February
2005
Waking
Up is Hard to Do
By Kymberlie Adams Matthews
|
This past January a bear in a Russian zoo awoke from
her hibernation two months early, while another hadn’t gone to
sleep at all. And in Estonia some of its 600 bears opened their eyes
several months
early as well.
What does this tell us? Bears are evolving? That genetic drift is affecting their
innate ability to hibernate? Or perhaps, a changing climate is altering the dynamics
of vast numbers of plant and animal species? Door number three, please. That
is: global climate change is impacting every part of our natural environment,
from landscapes and habitats to ecosystems and individual species.
There’s a lot of debate going on about global warming. Some scientists
say it’s nature’s way—something that has happened in the past
and will likely occur again. Others say global warming is occurring faster because
of human beings and that human beings can stop it, or slow it, if they so choose.
For some species, warming appears to be bad news; for others, the consequences
are mixed or even positive. Some creatures are shifting their ranges north or
bearing young earlier. American robins are migrating an average of two weeks
earlier than they did 23 years ago, moving from low altitude wintering grounds
to high altitude summer breeding grounds. And marmots, which usually hibernate
for eight months like bears, are emerging earlier and risking starvation as they
wait longer and longer for the snow to melt. And in the Arctic, where the increase
in temperature is being felt the most, the changes appear to be causing a feast
for some animals and famine for others. What none of us can deny—unless
you are George W. Bush—is that global climate change impacts every part
of our natural environment.
The Bliss of Burning
Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, atmospheric concentrations
of carbon dioxide have increased nearly 30 percent, methane concentrations have
more than doubled, and nitrous oxide concentrations have risen by about 15 percent.
These increases have enhanced the heat-trapping capability—or greenhouse
effect—of the Earth’s atmosphere. Sulfate aerosols, a common air
pollutant, cool the atmosphere by reflecting light back into space; however,
sulfates are short-lived in the atmosphere and vary regionally.
Why are greenhouse gas concentrations increasing? Scientists generally believe
that the combustion of fossil fuels and other human activities are the primary
reason for the increased concentration of carbon dioxide. Fossil fuels burned
to run cars and trucks, heat homes and businesses, and power factories are responsible
for about 98 percent of U.S. CO2 emissions, 24 percent of methane emissions,
and 18 percent of nitrous oxide emissions. The lion’s share of these emissions
come from industry—increased industrial production, factory farming, deforestation,
landfills, and mining. In 2004, the U.S. was responsible for 25 percent of the
world’s emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other problem gases, compared
with 14 percent for the 25-nation European Union.
In one recent study (Greenhouse.gov) using widely accepted predictive climate
models, 19 leading scientists examined six eco-regions covering 20 percent of
Earth’s land area as a way to predict what might be in store for the rest
of the planet. Their peer-reviewed research concludes that unless greenhouse
gas emissions are cut significantly, somewhere between 15 and 37 percent of the
animals and plants found in the natural world will become extinct or on the road
to extinction by 2050.
U.S. Indifference
The Kyoto protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
will finally come into effect this month on February 16—90 days after Russia
ratified the treaty. About 127 nations have ratified this protocol committed
to the reduction of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur, hexafluoride,
hydrochlorofluorocarbon, and perfluoro-chemical emissions. But even as the Kyoto
protocol stands at last on the brink of implementation, the landmark environmental
treaty looks in danger of failing to live up to expectations. Surprise, surprise,
the U.S.—Earth’s biggest CO2emitter—refuses to ratify the treaty.
But perhaps just as troubling for advocates of the treaty is the growing unwillingness
of developing countries to take on responsibilities for cutting their carbon
emissions. Under the first stage of the treaty, which expires in 2012, developing
countries are not required to make cuts and they are not about to take any extra
steps on their own. The stages beyond that deadline have yet to be negotiated,
we can only hope that the larger developing countries become required to limit
their emissions.
At the latest conference on the treaty last December in Buenos Aires, developing
countries such as China, India and Brazil used their clout to oppose any extension
of the protocol’s provisions to limit their carbon emissions. They argue
that restrictions would limit their growth, as fossil fuels are the basis for
most of their industrial growth. A report at the conference from the Pew Center
on Climate Change, a U.S.-based research organization, found that China emits
2,893 million metric tons of CO2 per year (2.3 tons per capita). This compares
to 5,410 million from the U.S. (20.1 tons per capita), and 3,171 million from
the EU (8.5 tons per capita). So much for putting the people first.
Of course, the U.S. has also resisted any extensions to Kyoto’s provisions
by opposing attempts to open discussions on future stages of the treaty beyond
2012. Though she insisted that the U.S. had long-term plans to counter climate
change, Paula Dobriansky, Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs, said: “It
would be premature. I’m focused on what is, not what if.”
Nestor Kirchner, President of Argentina, accused richer countries of double
standards in insisting on debt repayments while refusing to acknowledge their
own “environmental
debt” to poorer countries, who suffer the worst effects of climate change.
