Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
del.icio.us.
Digg!
furl
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Facebook
Yahoo!In October 2003, the Pentagon commissioned a report from two consultants — one of them the former head of planning for the oil titan Royal Dutch Shell — on the potential consequences of the greenhouse effect. Their report, titled Imagining the Unthinkable: An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and its Implications for U.S. National Security, described a possible scenario brought about by the effect of melting polar ice caps on global weather patterns. First, melting polar ice floods the Atlantic Ocean with fresh, cool water. By 2010, the melted water significantly alters the circulatory system of the Gulf Stream, meaning that as the rest of the world gets warmer, eastern North America and Western Europe become sharply colder, with the European interior soon coming to resemble present-day Siberia — Prague at 70 degrees Fahrenheit below zero, for example. As a result, grain harvests drop precipitously and wars erupt around the world regarding the “desperate need for natural resources,” rather than “ideology, religion, or national honor.” Over time, deaths from war, starvation, and disease “rebalance” the world’s population.
“We have created a climate change scenario that although not the most likely, is plausible, and would challenge the United States’ national security in ways that should be considered immediately,” wrote the authors of Imagining the Unthinkable, Doug Randall and Peter Schwartz. How plausible? There is broad consensus among scientists that global warming is already leading to changes in ocean circulation. Consider: There was 20 percent less Arctic sea ice than normal this summer. Ice caps reflect the heat of the sun, and as they melt they leave the ocean to absorb the heat they once bounced back into space. And this dearth of ice was not an anomaly — eight of the 10 hottest years in recorded history have occurred since 1996, and 2005 was the hottest yet. According to a research team from the University of Colorado, at the current rate of melt, the Arctic will be completely ice-free in summer “well before the end of this century.”
As for the result of changing circulation envisioned by Imagining the Unthinkable, the authors based their description on geologic and paleo-climatic evidence from historical shifts in ocean currents. The Younger Dryas event (a k a the Big Freeze) — which occurred about 12,700 years ago — was the result of a circulation shift much like the one described in Imagining the Unthinkable, and was also brought on by global warming and melting ice. The Younger Dryas saw an Arctic climate descend on Europe — there were icebergs in Portugal; Scotland was under approximately 10,000 feet of ice — and massive drought in Asia and Africa. Although the glaciers took time to build, the total change in climate occurred within roughly 10 years and lasted a millennium. Upon its release, some scientists criticized Imagining the Unthinkable as needlessly provocative. Without questioning its basic substance, critics argued Imagining has a luridness (e.g., “a world of warring states”) that would only intensify the existing polarization regarding global warming. This argument now seems misguided, partly because recent studies show the catastrophic vision of Imagining to be relatively moderate in scope, albeit very immediate. In the last two months, we learned that the vast Greenland ice cap is melting at twice the rate previously suspected. And the Antarctic ice sheet — containing 90 percent of the world’s ice — is also melting much faster than previously suspected. The full or partial melting of the cap, or sheet, or both, would not only likely shut down the Gulf Stream entirely, but would submerge much of the world’s low-lying land. This may take hundreds of years rather than a decade or two, but it would mean devastation so radical it really is difficult to imagine. But what really makes the controversy about Imagining misguided is its insularity — though it gained much notice in Europe, it was barely mentioned in the American press. The only people arguing about it were scientists, a fact that belies concerns about Imagining’s polarization. When it comes to global warming, the real issue at stake in America is not polarization, but disinterest. As the world’s oil supply dwindles and its CO₂ count rises, Americans continue to sink their savings into gas-guzzling, carbon-spewing Hummers and Ford Excursions. This apathy is very likely the reason we appear to be so tolerant of President Bush’s unique approach to global warming, which the New Yorker’s Elizabeth Kolbert aptly characterized as the “position that either it will solve itself or it won’t.” The only Western industrialized nation not to sign the Kyoto Treaty (the world’s first major multinational agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions), the United States under the Bush administration has effectively no plan to stave off global warming. Bush has instituted a voluntary carbon reduction policy, meaning he encourages American industry to altruistically do its part for the environment (carbon emission figures show the plan to be entirely ineffectual). And he has encouraged Americans to “explore” alternative energy sources. Rebel-in-Chief — a new book by Fred Barnes, the executive editor of the conservative Weekly Standard — states that the president fundamentally doesn’t accept global warming exists, and was reinforced in that belief by a private meeting with novelist Michael Crichton, whose novel State of Fear posits that global warming is a scam by grant-seeking pseudo-scientists.
This combination of public disinterest and administration intransigence was thrown into stark relief this summer by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. After Katrina especially, the administration received scathing press regarding its response efforts. Left out of the picture was the far larger issue: As the century progresses, the greenhouse effect the administration is so ardently ignoring will result in more and more storms of the magnitude of Katrina and Rita, and with similar results. Indeed, this phenomenon is already occurring: 2005 was the stormiest year on record, and according to a recent study by Georgia Tech, Category 4 and 5 hurricanes — which are powered by warm ocean water — have almost doubled in the last 30 years.
Considering the current state of affairs, the argument that a sensational account of global warming is potentially divisive seems remarkably reductive, if not outright callow. The possible consequences of global warming are sensational — imagine the state of Florida under water. It’s time that we take notice. It’s time that we know what it means that last December, the global ocean circulatory system — known as the conveyer belt — was found to have shifted dramatically, with a 30 percent reduction of the northward flow of warm water from the Gulf Stream during the last decade — precisely the kind of development that Imagining the Unthinkable warns could be the linchpin of a major tipping point. Polarizing or not, this information bears enormous importance for the entire living earth. More importance, in fact, than all the other issues — combined — that fill the news today.
Previous Month
Comments
Discussion Guidelines
Post a comment