Anthropogenic global warming presents a convergence of
three distinct histories, each operating at different scales and speeds: the
earth system's history, the history of life (including human evolution), and
the history of industrial civilization. This collision challenges our
conventional understanding of time, as humans find themselves straddling
processes that span millions of years alongside those that unfold over mere decades.
Language itself reflects this temporal dilemma. Consider
our distinction between renewable and nonrenewable energy sources. While we
deem fossil fuels nonrenewable within human timescales, geologist Bryan Lovell
suggests they are technically renewable on a geological scale, as new oil
reserves will form over millions of years.
Paleoclimatologists provide critical evidence for
anthropogenic global warming, drawing from ancient ice core samples dating back
over 800,000 years and records found in fossils and geological materials.
Geologists within the oil industry have highlighted deep climate histories,
such as the late Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, which occurred 55 million
years ago and disrupted Earth's climate for over 100,000 years—long before humans
existed.
The implications of anthropogenic climate change extend
far into the future, as emphasized by titles like David Archer's "The Long
Thaw: How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth’s Climate."
Fossil fuel emissions, with their long atmospheric lifetimes, could impact the
climate for hundreds of millennia after the fuels themselves are depleted.
This presents a challenge for policymakers and
politicians, who typically operate within much shorter timeframes. While policy
specialists think in terms of years or decades, politicians often focus on
electoral cycles. Bridging these disparate scales of time is crucial for
developing effective climate policies.
Ultimately, understanding anthropogenic climate change
requires grappling with timescales that transcend human measures. Despite the
apparent irrelevance of million-year timescales to political decision-making,
the lasting impact of climate change underscores the importance of considering
these slow geological processes in our response to the crisis.
Anthropogenic climate change reveals significant gaps in
our understanding, manifesting as rifts between cognition and action, and
between human-scale thinking and the vastness of the planetary processes
involved. These rifts challenge us to simultaneously navigate different scales
of time and thought, injecting contradictions into our approach to the climate
crisis.
One such rift lies in the transition from familiar
probabilistic thinking, dominant in modern economies, to grappling with the
radical uncertainty inherent in climate change. While economics typically
distinguishes between known risks and unknown uncertainties, the physics of
global warming often appears as a set of predictable, static relationships of
probability. However, this perspective overlooks the nonlinear nature of
climate systems and the potential for tipping points, as emphasized by
paleoclimatologists.
Policy discussions often treat climate change as a known
variable to be managed through human ingenuity and political action. However,
this approach may underestimate the unpredictable nature of climate systems and
the potential for them to act as "wild cards" in human calculations.
Conversely, climate scientists often employ a more
vitalist rhetoric, likening the climate system to a living organism. This
perspective highlights the interconnectedness and dynamism of Earth's systems,
emphasizing the need for caution and respect in our interactions with the
planet.
This tension between probabilistic thinking and the
dynamic, complex nature of climate systems underscores the need for a more
nuanced understanding of the climate crisis. Moving forward, it's essential to
bridge these rifts and develop perspectives that account for both the global
and planetary dimensions of anthropogenic climate change.
Hansen's use of the term "lethargic" to
describe climate change highlights a vital aspect often overlooked in economic
and political discourse. While the timescales of glacial-interglacial changes
may span thousands of years, human-induced climate forcing operates on much
shorter timescales, causing significant changes within decades. This sense of
urgency and dynamism in the climate system is captured by Hansen's choice of
words and reflects the uncertainties inherent in predicting climate tipping
points.
2
Unlike the deterministic view often favored in economic
and policy discussions, climate scientists acknowledge the inherent
unpredictability of Earth's climate. Climate models struggle to simulate past
abrupt changes, indicating a complexity that defies simple probabilistic
calculations. The climate is likened to a "beast," exhibiting
behaviors that are not fully understood or predictable.
