A new survey released earlier this month shows that the American public is far ahead of its leadership in understanding the dangers posed by global warming, and in willingness to address it:
Sea Change in Public Attitudes Toward Global Warming Emerges
Climate Change Seen as Big a Threat as Terrorism
NEW HAVEN, Conn.—A new Yale research survey reveals a significant shift in public attitudes toward the environment and global warming. Fully 83 percent of Americans now say global warming is a “serious” problem, up from 70 percent in 2004. More Americans than ever say they have serious concerns about environmental threats, such as toxic soil and water (92 percent, up from 85 percent in 2004), deforestation (89 percent, up from 78 percent), air pollution (93 percent, up from 87 percent) and the extinction of wildlife (83 percent, up from 72 percent in 2005).
Most dramatically, the survey of 1,000 adults nationwide shows that 63 percent of Americans agree that the United States “is in as much danger from environmental hazards, such as air pollution and global warming, as it is from terrorists.” It reveals growing concern about dependence on Middle Eastern oil, with 96 percent of the public saying this is a serious problem. As a result, the public overwhelmingly supports increasing the use of alternative energy, including solar and wind power, as well as investing more in energy efficiency.
The survey indicates that while 70 percent of Americans believe that President Bush doesn’t do enough for the environment and should do more, many citizens are ready to act on their own. Seventy-five percent recognize that their own behavior can help to reduce global warming, and 81 percent believe it is their responsibility to do so.
The results further suggest that many Americans want greener products and are ready to spend money to try new technologies that will help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Seventy percent of the public indicates a willingness to buy solar panels, and 67 percent would consider buying a hybrid car.
Note especially 63 percent of Americans agree that the United States “is in as much danger from environmental hazards, such as air pollution and global warming, as it is from terrorists.” . Of course, with so much of the corporate “leaders” concerned about profits before survival, don’t expect much from the corporate-controlled politicians unless corporations are certain of a profit. While there may be large profits in green products and technology, dealing with global warming may also require changes in lifestyle that will not increase profits. The question facing the human race is whether such changes can nonetheless be made. We may be at the point where capitalism (the “free market”) and human survival are in conflict. Can new forms of social organization be developed? Stay tuned.
Here are the Key Findings:
MEMORANDUM
To: Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy From: Global Strategy Group Re: 2007 Environment Survey – Key Findings Date: March 5, 2007
The 2007 Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy Survey on American Attitudes on the Environment reveals that Americans want action on global warming and energy conservation – and most agree that they have a responsibility to do their part.
• Close to two-thirds (63%) of Americans agree that our country “is in as much danger from environmental hazards such as air pollution and global warming as it is from terrorists.”
– Women (70%) are more likely to agree with this statement than are men (56%).
• The percentage of Americans who say global warming is a serious problem has risen to 83% from 70% in 2004.
– Slightly fewer Americans (79%) are concerned about ‘climate change,’ though concern about this issue has increased from 61% in 2004.
• More than two out of three (68%) Americans agree that global warming is something people can control. And fully 81% agree with the statement, “It is my responsibility to help reduce the impacts of global warming.”
– 62% of Americans agree that we need more laws to enforce energy efficiency.
– 87% agree that they look for new ways to save energy.
– 90% adjust the temperature in their house to save energy.
– Just 27% agree that “the need to conserve energy is exaggerated.”
• Two of three Americans (67%) say that, if they had to, they could explain global warming or climate change “to someone I meet in passing.”
– Men (71%), younger Americans age 18-44 (74%) and college graduates (76%) are more likely than women (63%) or seniors (55%) to say they could explain global warming to others.
• Just 33% of Americans say they are familiar with the phrase “carbon neutral.”
– Younger Americans and those between the ages 45 and 64 are more likely (36% and 34%, respectively) to say they are familiar with the term than are seniors (26%).
– Men (38%) are more likely to say they are familiar with “carbon neutral” than are women (27%).
