Too Late for Us and Who Cares About Them?

To a majority of climatologists, we’ve probably long since passed the tipping point where we can reverse the impact of climate change. Having come off the hottest May in recorded history, with unending droughts in significant parts of the world, punctuated by massive flooding in others, facing the spread of tropic diseases carried by mosquitos, watching big storms wreak big havoc everywhere, ice flows melting, fires raging, farmers raging at water rationing, aquifers and reservoirs drained and unlikely ever to be refilled, islands and shorelines disappearing, it does seem as if we are not really going to be able to go back to normal. Nobody wants less electrical power, fewer cars and increased manufacturing and power-generation costs from conservation measures – although there are lots of jobs in them thar changes – but we are really at a crossroads in our relationship with the earth.

Mega-polluter China marches to its own drumbeat, and it seems oblivious to the demands of outside environmentalists to take control of its toxic waterways – water used to irrigate and feed its people – unbreathable air and excessive reliance on coal-fired power generation. But China doesn’t listen to external demands, never has. However, since we are seeing local reports leaked and blogged about by local citizens, the tea leaves tell me that China’s new leadership has opened the door to allowing such criticism… for purely selfish reasons.

The Communist Party is particularly sensitive to any threats to its existence. Priority one. Falun Gong – a religious sect with a view that doesn’t jibe with Party rule – is banned. Uighurs – Muslims primarily in Xinjiang Province – who protest traditional Party rule are arrested and executed. Mega-billionaires rising in power seemed to trump Party bigwigs… until the Party demanded their membership in the party itself, pledging their loyalty to the central government. So the rule is: when something occurs that challenges the Party, ban it or co-opt it. Banning is like crushing the lifeblood out over every vestige of the threat. And co-opting the wealthy has moved China to the forefront of economic power.

The environment has become such an obvious threat to the life expectancy, survival even, of the hundreds of millions of people living in toxic PRC environments, that for a vast horde of citizens, getting the government to deal with the issue is a matter of life and death. And when issues reach this critical mass, they threaten the ability of the Party to maintain control. The trouble is that too many party officials – regulators of business and power generation – sit on the boards controlling the polluters, drawing huge financial benefits as a result. So China’s leader, Xi Jinping, has asked his own family to divest controversial holdings and has clamped down on a few very highly ranked officials to send a clear message for everyone to prepare for a big change in the way the PRC is run.

Those key arrests and clearly permitted leaks about big polluters tell me that China is about to embark on the biggest environmental clean-up in history. It will be a slow start with an astoundingly quick follow-up if China’s past implementational efforts are any measure. They won’t do this for us… they will do it to keep power. Watch!

But what about us? What are we doing? With the Supreme Court supporting most of the mandates of the Environmental Protection Agency, and a new Obama administration target to reduce toxic emissions from power plants, there are some signs that the toxicity needle might be moderating. But we are still mucking up our backyard in such an incredibly irresponsible way that generations to come will be forced to live in world that is rather dramatically less friendly than even the toxic environment we call home today.

So much damage is done and irreversible. “Over the next quarter-century, heat-related death rates will probably double in the southeastern states. Crop losses that used to happen only once every 20 years because of cataclysmic weather will occur five times as often.

“This is our future even if every person on the planet abruptly stopped burning coal, gas, oil, wood or anything else containing carbon today and we hooked the world economy onto the wind and the sun tomorrow. The change is baked in, caused by CO₂ spewed into the air long ago.” New York Times, June 24^th.

We know what we are likely to face. It is conveniently summarized in a report (released on June 24^th) from the Risky Business Project, a coalition of political and business luminaries representing widely different political views — including the former Treasury secretaries George P. Shultz, Robert E. Rubin and Henry M. Paulson Jr. — that examines the longer-term impact of our current disdain for the environment. Here is a summary from that report (including some hard-dollar costs), telling it “like it is”:

Large-scale losses of coastal property and infrastructure 

·         If we continue on our current path, by 2050 between $66 billion and $106 billion worth of existing coastal property will likely be below sea level nationwide, with $238 billion to $507 billion worth of property below sea level by 2100.

·         There is a 1-in-20 chance—about the same chance as an American developing colon cancer; twice as likely as an American developing melanoma—that by the end of this century, more than $701 billion worth of existing coastal property will be below mean sea levels, with more than $730 billion of additional property at risk during high tide. By the same measure of probability, average annual losses from hurricanes and other coastal storms along the Eastern Seaboard and the Gulf of Mexico will grow by more than $42 billion due to sea level rise alone. Potential changes in hurricane activity could raise this figure to $108 billion. 

·         Property losses from sea level rise are concentrated in specific regions of the U.S., especially on the Southeast and Atlantic coasts, where the rise is higher and the losses far greater than the national average.

Extreme heat across the nation—especially in the Southwest, Southeast, and Upper Midwest—threatening labor productivity, human health, and energy systems 

·         By the middle of this century, the average American will likely see 27 to 50 days over 95°F each year—two to more than three times the average annual number of 95°F days we’ve seen over the past 30 years. By the end of this century, this number will likely reach 45 to 96 days over 95°F each year on average.

·         As with sea level rise, these national averages mask regional extremes, especially in the Southwest, Southeast, and upper Midwest, which will likely see several months of 95°F days each year.

·         Labor productivity of outdoor workers, such as those working in construction, utility maintenance, landscaping, and agriculture, could be reduced by as much as 3%, particularly in the Southeast. For context, labor productivity across the entire U.S. labor force declined about 1.5% during the famous “productivity slowdown” in the 1970s.

·         Over the longer term, during portions of the year, extreme heat could surpass the threshold at which the human body can no longer maintain a normal core temperature without air conditioning, which we measure using a “Humid Heat Stroke Index” (HHSI). During these periods, anyone whose job requires them to work outdoors, as well as anyone lacking access to air conditioning, will face severe health risks and potential death. 

·         Demand for electricity for air conditioning will surge in those parts of the country facing the most extreme temperature increases, straining regional generation and transmission capacity and driving up costs for consumers. 

Shifting agricultural patterns and crop yields, with likely gains for Northern farmers offset by losses in the Midwest and South 

·         As extreme heat spreads across the middle of the country by the end of the century, some states in the Southeast, lower Great Plains, and Midwest risk up to a 50% to 70% loss in average annual crop yields (corn, soy, cotton, and wheat), absent agricultural adaptation.

·         At the same time, warmer temperatures and carbon fertilization may improve agricultural productivity and crop yields in the upper Great Plains and other northern states.

·         Food systems are resilient at a national and global level, and agricultural producers have proven themselves extremely able to adapt to changing climate conditions. These shifts, however, still carry risks for the individual farming communities most vulnerable to projected climatic changes.

In the end, climate change deniers may be among the least patriotic Americans in the nation, willing to sacrifice their very country and its future to their current selfish consumption needs. They may think they have a “good explanation,” often religiously-based, to support their position, but I doubt that there are very many of them who really believe what they are saying, particularly elected politicians (How can you tell if a politician is lying? His/her lips are moving.). If we love this country, we need to take care of God’s gift to us: planet earth which we share with a whole lot of other creatures and lifeforms.

I’m Peter Dekom, and the tipping point between extreme selfishness and “love thy neighbor” is now upon us!