Editor and General Manager
“If you can keep your head while all those around you are losing theirs, maybe you misunderstand the situation.” Thus went a saying that had some currency, at least in my small cohort, when I was in my—well, quite a while ago. I was then and am now ambivalent, admiring the ability to stay focused and on task even in dire straits, while wanting to reserve the right to panic.
Thus I return to the topic of climate change, which I had not planned to address again so soon, that is, until a number of recent headlines brought me to the brink of deciding: panic or stay calm?
One piece of good news: A New York Times/Stanford University/Resources for the Future poll cited on Yahoo News last January indicates that the majority of Americans want government to fight climate change. It has taken too much time for science to win out, with a lot of loud counterrhetoric promoting the “it’s a natural cycle” line of explanation.
But there’s more. Just in time, a study published in The Lancet Global Health finds that the unprecedented degradation of Earth’s natural resources coupled with climate change could reverse the enormous range of improvements that have occurred in human health over the past 150 years. In addition to climate change, ocean acidification, depleted water sources, polluted land, biodiversity loss, etc., the research predicts threats that range from widespread malnutrition due to agricultural challenges to the presence of an expanded array of disease vectors. And did you hear about rising methane levels in seawater leading to warmer seas leading to more methane releases, etc.? (“When the End of Human Civilization is Your Day Job,” by John H. Richardson, Esquire.com, August 2015) How about the progress of the sixth mass extinction in the planet’s history, currently underway? (Stanford University professor Rodolfo Dirzo and colleagues, among others)
And yet, environmental activist Bill McKibben, writing in The New Yorker (June 29) on the widespread and fast-track rise of green energy, states that he feels a “rare emotion: hope.” Wait, if McKibben can feel hope, can I relax? I’m trying to stay calm, but I’m growing more inclined to losing my head.
It seems to be that the almost daily news reports covering negative environmental impacts small and large that are related to climate change, to people seeing the evidence in their own lives on a daily basis, has more than likely moved the opinion meter. For example, Yahoo, July 22, citing a New York Times story: climate’s effect on oceans puts oysters at risk. Thus, the news brings more oyster lovers, and those whose livelihood is connected to them, into the fold of those who believe in the dangers of global warming.
Then these stories appeared in the past few days, as this column was being hatched: the G7 summit promises goals on mitigating climate change, and megafauna extinction was due to a rapidly warming planet. I’m trying to stay on an even keel.
It does help that leaders from other sectors are getting involved. I’m thinking specifically here of Pope Francis, the head of the Catholic Church, whose recent encyclical on the environment made headlines. Based on Catholic values and teachings, his writing will be of interest to millions around the world. This is important, too, in that some of those who practice “denialism” in regard to global warming take their cues from some Christian sects for whom the Bible is the final word on evolution and the history of the planet. If the leaders of similar organizations speak out, it can only be beneficial.
Thus it seems imperative that scientists report what they know and that their organizations find ways to capture the attention of the major and important regional media outlets and to stress that ongoing reporting of environmental issues is of paramount concern. Global warming, along with the attendant planetary changes, is almost overwhelming in scale and is by far the most important issue of our time. The threat it poses may seem less ominous than that of terrorism and ongoing wars across the globe. Racial animus, economic stratification and exploitation of the poor have more immediate daily impact. But the planet that we all share and all abuse is the field on which these other events play out. It’s a rock, the Earth, and inhabitable ones are a rarity. Finding another one is not realistic, at least not in any manageable time frame. (No, Mars will never be a viable choice.)
I’ll keep an eye on the headlines, on what the latest science is saying and what people are thinking and governments are doing. If I see everybody else starting to panic, it just may be a good thing.
Steve Ernst is editor and general manager, American Laboratory/Labcompare; [email protected]