– Just 39% of college graduates are familiar with the phrase.
The National outlook is worsening
• Nearly two-thirds (62%) of Americans believe the environment in the United States is getting worse. Just 11% think it is getting better. In 2005, 52% believed the environment was getting worse and 15% thought it was getting better.
– Women continue to be more downbeat about the direction of the environment than are men. 67% of women (up from 56% in 2005) believe the environment is getting worse, while 56% of men believe it is getting worse (compared to 47% in 2005).
• Just one in three Americans (33%) rate the overall quality of the environment in the United States as excellent or good. 65% rate the country’s environment as only fair or poor.
– In 2004 and 2005 surveys, 39% rated the overall quality of the environment in the United States as excellent or good.
• Fully 70% of Americans say President Bush doesn’t do enough for the environment and should do more. 53% say President Bush should do ‘much more.’ In our 2005 survey, 63% believed the President wasn’t doing enough for the environment.
– Compared to data from the 2004 and 2005 surveys, fewer Americans trust President Bush as a source of information about environmental issues. Just 37% say they trust President Bush at least somewhat, while as recently as 2005, the president was trusted by more than half of Americans (52% in both 2004 and 2005).
• The most-trusted sources of information about environmental issues are:
– Scientists at major universities (trusted by 76%),
– Universities (74%),
– The Environmental Protection Agency (63%, but down from 73% in 2004), and
– Industry scientists (56%).
• Nightly television news is trusted by 50% of Americans, but this is down significantly from 2004, when 69% of Americans said they trusted the television news as a source of information about the environment. 23% say they do not trust the nightly television news at all – up from 13% in 2004.
– Major newspapers have also taken a major hit. In 2004, two-thirds of Americans trusted major newspapers as sources of information about environmental issues. Today, just 45% of Americans say they trust newspapers. Fully 27% say they do not trust major newspapers at all – up from just 16% in 2004.
• When it comes to the environment, Democrats in Congress are slightly more trusted than Republicans in Congress, 45% to 39%. Both parties’ numbers are down significantly since 2004, when 57% trusted the Democrats in Congress, and 49% trusted Republicans.
Top Concerns: Dependence on Imported Oil
• Americans continue to be nearly unanimous in the belief that dependence on imported oil is a very serious problem. Fully 93% say it is a serious problem and 70% say it is a ‘very’ serious problem.
• The most popular remedy to America’s dependence on imported oil is to require the auto industry to make cars that get better gas mileage. 94% of Americans say this is a good idea. 61% say it is a ‘very good’ idea.
• 90% of Americans support building more wind-turbine farms, and 90% say it is a good idea to build more solar power facilities.
– 86% want increased funding for renewable energy research.
Americans are more interested than ever in higher-mileage and hybrid cars
• In 2005, 23% of Americans said they would ‘never’ buy a hybrid car. Today, just 13% say they would never buy a hybrid.
• 78% of Americans (and 86% of men age 18-54) would consider buying a vehicle powered by an alternative fuel like ethanol.
• 37% of Americans say they would never buy an S.U.V., down from 43% in 2005.
– 46% say they have bought or would consider buying an S.U.V., compared to 42% in 2005.
Other findings
• 56% of Americans believe it is a bad idea to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil exploration and drilling.
• 86% of Americans think it is a good idea to increase funding for renewable energy research.
– 90% think building more solar power facilities is a good idea for reducing U.S. dependence on imported oil.
ABOUT THE POLL
The nationwide survey of 1017 American adults was conducted on behalf of the Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy by Global Strategy Group from February 5-11, 2007.
• The survey was conducted using professional phone interviewers.
• The nationwide sample was drawn from a random digit dial (RDD) process.
• Respondents were screened on the basis of age, i.e., to be over the age of 18.
• The survey has an overall margin of error of ±3.07% at the 95% confidence level. That is, if the same survey were conducted among similar respondents, the results would fall within the range of ±3.07% in 19 out of 20 cases.
