"Saving" the Earth

Can the Earth Be Saved?

       I will begin by explaining what this presentation entitled, “Can the Earth Be Saved?” is about. It can be divided into six parts. The first part is the longest. It is concerned with Global Warming-what it is, why it is and why it’s a problem. Global Warming will be followed by a brief explanation of some other reasons that fossil fuels are not the best sources of energy.  The third part will point out other threats to the earth’s ecosystem. The fourth part is devoted to the Earth’s perspective. The fifth part of the talk will explain my answer to the question, can the earth be saved? Finally, I will conclude with a few words about how all of this relates to environmental justice.

My goal is not to teach you a bunch of facts about ecology. My aim is to get you to think a bit differently about the earth and about the life that the earth supports.

1. Global Warming

     What is it, why is it, and why is it a problem? Many people think that at the present time global warming is a threat to the planet Earth and that this danger is caused by human activity. Perhaps you've seen Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. What I have to say about global warming is not scientifically based as far as I know. Although I have a Master of Science degree, I don’t think of myself as a scientist. I am more of a truth-seeker and I have discovered that that quest for truth requires me to transcend the limits of science. If you want to understand the scientific basis of climate change, I would recommend An Inconvenient Truth.

Note: I tend to use the terms climate change and global warming interchangeably. Actually, they are not the same. Global warming is just one way in which the climate can change.

     Of course, there are a few people who are confirmed skeptics. Some deny that the earth is warming or burning. Others admit that there is a warming trend but deny that human activity is causing it. They point out that scientists have revealed massive shifts in climactic temperatures in the Earth’s geologic past. There is evidence of various ice ages with warmer periods between them. I don’t know of any reason to believe that process of change has stopped. That the climate is always undergoing a natural change, however, does not contradict the belief that certain human actions are causing an accelerated rate of global warming.

      Some climate change critics deny that there is a cause/effect relationship between higher concentrations of carbon in the atmosphere and oceans and increasing temperature averages around the globe.  Scientists tell us that there were cataclysmic events millions of years in the past that caused massive amounts of organic matter to be buried deep in the earth. Scientists theorize that pressure, etc. caused these massive amounts of organic matter in the earth to be transformed into coal, oil, and natural gas-substances which we now call fossil fuels.

     We know that coal, oil, and gas contain plenty of carbon and that when they are burned a whole lot of carbon, that had been sequestered in the earth for millions of years, is released into the atmosphere. The amount of buried coal, oil, and natural gas would suggest that there must have been a whole lot of vegetation and animals prior to the cataclysms that buried them. Anyone who has gardened, knows that prolific growth does not occur under dry, cold conditions. So it would seem logical to conclude that the areas of the earth with buried fossil fuels must have been hotter and perhaps more moist at one time than they are today. Judging from the amount of carbon that is released when fossil fuels are burned, there must have been more of it circulating through the eco sphere* prior to these cataclysms. So it seems that there must have been higher temperatures in the past accompanied by higher concentrations of carbon in the eco sphere. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

      In the modern era prior to the Industrial Revolution, there was a whole lot of carbon sequestered or stored in the ground in the form of fossil fuels. What was the net effect of this carbon storage? The more carbon that is sequestered or buried in the earth means less carbon will be circulating through the atmosphere and the oceans. Less circulating carbon might have favored the development of new species with more limited growth potential. The resulting cooler temperatures and the change in the chemical composition of the air may also have allowed the survival and growth of new species. One of those new species may have been the ancestors of homo sapiens

      Let’s skip to the modern era. I am suggesting that we are the products of a species which, except for the changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere of this planet, would never have begun. How do the descendants of that species choose to live? We live by burning billions of tons of fossil fuels We have destroyed millions of acres of carbon-sequestering rain forest, turned fertile lands into deserts, and paved over vast tracts of land that are now incapable of supporting dense vegetative growth. What effects do those human activities have on the modern eco sphere? One effect is that only a portion of the prehistoric carbon being emitted into the air is being absorbed by trees and other plants. The rest of those emissions contribute to increased concentration of carbon in the air and in the oceans. This increased concentration is what 98% of scientists agree is causing an accelerated rate of global warming. 

     Have you ever wondered, “what difference would a slower rate of global warming, make?” The answer is that it would give more species of wild plants and animals more time to adapt to the warmer temperatures. Some species are already starting to change where they live and how they eat. Polar bears, however, are dying in increasing numbers as the availability of polar ice flows decreases (http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/National-Wildlife/Animals/Archives/2010/How-Animals-Fight-Global-Warming.aspx).

     Billions of us humans also need to learn to adapt to the warmer climate. There may be food shortages as crops that need cooler temperatures can no longer be grown in the same location. Scientists have warned us to expect more frequent and intense violent storms. Then there are the 500-600 million people that could be displaced as rivers fed by melting glaciers flood and as islands and low-lying continental coastal areas around the world are submerged from rising sea levels according to www.worldwatch.org (http://www.worldwatch.org/climate-refugees-human-cost-global-warming). There is a movie called Climate Refugees, which addresses this aspect of global warming.

       I think that’s enough about global warming.

    2.  Another drawback to fossil fuels

     Accelerated global warming is not the only danger that results from the burning of fossil fuels. I don’t intend to quote a bunch of exact figures and statistics. If you are interested in that sort of thing you can refer to the book, Inalienable Rights versus Abuse, a Commonsense Approach to Public Policy by R. Q. Public. Two chapters of that book are devoted to energy generation and another chapter to environmental quality. Lots of documented facts and numbers.

