Given accelerating global climate trends, the future does not look pretty unless there is a gargantuan change in the role of human activity, and we mean the citizens of this country, the users of 20 percent of the world”™s oil reserves and by far the largest producers of CO2 emissions.
It is hardly the time to wait around for the rest of the world to lead the way in reducing carbon emissions. The American public is finally aware that climate change is a reality ”“ nine out of 10 recent summers have been the hottest on record ”“ but gaining consensus on solutions will be tough. Congress is aggressively working on legislation that could make a real difference in U.S. carbon emissions through a special committee set up by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Meanwhile, House Energy Committee Chairman John Dingell, a Democrat from Detroit, the car-making hub of the nation, calls her new committee “as useful as feathers on a fish” even though he is on the side of regulating carbon emissions, giving a clue as to the difficulties ahead.
Any restrictive legislation will likely face a presidential veto, this in spite of the U.S. Supreme Court”™s recent decision that, indeed, carbon dioxide is a pollutant subject to regulation by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Though the business community would prefer to have Congress determine the rules with hefty input from their representatives, realistically it looks like they and the states, as described in the last column, will have to initiate the turnaround process. Multinationals are currently driving the changes because of their involvement with the rest of the developed world which, with the exception of China and India, has always been more efficient in energy use and is now aggressively developing alternative energies.
Understanding the concept of the triple bottom line ”“ economy, ecology, society ”“ can assist the business community in comprehending the necessity of the massive changes we must embrace. Currently, the gross domestic product (GDP), the figure that is supposed to give investors the clue as to how the country is doing, is phenomenally flawed. Consider this, 17 percent of the total GDP includes all activity in the world of medicine, suggesting that the more medical problems in the country the higher the GDP, and the better our economy, right?
More pertinent to the matter of climate change, as well as economically misleading, is the fact that the resources of Earth are not considered capital. For example, there is no accounting on the books for the ocean”™s bounty, therefore allowing overfishing to continue until a crash in the supply, as is actually happening now. Housing, the real engine of the economy in recent years, has depended on developers finding land on which to build.
Â
The fact that much of that land is arable farm land, an irreplaceable resource for the country, is not accounted for. Another price of the excessive development has been the risk of flooding as we now see happening. Impermeable surfaces create the potential for floods. Driveways, roofs, roads, tree removal, overgrowth removal on slopes ”“ all keep water from seeping into the ground and recharging the aquifers beneath.
All of these examples, and there are countless other examples, contribute to environmental and ecological imbalances that influence climate change and the warming of Earth. To be sure, there are always winners in every upheaval. Witness the rush to buy the rights to minerals reserves in the Arctic while the icebergs fall into the sea.
Recently, an initiative to promote more growth in Westchester County was launched. That means more impervious surfaces and more potential for flooding and, of course, more congestion and therefore an increase in CO2 emissions at a time we are preparing to reduce greenhouse gases. We absolutely must confront a different reality and growth is not a part of it.
The triple bottom line demands a reassessment of many of our most cherished principles if we are to reduce our carbon footprint. It might help to understand the real meaning of ecology. Oikos comes from the Greek, meaning house, the same root as in the word economy. Ecology, the relationship of organisms within the house; Economy, organizing, or managing the house. It would not be difficult to conclude that our house is in severe disarray.
Another environmental phrase that now seems relevant is “carrying capacity,” meaning the ability of a certain area to survive on the available natural resources in the region, a concept almost unheard of today with our food traveling an average of 1,500 miles. The apples we enjoyed this winter came from Chile, for example. Since our water is piped from the Catskills we must conclude that we have been past our carrying capacity for more than a hundred years.
The overall direction must be to downsize. “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle!” ”“ the environmental mantra of the ”˜70s that was based on a perceived oil shortage, is back with a more potent kick ”“ a verifiable warming of the climate and real threats to our oil supply. There are countless reports that the world oil reserves are peaking, that is, past their optimum output. Curiously, this may turn out to be the positive aspect of our current dilemma. Rising oil prices will require us to conserve what we have while exploring alternatives, which will also serve to reduce CO2 emissions.
Â
Next month: Reducing the carbon footprint: Sequestration and cap and trade
Â
Maureen Morgan, a transit advocate, is on the board of Federated Conservationists of Westchester. Reach her at mmmorgan10@optonline.net.
Â
