josephbenton

            Be it out of general concern or just plain ignorance, there are numerous critics against what has been called climate change. Specifically, these critics say that humans could not possibly be behind climate change and that “environmentalists” are demonizing humans. While there is a certain truth to this claim, it is hardly representative of the majority of those who believe human-caused climate change exists.  

            What climate change critics don’t seem to understand is that believers do not necessarily label humans as the enemy (though many environmentalists do). We may point to humans as one of the causes of climate change, but we hardly view them with hostility. Just the opposite, humans are the only species on the planet that can fix the damage we have caused. We need humans to thrive if the problems facing us today (including those that go beyond the realm of the environment) are to have solutions.

            Climate change is merely the largest symptom of a multitude of problems. Climate change is just the largest part of a series of atrocities committed by humans. Yes, some of these atrocities were committed out of ignorance and genuinely improved the lives of people. However, just because they improved our lives does not make them sacred. Now that we know the damage cause by fossil fuels, we need to actively seek a superior alternative, one that does not do undue harm to the environment.

            But it is not just fuels that are currently a problem. For example, scientists continue to warn us about overfishing. There is a good possibility that tuna will no longer be fishable in our lifetime. Not only are the number caught decreasing, but so is their size. What would happen if this industry collapsed? It is a highly lucrative business for fishing companies of Southeast Asia. If the tuna disappear, many would be out of work. Countries already rife with poverty would suffer a major hit to their economy. Starvation would become much worse. We know this event is occurring, and yet we sit by and do very little to change.

            Proponents apply the same logic to human caused climate change. While the consequences of climate change can be fuzzy (as any prediction of the future can be), none of the scenarios are good. It would be as if we took the overfishing scenario and increased it to a global scale. In the end, we are not working to protect the environment for the sake of the environment; we are working to protect the environment for the sake and livelihood of human beings.

            Critics often bemoan about the supposed claim that humans are going to end the world. They counter this claim by saying that the world (as in Earth) is predicted to last so many billions of years. What they misunderstand is that we are not saying the Earth as a planetary entity will end, but Earth as a habitable place to live will come to an end, worst case scenario being true. What many of us agree on is that the changes caused to the environment will be harmful to even the most adaptable species on the planet: human beings. The planet will survive; nobody doubts that. Humans will most likely survive as well. However, not only will the environment be drastically changed in the process, but the vitality of the human species will be threatened. We are not advocating for the reduction of oil and fossil fuel consumption out of a fear that the planet will die, but out of a fear that the environment that we have thrived in as a species will collapse into something unfamiliar and hostile. In the end, we are not saying that the world is ending on a planetary level; we’re saying that the world is ending as we know it.

            Finally, those of us who support reducing “carbon footprints” are not worried about the natural production of CO₂ but the overproduction of the chemical that the rest of nature cannot easily adapt to. Those who propose measures to reduce pollutants and carbon emissions are not advocating the end of ending the natural process of carbon production. We are advocating the reduction of artificial carbon dioxide production. Why is this seen as radical? Between the deforestation and other activities that have reduced plant life and the increase in artificially produced  CO₂, isn’t cutting back on such artificial emissions the logical thing to do? Reducing our emissions to as close to zero as possible would return the carbon cycle back to its original state before the industrial revolution and the sudden increase in carbon emissions, thus allowing for the environment to change in a slower, more natural way. This effort was never about eliminating carbon; it is about eliminating as much unnecessary carbon as possible.

            Let’s be clear. Our petroleum based economy has done great harm to the environment. There is an abundance of evidence that supports this claim. This goes beyond climate change. As mentioned earlier, climate change is just the largest symptom of a multitude of problems. It is foolhardy to say that it is okay to continue to use oil when the damage is so clear in so many places. No one should be advocating a step backward in energy production. Alternative energy sources such as wind, solar, and maybe even nuclear can be enough to live off of. There are plenty of examples who have gone energy neutral. Many times, these homes can give energy back to the grid, providing clean energy to their neighborhood, all accomplished with a negligible impact on quality of life.

            In the end, this debate is not about political gain. It is about assuring our future for both ourselves and our children. All we want is for people to be more responsible with their home.