Okay, I'm the average Joe or Jane, concerned with my kids' educations, mortgage payments, a failing economy, crime, and sometimes endangered species. When the media warns of global warming, they most often cite three reasons why I should care:
1) more heat waves 2) more storms 3) sea level rise I'm thinking, 100 years ago we hadn't flown a plane, landed on the moon, or fought off the Nazis. We didn't have computers, cell phones, or the internet. Why is everyone so up-tight about global warming if all we have to conquer in the next 100 years are some more heat waves, a few more hurricanes, and some lost shoreline?? Sounds like a fairly short order. Now, I know. I'm a graduate student studying climate change. I understand the interconnected ecology of the natural world and how rapid climate change can be detrimental to its fabric in the geologic short-term. What I don't understand is why hardly anybody mentions mass extinctions when they warn of global warming. Here's what I can gather: as far as we know, there have been five major mass extinctions in Earth's history where up to 95% of all species vanish. Most believe all five were either directly or indirectly results of rapid climate change. Right now, today, when the effects of climate change are beginning to be felt but pale in comparison to those likely ahead of us, extinctions are occurring at a rate orders of magnitude above the pre-historical "background rate". This is mainly from habitat destruction and invasive introductions. However, add to this rapid climate change where even mobile species must negotiate a patchwork landscape of roads, agriculture, and cities. Can you imagine an Earth with 95% of its species lost? I can't. I don't know. Maybe I'm missing something or maybe my information is off. If it's not, then maybe mass extinction just isn't that big a deal. If it is a big deal, and I'm pretty sure of that one, then maybe Joe and Jane just don't care that much. But if we can get the general public to care about pandas and koalas and spotted owls, surely we can get them to care about the rest. The truth is, I think I know the answer. People need consequences that can directly relate to them, someone they know, or for the slightly more enlightened, some other group of people. But the rest of the environment becomes a bit more removed and theoretical. Plus, climate change isn't an issue that can be solved by the preservation of some wildlands or even by mildly altered behaviors. It requires a whole-sale restructuring of our global energy grid, and if we succeed, there will be significant short-term economic repercussions. But I'm still left wondering why no one TRIES to communicate this threat to the public. Any opinions are greatly welcomed. Humbly, Brendan Rogers
