The
subject of Global Warming, like most of the currently-in-vogue
environmental issues, creates lots of hype and dogma, lots of
politics, and very little serious discussion. Although many of the
more vocal pundits claim scientific backing, the fact is that the
scientific community is as divided on the issue as the rest of the
populace, and the actual facts in evidence are ambiguous as to what
conclusions can be drawn from them.
One
fact that the scientific community is in agreement on is that we are
currently at the warm end of what is referred to as an 'interglacial'
warming period. These interglacials have happened periodically over
many millions of years, but most of the intervening time is spent in
'ice ages'. The current average temperature is definitely above the
average temperature over millions of years, but not out of line with
temperatures at the end of previous interglacials.
A
mathematical principle known as 'regression to the mean' is a fancy
statement of the fact that, all other factors being equal, the
direction a change in a variable (global temperature in this case) is
most likely to take is toward the long term mean value. This would
seem to indicate that what we should worry more about is not global
warming, but global cooling. Sooner or later whatever drives the
long-term ice age vs. interglacial cycle is going to send the
temperature down and it may well be beyond human tinkering to stop
it. However, it also may be a thousand years before such events
unfold.
Be
that as it may, there is no doubt that human impact on our home
planet is non-trivial. Although there is little likelihood that
there will be a runaway greenhouse effect and Earth will end up
another Venus, sooner or later (probably sooner) we are going to
precipitate some sort of ecological crisis or catastrophe. Neither
Al Gore nor I know exactly what this will be or when it will happen,
but new laws about carbon dioxide emissions are not going to solve
the problem. The problem is not SUVs, coal fired generating plants
or eating meat. The problem is plain and simple - there are too many
people on the planet and the numbers are increasing exponentially.
No amount of new laws, new technology or donations to 'save the
environment' Funds will solve the problem. The human species must
regulate its numbers or nature is going to do it for us.
What
is particularly distressing is that reducing the population is never
discussed as a solution to solving such problems. Instead we are
constantly bombarded with campaigns to ‘save the children’, cure
AIDS, increase health services to developing nations, etc. Although
these proposals are commendable, increasing the population by
reducing diseases, famines and wars and in addition increasing the
standard of living of the third world is a guaranteed strategy for
disaster. If increases in survival rates are not more than matched
by decreases in reproduction rates we are only dooming everyone to
disaster.