      Scientists tell us that fossil fuels are the end product of the decomposition of prehistoric organisms. They also tell us that tons of sulfur, arsenic, and mercury have been emitted from the burning of fossil fuels. There are other emissions as well. The reason I have singled out mercury, arsenic, and sulfur is because two of them are heavy metals toxic to us humans. The other, sulfur, is known to form acid precipitation that has caused millions of dollars in damages to public and private structures, to crops, and to forests. It is my opinion that these elements (arsenic, mercury, and sulfur) are present in fossil fuels because the prehistoric organisms that got buried in the earth absorbed these elements into their physical structures during their lifetimes. If that is the case, it would seem logical to conclude that there was a lot more mercury, sulfur, and arsenic circulating through the prehistoric eco sphere than through the eco sphere just prior to the Industrial Revolution. Judging from the tons of these elements that have been released with the burning of fossil fuels, it may be that prehistoric organisms had more of these elements in their bodies than most of today’s organisms could even tolerate without being poisoned. That includes us human beings. If this idea is valid, it means that we humans as well as many other modern plants and animals could not have survived in the eco sphere in which these prehistoric organisms lived. So is it sensible for us humans to be hell-bent on extracting and utilizing more and more fossil fuels? The more fossil fuels we burn, the more the chemical composition of the modern eco sphere will become similar to the composition of the prehistoric eco sphere, a toxic world in which we would not have been able to survive.

3.  Other Eco Threats

     The threats posed by fossil fuels are significant. But they are not the only threats to the living things of planet Earth. Besides climate change, acid precipitation, and heavy metals, there are the possible negative effects of poisoning the environment with a virtual witches’ brew of man-made chemicals. We are genetically altering plants and animals in ways that would never happen except for human activity. Some species of wild non-woody vegetation have been found to be genetically altered as a result of exposure to GMO crops. The thinning of the stratospheric ozone layer is allowing more ultraviolet radiation, which is believed to be carcinogenic, to reach the earth’s surface. The more intense and violent storms resulting from global warming are now theorized to be contributing to ozone depletion according to climatecentral.org (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/thunderstorms-ozone-atmosphere-18600). All of these conditions combined with an expanding human population and limited natural resources will result in increasingly non-sustainable lifestyles for billions of us.

     The wealthiest among us don’t seem to be very concerned nor do they need to be as concerned as those of us who will lack the financial resources to maintain our health or even to survive the coming ecological changes. If most species on Earth go extinct, and billions of humans perish, the people who own greenhouses, electric generators, indoor swimming pools, industrial air purifiers, and private wells and who employ body guards will most likely survive, at least for a longer time than the rest of us.

4. Mother Earth's Perspective

As I was writing this, I started wondering about Nature. If Mother Nature was an actual conscious entity with the ability to think, how would she express her point of view? I suspect that, if asked, she might issue a statement like this:

      I have maintained life in various forms on the planet for hundreds of millions of 

      years. That's my job. I don't play favorites. I don't have a 'soft spot' in my non-

      existent heart for human kind. I am long-suffering and patient. But if you think 

      that you can't push me beyond my limits, think again. I have it in my power to

      put Homo sapiens on the next mass extinction list.

5.   The Answer

      So what is the answer? Can the Earth be "saved" from the negative effects of human activity? Do we humans have the technological where-with-all to destroy the planet either deliberately or accidentally? According to the Internet we don't have enough nuclear power to blow the planet apart. That's the good news.
       In regard to the life forms that the Earth supports, they are not so indestructible. According to scientists, there have been five mass extinctions in the past 439 million years. The worst one resulted in 96% of life being suddenly eliminated according to worldatlas.com (http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-timeline-of-the-mass-extinction-events-on-earth.html). Some believe we are heading for the sixth mass extinction based on the fact that species extinction is occurring 10 to 100 times faster than in the past (same source). It is believed that some insects would be able to survive a global nuclear holocaust that killed every other form of life. Thew point here is that some forms of life will probably survive the next mass extinction event even if our species perishes.
     But what would happen if everything did die? Take away all living things and what's left? Rocks, topsoil containing dead organic matter, magma in the center of the planet, volcanoes, oceans, waves, lakes, rivers, earthquakes, landslides, tornadoes, etc. Life is dependent on the planet. The Earth does not need life to exist.

     "Can the Earth be Saved?”  The answer is that the third rock from the sun may last until the end of time or until our Sun goes nova, whichever comes first. Unless, of course, it is attacked by the Empire’s Death Star. So we don't need to be concerned about the continuing existence of the planet itself. We should be very concerned for the health and longevity of most humans being born today, however. I suspect that many of us human beings naively believe that we can trust our political leaders to save us from future human-caused environmental calamities.

  

6.  The Long View

      The last part of this presentation is concerned with environmental justice. I understand that some of us think that social justice is more important or significant than environmental justice. I would invite you to consider how this whole ecological threat to life thing relates to social justice. Perhaps the human activities that are presently having a negative effect on the life forms of the planet, may eventually result in a more livable environment for a limited number of human survivors. That outcome might be seen as positive by the survivors. But does that possible “positive” outcome justify the suffering and deaths of billions of us? Especially if we are not given the opportunity to voluntarily sacrifice ourselves for the “greater good”? If an ecological mass extinction caused by human actions does occur, it is very probable that most members of the poorer classes, racial minorities, and gender minorities will be the first to perish. In closing, I invite those of us who think that social justice is more important than environmental justice, or vice versa, to reconsider those opinions.

      I realize I haven’t presented information on what each of us can do to promote environmental justice. The second post of this blog "Improving the Earth"contains information on that topic. In case I have inspired in you a desire to do more for the causes of environmental and social justice than you are already doing,check out www.humanlivesmattertome1.blogspot.com.

*eco sphere- those parts of the earth habitable by living organisms.  Encompasses bodies of water, soil, rocks, and air.