Scientists who understand the gravity of the climate crisis are so alarmed by the inadequate world response and the accelerating degradation of the planet that in January 2022, a group of climate scientists in New Zealand threatened to stop research and go on strike until nations take the action necessary to defeat climate change. They also declared the uselessness of reporting more climate disasters. Other scientists have added their shouts of protest. On August 29, 2022, five climate scientists and a political scientist called on fellow scientists to engage in civil disobedience, even risking arrest, to protest the failure of the world community to fully recognize the emergency.
Scientists have warned for decades that the warming of the planet will eventually raise sea levels that will submerge coastal cities around the globe. The likelihood of that happening jumped exponentially after the report in the November 2022 issue of Scientific American about the deterioration in Antarctica's Thwaites ice shelf. The collapse of the massive Thwaites glacier would place "the homes of at least 20 million U.S. people and another 50 million to 100 million people worldwide below high tide." And Sacramento, California "would lose 50 percent of its homes as ocean water pushes 80 kilometers inland."
What if before that calamity the lesser rising of sea levels from the melting of icebergs and glaciers resulted in the partial flooding of a major coastal city in the U.S."- rendering it permanently submerged and uninhabitable? Would that be the wake-up call that works? Maybe, since it would be obvious that the same catastrophe will be repeated as the planet continues to warm.
Will all nations then make the sacrifices necessary to defeat climate change? Would they offer adequate pledges--and stick to them with no concessions to polluting industries?
For decades the fossil fuel industry covered up the rapidly developing crisis of climate change as documented in Geoff Dembicki's new book The Petroleum Papers: Inside the Far-Right Conspiracy to Cover Up Climate Change. Then there are the climate deniers who claim the crisis is a hoax. The best "evidence" they have produced is Senator James Inhofe throwing a snowball to "prove" that the planet is not warming. A more serious critique is the contention of some scientists that climate change alarm is based on a flawed model. They insist there is no imminent crisis.
Since science does not declare absolutes, only probabilities, either side could be correct with varying degrees of probability. If the deniers, scientists, and doubters who proclaim no imminent crisis are right the consequence will be that we have overspent on programs that have contributed to a healthier planet among other plusses. But if the alarmists are right, the consequence could be the end of life on this planet.
Which side would be best to err on? The answer is obvious.
Let's hope that contemplating the terrifying notion that only a colossal disaster can save us will mobilize the world to adopt whatever extreme measures and sacrifices are necessary to save life on this planet.
Reply Reply All Forward
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
