Environmental conundrums (conundra?)

I am a strong believer in the probability/possibility of climate-change. My counterpart would not be a person who is merely a non-believer in climate-change. He would be an active denier of what is called AGW, Anthropogenic Global Warming. Now you know the dividing line.

It was just coincidence that I read two articles on global warming, one from Scientific American [1] and the other from The Economist [2]. Both agree, at least implicitly, that it is no more any good to deny that human beings are altering the global environment through processes traceable to any species on a scale that has not happened before. But there ends the similarities. The Scientific American article, authored by Madhusree Mukerjee (You must read her first book The Naked People, on the tribes of Andaman & Nicobar Islands), tackles the issue head on: this is what is happening to the climate (charts and all and reasonably heavy on science terms) and let us see where we will end up.

In the 1970s MIT developed a climate model called World 3 and it truly is amazing that its predictions as regards population, industrial output, non-renewable resources and pollution match to a ‘T’ what is being observed.

One of the researchers on World 3 says that things will not feel a whole lot different for the next three decades or so. But then comes, as Ms. Mukerjee springs a metaphor, the Wile E. Coyote moment – running off a cliff chasing Road Runner, suspended in mid-air for a brief moment and then … drop, drop and drop and SPLAT!

The basic reckoning is “the global industrial system has so much inertia that it cannot readily correct course in response to signals of planetary stress.” That is, all that external calm will only flatter to deceive. The reckoning would be swift and serious. Just as Wile E. Coyote could not stop till he splattered himself on the ground, the environmental “collapse” will have no half-way house.

OK, where is the conundrum here, particularly for someone who believes in AGW? Ms. Mukerjee writes shrill. Her book that introduced me to much about the islands and its natives was shrill and so is this piece. That in itself is not bad because as regards the tribes of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, my thick skull needed to be pierced by a sharp instrument. But, on AGW, I do not need that. I asked myself, “Who is she writing for?” It could only be for someone who is a dyed-in-the-wool skeptic. But then, it was way too scientific for the non-believer. By being shrill she might get the ears of the skeptic but by being so scientific she would be discouraging them. This was the first conundrum.

The second conundrum pertains to the article in The Economist. The newspaper was a strong climate skeptic till about a few years ago. And, in the current short piece, it takes pot shots with glee at the travails of Heartland Institute, “the world’s most prominent think-tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change [AGW].” The institute is hemorrhaging funds, after it ran an advertisement in which it put words into the mouth of the terrorist-cum-mass murderer (by the way, not an Islamist) “Unabomber”, aka Ted Kaczynski: “I still believe in Global Warming. Do you?” The implication is anyone who believes in AGW is a terrorist, or at least a potential terrorist. This did not sit well with PepsiCo (Indra Nooyi), Eli Lily, BB&T bank and a few other donors, who dropped Heartland Institute mercilessly – Wile E. Coyote dropping down very fast!

The article left me with deeply unsettling questions: why this schadenfreude? Why be so cruel to one of its early bedmates? Is the newspaper currying favor with the AGW crowd and if yes, for what? The Economist is proud of its elitism – Bill Gates reads it, for example. AGWers do not generally comprise the elitist crowd. Then, why the transformation? Should I believe that it has had its Road to Damascus moment? Did the newspaper suddenly become a first generation environmentalist? Could it be that it thinks there is money in promoting belief in AGW – new technologies, including the capital intensive geoengineering? Questions, questions and more questions – third generation conundrum?

The issue of climate change is very complex and it heavily taxes my brain. I did not want to add to its burden. But, I like Madhusree Mukerjee’s writing and also The Economist.

What can I do? Poor me and my brain.

References

1.    Apocalypse soon: Has Civilization Passed the Environmental Point of No Return? Madhusree Mukerjee, Scientific American, May 23, 2012

2.    Toxic Shock: A climate-change sceptic is melting, The Economist, May 26, 2012