Kathy Freston: Avoiding An Environmental Apocalypse

[Guest guest]

Another great article by Kathy Freston!

Please repost, blog, forward, and otherwise share.---Dan

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston/avoiding-an-environmental_b_203441.h\

tml

Your request is being processed...

 

<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston>

 

 

Kathy Freston <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston>

 

Author, Health and Wellness Expert

 

Huffington Post

Posted: May 14, 2009 10:25 AM

BIO <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston/#blogger_bio> Become a

Fan

<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/becomeFan.php?of=hp_blogger_Kathy%20Freston\

>

 

Get Email Alerts <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/login/>

 

 

Avoiding An Environmental Apocalypse

<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston/avoiding-an-environmental_b_203441.\

html>

 

digg

<http://digg.com/submit?phase=2 & url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston/\

avoiding-an-environmental_b_203441.html & title=Kathy%20Freston:%20Avoiding%20An%2\

0Environmental%20Apocalypse>

Share this on Facebook

<http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-fresto\

n/avoiding-an-environmental_b_203441.html & title=Kathy%20Freston:%20Avoiding%20An\

%20Environmental%20Apocalypse>

Huffpost -

<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston/avoiding-an-environmental_b_203441.\

html#>

stumble

<http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit.php?url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-f\

reston/avoiding-an-environmental_b_203441.html & title=Kathy%20Freston:%20Avoiding\

%20An%20Environmental%20Apocalypse>

reddit

<http://reddit.com/submit?url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston/avoidi\

ng-an-environmental_b_203441.html & title=Kathy%20Freston:%20Avoiding%20An%20Envir\

onmental%20Apocalypse>

del.ico.us

<http://del.icio.us/post?v=4 & noui & jump=close & url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/k\

athy-freston/avoiding-an-environmental_b_203441.html & title=Kathy%20Freston:%20Av\

oiding%20An%20Environmental%20Apocalypse>

<http://buzz./article/huffington_post/http%253A%252F%252Fwww.huffington\

post.com%252Fkathy-freston%252Favoiding-an-environmental_b_203441.html>

ShareThis <javascript:void(0)> RSS

<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/syndication/>

 

I've been catching up on my magazine reading and I came across a

fascinating piece

<http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126971.700-how-to-survive-the-coming-ce\

ntury.html>

in a recent issue of/ New Scientist/, which is usually a few steps ahead

of the non-scientific press. It is a serious journal - not given to

hyperbole - for scientists, although it does try to match scientific

rigor with accessibility for interested lay people. The cover title of

this usually staid magazine's March issue?

 

*Earth 2099: Population crashes, Mass migration, Vast new deserts,

Cities abandoned.

<http://http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126971.700-how-to-survive-the-co\

ming-century.html?page=4>

*

 

Well okay then.

 

The story says that if the Earth is warmed by a mere 4 degrees Celsius,

by the year 2099 the planet will become unrecognizable. We will have

warm, acidic seas that will probably not sustain fish; many of the areas

where food is grown and populations flourish will no longer be able to

provide for either because of vast flooding or desertification; storms

will be fiercer and much more devastating; /and the only places that

will have enough water and resources to sustain humans will be in the

high latitude areas of the planet /(stress mine--because I'm shocked).

 

A nightmare scenario based on worst possible circumstances? Sadly, no.

In fact a warming of 4 degrees Celsius is a conservative prediction

according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. If we don't

make serious changes, and soon, warming could be markedly greater.

 

James Lovelock, a former NASA scientist, says of those limited high

latitude areas that humanity will be calling home (exclusively) in this

scenario, " That's where all the life would be.... The rest of the world

will be largely desert with a few oases. " Imagine what it might be like

if 9 billion (the projected population by then) people are all

scrambling to stake claim to a few select and prime habitable areas on

the planet. Lovelock goes on to say, " Humans are in a pretty difficult

position and I don't think they are clever enough to handle what's

ahead. I think they'll survive as a species all right, but the cull

during this century is going to be huge...The number remaining at the

end of the century will probably be a billion or less. "

 

It seems to me that Al Gore may have been too soft in choosing his movie

title: " inconvenient " might better be replaced with " staggering " or

" alarming' or perhaps even something stronger. Is any adjective too

hyperbolic when you're talking about a billion humans fighting for

survival amidst storms and oceans drained of life--in just 90 years? The

problem of global warming is no longer the threat of an extended

hurricane season and hotter summers, however real those concerns are,

especially for the world's poor. We appear to be headed for something

where the word cataclysm seems terrifyingly appropriate.

 

The article discusses how society would have to reorient circa 2099,

noting that " In order to survive, humans may need to do something

radical: rethink our society not along geopolitical lines but in terms

of resource distribution. " Peter Cox, who studies the dynamics of

climate systems at the University of Exeter is quoted suggesting that we

could determine " where the resources are, and then plan the population,

food and energy production around that. " In other words, we will have to

adapt to disappearing resources.

 

To me, the whole discussion feels sort of like making your mind up to

deal with cancer once it inevitably develops, rather than doing what you

can to prevent it in the first place. To be sure, if you are likely to

get such a troubling diagnosis - whether cancer or a dying environment -

it would be wise to make meaningful (and to some, this might mean

radical) changes. But wouldn't it be preferable to do everything

possible to prevent disaster, rather than focusing most of your

resources on planning for it?

 

One of the most meaningful things we can do to arrest climate change is

to change the way we eat. As discussed previously, and as hammered home

by the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in recent

lectures in London and Paris <http://www.rkpachauri.org/speech.php>, the

meat industry is one of the most devastating causes of global warming.

And this is not just factory farming--some analysis indicates that

smaller farms cause more warming. They're generally better for animal

welfare, water pollution, and desertification, but they actually require

more resources, and thus cause more greenhouse gas emissions.

 

We need government change: We need a shift away from the billions in

annual subsidies for the meat industry, as discussed in a Union of

Concerned Scientists report

<http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/cafo-costs-report-0113.html>.

We need more healthy vegetarian foods in schools and other government

programs. We need education of the public about this very real cause for

alarm and potential solutions. We need leaders who understand the issues

and take them seriously. But we also need all of us to take personal

charge of our lives, and to do what we can personally to decrease our

support for climate change.

 

Most of us are taking some actions, but many are not taking the action

recommended by the head of the IPCC and indicated by the United Nations

report, Livestock's Long Shadow

<http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM>, which reports that

eating meat causes about 40% more global warming gases as all the cars,

trucks, planes, and other forms of transport combined--that is, cutting

back on our consumption of chicken, pork, and other animal products (I

discuss the environmental case against meat in greater depth here

<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston/vegetarian-is-the-new-pri_b_39014.h\

tml>).

 

 

The article in/ New Scientist/ points out that according to some

accelerated climate feedback mechanisms citing potential " tipping

points " , the radical and devastating changes could come into being as

soon as 2050. That's a mere 41 years from now. Then again, the good news

is that " the survival of humankind itself is not at stake: the species

could continue if only a couple of hundred individuals remained. " Well

that's a relief.

 

Usually, my stance is to lean into changes, to take them incrementally

and slowly, so that they stick. After reading this article, I would say

that going vegetarian is nothing to be taken lightly - or slowly. Lean

in, for sure, but lean soon!

 

Here are some tips for making the move, " One Bite at a Time. "

<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston/one-bite-at-a-time-a-begi_b_42211.h\

tml>

 

 

Eco-Eating: Eating as if the Earth Matters (it does!)

http://tinyurl.com/yqfjxk

 

The Vegetarian Mitzvah

http://tinyurl.com/29nnuq