Now that global warming is finally getting attention, massive attention is focussed upon carbon trading schemes that allow companies to pollute, as long as they purchase alleged offsetting savings elsewhere. David Morris at AlterNet shows that these schemes are easily open to gaming and are likely to make speculators and manipulators rich while doing little or nothing for the environment.
Al Gore has done great work calling attention to the dangers posed by global warming. But his enthusiasm for carbon trading threatens to undo this good. It may be the case that global warming cannot be addressed without, at a minimum, significant changes to our corporate-controlled so-called “free market” system. The world may have to choose between “free markets” and “freedom to live.” Unfortunately, it looks like we’ll choose the former.
The last thing we need is to have the world endorse schemes that will do little to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The S&L and Enron scandals cost billions. This scandal could cost us a livable world.
The Dag Hammarskjold Foundation did an excellent analysis of carbon trading in its September 2006 Development Dialogue magazine. “With a bit of judicious accounting,” the report found, “a company investing in foreign ‘carbon-saving’ projects can increase fossil emissions both at home and abroad while claiming to make reductions in both locations.”
Carbon traders seek the lowest cost carbon offset. Which almost always means tree planting in some far off country, without regard to its long-term effects on the community or the environment, or a modest reduction in the emissions of a highly polluting factory in a developing nation. A company needing, or wanting, offsets may have to choose between investing a significant amount of capital that has long-term and very substantial savings, or buying much lower cost and short-term offsets. From a short-term economic perspective, the latter will always be the preferred choice. A study reported in Nature, the scientific journal, supported this proposition. It found that only 2 percent of the United Nations’ trading projects involving either renewable energy or communities that follow eco-friendly practices with regard to tree cultivation and harvesting.
The UN Food and Agriculture Organization says, in a new report, that raising livestock are causing more greenhouse gases than does the entire transportation sector:
Says Henning Steinfeld, Chief of FAO’s Livestock Information and Policy Branch and senior author of the report: “Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems. Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.”
With increased prosperity, people are consuming more meat and dairy products every year. Global meat production is projected to more than double from 229 million tonnes in 1999/2001 to 465 million tonnes in 2050, while milk output is set to climb from 580 to 1043 million tonnes.
As a further indicator of danger, according to the report, the livestock sector is growing factor than any other agricultural sector.
Livestock production produces 9% of global CO2 emissions, but this translates into 18% of “CO2 equivalents” as
[I]t generates 65 percent of human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2. Most of this comes from manure.
And it accounts for respectively 37 percent of all human-induced methane (23 times as warming as CO2), which is largely produced by the digestive system of ruminants, and 64 percent of ammonia, which contributes significantly to acid rain.
The report also details land devastation, damage to water resources, and other damaging effects from livestock production.
Now, I’m not a vegetarian, but this report suggests that these problems will have to be addressed as part of any global strategy to address global warming, not to mention to preserve the land and water systems upon which we, and all life, depend.
Laurie David, a producer of “An Inconvenient Truth,” has an Op Ed in today’s Washington Post which indicates that the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) has turned down 50,000 free copies of “An Inconvenient Truth” because they are concerned about “special interests.” However, they had no problem taking $6 million from Exxon Mobil. They also have no difficulty accepting money from Shell Oil and the American Petroleum Institute (API). The NSTA has had no difficulty distributing “You Can’t Be Cool Without Fuel,” produced by the API to pitch for use of oil.
The education organization also hosts an annual convention — which is described on Exxon Mobil’s Web site as featuring “more than 450 companies and organizations displaying the most current textbooks, lab equipment, computer hardware and software, and teaching enhancements.” The company “regularly displays” its “many . . . education materials” at the exhibition. John Borowski, a science teacher at North Salem High School in Salem, Ore., was dismayed by NSTA’s partnerships with industrial polluters when he attended the association’s annual convention this year and witnessed hundreds of teachers and school administrators walk away with armloads of free corporate lesson plans.
