Everybody knows that the boat is leaking,
Everybody knows the captain lied.
- Leonard Cohen, “Everybody Knows”
As a Ph.D. physical chemist with research experience in atmospheric science, and in light of the overwhelming consensus of the international scientific community, I hold these truths to be patently evident:
That global warming is real and its primary cause over the past 50 years has been human activity (production of greenhouse gases via the burning of fossil fuels); and, that if modern societies adhere to a business-as-usual path, and the burning of fossil fuels continues to grow at an unabated rate, the Earth’s climate and ecosystems will face catastrophic and irreversible changes, likely within our lifetimes.
In its most recent reports and assessments, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts a global temperature rise between 3 to 4 degrees Celsius by 2100, if no further measures are instituted to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. The long list of dire, quantifiable consequences of such warming includes: average drought durations longer than one year, sea level rise of about one meter, and continuing to rise further for hundreds of years to come, the beginning of irreversible melting of the Greenland ice sheet, leading to an additional seven-meter sea-level rise over the next millennium, an ice-free Arctic sea during most summers, increased risk and likelihood of massive species extinctions, significant reduction in fisheries’ productivity, undermining food security, compromised capacity for outdoor activities and growing food, exacerbated health problems, increased air pollution, more frequent, intense and prolonged heat waves and more extreme weather and precipitation events.
Hundreds of millions of people are expected to be displaced by such a climate crisis, and its economic burden is estimated to be on the scale of tens of trillions of dollars. Beyond these purely human factors, the disruption of ecosystems on a global scale also poses an unprecedented weight and charge to anyone with a moral conscience or ethical understanding of the interrelatedness of all life on Earth.
How do we then prevent this crisis from unfolding, or at least mitigate its worst effects? The answer isn’t rocket science: We need to stop burning fossil fuels. The physics linking greenhouse gas emissions from industrialized societies to an increase in global temperatures has been widely known for over 100 years. The problem, however, lies in the institutional inertia of our political and corporate systems of power, which have for so long relied on fossil-fuel economies.
The rogue and short-sighted acts of the Trump administration in this regard — withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord, lowering Corporate Average Fuel Economy fuel-economy standards, attempting to open national parks and reserves to fossil fuel extraction, appointing top oil and coal company executives to Cabinet positions responsible for regulating those same industries — are illustrative of these reactive forces, and put Nero’s fiddle to shame. This insanity is best captured in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s recent assertion that the melting of the Arctic sea ice is a welcome change that will open up new opportunities for oil and gas exploration — a literal endorsement for putting out fire with gasoline!
But the history of this reluctance to address greenhouse gas emissions has its roots long before the shambles of our current leadership in Washington. During the 1970s and early 1980s, Exxon Corporation conducted extensive studies on the role of fossil fuel burning in inducing global warming. A review on the greenhouse effect prepared in 1978 by one of Exxon’s senior research scientists, James Black, came remarkably close to predicting the same warming trends as those presented in the latest IPCC reports. The Black report anticipated a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel consumption by 2075, and a concomitant rise in global temperatures of 2 to 3 degrees Celsius. The report also anticipated increased rainfall and shifts in desert and fertile areas to higher latitudes, with some countries experiencing a possible reduction or destruction of their agricultural output. Black concluded there was a “time window of five to 10 years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical.” A subsequent internal document prepared by Exxon’s environmental affairs office in 1982 ratified Black’s conclusions in even starker terms, warning that potentially catastrophic and irreversible effects of global warming might ensue if the use of fossil fuels was not sharply curtailed.
Exxon showed no inclination to act on these recommendations — other than to kick the can further down the road, and begin efforts to mislead the public on the role of man-made greenhouse gases in causing global warming. In 1988, James Hansen, a leading atmospheric scientist at NASA, first brought to public attention the dangers of fossil fuel-induced climate change, during congressional hearings on the topic. In response, Exxon, BP and Shell founded the Global Climate Coalition to cast doubt on the role of fossil fuel burning on global warming, and to lobby against legislation meant to address the problem. These efforts, reminiscent of previous misinformation campaigns led by the tobacco industry against the health impact of their products, successfully hindered progress on the broad ratification of the 1992 Kyoto Protocol (the first attempt at an international treaty for addressing climate change), and continue to this day in the form of lobbying for subsidies and legislation favorable to the fossil fuel industry.
The Global Climate Strike called for Sept. 20 is meant to draw attention to this corrupting influence of the fossil fuel industry on our politics, and to catalyze decisive and immediate action towards addressing the climate crisis. This sense of urgency is brought about by the IPCC’s latest recommendations, urging the world community to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by mid-century in order to cap global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels (i.e., an even more stringent constraint than the 2 degrees Celsius target established in the Paris Climate Accord).
The strike is not a goal in itself, but a means to mobilize an active and informed citizenry towards a rational and equitable way out of this crisis. I personally am inclined towards the vision presented by the Sunrise Movement and those who advocate for the Green New Deal — a vision for a rapid and fair transition to a green and sustainable economy. It is inspiring to see how effectively this youth-led movement has brought the climate crisis to the forefront of the Democratic Party’s primary process. I am also moved by the courage and clarity of purpose demonstrated by Greta Thunberg, the Swedish teenager whose climate activism inspired this Global Climate Strike.
At the same time, I am open to differing views and ideas on solutions to the climate crisis, if they can be defended with fact and reason. When climate disaster hits my community, I will not be asking my neighbors what their party affiliation is. Catastrophe has the potential to bring us closer together, and the sooner we start seeing and living across our differences, and acknowledging the challenges we have in common, the more resilient and better off we will all be.
Finally, I hope the strike helps us advocate for climate crisis solutions in our own workplaces and local communities, as well as on the national stage. Since 2012, the Tufts Climate Action student group has been pushing Tufts University to divest from investments in the fossil fuel industry. In 2014, however, the Tufts Board of Trustees accepted the recommendations of a Tufts Divestment Working Group report, whose majority opinion was not to divest the 2% of university assets invested in fossil fuel companies.The report claimed that divestment would be incompatible with the university’s financial sustainability, and that it would have an insignificant impact on the cost of capital to, or behavior of, the fossil fuel industries. However, given the astronomically high costs associated with unmitigated global warming over the next century, the argument for safeguarding the university’s financial sustainability sounds short-sighted. In addition, the strength of divestment campaigns, like the one which helped put an end to apartheid in South Africa, lies in the sum total of its participants’ divestments, rather than on the impact of any one single contribution. Such views were indeed strongly held by a minority opinion within the Tufts Divestment Working Group, which called for a five-year gradual divestment of Tufts fossil fuel assets. It was also heartening to learn that the Tufts Board of Trustees had once previously agreed to a divestment of 1% of its assets, back in 1994, in order to prevent a Canadian hydroelectric power project from flooding the hunting grounds of the Cree indigenous peoples. One can hope that, with further persuasion about the need to prioritize truly sustainable long-term choices, the university can be brought on board this desperately needed global movement, to urgently transition towards a fossil fuel-free economy.
In hope,
Martin Hunter, Ph.D.
Facility Manager, TAMIC Core Imaging Facility
Science & Engineering Complex
Tufts University, Medford Campus
More from The Tufts Daily
Trending
The Print Edition