This vitalist perspective underscores the need for
humility in our attempts to manage the climate. While economists seek detailed
probabilities to inform decision-making, climate scientists recognize the
limitations of such approaches. Climate uncertainties, including the potential
for catastrophic tipping points, challenge traditional risk-management
strategies and call for a precautionary approach.
The dilemma lies in balancing short-term economic
interests with the long-term risks posed by climate change. While Hansen
advocates for phasing out coal emissions as a decisive step, such measures may
have profound economic implications, particularly for developing countries
reliant on coal for energy. The uncertainty surrounding tipping points
complicates decision-making, leading to what Gardiner terms "Cost-Benefit
Paralysis."
At its core, this rift exposes the mismatch between
human-centric timescales and the broader, more unpredictable dynamics of the
planet. While paleoclimatologists view climate tipping points as recurring
events, our risk-management strategies are based on shorter-term calculations.
Bridging this gap requires a nuanced understanding of both human and planetary
scales and a willingness to confront the uncertainties inherent in climate
change.
Human-induced climate change brings forth a plethora of
justice-related issues, spanning across generations, nations, and socioeconomic
divides. Peter Newell and Matthew Paterson shed light on the disparities
inherent in the term "human-induced climate change," emphasizing that
while all of humanity faces the threat, certain individuals and countries
disproportionately contribute to the problem while others bear the brunt of its
consequences. This underscores the political and moral dimensions of climate
change, as articulated by Indian environmentalist Sunita Narain, who links
climate change intricately with prevailing models of economic growth.
John Bellamy Foster, Brett Clark, and Richard York
further assert that at the heart of the climate crisis lies a social rift
rooted in class-based domination, inequality, and ceaseless acquisition. This
sentiment echoes a report by the United Nations, which attributes the climate
crisis to the uneven economic development patterns of the past centuries,
primarily driven by the historically rich nations' disregard for environmental consequences.
This perspective, championed by Indian environmental activists Anil Agarwal and
Narain, underscores the concept of common but differentiated responsibilities,
highlighting the need for developed countries to take greater accountability
for their past actions.
However, it's crucial to recognize that the climate
crisis isn't solely a product of historical injustices or economic disparities.
The root cause lies in the sheer volume of greenhouse gas emissions, primarily
emitted by a handful of nations and a fraction of the global population. A
hypothetical scenario of more equitable wealth distribution wouldn't
necessarily alleviate the climate crisis; in fact, it might exacerbate it due
to increased consumption and carbon emissions. Thus, while historical
inequalities undoubtedly play a role, reducing the climate crisis solely to a
problem of capitalism overlooks the complex interplay of human history,
earth-systems dynamics, and population factors.
Agarwal and Narain's advocacy for equitable distribution
of natural carbon sinks highlights the thorny issue of population growth, often
sidestepped in climate discussions. Population dynamics, while influenced by
various factors including public health measures and economic development,
cannot be solely attributed to capitalist exploitation. India's acknowledgment
of its population challenges underscores the nuanced relationship between
population growth, economic development, and environmental sustainability.
Population remains a critical factor shaping the
trajectory of the climate crisis. Governments in countries like China and India
continue to prioritize coal-fired power stations to uplift large populations
out of poverty, citing coal's affordability as a key factor. Despite
philosophical reflections on the balance between human "need" and
"greed," coal remains the favored energy source due to its economic
feasibility. This demand for coal fuels a global market, with countries like
Australia seeking to capitalize on export opportunities, further perpetuating
coal's dominance in the energy sector.
Moreover, population dynamics influence the climate
crisis's impact on species extinction. Human expansion and consumption have
long exerted pressure on biodiversity, evident in conflicts between humans and
wildlife and the depletion of marine life. The exponential growth in human
population, fueled in part by advancements in technology and agriculture,
exacerbates these pressures. As global warming prompts species to migrate to
more hospitable environments, they encounter barriers posed by human
settlements, hindering their ability to adapt and survive.