Along with propaganda challenging global warming from Exxon Mobil, the curricular offerings included lessons on forestry provided by Weyerhaeuser and International Paper, Borowski says, and the benefits of genetic engineering courtesy of biotech giant Monsanto.
“The materials from the American Petroleum Institute and the other corporate interests are the worst form of a lie: omission,” Borowski says. “The oil and coal guys won’t address global warming, and the timber industry papers over clear-cuts.”
An API memo leaked to the media as long ago as 1998 succinctly explains why the association is angling to infiltrate the classroom: “Informing teachers/students about uncertainties in climate science will begin to erect barriers against further efforts to impose Kyoto-like measures in the future.”
So, how is any of this different from showing Gore’s movie in the classroom? The answer is that neither Gore nor Participant Productions, which made the movie, stands to profit a nickel from giving away DVDs, and we aren’t facing millions of dollars in lost business from limits on global-warming pollution and a shift to cleaner, renewable energy.
It’s hard to say whether NSTA is a bad guy here or just a sorry victim of tight education budgets. And we don’t pretend that a two-hour movie is a substitute for a rigorous science curriculum. Students should expect, and parents should demand, that educators present an honest and unbiased look at the true state of knowledge about the challenges of the day.
As for Exxon Mobil — which just began a fuzzy advertising campaign that trumpets clean energy and low emissions — this story shows that slapping green stripes on a corporate tiger doesn’t change the beast within. The company is still playing the same cynical game it has for years.
While NSTA and Exxon Mobil ponder the moral lesson they’re teaching with all this, there are 50,000 DVDs sitting in a Los Angeles warehouse, waiting to be distributed. In the meantime, Mom and Dad may want to keep a sharp eye on their kids’ science homework.
Corporate Accountability International, along with the Polaris Institute, and Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) are conducting a National Day of Action around the unregulated state of bottled water. They are encouraging citizens to call the big three bottled water conglomerates (i.e., Coca Cola, Pepsi, and Nestles) and demand that they provide independent testing of their water’s quality. As an email I received states:
This is part of a much larger campaign to challenge corporate control of water and protect water as a fundamental human right. Think Outside the Bottle is our U.S. public education campaign. We focus a lot on bottled water here, since it is one of the most visible examples of corporate control of water.
Here is their press release:
Subject: Do you know what’s in that bottle of water?
Do you know what’s in that bottle of water sitting in your refrigerator? Probably not, right? Well, that’s because bottled water corporations, like Coke, Pepsi and Nestlé, aggressively lobby against legislation that would require them to disclose complete water quality information.
Join our National Day of Action! Send an e-mail to the CEOs of Coke (Dasani), Pepsi (Aquafina) and Nestlé (Poland Spring, Deer Park, Arrowhead and more). Ask when these corporations will provide water quality reports based on independent testing comparable to those provided by our public water utilities.
The bottled water industry is one of the least regulated industries in the United States. Yet the giant bottling corporations spend tens of millions of dollars every year trying to convince us that bottled water is safer and more pure than tap water. We just don’t buy it!
Take action today! Click here to send an e-mail to the CEOs of Coke, Pepsi and Nestlé.
You can also join thousands of people across the country who are calling these corporations today in a joint Day of Action. Scroll down the page for phone numbers and a script to help make your calls faster and easier!
After your calls, please take a moment to let us know what happened. You can report your phone calls by calling our Campaign Headquarters at 800-688-8797 or by e-mailing us at activistnetwork@StopCorporateAbuse.org.
Onward,
Patti Lynn, Campaigns Director
________________________________ Call-In Day Scripts
Call Coke CEO Neville Isdell:
Call 1-800-Get-Coke. Hi, my name is ________. I’d like to speak to CEO Neville Isdell, please.