While the U.S. continues to snub the Kyoto protocol, nine northeast and mid-atlantic
states have taken matters into their own hands by coming together to create
the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). RGGI’s immediate agenda
is to discuss the design of a regional cap-and-trade program for CO2 emissions
from
power plants in the region by April 2005.
For now, conservation organizations have been forced to combat repeated attempts
by the Bush administration to roll back critical conservation policies that have
served this nation for decades and are in a grave struggle to save the last wild
places on our public lands from the colossal destruction brought on by mining,
oil and gas development.
Green lobbyists and several U.S. municipalities hope a lawsuit against U.S.
development agencies will force the government to act on global warming, even
though George
W. Bush has long insisted there’s no scientific proof linking human activity
to warming. Environmental lawyers say the suit will be closely watched as lawsuits
against utilities and the government tied to global warming increase. Last
July, for example, eight U.S. states and New York City sued five U.S. power
companies,
accusing them of stoking climate change.
The Oil Crusades
After all this time, all the deaths, all this money, the search for weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq has ended. Nothing was found. Are we surprised? No.
Most of us knew that would happen. In our hearts, most of us knew that oil has
always been the true motive, the pot of gold leading the U.S. to attack Iraq.
Our past tends to repeat itself and more than a few historians saw this coming.
For more than a hundred years, major powers have battled to control this vast
mine of wealth and strategic power. Major international oil companies—headquartered
in the U.S. and the UK—are eager to reclaim jurisdiction over Iraq’s
oil, lost with the nationalization in 1972. Hence the uncanny Bush/Blair duet.
High stakes, power, national rivalry and military force have undoubtedly arranged
for a significant number of our sisters and brothers stationed in Iraq to spend
their time guarding highly vulnerable pipelines, refineries, loading facilities,
and other petroleum-related installations. With thousands of miles of pipeline
and hundreds of facilities at risk, this task will prove endlessly demanding—and
hazardous.
According to the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (IAGS), a nonprofit
organization directing attention to the strong link between energy and security,
there have been 196 documented attacks and bombings of Iraqi pipelines since
2003—with 11 in 2005 to date, almost one per day!
But that’s not all. For years, American troops in places as diverse as
Colombia, Saudi Arabia, and the Republic of Georgia have been risking their lives,
protecting pipelines and refineries, or supervising the local forces assigned
to this mission. As well as American sailors who are at this moment on oil-protection
patrol in the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Sea, the South China Sea, and along other
sea routes that deliver oil to the U.S. and its allies. The truth is, our troops
are being converted to glorified babysitters—a global oil-sitting service.
The use of American troops to guard oil installations in conflict-prone, unstable
countries will no doubt expand. As U.S. reliance on foreign oil grows, an increasing
share of its supply will come from hostile, war-torn countries in the developing
world. It makes sense. Older industrialized countries—ahem, the U.S.—have
already consumed a large portion of their oil inheritance, while many producers
in the developing world still possess enormous reserves of untapped petroleum.
So slip a little fear into the tap water of America, wage an unjust war, and
sequester the oil.
Is there any uncertainty as to why increasing resentment over social and economic
distress fueled by globalization is aimed at the U.S.? We have all but proclaimed
to the world that oil is the primary motive for our involvement in these areas.
Goliath U.S. oil corporations are seen as the very incarnation of American
power. Everything related to that industry—pipelines, wells, refineries, loading
platforms—are seen by extremists as logical and desirable targets for
attack; hence the raids on pipelines in Iraq, on oil company offices in Saudi
Arabia,
and on oil tankers in Yemen; and of course, attacks on the military personnel
forced to babysit the pipelines.
Bush has feasted on this scheme, increasing military aid to these states or
simply taking them over, as in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan. He is also
considering
the construction of a permanent U.S. military base in the Caspian region. And
now there is the threat of war on Iran—more “war on terror” or
more “war for oil?”
As I am writing this, $40 million—forty million dollars—is being
spent to make this week’s inauguration an extravaganza. Rich hobnobbers
will nibble on rattlesnake nachos and slurp down Tito’s vodka while the
Earth dries up and our soldiers camp out on oil pipes. Our government will
put 4,600 officers along Pennsylvania Avenue including an array of sharpshooters
to line rooftops to protect out president. Who the hell is protecting us?
Changing Our Ways
To stop it from happening, we need to trade places with the bears. We need to
wake up smell the burning rubber and figure our future out. We need to stand
up and change our own lives, green our homes and offices, and choose the businesses
we want to support. I admit that I am as guilty as anyone. I sometimes drive
when I could take public transportation, now and again I leave lights on in empty
rooms, and I live in an apartment that wastes heat. But I am ready to try harder.
It’s up to us to help transition our fossil fuel-based economy toward
secure solutions that draw on new energy sources, create meaningful American
jobs, and
bring energy dollars (and our soldiers) home while protecting the nature of
tomorrow.
It’s up to us to help the bears sleep.
 |
|
|
 |
