Changing climate

Last year, when it was learned that eight of the 10 hottest years since 1860 had occurred since 1990, Congress was provoked into paroxysms of indifference over the prospect of a climate changed by people. Now, with the announcement that 2001 will join the list of the 10 hottest years, the public may expect much the same service but for two recent events that could prod Washington into more definitive action, or at least action.

The first comes from a report by the National Research Council, part of the National Academy of Sciences. The council offered a report by 11 scientists who looked at the possibility that climate change would not occur in gradual, linear fashion but, once started, would happen rapidly and dramatically. The scientists’ report is far from comprehensive and it did not predict imminent abrupt changes.

What is thought-provoking about the work, however, is that it removes some of the safeguard of gradualism, in which those who could afford to adjust their lives without hardship (by, say, suffering with a smaller vehicle that gets better mileage) to more extreme weather conditions would have time to do so. The council’s model suggests this might not be the case, that over the course of just a few years, rather than several decades, climate change could raise temperatures significantly. “A massive discharge of fresh water from lakes dammed by melting ice sheets, which suddenly changes climate conditions worldwide,” the report explains, “is an example of threshold-crossing. Chaotic behavior in the climate also may push it across a threshold without any apparent external forcing.” Something to lose sleep over.

The second reason for potential congressional interest may be found in the courts. Environmental lawyers earlier this year met to look for ways to bring class action suits against nations or corporations that are responsible for producing the greenhouse gases that in turn contribute to climate change. It is, certainly, quite a long shot merely to prove causation in such a case, but with the United Nations estimating climate change costs at $300 billion a year, demanding that the people who caused the mess pay to clean it up has popular appeal. And there’s no shortage of plaintiffs – low-lying island nations take the issue seriously. The tiny South Pacific nation of Tuvalu reportedly is looking into calling its citizens “environmental refugees” and relocating to higher ground, perhaps Australia or New Zealand.

It would be preferable if Congress acted directly because of the effects of greenhouse gases and the United States’ proportionally large production of them, even without punctuated increases in temperature or rising threats of lawsuits. A number of organizations have presented technologically achievable, affordable changes in energy use that would make major improvements in efficiency and have little effect on quality of life, but they force industries and government itself to rethink how they do business. This, with the prospect of being able to adjust to a changed climate with minimal hardship, they have been unwilling to do so far.