Books, References and Links

This list will be updated as we go along. I’m sure that readers will have excellent suggestions and I will add any that seem appropriate.

Suggested books

       Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Gared Diamond

       What’s the Worst that Could Happen? A Rational Response to the Climate Change Debate, by Greg Craven

       Our Choice, A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis by Al Gore

       Also by Al Gore: Climate Change: Picturing the Science

       The Flooded Earth by Peter Ward -- explaining the
effect of carbon dioxide and ice cap melting on the rise of sea levels and the destruction of much agricultural land and coastal cities/populations.

       Also by Peter Ward: The life and death of Planet Earth

Interesting Links

Naomi Klein: Why Climate Change Is So Threatening to Right-Wing Ideologues

http://www.alternet.org/water/150180       "Climate change challenges everything conservatives believe in. So they're choosing to disbelieve it, at our peril."

From my friend Arden: Suggested presentations on www.ted.com .

·        www.ted.com/talks/peter_ward_on_mass_extinctions.html  makes the case that the past mass extinctions were caused by carbon dioxide build ups and Hydrogen Sulfide releases, not just extraterrestrial body impacts. 

 www.ted.com/talks/nic_marks_the_happy_planet_index.html  talks about GDP being a poor national measure of well-being. Also, that the Declaration of Independence calls for the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (not the pursuit of GDP).

 http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/juan_enriquez_wants_to_grow_energy.html Juan talks about bioenergy and global warming and the destructive path we are on. He also has a TED eBook on evolution going forward.

 http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth.html  talks about population growth with excellent graphics.

Articles

Here's an article about the GOP and science: "3/4ths of Senate GOP Doesn't Believe in Science"

http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/150340

Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense by John Rennie. Scientific American –November 30, 2009

3rd Reason: A Leap of Faith

To act against GW requires what is essentially a leap of faith. Are we really going to have climate change? How bad will it be? What if we act and all the scientists turn out to have been wrong, or Tom’s historical review of the industrial revolution and population growth was just a lot of hot air? Wouldn’t we have wasted huge amounts of national resources in an attempt to battle a non-existent boogie man? What if?

There is a wonderful little book by Greg Craven called “What’s the worst that could happen? A Rational Response to the Climate Change Debate” in which he addresses this issue by helping the reader create a decision grid which looks something like this:

ACTION

Global Warming	A Significant Action Now	B Little or No Action Now
False	Huge expense wasted	Party time!
True	Economic costs Increased regulations But worth it!	Global catastrophe (economic, social, political, public health, environmental)

On the left of the chart is Global Warming, True or False. Across the top are two choices: to act or not to act. In the middle of the grid are the consequences of each action if GW is false or if it is true. The author, like myself, would rather act in case GW is true and avoid global catastrophe and risk the waste if it turns out to be false. 

But in any case, because we have never been confronted with any issue like it, and because all our predictions about GW are highly educated guesses, not based (because they can’t be) on actual experience, deciding to take action is an act of faith. And so far, too many of us, especially those who rely on experience and certainty, can’t yet trust a bunch of scientists peering with highly technical and difficult-to-understand lenses into a never before experienced future.

Wouldn’t it be SO much easier if we could rely on experience and say something like, “Remember what happened a few centuries ago when we had our last global warming? That was a disaster because the idiots who were around then didn’t take action in time. Let’s be smarter this time and act now!” But of course we can’t. But perhaps we can find another way, and perhaps you, dear reader, can help me. Comments welcome!

Second Reason: The time delay factor

One of the key problems with global warming is that what we are doing today doesn’t affect us today; it affects us, or our children and grandchildren ten, twenty, even forty years from now. Danger is looming, but not on a time scale we’re used to. With GW, the results of today’s actions lie far in the future, so it’s not triggering those effective alarms I just talked about.

So if we wait and only act once the thirty or forty years have passed, when the problem’s effects will have their greatest impact, it will be too late.

We humans just aren’t designed to plan ahead and act with such long delays. We plan for tomorrow, next week, next quarter, or occasionally with a five year plan.  But a forty year plan? Especially one where we must act now in some huge way and then wait, wondering if what we have done was either effective or just a waste of resources. I don’t know of any case where we humans have ever had to look that far ahead. And I’m guessing that from an evolutionary point of view we are not designed for that kind of extended foresight.

However, just because it’s difficult for us doesn’t mean I don’t think we can find a solution, or can take effective group action to solve the problem. I just think it is useful to know what we’re up against. The more completely we know the enemy, the more effective we can be in the next battle.