Although he’s not about to take any action to combat climate change himself — or propose anything useful to his successor — it’s a sign of the times that President Bush has now dimly recognized that there is such an issue.
Bush is in good company, only a little behind the curve. Most politicians, heads of energy companies, and probably a majority of the American public think it’s more important at the moment to worry about the economy, jobs, profits, health care, a slumping dollar, and the mortgage crisis. Sure, we’d all like to stabilize the climate, but not right now! There’s plenty of time to do something about that later — why, some people seem to think we have a good 50 years to take care of it. Scientists mostly vote for 10 years, while James Hansen, a leader in the field, gives us about 2 years to get something real done.
Well, 2 to 50 years may sound like a long time to some people, but 10 years from now is way too late to start.
Our past and present greenhouse gas emissions will be with us much longer than that, so even if we could halt them all today, our descendants will still be enduring their effects far beyond our own lifetimes. If we wait until drought and fire have devoured the world’s forests while coastal cities drown in rising seas, it’s at least plausible to think that climate change will then be recognized as an issue of greater consequence than all those others combined.
If we wait that long, what happens then? Desperate millions or billions of people, searching to replace the water, food, and shelter they have lost, don’t add up to a reassuring prospect. My guess is that both civil and international wars would follow, martial law would prevail throughout the world, terrorism would spread everywhere, and democracy would be a quaint forgotten myth, quite useless in that brave new world.
So, I have to think we could certainly use a new “greatest generation” — in fact, a number of them. Enough to set the world to rights and look for real solutions, not the phony mega projects that waste lives and money, causing much more harm than good in the process. The bigger the government subsidies needed to prop up these monster boondoggles, the more scrutiny they deserve.
If we discontinued all energy subsidies, there would be no more “peaceful” nuclear proliferation, and certainly no plans to develop an oil shale industry. Renewables would start to look pretty good. Adding a carbon tax for burning fossil fuels commensurate with the harm they do would also bring about dramatic change, although hardly anyone has the guts to propose anything so blatantly un-American.
We need to ban some things entirely, starting with burning coal. To do that would require huge investments in energy efficiency and green energy, while ultimately saving much more than money, or even a way of life — namely, the habitability of Earth itself.
(Well, not really. Perhaps the microbes will inherit the Earth, and we are merely agents destined to bring about that change. A broader view than mine might find that quite acceptable, but I’m incapable of such broadmindedness.)
Shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire is an irresponsible act that could result in injury and even loss of life. Seeing a real fire and failing to report it is even more irresponsible. Grab your bucket while we still have time.
Connie Harvey can be reached at cmharve@gmail.com.