The irony deepens as human proliferation not only impedes
the migration of threatened species but also complicates the plight of human
climate refugees. The rapid pace of climate change leaves little time for mass
human migration, contrasting sharply with historical periods where populations
could adapt over millennia. This highlights the dual nature of human history:
the short-term impacts of industrialization and technological advancements
intersect with the long-term evolutionary history of our species. Both the rich
and the poor are intertwined in this narrative, with modern energy and
technology underpinning the sustenance of billions of lives on Earth.
3
While per capita emissions serve as a crucial metric in
climate discourse, they obscure the broader historical context wherein both
affluent and impoverished populations participate. Population dynamics bridge
these disparate histories, emphasizing the interconnectedness of human
evolution, industrialization, and ecological impact. Understanding this complex
interplay is vital for developing holistic solutions to address the climate
crisis while acknowledging the shared responsibility borne by all segments of
humanity.
The climate crisis serves as a nexus, or enjambment,
between the typically separate realms of recorded human history and the deep
history of Earth's systems. This convergence highlights the intricate
connections between the planet's carbon cycle and the evolution of life.
However, this newfound awareness does not dampen humanity's relentless pursuit
of its ambitions and conflicts.
Steffen, Crutzen, and McNeill identify a period of
"The Great Acceleration" from 1945 to 2015, characterized by exponential
growth in various human activities such as population, GDP, urbanization, and
resource consumption. This era coincided with widespread decolonization efforts
and movements toward modernization and democratization worldwide. The surge in
consumption during this period, including the adoption of consumer durables in
Western households and the globalization of consumption patterns, symbolized a
long-awaited form of social justice, particularly in the realm of consumption.
However, this pursuit of human progress has come at a
cost: the near-total appropriation of the biosphere by humanity. Human activity
now accounts for a significant portion of terrestrial vertebrate biomass,
primarily through livestock farming and agricultural practices. This unprecedented
alteration of natural ecosystems has profound implications for global
biodiversity and ecological balance. Moreover, the exponential growth in human
population exacerbates these challenges, further straining Earth's resources
and threatening the survival of numerous species.
As humanity grapples with the consequences of its
actions, questions of ethics and responsibility come to the fore. Broome
acknowledges the ethical dilemma posed by climate change, particularly
regarding the intrinsic value of nature. While he emphasizes the instrumental
value of nature for human well-being, he stops short of delving into its
inherent worth. Similarly, Archer underscores the humbling reality that humans
are not biologically "special" and are merely a part of Earth's
intricate web of life.
The concept of human exceptionalism, rooted in religious
beliefs and social constructs, has long shaped human perceptions of the natural
world. However, indigenous cosmologies, such as those of Australian
Aboriginals, offer alternative perspectives that regard humans as integral
components of the natural world rather than separate entities. Durkheim's
analysis of totemism further elucidates this notion, highlighting the dual
nature of humanity as both human and animal.
In confronting the climate crisis, humanity faces a
profound reckoning with its place within the natural order. This challenges
entrenched beliefs of human superiority and calls for a reevaluation of our
relationship with the planet and its myriad life forms.
This point warrants a thorough examination, but for now,
let's delve into a random and arbitrary example—arbitrary because I could have
chosen examples from other religious traditions, including Hinduism. Consider
the following insights from Fazlur Rahman, who elucidates the concept of qadar
in the Qur'an, which means both "power and measuring out" and is
closely associated with the word amr, meaning "command," to describe
the nature of God's relationship with humanity as mediated through nature:
Rahman emphasizes that the all-powerful, purposeful, and
merciful God measures out everything, endowing each element with its rightful
range of potentialities, laws of behavior, and overall character. This divine
measurement ensures the orderly functioning of nature while also highlighting
the profound difference between the nature of God and the nature of humanity:
the Creator's act of measuring implies an infinitude beyond which no measured
creature can share. As Rahman asserts, "nature does not and cannot disobey
God’s commands [amr] and cannot violate natural laws." This perspective
clearly indicates that humans must not usurp the role of God; however, it does
not preclude humans from discovering and applying these laws for their benefit.
