Johann Hari: The WMD that really should be worrying us
If al-Qa'ida was unleashing this weather of mass destruction, we would do anything to stop them
Monday, 4 August 2008
Imagine if tomorrow the CIA and MI6 discover that Osama bin Laden has invented an incredible new weapon. This machine – stashed away in some dusty Afghan cave – doubles the intensity of hurricanes, causing them to drown a US city and kill nearly 2,000 people. It turns Spain and Australia dry in the worst droughts on record. It makes the oceans acidic, killing essential parts of the food chain. It is causes these acidic seas to rise and wash away whole nations like Bangladesh and Tuvalu. And if the machine is left switched on for too long, it will drown London and New York and Lagos and Kinshasa too.
This machine exists. It is called global warming – and we are our own Bin Laden. The world's scientists say our greenhouse gas emissions are causing this planetary cooking as surely as HIV causes Aids or smoking causes lung cancer.
If al-Qa'ida was unleashing this weather of mass destruction, we would do anything – anything – to stop them. But because the enemy is inside each one of us, we stagger on, building more airports and coal power stations and shrieking for cheaper oil. We are suffering from what psychologists call an "external context problem": this is so far outside anything we have experienced before, it instinctively seems it cannot possibly be true, no matter how much evidence washes at our feet.
This week, a small band of the sane is gathering to try to shake us awake. In the English countryside of Kent, thousands of ordinary people have set up camp to demand the British Government cancel its plans to build a new coal power station, with six others to follow. Coal is the worst warming-weapon, responsible for half of all the greenhouse gases humans have pumped into the atmosphere. It is twice as warming as the next worst fossil fuel – natural gas – and more than a hundred times worse than wind power. The Climate Camp protesters are refusing to be part of Generation Zzzzzzzz, drugged by celebrity and consumption. Armed only with the science, they are urging us to be rational, now, while we still can.
To grasp the urgency of the situation, let's look at one aspect of global warming that has been widely overlooked. As you lie on a beach this summer and stare at the ocean, you should be aware it is becoming rapidly more acidic – because of your emissions.
The oceans are the greatest carbon sink we have. They have inhaled a third of the carbon dioxide pumped by us into the atmosphere and buried it on the ocean floor. But there is a price. When CO2 combines with water, it creates a fizzy carbonic acid. You taste this acid on your tongue every day in your can of Coke. The more carbon the ocean soaks up, the more acid it produces. Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of the seas has soared by 30 percent, and by the end of my life, it will have increased by 150 percent – unless we reverse course fast. "A change of that magnitude is more than we have seen in 20 million years," says Richard Feely of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Seattle.
Turning the seas acidic sets off a series of disasters, only some of which can be predicted in advance. Disaster one: The collapse of the oceanic food chain. At the turn of the century, the US, Japanese and German governments were so impressed by the capacity of the oceans to mop up CO2 that they proposed compressing emissions from power plants and pumping the goo into the sea. So a series of tank-experiments were set up to see what would happen. Once the water became strongly acidic, the shells of dozens of sea creatures – from sea urchins to molluscs – simply dissolved, and they died. The food chain collapsed; almost everything else in the experiment died too.
One of the creatures that is killed by acidity is the pteropod, a tiny little sea snail. That doesn't sound like a big deal – until you realise pteropods are the major food source for salmon, herring, cod and pollack. If they die, so does the staple food of hundreds of millions of humans. So long, and thanks for all the fish.
Disaster two: the death of coral. Acidic oceans dissolve coral like a fizzing paracetamol in a glass. So the coral reefs – the rainforests of the ocean, home to a quarter of all sea life – are dying at a rate that has staggered the scientists who study them. And the Reefer Madness gets worse: atolls like the Maldives and Tuvalu have foundations made of coral, so they will dissolve and collapse, if rising sea levels don't get them first.
Disaster three: the seas will lose their ability to soak up carbon dioxide. The creatures that currently "eat" carbon dioxide and sink to the bottom of the ocean – shelled plankton – are killed by acidity. The result? A sharp acceleration in global warming up here. There is even a fear the vast amounts of methane stored in the oceans will be destabilised and rise to the surface. The last time this happened, 55 million years ago, it caused warming so rapid most life on earth died. Think of it as the fart at the end of the world. That's why the biological oceanographer Professor David Hutchins says: "Frankly, ocean acidification is apocalyptic in its impact."
But remember: these are only some of the effects on the oceans – and the oceans are only one dimension of global warming. Suddenly the analogy with the al-Qa'ida psychosis doesn't seem so extreme. As the environmental writer Mark Lynas notes: "If we had wanted to destroy as much of life on earth as possible, there would have been no better way of doing it than to dig up and burn as much fossil hydrocarbon as we possible could."
We need a sea change before the seas change irreversibly. That's why I will be going to the Climate Camp. Where will you say you were when the carbon bomb was fired into the atmosphere?
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited




Comments
63 Comments
Where's the evidence a layperson can look at? All I ever get are these "canary in a coal mine" bits about things I never could look at before and can't look at now.
Summer here in California is about the same as it's been for the past 50 years. Looks like the rest of the country is the similar in this regard.
Except we've had FEWER hurricanes the past few years than "normal," whatever the heck normal means.
Environmentalists have been big on alarm, fear, and lies. They don't play straight. They threaten scientists who disagree with the ending of their careers. There's never a PUBLIC debate for the lay public in any easy to access venue.
