=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL’S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #355
—September 16, 1993—
News and resources for environmental justice.
——
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org
==========
The Back issues and Index
are available
here.
The official RACHEL archive is here.
It’s updated constantly.
To subscribe, send E-mail to rachel-
weekly-
request@world.std.com
with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It’s free.
===Previous Issue==========================================Next Issue===
AN UNCONTROLLED EXPERIMENT ON THE PLANET
The anti-environmental backlash is in full swing. Public
relations firms and their hired scientists say toxic chemicals
are safe. They say the ozone hole isn’t real. They say global
warming isn’t a problem.
Some writers in the mainstream media have welcomed the backlash.
Keith Schneider, the NEW YORK TIMES’s environmental writer, says
the Wise-Use anti-environmental movement “is maybe one of the
most important and interesting movements to arise in
environmentalism in a long time because they’re prying into the
environmental questions that we’ve all grappled with for two
decades: Is there really a global warming? Is there really an
ozone problem?”[1]
The anti-environmental movement is making special efforts to
convince us there’s no problem with global warming. For example,
a shiny, four-color magazine, called WORLD CLIMATE REVIEW, has
appeared during the last year, published from the Department of
Environmental Sciences at University of Virginia in
Charlottesville. It is dedicated to two key ideas: (a) global
warming is not happening; and (b) when it does happen, we will be
able to cope, and it might even be a good thing. The magazine is
being sent free to all members of the Society of Environmental
Journalists. Production and distribution of the magazine is paid
for by the Western Fuels Association—a group of coal companies.
A spokesperson for the Association told us they put about a
third of a million dollars a year into the magazine.[2] Burning
coal is, of course, one of the major sources of carbon dioxide,
the main “greenhouse gas” responsible for trapping heat and
eventually warming the Earth.
Public-relations science, like WORLD CLIMATE REVIEW, is having an
effect. The backlash against the idea of global warming is
gaining ground in the mainstream media. The NEW YORK TIMES this
week featured a story on the backlash itself, which they said is
being promoted by “conservatives and industry groups.”[3] The
TIMES story was 45 column-inches long and the reader had to plow
through 41 inches of “maybe this, maybe that” before reaching the
main point:
“Issues in science are not decided by taking votes, but polls of
climate researchers show that most believe there is a better than
even chance that the climate will warm by at least 3.5 degrees
over the next century,” said the TIMES.
“Climatologists also know that once in the atmosphere, carbon
dioxide stays there for centuries; whatever climatic effect it
has will not be reversed in several human lifetimes. This may
partly explain why the weight of opinion among climate
scientists, as measured by polls, is that lack of certainty
should not stand in the way of prudent steps to control
greenhouse gas emissions,” the TIMES said.
The goal of the backlash is to prevent “prudent steps to control
greenhouse gas emissions” because such steps would entail burning
less oil, gas and coal, and would mean developing ways to
capture, store and use solar energy, a technology for which the
fuel is free.
While the mainstream media in the U.S. celebrate the backlash and
give major play to “maybe this, maybe that,” the National Academy
of Sciences, the United Nations, and the world-wide insurance
industry are taking global warming seriously.
There are two undisputed facts about global warming: First,
greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, CFCs, nitrous oxide,
and ozone) are capable of trapping heat in the atmosphere, just
as panes of glass trap heat in a greenhouse and warm it up. And
second: The concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
is steadily climbing because of human activities. The obvious
and inevitable conclusion is that, unless humans behave
differently, sooner or later planet Earth will become warmer.
Scientists only disagree on the rate at which the warming will
occur, and on what the consequences of the warming will be.
The National Academy of Sciences believes warming is occurring
now, or soon will: “Scientists have known for decades that a
buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could warm the
earth’s climate,” the Academy said in 1990. [4, pg. 64] And:
“This principle, known as the greenhouse effect, explains why
gases produced by human activity will probably cause the earth’s
average temperature to increase within the lifetimes of most
people living today.” [4, pg. 63]
What effects might that have? “A warmer climate would change the
probabilities for heat waves and possibly for strong hurricanes,”
the Academy says. More heat waves would cause soil to lose
moisture, reducing farm output. The Academy gives the example of
summer, 1988: “In the summer of 1988, the North American corn
crop was stunted by drought in the grain belt and productivity
fell below consumption (probably for the first time in U.S.
history) so that no grain was added to the nation’s reserves.” [4, pg. 65]
The Academy notes that, as a result of global warming, we should
expect sea levels to rise, not only because of melting ice caps
but also because water expands in volume as it grows warmer;
indeed, during this century, average sea level has risen 6 inches
or more, and the rise is continuing, the Academy notes. [4, pg. 91]
Another effect of global warming, the Academy says, will be
increased evaporation of water from the oceans. This will put
more water into the atmosphere, but the atmosphere has a limited
capacity to hold more water, so rainfall will increase in some
areas, even as hot spells and drought are increasing in other
areas.[4, pg. 83] This will increase the likelihood of flooding
in some regions.
