of the money being invested in saving industry and creating jobs would be well spent in the building of places to which large numbers could retreat at the time of severe storms or other disasters. Such buildings should be designed to have alternative uses – offices, factories, schools, meeting halls – during the majority of the time when there is no disaster. In the meantime, however, the construction industry would benefit as would those who would get construction jobs. And perhaps there should be an attempt to relocate people away from areas where damage from nature is recurrent and can be anticipated. Right now all we do is subsidize their insurance.

The placement of power lines and other cables underground, in addition to minimizing the likelihood of power losses during major storms, would provide additional jobs, as well as enhance the appearance of areas now decorated by those lines. It is also likely that car radio reception would improve and that people who fear radiation would feel safer if power wires were no longer visible.

It's a start but it's not going to eliminate the difficulty no matter what we do. The planet is warmingⁱⁱⁱ and the weather is changing. Turning the problem into a political one – one designed to gain points for the next election – helps no one. Neither does struthious^iv inaction, but we may be able to mitigate some of the effects if we build for the future rather than bury our heads; if we act rather than accuse.

Next episode: “Wasting Money On Women” – Health care costs cost us all.

 

i    You're right, too.

ii   “Green” is not a color but a religion. But so is its opposition. No evidence is as important as the belief each side has, and evidence that disputes the belief is of no importance. Indeed, it must have been falsified.

iii    At least for now.

iv   Look it up.