Bigfoot on dry dust: climate change and ecological damage

The recently released annual report of the Climate Living Index states that Australia has the sixth largest footprint in terms of fossil fuel use and ecological damage. My only surprise at this is that we are sixth and no higher! At the top are the US, followed by the United Arab Emirates, Finland, Canada, and then Kuwait. The demands we are making on natural resources, and by us I mean everyone, not just Australians, are growing and could well lead to our own demise; at the very least, a radically different lifestyle, for fewer people, and possibly only marginally above subsistence level.

By 2050, 1.4 billion people are expected to be living under water problems.

All this translates into a sharp decrease in the biodiversity of species, such as freshwater fish, mammals, birds, plants. These problems are serious. Although it seems that we think, or hope, that it will not affect us or our lifestyle, yes. We depend on the land for our survival, just like birds, animals, and plants. In our busy, high-tech, well-fed, and luxurious lives, we tend to forget this.

Everything we eat, own, use, and use comes from the ground, not to mention the air we breathe.

There are naysayers everywhere. I see them on news forums, article sites, blogs, and newspapers. I listen to them on the radio. Some believe that it is scientists who, at worst, lie and, at best, manipulate for funding. Some believe that it is in the hands of God, and it is not written in the Bible, therefore it does not exist. Some believe that it is the work of the terrifying, history is full of people who declare that the end is near, like the sect of cave dwellers in Russia who believe that the world will end this month. Some believe that scientists will find a way out. Some even believe that scientists and multinationals already have the way out, but in the meantime they are reaping all the benefits they can.

I think all these beliefs are nonsense, antics in the sky, ostrich head in the sand, fearful, silly or dangerous. It doesn’t really matter if climate change believers, be they scientists, politicians, or average citizens, are wrong.

It matters if they are right.

If we work to reduce climate change, the destruction of the environment, the loss of biodiversity and take measures to save water, what do we have to lose? The usual answers to these questions are strong and immediate: benefits, low inflation, employment, financial security.

Yes, possibly. But these are nothing more than problems to overcome. There are benefits to be gained from energy, manufacturing, and agricultural practices that do not spoil the environment. Governments can keep inflation low by ensuring sensible budget management, regardless of how a country earns its money. Jobs can be created, adapted and developed or maintained in clean industry. Even forest workers can be employed to sustainably maintain forests rather than destroy our vital rainforests. Economic security is maintained and promoted through government policy, not through destruction of the planet.

History shows that all the great civilizations have fallen and ultimately through the destruction of their environment, for example, the Mayans, the ancient Egyptians, the people of Easter Island. The monument of stone statues that we know Easter Island by required the clearing of all the forests to move the stones, and irrevocably changed its environment to one that no longer supported life.

If we continue to learn nothing from history, we will repeat it. The world will still be here. There will still be fauna and flora. There might even be some humans, but probably not. Numbers will be decimated across species, and life will not be the same until evolution allows adaptation once more to the changed environment, and that takes eons. It does not necessarily mean that humans can survive in whatever new environment results.

If we do not heed the warnings, will be perish. Perhaps, for the world itself, that is not so bad. I don’t want to experience it, but I especially don’t want my children or grandchildren to experience it: ‘it’s’ food shortages, water shortages and stale air. Nor do I want them to experience the inevitable struggles / wars that will ensue from dwindling resources, which will boost economies for a time, but only for a short (myopic) time. Look at the deficit in America due to the war, and for what? A harmful fossil fuel. Securing oil only delays the inevitable and ensures that life’s decline will come more suddenly and deeper.

Are there scientists who alarm and get grants? Probably. Are there politicians who get on board for populist reasons? Definitely. Therefore, should we put aside the fact that the lifestyles of the developed world are destroying our own habitat? Definitely not. In addition to the stress that the global environment is already experiencing, including acidity and rising levels of heavy metals in the oceans, the developing world outnumbers the developed world in every way. Without sustainable methods, the deterioration of the environment and biodiversity will increase exponentially.

To ignore this and focus only on the short term, that is, earnings, elections, popularity, is deserving what happens. In everything, the logical and sensible approach is to take the middle road: constant and determined changes with short-term and long-term goals and strategies for a sustainable habitat. We are, ultimately, the species most at risk.

If we continue to litter and abuse our habitat, we will be like that old Disney cartoon where Jiminy Cricket laughs at the ants preparing for winter. The ants, the real ants, will survive, but they will not take us in. We’ll be out on our own.

But not by much.