You will likely be asked what the question is, or to leave a message:
I have a question. I know that your product Dasani is regulated by the FDA. And, I know that Coca-Cola says it uses filtration systems, voluntary testing and state of the art processes for its bottled water; but all of this information comes directly from Coke. As a consumer, I want to see the actual results of water quality tests from over the past year, like my public water system must provide. Coke continues to advertise bottled water as more safe and pure than tap water; when will Coke provide water quality reports based on independent testing that are comparable to those provided by our public water utilities?
________________________________ Call Pepsi CEO Indra Nooyi:
Call PEPSI (914) 253-2000. Hi, my name is ________. I’d like to speak to CEO Indra Nooyi, please.
You will likely be asked what the question is, or to leave a message:
I have a question. I know that Pepsi’s Aquafina bottled water is regulated by the FDA. And, I know that Pepsi says it uses filtration systems, voluntary testing and state of the art processes for its bottled water; but all of this information comes directly from Pepsi. As a consumer, I want to see the actual results of water quality tests from over the past year, like my public water system must provide. Pepsi continues to advertise bottled water as more safe and pure than tap water; when will Pepsi provide water quality reports based on independent testing that are comparable to those provided by our public water utilities?
________________________________ Call Nestlé Waters North America CEO Kim E. Jeffery:
Call NESTLÉ WATERS NORTH AMERICA 1-800-937-7708. Hi, my name is ________. I’d like to speak to CEO Kim E. Jeffery, please.
You will likely be asked what the question is, or to leave a message:
I have a question. I know that Nestlé bottled water brands like Poland Spring/Deer Park/Arrowhead (put in the local brand here) are regulated by the FDA. And, I know that Nestlé says it uses filtration systems, voluntary testing, state of the art processes and protected water sources for its bottled water; but all of this information comes directly from Nestlé. As a consumer, I want to see up-to-date and current actual results of water quality tests from over the past year, like my public water system must provide. Nestlé continues to advertise bottled water as more safe and pure than tap water; when will Nestlé provide a current, comprehensive and independent water quality report comparable to reports provided by our public water utilities?
A new British Government study of the economic effects of global warming estimates that global warming, if unchecked, will cause economic damage amounting to 5% to 20% of world GDP and create 200 million refugees. [£3.68 trillion: The price of failing to act on climate change]
In contrast, it estimates that global warming could be addressed by spending 1% of GDP, “roughly the same amount as is spent worldwide on advertising, and half what the World Bank estimates a full-blown flu pandemic would cost”
The review by Sir Nicholas Stern, commissioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and published tomorrow, marks a crucial point in the debate by underlining how failure to act would trigger a catastrophic global recession. Unchecked climate change would turn 200 million people into refugees, the largest migration in modern history, as their homes succumbed to drought or flood.
Stern also warns that a successor to the Kyoto agreement on cutting greenhouse gas emissions should be signed next year, not by 2010/11 as planned. He forecasts that the world needs to spend 1 per cent of global GDP - equivalent to about £184bn - dealing with climate change now, or face a bill between five and 20 times higher for damage caused by letting it continue. Unchecked climate change could thus cost as much as £566 for every man, woman and child now on the planet - roughly 6.5 billion people.
The 700-page report argues that an international framework on climate change covering the globe will be necessary, and that different countries may opt to reduce emissions differently. Options range from many more green taxes to carbon trading.
This article doesn’t discuss what assumptions are made bout the magnitude of global warming and its effects. But it seems that it used rather optimistic assumptions. Others argue that the type of reforms discussed here are just the tip of the iceberg of what’s needed. But, at least it would be a start, which is a lot better than where we are now.
[UPDATE:Here is a link to the full report. Also available there are a Press Release, a presentation, etc.]
People spend billions of dollars a year [yes, that's billions] on bottled water. Some estimates say a fraction of that money could provide safe water for everyone on earth.
What are we getting for those billions? Scammed! As this AlterNet article discusses, many people in most cities cannot tell the difference from tap water.
