Saving the environment or saving ourselves?

Does the environment need saving? Or much better stated, are we better off saving the environment or saving ourselves? You probably get the point of where I’m going with this. I want to zoom in onto that well-worn subject of climate change and natural disasters. About the sacrifices that we supposedly need to make to save the environment (even though in reality we are saving ourselves here). I will outline the matter for you as easily as I can without boring you with trifling details. Of course there is general consensus with regard to where we are, what the causes of climate change are, and what we can do to contain the effects thereof and save our civilization.           

History of climate change 

So it turns out the climate of our little planet has been changing over eons of years long before our species graced this planet. Scientists have amassed plenty of evidence to confirm this (through dating of CO₂ in glaciers). There have been moments when the earth has been much warmer than it currently is, though the current warming seems exacerbated by the human-induced accumulation of greenhouse gases[1]. So the issue is not merely the warming being experienced but the disruptions and associated disasters that have been all too common lately. It seems every year parts of our planet are besieged by hurricanes, tsunamis, floods, record rainfalls, etc. You've seen it in the news of course. The cat, as they say, is already out of the bag!

I remember not that far back reading about climate change predictions and the fact that some of the anticipated effects would be in the form of natural disasters and extreme weather events. Unbeknownst to me at the time, this would happen within my lifetime. Very chilling indeed.

So what is there to do?

The battle is really about reducing the artificially-induced levels of CO₂ in the atmosphere, which come about as a direct result of emissions from our industrial processes. Scientific consensus points in that direction. But the science, as you’ve probably heard it said before, is not perfect on this one. Which is pretty much why we talk of scientific consensus! Thing is, the natural environment is way too complex to be simplified or studied through our famed reductionist approach. That is not to say the information we get is meaningless or useless. But simply that we do not know enough for sure. Or that there is much else we can’t explain. But we ought to do the best we can in any case. Even in the climate of uncertainty in which we operate. Otherwise we can’t wait till the last snow caps have melted. Or the oceans have washed away our coastal cities. That would be tantamount to waiting for hard evidence, while weather phenomena are wreaking havoc and making conditions unbearable for Homo sapiens on this planet.                   

So does Planet Earth need saving?

The planet has carried on fine long before we showed up here. Evolution relentlessly shaped and fashioned natural systems and organisms to adapt to conditions on this planet until such time that conditions were suitable for human habitation. The poor dinosaurs found themselves on the wrong side of climate change and weather disasters, which explains why they are not here anymore. We could be headed the same way ourselves. But life will carry on regardless. Conditions will become suitable for other species. Perhaps another dominant species will  arise and rule the roost. The bacteria will be there in their vast numbers of course. As well as the little microorganisms that take care of the dirty work on our planet (decomposition, recycling, etc.). And out of them, new life will emerge. So this whole  business about saving the planet is nonsense. The planet does not need saving. Human beings and their self-destructive civilizations do. Which brings me to another important point about priorities for saving the planet (or saving ourselves – with apologies to Bjorn Lomborg who made the popular TED Talk video).

Priorities for maintaining human life on Planet Earth

So if we had it in us to solve all the immediate problems that confront human society, where would we start? If we had adequate financial resources (say a mere $50 billion for a start), how would we stack up some of the biggest problems in a way that would most benefit society? Seeing as we can’t possibly solve all problems that face human society  in any case, which would we select to get more bang for our buck? Bjorn Lomborg proposed a neat way to prioritise solutions to problems, which will in turn guide us to focus on those problems we actually can make a difference on. You can watch the video here if you haven’t already – you will enjoy it. The top four problems on the list (the complete list included such popular topics as climate change for instance) are given below: 

• HIV/Aids
• Malnutrition – providing micro-nutrients to improve physiological development 
• Promoting free trade (by removing the market-distorting agricultural subsidies from Developed Countries)
• Malaria (kills millions of Africans every year)

Tackling climate change came last on the list. It may be sexy to tackle problems like climate change through mandatory reductions of greenhouse gases and all that, but it costs a fortune. And in all fairness, we aren't really making that much of a difference doing that. As opposed to solving the most basic problems such as improving human health, nutrition, and education standards. 

So there you have it. Society can make the most tangible difference through doing the basic stuff right. That would be a much better investment. Imagine if the powers that be could just bring themselves to do the right thing for once. Or if African governments could just focus on the right priorities. If you consider that even Mighty Europe itself - which previously was on the forefront of the climate change war - is now scaling back on its commitments, it makes perfect sense to focus on the really basic problems confronting poor countries and dealing with those first. This would benefit the planet in a big way. I take my hat off to Bjorn Lomborg for this really inspiring video. 

---

[1] The earth functions like a greenhouse, allowing incoming radiation to enter the earth. The gases in the atmosphere trap the resultant heat and prevent some of it from escaping into space. This results in much warmer average temperatures on earth. The gases are called greenhouse gases (i.e. with carbon-dioxide being the chief culprit).