God's kindness is evident in the provision of resources for humanity.
Similarly, environmentalists often cite a verse from
Genesis in which the Lord grants humans dominion over the earth and all its
creatures, instructing them to be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue
it.
The discourse on climate change rekindles an age-old
debate on anthropocentrism versus nonanthropocentrism in environmental ethics.
Anthropocentrism posits that the value of nonhuman entities derives solely from
their utility to humans, whereas nonanthropocentrism argues for valuing the
nonhuman for its intrinsic worth. Feng Han suggests that human values
inevitably stem from a human perspective, implying that nonanthropocentrism may
be illusory. Ecologically minded philosophers have distinguished between weak
and strong anthropocentrism, favoring the former, which involves rational
reflection on the importance of the nonhuman for human flourishing.
James Lovelock's perspective on climate change diverges
radically from this debate. He asserts in his book "The Vanishing Face of
Gaia" that considering the health of the Earth without prioritizing human
welfare is paramount. He emphasizes the Earth's health as primary, as human
survival is entirely dependent on a healthy planet. Lovelock even entertains the
possibility of a drastic reduction in human population, suggesting that our
current lifestyle may only be sustainable for a fraction of the current
population without harming life on the planet.
4
What does it mean for humans, inherently anthropocentric
beings, to prioritize the Earth's well-being over human interests? How do we
grapple with the notion that the Earth was not created exclusively for us?
These questions will be explored further in the subsequent concluding section
of this essay.
In his critique of my essay "The Climate of History:
Four Theses," Slavoj Žižek raised important points regarding the
relationship between anthropogenic climate change and the capitalist mode of
production, which allows me to delve deeper into my final argument. Responding
to my assertion that there are "natural parameters" to our existence
as a species that are relatively independent of our economic systems, Žižek
countered by suggesting that while the natural parameters of our environment
are indeed independent of capitalism or socialism, the destabilization caused
by global capitalism has profound implications. He argued that the fate of life
on Earth is intertwined with the dynamics of the capitalist mode of production,
signifying that the "part" (capitalism) now determines the fate of
the "whole" (life on Earth).
Žižek's viewpoint posits capitalism as the primary driver
of the ecological crisis, whereas my stance differs. I acknowledge that
capitalism, reliant on cheap fossil-fuel energy, is a significant contributor
to the climate crisis. However, I contend that human history is entangled with
broader processes of Earth systems and evolutionary history, which transcend
the scope of capitalism. These long-term processes, such as the Earth's
million-year carbon cycle, operate on scales far beyond capitalism's temporal
and spatial boundaries.
Recognizing these deep-time earth-system processes as
coactors in the current crisis underscores the complexity of the climate issue.
Unlike problems of wealth accumulation or income inequality, anthropogenic
climate change could not have been predicted solely within the frameworks of
political economy. Climate change is defined and constructed by climate
scientists whose methodologies differ from those of political economists.
Furthermore, the emergence of climate science has blurred
the distinction between the global and the planetary. While globalization
narratives typically center on human activities, climate science transcends
human-centric perspectives. Scientists like James Hansen, initially studying
planetary warming on Venus, shifted their focus to Earth's climate due to rapid
changes observed in the atmosphere. This shift reflects a broader trend in
planetary science toward comparative planetary studies, exploring questions
about the habitability of planets and the role of life in sustaining them.
The climate crisis prompts us to confront the planet's
alterity, its belonging to another system beyond human control. As Gayatri
Chakravorty Spivak aptly noted, "we inhabit" this planet, yet it
exists within a species of alterity. This perspective challenges us to
recognize our role as temporary guests rather than possessive hosts on Earth. A
comprehensive politics of climate change must acknowledge this perspective,
grounding our quest for justice in the realization of our place within the
broader context of planetary existence.
No comments:
Post a Comment