For scientists, these issues are of theoretical interest. But
for the insurance industry they are very practical and real. It
is a stark fact that the three most damaging climatic disasters
in U.S. history have occurred within the last 12 months. First
Hurricane Andrew struck south Florida last September, costing the
insurance industry $20 billion. Then on March 12 a giant
blizzard, which the National Weather Service called “the single
biggest storm of the century” swept from Florida to Maine. Then
came this summer’s flooding in the Mississippi valley, which may
yet rival Andrew for the title, “costliest disaster of all.”
“Taken together, the storms do make one wonder if there are
pattern shifts occurring in our climate,” says Elbert Friday,
director of the U.S. Weather Service.[5]
Insurance companies are doing more than wondering. In the U.S.,
36 companies have canceled or limited coverage of property
insurance in coastal areas of Florida. Where coverage remains,
premiums have risen by up to 40 percent. Some companies have
also started limiting coverage in parts of Hawaii, Texas,
Louisiana, New Jersey and New York.
The re-insurance industry (companies that insure insurance
companies) are taking global warming very seriously, hiring their
own climatologists to evaluate the situation. A meteorologist,
Gerhard Berz, heads the technical research division of Munich Re,
the world’s biggest reinsurance company. “The increased
intensity of all convective processes in the atmosphere will
force up the frequency and severity of tropical cyclones,
tornadoes, hailstorms, floods and storm surges in many parts of
the world, with serious consequences for all types of property
insurance,” he says.[6]
How serious could this become? In densely populated, wealthy
areas where buildings are heavily insured, Berz says, the loss
potential of individual catastrophes can reach a level where the
national and international insurance industries do not have the
capacity, or reserves, to foot the bill. A large storm with
sustained winds exceeding 150 mph striking New York or Tokyo
could generate claims approaching, or even exceeding, the total
funds available for reinsurers, which currently stand at about
$160 billion.
Senior executives in both London and Zurich believe a complete
collapse of the reinsurance industry is possible if the current
spate of large storms continues, or grows worse. [6, pgs. 31-32]
Without reinsurers, the direct insurers would collapse. There
appears to be little chance of operating healthy economies
without a healthy insurance industry, yet failure of the
insurance industry is rarely, if ever, discussed in global
warming scenarios.
Swiss Re, another major reinsurer, has said, “There is a
significant body of scientific evidence indicating that last
year’s [1990] record insured losses from natural catastrophes
was… the result of climate changes that will enormously expand
the liability of the property-casualty industry. In light of the
magnitude of these losses, it would be prudent to act as if
[global warming] is correct. Failure to act would leave the
industry and its policyholders vulnerable to truly disastrous
consequences.”[6, pg. 32]
The truth is, no one really knows what global warming will be
like, or what the full consequences will be. The National
Academy of Sciences says, “In essence, we are conducting an
uncontrolled experiment with the planet.” [4, pg. 2] And: “Quite
simply, the ‘bottom line’ of the evolving greenhouse gas buildup
is that we insult the environment at a faster rate than we can
predict the consequences, and that under these conditions,
surprises are virtually certain.” [4, pg. 76]
As citizens, we must ask ourselves, is it smart for us to allow
the fossil fuel producers, and their “backlash” servants, to
continue playing Russian roulette with our atmosphere, our
property, our lives, and, indeed, our civilization?
–Peter Montague, Ph.D.
[5] Friday quoted in LIFE magazine (September, 1993), pg. 31.
[6] Jeremy Leggett, “Who Will Underwrite the Hurricane?” NEW
SCIENTIST August 7, 1993, pgs. 29-33.
Descriptor terms: global warming; global environmental problems;
keith schneider; wise use movement; university of virginia; uva;
sej; society of environmental journalists; coal; oil; natural
gas; fossil fuels; greenhouse effect; world climate review;
atmosphere; national academy of sciences; nas; united nations;
un; insurance industry; oceans; sea level rise; drought; floods;
flooding; agriculture; food; carbon dioxide; methane;
chlorofluorocarbons; cfcs; nitrous oxide; ozone; u.s. weather
service; storms; hurricanes; snow storms; hail; hi; tx; la; nj;
ny; fl; reinsurers; reinsurance industry; munich re; cyclones;
tornadoes; storm surges; swiss re;