Walking through Boston’s Copley Square on a sunny day last month, however, she was intrigued by a banner advertising something called the “Tap Water Challenge.” As she approached the table, a fresh-faced activist behind it told her the “challenge” was a blind taste test to see if passersby could tell the difference between bottled water and tap water. Mahoney turned her back while four water samples were poured into small paper cups — two of tap water from Boston and a nearby suburb, and one each of Poland Spring and Aquafina.
“That’s tap water,” Mahoney declared after draining the first cup. “That tastes just like what I drink at home.” Her confidence faded, however, as she downed the next three, which all seemed to taste the same. When the cups were turned over, it turned out that what she thought was tap water was actually Aquafina — and what she thought was Poland Spring was actually the same Boston tap water she gets at home for free. “I couldn’t believe it, I couldn’t believe it,” she says later. “You know I pay so much for that water. Now I am thinking to stop the Poland Spring.”
Of course, if a simple, inexpensive filter was used to remove some of the chlorine and other substances, the tap water tastes better and is safer.
And the tap water is often safer than bottled water:
A 1999 study by the National Resources Defense Council of more than 1,000 bottles of water found that, while most bottled water was safe, some brands violated strict state standards on bacterial contamination, while others were found to contain harmful chemicals such as arsenic. The report concluded that bottled water was no safer than water taken from the tap.
In some cases bottled water is more dangerous than water from the tap:
Of course, Coke and Pepsi tout the elaborate additional steps they take that purify the water after it comes out of the tap, with both companies filtering it multiple times to remove particulates before subjecting it to additional techniques such as “reverse osmosis” and ozone treatment. Reverse osmosis, however, is hardly state of the art — essentially consisting of the same treatment applied through commercially available home tap water filters, while ozonation can introduce additional problems such as the formation of the chemical bromate, a suspected carcinogen. In March 2004, Coca-Cola was forced to recall nearly 500,000 bottles of Dasani water in the United Kingdom due to bromate contamination that exceeded the U.K. and U.S. limit of 10 parts per billion. This past August, three grocery stores chains in upstate New York who all used local company Mayer Bros. to produce their store brands issued recalls after samples were found contaminated with more than double the bromate limit; in some cases, contaminated water was apparently sold for five weeks before the problem was detected.
Further, not only is bottled water often indistinguishable from tap water, much of the time it is tap water:
In fact, many times bottled water is tap water. Contrary to the image of water flowing from pristine mountain springs, more than a quarter of bottled water actually comes from municipal water supplies.
For years I have been amazed at the willingness of people to fall for this corporate scam. The bottled water buzz is simply a few large corporations trying to get us to pay for what we used to consider a public good:
The industry is dominated by three companies, who together control more than half the market: Coca-Cola, which produces Dasani; Pepsi, which produces Aquafina; and Nestlé, which produces several “local” brands including Poland Spring, Arrowhead, Deer Park, Ozarka and Calistoga (a fact that itself often surprises participants in the Tap Water Challenges). Both Coke and Pepsi exclusively use tap water for their source, while Nestlé uses tap water in some brands.
The bottled water industry is damaging to the environment:
itizens in states including Maine, Michigan, Texas, and Florida have all fought against Nestlé, whom they accuse of harming the environment by depleting aquifers and damaging stream systems with extractions of massive amounts of water though their local bottling affiliates, for which they pay next to nothing in fees and then sell at a huge markup. In 2003, Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation (MCWC) won a landmark court victory shutting down a Nestlé plant that was taking water from a stream that fed a wildlife refuge, sensitive marshland and several lakes.
Further, the trend toward bottled water, like much privatization, endangers support for the public infrastructure that makes society livable:
For the activists behind the taste test however, the growth of bottled water undermines the public’s willingness to invest in the kind of infrastructure investments that could improve all public water supplies — opening up the door in some cases to privatization of water systems by for-profit corporations. “People get in the habit of paying a lot more for their drinking water, and they say if we are paying for bottled water, there is no reason we shouldn’t be paying a lot for these water services,” says Tony Clarke, director of the Polaris Institute and author of “Inside the Bottle,” a report critical of the bottled water industry. The downside, he says, is increased cost. “Whenever there is a public service utility taken over by a private service the first thing that happens is that rates are jacked up.”
