Common Bonds
1 in a 4 Part Series
We live in an era where the perils of climate change, environmental degradation, and overpopulation, are bandied about in such fashion we have become, as a society, relatively blasé concerning them. The average American’s worries about the economy, terrorism, the current presidential election, and whether we can get the laundry folded while supper is cooking, take precedence over issues which seem so distant, both in time and relativity, to our well being. A 2009 Pew Research poll revealed that while 84% of U.S. scientists believed human activities affected global warming, only 49% of the public did. This same poll found that the economy, the War in Iraq, and several other issues were more important to Americans than climate change and the environment; the issue of over population was not part of the poll.
Climate change, environmental degradation, and over-population, are inseparable due to the feedback loop generated by the common bonds they have. A change in the balance of one can, and usually does, escalate the others in a non-linear fashion. These three issues have become so politicized it is nearly impossible for the science exploring them, and their possible solutions, to speak for itself. Linking these three apocalyptic horsemen into a causality chain often banishes our apathy and stirs no small amount of controversy in the process. Overpopulation, in particular, is almost impossible to discuss; even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change declared the subject essentially off limits when in 2007 it issued the statement, “…. (the) scope and legitimacy of population control…..are still subject to ongoing debate”.
The politicizing of these three issues makes it easy for us to put dealing with them, and matters directly related to them, on the back burner. Debates surrounding them allow us to insulate ourselves further from these issues by creating a mental buffer which says “If the problems which climate change, environmental degradation and over-population cause, both directly and indirectly, were as vitally important as some say then all would be in agreement and the government would “do something” about them”. The arguments are myriad, with “Climategate”, the most “celebrated” entrant to the debate party, giving climate contrarians the world over their best argument yet: the science validating climate change and global warming was fudged. Sadly, after both internal and external investigation revealed the science was sound but conceded the scientists manners were lacking, “Climategate” ended with a whimper in the fifth section of the Sunday paper. Instead of climate science’s vindication being trumpeted on front pages and top of the hour broadcasts with the same media explosion it was crucified the investigation results were buried and the critics arguments go on ad nauseam. Perhaps at the very core of the contention is the fear that if we accept climate change, environmental degradation and over- population as real, who is accountable and where does the responsibility lie for “fixing” them and the attendant problems they bring?
One thing critics do have right is climate change is a natural process. Global climate change is not new to our planets environmental system, it’s a vital part of the processes constituting the earth’s life cycle. We now understand the earth has a series of naturally occurring cycles. Some cycles are decadal, others are hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of years in duration. Two examples of these cycles are the earth’s orbital tilt cycle which takes forty one thousand years to complete and the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit which has a cycle of roughly one hundred thousand years. Ice ages and interglacials come and go as the earth progresses through the cyclic events of her planetary life. As the earth shifts from one part of her cycle to the next some species decline in response to the change while others rise to take their place. Oblivious to the chaos she causes, earth’s natural rhythm marches inexorably on. Simply put, climatic instability creates and closes niches for faunal and floral exploitation. Our species filled a niche that was opened by such changes and we have prospered greatly, perhaps to greatly. The plasticity and ingenuity of our species has not only allowed us to subjugate the earth to meet our needs but to populate marginal environments. In times of climatic and/or environmental stress these marginal areas can no longer support the population load we demand they carry. The reality of an unstable climate and finite resources compels us to admit there is a limit to how many people our planet can support. Millions now face the same forces which pushed and pulled our ancestors to migrate in search of adequate resources to sustain themselves, to find new niches to prosper in –unfortunately, there are no new places to go.