by Alan Journet, Conservation Chair, Trail of Tears Group
 |
Most folks who are concerned about the future, live cautiously and prudently. They do not easily or without serious thought for the potential consequences, risk squandering either what they have, or the future for themselves or their children and grandchildren.
Maybe you think parachuting out of aircraft just for the fun of it is crazy because there’s always a chance that the parachute will not open; maybe you avoid bungee jumping from bridges into the deep yet picturesque valleys below lest the chord break. If so, you are living the Precautionary Principle. This principle argues that if the consequences of a course of action may be catastrophic, it is better to avoid that course of action even if you lack absolute certainty that the worst will happen but merely suspect that it is possible. In everyday terms, it can best be stated in terms of the well-known phrase: “I’d rather be safe than sorry!”
Given a choice between drinking water from a lake that may (but probably does not) contain intestinal parasites, or from a bottle brought with them, most hunters, hikers, and campers would drink from the bottle. Usually we would rather be safe than sorry.
If you avoid burning the scrub around your house or farm in a high wind for fear that the fire might escape your control and burn down the house, you are living the Precautionary Principle. If your doctor suggests that it might be prudent to undertake some tests even though there is probably nothing seriously wrong, you probably do it even if the tests will cost a few dollars. We would rather spend a few dollars to be on the safe side than risk suffering a serious undiagnosed medical condition. When we receive warnings about the possible consequences of continuing business as usual we consider it reasonable to act cautiously and take precautions rather than continue blindly and in ignorance. We usually consider that avoiding serious or dangerous consequences is the prudent course of action. Whether we consider it the ‘Conservative’ or the ‘Liberal’ approach, many of us live by the Precautionary Principle in daily decision making. In scientific and political terms it means that if we have reason to suspect some chemical is toxic we should regulate it; if we suspect human activity is causing serious environmental problems, we should stop that activity.
When it comes to protecting the air we breathe or the water we drink from poisonous chemicals with serious but low frequency health risks, most of us think public policies should also be based on the Precautionary Principle rather than a accepting the blind cowboy optimism that says because there is only a small risk that a few people will suffer and it will probably be someone else. “Don’t worry, everything will be okay” just does not seem reasonable advice. That’s what the tobacco companies told us about nicotine, and drug companies told us about those drugs that we now find are life-threatening. We usually prefer to be protected even if this involves federal or state regulations and even if there is an economic cost associated with funding agencies charged with public health protection. For most of us, health (our own, our families, or our children and grandchildren), if not completely priceless, is — at least — worth a great deal. The Precautionary Principle urges protection from pollution because the costs of the alternative are so serious.
When we consider the potential consequences of global climate change this rather conservative precautionary principle should be considered again. If we suffer an average planetary temperature increase of the kind meteorologists, atmospheric scientists, and weather researchers predict, the consequences could be catastrophic.
We already have powerful evidence that a planetary climate change is occurring. Indeed, there is so much evidence that almost all scientists involved in relevant research are convinced not only that it is happening but also that there is a high probability — if not a near certainty — that human activities are causing it. Indeed, researchers seeking publications in 2004 that suggest anything different found none. The editor of the internationally respected journal Science which has published many research articles on the issue reported that during the same period, not one article refuting the consensus view was even submitted. The voices of denial are almost entirely those of individuals employed or funded by the energy industry, or political commentators lacking expertise who are committed to positions that demand there is no global climate change regardless of the evidence.
Measurements of atmospheric and oceanic temperatures provide convincing evidence of the problem. The well-researched and well-publicized evidence that polar and alpine glaciers are receding, and that icebergs, ice flows, and frozen soils (permafrost) in polar regions are melting all combine to provide sufficiently convincing evidence that no informed analyst of the evidence has any doubt that the planet is warming up.
One well-reported prediction is that warming oceans increase the frequency of severe weather patterns (such as hurricanes). In the past 50 years oceans have warmed one degree (Fahrenheit). Meanwhile, the frequency of catastrophic hurricanes has doubled in the last 35 years and major storms in the Atlantic and Pacific have increased 50 percent since the 1970s. Though unlikely, it is true that these patterns may be coincidental, and may not be a consequence of global climate change, but if they are, the problem will only get worse unless we address what seems to be the cause — i.e. greenhouse gasses released by human activity. Katrina and Rita are exactly what these predictions foretold; they are probably harbingers of our future if we fail to heed the warnings. Those who bury their heads in the sand and suggest that we should do nothing to minimize the threat of future catastrophic events are not living the Precautionary Principle.
Another prediction borne out by the evidence is that as regional temperatures increase, the range of species of wild pants and animals will shift — either up mountains or towards the poles. A host of studies have revealed this happening in many species of wildlife in the U.S. and throughout the world including butterflies, alpine plants, birds, marine invertebrates and mosquitoes. One predicted outcome is that arctic species, such as the polar bear, will join the ranks of the extinct species no longer living outside zoos (and ultimately, no longer living anywhere). The increasing frequency of tropical and subtropical diseases in the United States is another example.
Americans living in rural communities would be wise to think about the consequences of global climate change for the plants (whether crops or forests) that are their livelihood. We know the two main elements make regions of the country suitable for the vegetation that they support are soils and climate. If the soils deteriorate or the climate changes substantially, the trees and crops that currently grow in Missouri may no longer be successful and thus may prove no longer economically viable. The consequence for farmers, the timber industry, and the communities that they support should not be underestimated.
There may be a cost associated with reducing the human impact on climate change — though many economic studies suggest there would be an overall net economic benefit — but even if this is the case, we should balance this against the cost of the alternative of inaction. What if the agricultural and forestry systems of Missouri are devastated? What would the cost be then? Organizations, insurance companies (such as the Farm Bureau Insurance), and State and Federal representatives who pretend that there is no global climate change or that the cost is too great to counter it even if it is happening, are not serving the long term best interests of Americans, particularly of rural Americans. Rather, they are serving the short term economic interests of those who contribute to their coffers, their profits, or their election campaigns — namely agribusiness and energy corporations.
Would you rather apply the precautionary principle and reduce the production of gases implicated in climate change, or would you continue business as usual, ignore the evidence, and risk the consequences? The Sierra Club prefers caution and the application of the Precautionary Principle — for our families, for our future. This is either both a conservative and a liberal issue, or it is neither. John McCain (R-AZ) has cooperated with cosponsors Joe Liebermann (D-CT) and Barack Obama (D-IL) to introduce Senate Bill 1151 The Climate Stewardship Act which recognizes the problem, and proposes reasonable measure to combat it. Since the Bush Administration rejected the only worthwhile international agreement on controlling climate change gases (the Kyoto Protocol), despite its endorsement by every other economically advanced nation on the planet, Senators McCain and Liebermann have been trying to persuade their fellow representatives in the Senate to live by the Precautionary Principle and act to reverse the trend.
If you wish to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem contact Senators Bond and Talent today, and urge them to join as cosponsors and supporters of this bill. .