Global Warning

Just when I was starting to get used to the passionate debates that characterize meals in Annenberg, a recent dinner conversation threw me a curveball. Last week, I had the unique—and frustrating—privilege of dining with the last individual on earth who does not believe in global warming.

Or so I thought. Further research indicates that my acquaintance was far from alone; according to a 2008 Gallup poll, about 11 percent of Americans still think that global warming “will never happen.” (Within the scientific community, this statistic is only three percent.) Perhaps most disturbingly, the study reports that 13 percent of Americans believe that no further climate control measures are necessary—in other words, that we as a society should take no action to further reduce carbon emissions or attempt to combat global warming in any way.

Whether these “unbelievers” remain unconvinced due to differing interpretations of the data or mere apathy, their stance is not only untenable, but also dangerous. Though it’s easy to brush off such wrongheaded beliefs in our relativistic culture, those who think global warming is a hoax are not simply another case of mere “difference of opinion.” These people are gambling the welfare of the entire planet on the off-chance that the majority is wrong.

Evidence that the average temperature on Earth is rising is abundant and convincing, but I suspect I would be preaching to the converted if I were to summarize it here. The bottom line is that the scientific community has come to a clear consensus that the evidence of a warming trend is “unequivocal” and that human activity has “very likely” been the main cause for that change over the last 50 years. It is thus troubling that one in five Americans remain unconvinced by the vast majority of the scientific community that we have an immediate obligation to change our behavior and to protect our planet.

Beyond the scientific evidence, one can support a plan of action that reduces carbon emissions based on moral considerations alone. In an article entitled “Perspectives on Environmental Change: A Basis for Action,” Professor Michael B. McElroy of Harvard’s Center for Earth and Planetary Physics cites Pope John Paul II’s opinion on global warming as he expressed it nearly 20 years ago: “Theology, philosophy and science all speak of a harmonious universe, of a cosmos endowed with its own integrity, its own internal, dynamic nature. This order must be respected. The human race is called to explore this order, to examine it with due care and to make use of it while safeguarding its integrity.”

McElroy himself reflects that humans do not “have the right to place the balance of the global life support system at risk when there are sensible actions that can be taken to at least slow the pace of human-induced change.” Put another way, the ethical imperative of preserving our planet outweighs the groundless opinions stubbornly maintained by a global warming skeptic.

This may seem pessimistic, but unfounded optimism is a privilege humanity cannot afford with only one planet to protect. Scientists have informed us of the imminent dangers of global warming, and we have the tools at hand to combat it. All that is needed now is a concerted, united effort to effect change. Those who deny the geological deterioration that is likely already underway are both foolish and disrespectful to future generations of our species and others. If preserving life on Earth as we know it is not reason enough to pay higher taxes, take public transportation, and err on the side of caution, I cannot imagine what else is.


Sabrina G. Lee ’12, a Crimson editorial writer, lives in Greenough Hall.