It's all smoke and mirrors, and I don't trust environmentalists any more than I trust big oil.
Harry
Posted by Harry | 06.08.08, 07:54 GMT
I am with John Newport on this.
I suggest we do believe in global warming/climate change, just in case.
I see waste all around me.
We were just as happy in the 60s (in the UK) as we are now, but we consumed less.
One difference then was that we burnt a lot of coal and made smog (smoke and fog).
The trouble with nuclear is that the half-life of the residue extends over thousand and thousands of years. The fuel is scarce. CO2 is released in the exploitation of it.
if you want to reduce population growth, pay for the girls (all over the world) to be educated.
Posted by David H | 05.08.08, 20:21 GMT
The windturbine is only 20% effecient. Marginal increases in effeciency are bought at the price of bending torques that threaten the structure. There is no real way round this - and unlike a coal powerstation that can supply over a 1000 megawatts to the grid a windturbine will intermittantly feed in 2 or 3 mw whilsts consuming vast proportionate resources in construction. You would need to have quite substantional effeciency gains and kilometre tall windmills before you approach the effeciency of a single coal power station. It ain't gonna happen and money would be better spent on boring for geothermal energy...and exploiting conventional power sources. There are potentialy a billion tonnes of coal under the UK and that is enough to last fifty years at current rates of usage. This shouldn't be left under ground whilst our old folk freeze in winter - it is immoral to leave this coal underground.
Posted by kevin | 05.08.08, 17:15 GMT
Kevin, of course technology is important but don't you think we need to work on the technology to make wind turbines, solar pannels etc work more efficiently so that we can keep our cities going AFTER the coal runs out and not just in the short term?
Posted by John Newport | 05.08.08, 16:48 GMT
There is nothing wrong with using less resources if it gets the job done - however using less for the sake of it isn't in the interests of safety margins nor the economy of scale. Windmills and other renewables are only going to contribute fractional performance benefits whereas a modern coal fired power station can keep a entire city lit. The idea that there is a cost benefit in using a resource like the wind neglects the massive investment in numberlous windturbines that is necessary. These material resources would be better deployed on the construction of new nuclear/coal and gas fired power stations. Combined heat and power plants would increase the economy of these large scale projects further - if placed closed to urban connabations.
Posted by kevin | 05.08.08, 16:10 GMT
But seriously though, what's wrong with using less resources, cutting down wastage and paving the way for renewble resources? I'm not sure why people have a roblem with it. Well, unless you're counting self-interest I guess which isn't all that important... If we could just have some sort of subsidy for creating these things like windmills and solar panels like they do in several other European countires maybe we wouldn't be embarassingly lagging behind as we are now?
Posted by Sara | 05.08.08, 12:22 GMT
@Kevin
"Only capitalism with its engine of growth and competition can create the climate where innovation flourishes."
Not true. Capitalism with enlightened government intervention is the best way of ensuring that people enjoy higher living standards.
Capitalism on its own causes recessions and uncertainty (as we are now witnessing). And it is certainly no solution to Climate Change. That is going to take MASSIVE government intervention.
"Do not condemn your fellow man to poverty out of fear "
How ironic! It is your fear that the selfish economic system you blindly support is teetering on inevitable collapse that will condemn millions of others to unecessary hardship.
Tackling Climate Change requires regulation, subsidy and lots of tax. Simply wishing for better technology is impotent fantasy.
Posted by BenM | 05.08.08, 10:37 GMT
John Newport, the world is finite but technological innovation is not. Malthus warning went unheeded two hundred years ago and when the population moves off planet then Malthus is going to be in real trouble. The earths resources are finite but ingenuity rather than conservation is necessary to make the best use of these resources. Only capitalism with its engine of growth and competition can create the climate where innovation flourishes. The rest of the world will catch up, is catching up and in places surpassing the technological prowess of the developed world. Do not condemn your fellow man to poverty out of fear - there is no limit to carrying capacity if technological innovation is taken in to account. The sky is no limit!
Posted by kevin | 05.08.08, 10:27 GMT
Kevin are you really so short sighted as not to see that we cannot go on the way we are? There are double the number of people in the world that there were 40 years ago. The world's resources are FINITE. I'd be happy for everyone to enjoy the same standard of living we have here in the UK but it just isn't possible. The sad fact is that we've got it so good because most of the world doesn't.
No-one is promoting environmental catastrophe to keep the third world down. Most environemtnalists are people with a social conscience who find it appaling that there is so much poverty in the world . The solution to our problems is to start managing our resources more carefully, to stop being selfish and tone down our own selfish decadent lifestyles so that poorer countries can meet us half way. Grow up and take some responsbility man!
Posted by john newport | 05.08.08, 10:06 GMT
The environment is extremely resilient. After Hiroshima plants, with no sign of mutation, began growing within a year. The greenies will always say the envirnment is fragile and the climate is fragile in order to stop development. They are afraid the sky is going to fall in and are determined to get the message across that a little flatulance could spell universal disaster, like heck it will! If the third world starves because they are not allowed to develop technology then it is not the technocrats who should feel ashamed. Those who don't want development and march with placards outside power stations are denying electricity for incubators - they don't care for tommorows children perhaps?
Posted by kevin | 05.08.08, 09:35 GMT
63 Comments