Global Warming Daniel Botkin Delivers

Global Warming

Daniel Botkin delivers a wholly ineffective argument in favor of ignoring the impact of global warming, and he uses a number of slick rhetorical devices to distract the reader from the heart of the message. Yet, it is exactly in the heart of that message that we find the compelling reason to set aside short-term self-interest long enough to act in the best interests of the planet. In the grand scheme of things, Botkin is right in that the planet and most life on it will carry on just fine. The problem with climate change is that we -- human beings -- are among the species most at risk from climate change. The best way to frame the argument that we should take action to stem climate change is not the red herring argument that we are pitting our own interests against the planet's. The accurate way of framing this debate is the best one, and the most effective one -- we need to take action to stem climate change because if we do not, we are choosing short-run self-interest over long-run self-interest. In doing so, we are failing to make the rational, survival-based decisions that other species are already making to keep themselves alive.

To make this point, we can begin with one of Botkin's sloppy arguments. He argues that because the Vikings made a warming trend in the middle ages work to their advantage, we do not need to worry much about rising sea levels. This conveniently ignores the fact that we are not Vikings. We do not live in sod houses that can easily be moved to higher ground. We live by the hundreds of millions in cities permanently affixed to the seaside. Flooding of coastal areas is one of the biggest risks we face as the result of climate change. The ten cities most at risk from climate-change related flooding are Mumbai, Guangzhou, Shanghai, Miami, Saigon, Calcutta, New York, Osaka, Alexandria and New Orleans (Vigran, 2008). That is eight of the world's most powerful and vibrant cities, with a combined population in the range of 125 million people. And that is just the ten most at-risk cities. It is ludicrous to equate the relocation of a few hundred Vikings with the relocation of the largest and most powerful cities -- along with billions of their residents.

Botkin notes that mockingbirds came to New York not for better weather, but because one of their food sources had set up shop in New York City. He probably -- if he is serious about his academic bona fides -- should have asked the question of how that plant came to recently settle in New York. Plants, and other creatures that form the lower rungs of the food chain, respond directly to climate stimulus. When one element of the ecosystem changes, all the other elements must change along with it. There may be cases where the realignment goes smoothly, there is also a significant risk that the realignment will not go smoothly at all. Either way, there are significant ramifications for our food supply. Unlike the mockingbirds, we cannot simply fly to somewhere else to find more food -- our system of nation states simply does not allow for that kind of freedom of movement.

Zhang and Cai (2011) released a study that illustrates how different the outcomes might be in the next century based on current climate models. Some models show gains in arable land exceeding losses, others show the reverse. This is important because unlike in past times in history, we cannot simply move hundreds of millions of people from regions with no food to regions with food. We are already at a point where many countries have very little agricultural land under cultivation. With rising populations -- the planet just cracked seven billion last year and is headed for upwards of 10 billion by the end of the century. Those are all people who will want food -- if we have no more land (under an arable land net loss scenario), feeding them will be a challenge. Especially if we run out of oil for fertilizer -- that is going to happen in the next hundred years or so, too. So while we may gain 4% extra arable land, we are going to gain 40% more people, and we will be running low on the oil that has allowed agricultural production to keep pace with population growth in the last fifty years.

These are just two of many issues relating to climate change. But both of these issues are important to the survival of humans as early as the latter part of the 21st century. In other words, our grandchildren, and their children. This is what I mean when I say we are faced with a choice of our short-term gain vs. The long-term benefits of the human race. We can choose to commute twenty-five miles in a single occupancy vehicle each way every day because we want a slightly bigger house. We can buy cheap plastic junk from halfway around the world, because its low price allows us to buy more of it. These are choices we could make, but when we make those choices, we are increasing the odds that our grandchildren are going to eat less than we do. It may not be hyperbole to argue that the extra patty you put on your hamburger is coming from the mouth of your great grandchild. When you dismiss the idea of living close to where you work, you may be condemning your descendants to do exactly that. When you fly to Miami Beach to party for a weekend, you may be ensuring that there is no such thing as Miami Beach when your grandchildren are looking for some fun in the sun -- assuming they could afford such a thing.