Why do those most skeptical of corporate domination fall for this scam? Analysis is required of the fantasies of purity and of pollution that dominate so much of our public and private lives. Tap water is processed. We see it come out of the tap. It’s the same water that is in our polluted toilets. The chlorine taste reminds us of that “pollution.”
In contrast, bottled water creates the fantasy of natural purity. Those mountains and springs in the name and pictured on the bottles create this fantasy. The fact that the water comes from Coca Cola or Nestles can be ignored. The fantasy is a little whiff of purity in the midst of our polluted lives.
Further, buying bottled water allows the simultaneous gratification of sin and virtue. We can go into the convenience store and buy a product to consume while at the same time feeling virtuous for not falling for the inducements to buy and consume the flavored sugar water that fill the stores shelves. One act can be good and bad at the same time.
Meanwhile, the large corporate purveyors of this fantasy rake in the dough. Perhaps its time to just say know to that spring in a bottle.
Regarding another potential catastrophe, one I haven’t written about for a while, the avian flu pandemic potential, Revere at Effect Measure writes of a new complication. What happens to all that Tamiflu that will be taken and excreted into the environment? Turns out no one knows. Revere thinks we’d beter find out.
The Independent has yet another article on the fate befaling the world if global warming isn’t stopped, like, right now. A team of British scientists predicts that drought will likely sweep much of the earth:
The study, by Eleanor Burke and two Hadley Centre colleagues, models how a measure of drought known as the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) is likely to increase globally during the coming century with predicted changes in rainfall and heat around the world because of climate change. It shows the PDSI figure for moderate drought, currently at 25 per cent of the Earth’s surface, rising to 50 per cent by 2100, the figure for severe drought, currently at about 8 per cent, rising to 40 cent, and the figure for extreme drought, currently 3 per cent, rising to 30 per cent.
Like good scientists, the study authors do warn of limitations in their study:
Senior Met Office scientists are sensitive about the study, funded by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, stressing it contains uncertainties: there is only one climate model involved, one future scenario for emissions of greenhouse gases (a moderate-to-high one) and one drought index. Nevertheless, the result is “significant”, according to Vicky Pope, the head of the Hadley Centre’s climate programme. Further work would now be taking place to try to assess the potential risk of different levels of drought in different places, she said.
What does this mean for the world’s people?
“We’re talking about 30 per cent of the world’s land surface becoming essentially uninhabitable in terms of agricultural production in the space of a few decades,” Mark Lynas, the author of High Tide, the first major account of the visible effects of global warming around the world, said. “These are parts of the world where hundreds of millions of people will no longer be able to feed themselves.”
Mr Pendleton said: “This means you’re talking about any form of development going straight out of the window. The vast majority of poor people in the developing world are small-scale farmers who… rely on rain.”
The poorest areas of world, especially Africa, will be the hardest hit.
Though the article doesn’t discuss effects on the developed world, one can only wonder what would happen to the world if the US midwest and/or California became desert.
This study is yet another piece of evidence suggesting the world had better act now or else prepare for the loss of tens of millions, or more, people. It sounds strident, but I believe that we may be experiencing the last century of human civilization as we know it.
I wish I knew how to bring about change, but the tendency toward denial and delay is extraordinarily powerful. My fellow psychoanalysts and psychologists should help address this issue, and some do. But all too many among them are themselves absorbed by the pull of the immediate. It doesn’t appear that psychoanalysis helps people to be forward looking. Too bad.
Thanks to Daily Kos, which reprts that Bush is going to make a major speech on global warming [in Washington DC, no doubt], and day now. Get prepared to laugh and to cry.