Ecological
Conservatives
Change is Bad?
By John D. Turner
The dictionary defines "conservative" to mean
"disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., and
to resist change". Liberals, on the other hand, regard themselves as
being "progressive", in favor of change. After all, wasn't that one
of Candidate Clinton's rallying cries during the 1992 campaign, that
America needed a Change? Liberals (read the National Democratic
Party) always see themselves as the champions of change, and mortal
enemies of Conservatives (read the National Republican Party) who,
of course, are resistant to change and cling to the out-modeled
relics of yesteryear.
Except, of course, when it comes to the
environment.
When it comes to the environment, change is
bad. The status quo is supreme. We must do nothing to upset the
current balance.
Except of course, that this is patent
nonsense.
Does anyone out there besides me remember that
20 years ago or so, we had a problem with global cooling? That we
were about to enter another ice age? That the government had to do
something quickly about the "problem" before the ice swooped down
and destroyed us all? Well, we managed to dodge that bullet…and now
we have "global warming". This of course, is "very bad" too, and all
due to the deprivations of that evil creature bedeviling Mother
Gaia, known as Man.
Unfortunately for the left, the Earth is not a
steady-state environment regulated by a thermostat, like a
climate-controlled home in Southern California. In real life, there
are many variables affecting global temperatures; weather patterns,
rainfall, the mix of gases in the atmosphere, and other factors
pertaining to life on this planet. Many of these are poorly
understood. Many are probably yet to be discovered. Scientists tell
us that the Earth has been here for about 4.3 billion years; that
life has existed here in one form or another for approximately 1
billion years or so, and that Mankind has been around for, at most,
only one million of those years. Of this one million years, we have
been studying the Earth, using the scientific method, for at best a
couple hundred, with most of our research coming only in the last 50
years or so.
This means that Man has existed on this planet
for 1/1000th of the time that the Earth has been capable of
supporting life. Indeed, scientists tell us that it is totally due
to the existence of life on Earth, that Earth is presently capable
of supporting life as we know it (which sounds circular, but really
isn't). The biosphere is a closed system, self-supporting, and
self-regulating. And of this 1/1000th, the last 50 years or so
represents 0.005% of mankind's tenure, or about 0.000005% of life's
tenure on this planet.
There is nothing "normal" about the current
state of our planet. It is simply the current state of the planet.
It is not "normal" for the Earth to have polar ice caps, any more
than it is "abnormal" for the Earth to not have polar ice caps; both
conditions have occurred multiple times in the planet's history.
Lower ocean levels than we currently experience are not more
"normal" than higher ones, nor is glaciation more "normal" than its
absence. Seasons of "bad weather" are not more abnormal than seasons
of "good weather". All have occurred before during the millions of
years the planet has supported life, and the billions of years of
its existence, well before that peculiar life-form know as "Man"
came on the scene.
Without mankind's presence, ocean levels have
risen and fallen. The percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere has
varied considerably. Magnetic poles have shifted or disappeared
completely, which probably had some effect on our magnetosphere and
ozone layer as well. The average temperature of the Earth has varied
up and down the scale. Local temperatures have changed, species have
prospered, or vanished, all without mankind's careful guidance or
careless interference. This will continue to occur, despite all we
may do, despite all our political posturing. A minute change in
solar output, for example, has more effect on the Earth than all our
CO2 production or possible conservation could ever hope to
accomplish. And we have absolutely no control over solar output,
which, by the way, is not a constant.
This is not the only variable with great
consequence for what happens here over which we have no control.
There are probably a great many more of which we are, as of yet,
completely unaware. We have only been seriously observing for around
50 years. The first International Geophysical Year was in 1957, the
year I was born. The computer models on which global warming are
based are in reality in their infancy, and simplistic in their
approach. Their accuracy is limited by the current state of computer
technology, the availability and reliability of the data input to
the models, and our capability to accurately model processes which
we do not as yet completely understand. Our models are crude, and
highly susceptible to the principle of "Garbage In Garbage Out", so
familiar to those of us who work with computers on a daily basis.
Which brings me to the "ecological
conservatism" of the liberal ecologist. Change, overall, is neither
good nor bad. Change is simply change. Leaving aside for the moment
the question of whether or not "global warming" exists, or whether
it is caused by mankind's activities on this planet, or even whether
or not we can actually do anything about it, why this knee-jerk
reaction for status quo from a group that usually finds steady-state
conditions abhorrent? Lets move back in time to the last ice-age,
the height of which was around 18,000 years ago. At this point in
time, the Earth entered a "global warming" period (without, I might
add, the burning of fossil fuels, the spraying of
chlorofluorocarbons, or other such man-made "green house" gases).
By the time the age ended, approximately
10,000 years ago, mean sea levels rose some 120 meters (around 390
feet for those of us who are "metrically challenged"). Estimates are
that the coastline of New Jersey, for example, has moved inland at
least 25 miles from where it was during that period. I can only
surmise that had the liberal ecologists been present for this
previous occurrence, there would have been much hand-wringing and
shrill rhetoric for the government to "do something" about it. And
yet, would any of us want to be living under the conditions imposed
by the last ice age?
True, some species died out. However, many
others flourished. The same holds true today. A recent article I
read documents the effects of a 1 degree C rise in temperature over
the past 50 years on an island located about 4,000 miles southwest
of Perth Australia. This temperature rise has resulted in an
approximately 12% retreat of the island's glaciers. The resulting
effect to the ecology of the island has been startling. Areas that
were previously poorly vegetated are now "lush with large expanses
of plants". The population of birds, insects, and animals has
expanded rapidly. The king penguin population, which consisted of
three breeding pairs in 1947, now numbers 25,000. The cormorant has
expanded from a "vulnerable" status to 1,200 pairs, and the fur seal
has emerged from "near extinction" to a population of 28,000 adults
and 1,000 pups. One can hardly argue that the effects of a one
degree C increase in temperature for Heard Island has been a
disaster, except perhaps for the glaciers.
It is true that the effects of a large
increase in global sea levels would be disastrous for human
populations living near the coast. Much capital would have to be
expended to attempt to preserve coastal cities, and/or much capital
would be required to relocate populations inland to new coastal
locations. Dislocations would occur. Weather-related deaths would
occur (most due to the stubbornness of people who are unwilling to
face change, ironically enough). This is unfortunate, but nothing
new. People die in weather-related events on a daily basis. And one
thing is certain about life; it is a terminal disease. We may put it
off for as long as we possibly can, but in the end we all die, and
still the world goes on.
Much current animal and plant habitat would be
wiped out. However new habitat would also be created. Life would
continue to flourish on this planet, as it has in the past. Change
would bring new opportunities for some, extinction for others. All
this is, however, natural, part of the ebb and flow of life on this
planet. The steady-state, conservative ecological fantasy world of
the liberal ecologist is not.
We want your opinion! Tell us what you thought about
this article. Click the
Your Feedback menu item to send us
your comments.
