Climate Change and Ozone Loss - Environmental Science - page 378

16-5 DEALING WITH THE THREAT
OF GLOBAL WARMING

There are three schools of thought concerning what
we should do about projected global warming. The
first suggests a wait-and-see strategy, with many scien-
tists and economists calling for more research and a
better understanding of the earth's climate system
before we make far-reaching and controversial eco-
nomic and political decisions such as phasing out fos-
sil fuels. The U.S. government currently advocates
this approach.
A second and rapidly growing group of scientists,
economists, business leaders, and political leaders (es-
pecially in the European Union) believe that we
should act now to reduce the risks from climate change
brought about by global warming. They argue that the po-
tential for harmful economic, ecological, and social
consequences is so great that action to slow the rate of
change should not be delayed.
In 1997, more than 2,500 scientists signed the Sci-
entists' Statement on Global Climate Disruption,
which concluded, “We endorse those [IPCC] reports
and observe that the further accumulation of green-
house gases commits the earth irreversibly to further
global climatic change and consequent ecological, eco-
nomic, and social disruption. The risks associated with
such changes justify preventive action through reduc-
tions in emissions of greenhouse gases.” In the same
year, 2,700 economists led by eight Nobel laureates de-
clared, “As economists, we believe that global climate
change carries with it significant environmental, eco-
nomic, social, and geopolitical risks and that preven-
tive steps are justified.”
The third approach is to act now as part of a no-re-
grets strategy. Scientists and economists supporting
this position say we should take the key actions
needed to slow global warming—even if the threat
does not materialize—because such actions lead to
other important environmental, health, and economic
benefits. For example, a reduction in the combustion
of fossil fuels, especially coal, would lead to sharp re-
ductions in the air pollution that lowers food and tim-
ber productivity, decreases biodiversity, and prema-
turely kills large numbers of people. Reducing a coun-
try's use of oil would also decrease its dependence on
imported oil, which threatens its economic and mili-
tary security.

Why Is Climate Change Such a Difficult
Problem to Deal with?
Climate change is hard to deal with because it has
many causes (some poorly understood), its effects are
uneven and long-term, and controversy persists
regarding how it should be addressed.
Several characteristics of global warming lead to diffi-
cult and often controversial scientific, economic, po-
litical, and ethical questions about how to address
this threat.

■ The problem has many complex causes. It is unlikely
that we will have the degree of scientific certainty that
some decision makers want before substantial climate
change is under way.

■ The problem is global. Dealing with this threat will
require unprecedented international cooperation. We
are all in the climate lifeboat together.

■ The problem is a long-term issue. People generally
respond well to short-term problems, but we have
difficulty acknowledging and coping with long-term
threats. The elected officials who must make tough
decisions about the climate issue will be long gone
when the beneficial or harmful effects of their actions
occur. The long-term effects of climate also raise an
important ethical question: How much are we willing to
sacrifice now for benefits that may not be realized in
our lifetimes but could greatly improve life for our
children, grandchildren, more distant generations,
and the plants and animals that share the planet
with us?

■ The harmful and beneficial impacts of climate change
are not spread evenly. There will be winners and losers.
Winning nations are less likely to bring about contro-
versial changes or spend large sums of money to slow
down something that will benefit them. The catch: We
will not know which countries and parts of countries
will be winners and losers until it is too late to avoid
harmful effects.

■ We cannot stop climate change but we can use existing
technological and policy options to help slow the rate of cli-
mate change and adapt to its effects.

x

H OW W OULD Y OU V OTE ? Should we act now to help
slow global warming? Cast your vote online at http://biology
.brookscole.com/miller11.

■ Many actions that might reduce the threat of climate
change, such as phasing out fossil fuels, are controversial
because they can disrupt economies and lifestyles.

Solutions: Reducing the Threat
We can improve energy efficiency, rely more on
carbon-free renewable energy resources, and find
ways to keep much of the CO 2 we produce out of the
troposphere.

Solutions: What Are Our Options?
Disagreement persists regarding what we should do
about the threat of global warming.