Before you read the crux of this viewpoint, I must point out that it does not contain gaudy statistics to impress you or make speculative claims about the state of the environment in years to come.
This viewpoint does not contain lofty ideas about how to fix the problem of increased greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, nor does it take sides in the public debate currently going on in this country about what to do about global warming. This viewpoint strives solely to explain the need for a new course of action on how to fix this issue from a practical perspective.
I confess that I am no expert on global warming and do not pretend to be. However, like many others, experts or not, I genuinely care about the state of the environment, whether it directly affects my quality of life or not. I also care about the quality of life of other people, including those who actually are directly affected by global warming.
Today, activists and politicians, among others, cry out for the world to spring into action to save this planet from our own destruction. They engage in protests, call for more intense environmental protection to be enforced by national governments and organize summits and conferences to talk about what should be done. I applaud the passion that these people have for trying to improve the environment and I am in no way trying to belittle their actions.
However, there is one thing that many of these people intensely call for that irks me, and I must address it: The need for every human being on this planet to understand that global warming is the single largest threat to this world and all its inhabitants.
While the intent of this is laudable and the end result is ideal, I must explain my disdain for this na've call to action. To solve the problem of global warming, we must attack it with realistic goals, and the aforementioned objective is highly unrealistic and does not help to solve the problem.
For example, even if somehow we could solve the logistical nightmare of informing everyone on this earth about the dangers of global warming, what possible reasons do the hundreds of millions of people living in poverty around the globe have to care? For these people, they are simply trying to survive every day; they do not think about what may happen to them in a half-century. Greater dangers to them are not global warming but rather the immediate lack of decent sustenance and shelter.
Others who are reading this will respond that global warming in the long run may damage crops and reduce the amount of available drinking water for these extreme poor. I understand this argument and I am inclined to agree with it, but it is largely irrelevant because those in dire need are not concerned with the long run, as I already stated. Countless parents are struggling just to support their children; who are we to tell them that, no, they have a greater responsibility to prevent the world temperature from rising a few degrees?
Some who are reading this will say that this call for understanding by every human is just a hyperbolic goal that serves only to highlight the dangers of global warming and that no one truly believes it to be possible that every human on the planet can be convinced to believe so.
I will say this in response: In my conversations with many people and my own observations, I can attest that there really are people who believe this is a viable way to increase awareness of global warming, and this viewpoint addresses solely these people.
One solution I have heard people mention is forcing every national government to impose environmental restrictions that would cut back on global warming. Again, not even arguing against how impossible this would be, this idea can be broken down into large- and small-scale levels.
On the macro level, many nations, especially developing ones, rely on factories that may contribute to global warming to improve their economies. Expansion of industry is a traditional and often effective way to develop a nation's economy, and many nations may be unwilling to sacrifice national development for the sake of the environment.
On the micro level, trying to get rid of these sorts of factories would remove jobs from poor people just trying to make a living. Many of these people fall under the category of unskilled labor and it is not easy to convince them that not only are they contributing to global warming when all they are trying to do is feed their families, but also that they should go out and find a new job. It is not that simple. More importantly, it is unrealistic.
Continuing with the argument that national governments should impose environmental restrictions, there are political impediments to this. Assuming that the vast majority of this world's sovereign states do decide to impose environmental restrictions, national policies will not work in much of the developing world due to weak infrastructure, corrupt officials and lack of enforcement power, especially in poorer, more remote provinces far away from capital cities. These problems persist in developing nations, and we must address those problems first before national policies should be expected to be effectively carried out.
Of course, not everyone espouses the view that we must ensure that every human being understand that there is no greater danger to humankind than global warming. Obviously there are those who look to more viable solutions. Nevertheless, the sooner that this aim is erased from our to-do list, the faster we will find feasible solutions to global warming.
I understandably and rightfully may be criticized for identifying a problem but not offering a solution other than simply calling for a stop to one practice. I willingly accept and invite all criticisms in the hope that others more knowledgeable on this subject than I will present solutions that may actually work in the real world.
Aaron Schumacher is a sophomore majoring in international relations.