Living richly in an age of limits Book

Short-sighted and foolish

Global warming is the subject in only one of the twelve chapters in this book. Other chapters are on pesticides, water wars, bioengineering, the concept of sustainable (or "sustained") development, crop yields, etc. The spirit of the book can perhaps be taken from Nobel Peace Prize winner Norman Borlaug, who wrote the chapter entitled, "Feeding a World of 10 Billion People: The Miracle Ahead."

The "Miracle Ahead" in Borlaug's title and his enthusiasm for feeding ten billion people are typical of the optimistic tone throughout. I would prefer that we not have ten billion people to feed, but that is another argument based on my belief that we should leave room for substantial agrarian and wild spaces on the planet and that we should keep alive in their natural habitats as many of our fellow creatures as is reasonably possible, and that such resources are of inestimable value. The authors of this book are not much concerned with life other than as it relates to the short-term economic welfare of the human species.

This brings us to the question, what are they concerned with? Why are they arguing so vehemently against almost any sort of restraint on economic growth? Why are they not concerned about how many humans may occupy the planet? The answer: they know that poor and disadvantaged humans are needed to work at subsistence wages in order that others (themselves, their friends, and their children) may enjoy a high standard of living. One of the most important environmental trends during the last century NOT noted in this book is the movement of poor people from less developed countries to Europe and the United States. These people gladly leave the lands of their births, many crossing borders illegally, to take on the lowest paying jobs in our economies. Without these eager workers we would all be less well off.

Consequently the authors want to continue to be able to exploit not only the environment to the fullest, they want to be able to exploit a ready supply of human labor as well. This is why they do not argue against the dangers of overpopulation and belittle those that do. They want a substantial number of poor people in the world.

But philosophic and moral issues aside, is global warming an "eco-myth"?

First, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased since the levels were first measured, especially during the last century. Second, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas; that is, it allows the sun's heat to penetrate to the surface of the planet but prevents heat from escaping. Third, the overall temperature of the planet has indeed risen over the last century with some of the hottest years on record occurring in the last decade or so. All of this is indisputable.

However, what is argued in this book is that, one, it is impossible to prove that increased CO2 admissions are causing the warming; two, it was warmer, much warmer earlier in the earth's history; and three, it is not clear that this warming is something to be concerned about. The authors argue further that plant life loves having more carbon dioxide. Indeed, this belief is why carbon dioxide levels are not included in the graphs showing pollution levels in the air. The authors have simply decided that CO2 is not a pollutant. Of course this is contrary to common sense and to the long held dictum referred to by contributor Angela Logomasini in her chapter on "Chemical Warfare" that "the dose makes the poison." (p. 159) Plants do indeed like carbon dioxide but researchers have found that at too high a dose, even plants begin to suffer from too much CO2.

It may well be that the increase in CO2 levels is not the reason the earth is getting warmer; it may be just a coincidence or a temporary anomaly. However--and this is really the crux of the matter ignored by the authors--what if they are wrong? What if the most likely argument, that increased CO2 levels produced by a growing human population, are causing or contributing mightily to global warming? And what if it gets worse? The really scary thing about global warming is that we may pass over the point of no return without knowing it. A full-blown, runaway greenhouse effect would make nuclear winter look like a walk in the park. Look what happened to Venus, where on any spring day (or winter day for that matter) the surface is hot enough to melt lead. Could that happen here? The real and direct answer to that question is: we don't know.

Another underlying argument is the idea that human ingenuity is limitless and that whatever problems do develop, our creativity will solve them. This pollyannaish stance, this matter of faith, really, is not compatible with the rigorous scientific discipline to which the authors aspire.

The arguments against the hysteria about bioengineering, about how prognosticators were wrong in the past (Paul Ehrlich, etc.), about how wondrous has been our ability to grow food faster than babies, etc. are all well taken. Even the argument that natural resources have become cheaper is true, but that is because a great leap in technological skills coincided with vast areas of the planet being available for exploitation. For our children and grandchildren, who will probably have an even more advanced technology, there will be unfortunately precious few unspoiled lands on which to use that technology.

The argument that the past is a guide to the future, held here as an immutable law, is a respectable one, but is not anything near infallible. A contrary argument, that nothing is ever the same, that what applied as truth for hunter and gatherer, and for agrarian societies, may not be true for advanced technological societies, is perhaps a better guide.

--Dennis Littrell, author of "The World Is Not as We Think It Is"