Climate Change Debate Irrelevant?

For me, a professor of Environmental Engineering at UC Berkeley, the climate change debate is doubly upsetting. Not only is the news itself bad - species extinction, rising seas, etc - but there is also a vicious debate that somehow divides people into "believers" and "skeptics." This is pretty unhealthy, given that the question is a relatively objective one - `does burning fossil fuels change earth processes in a way that is dangerous for humans or other species?' Somehow, variations in the way people answer this question overshadow the fact that we agree unanimously in our desire to live in a world that is safe and healthy for ourselves and others.

Luckily, when we move beyond the climate change debate and ask "what should be done?" we find a set of actions that should be much less divisive. Formerly opposed parties will be able to work together on the following two goals, that are compelling and important regardless of one's position in the climate change debate. These are:

Eliminate poverty worldwide
Those who live in a subsistence fashion will suffer much more than others in response to environmental, economic, and social disruptions, whatever the cause. For example, a sharp increase in food prices today would cause inconvenience for some and famine for others. When everyone's economic base is solid enough to survive such a shock without causing famine, human happiness will no longer be at the mercy of material needs, leaving people free to pursue the happiness of personal and spiritual fulfillment.

Embrace Sustainable production
A host of known technologies offer us energy and materials whose supply, pricing, and disposal is stable in the long term. Developing these technologies would be an engine of economic growth today, and prevent resource shortages tomorrow.

These two goals can be achieved today (for discussion see J. Sachs' "The End of Poverty" and any of the quarterly technology reviews by the Economist magazine). Together these goals would soften the predicted negative effects of global climate change, which in summary form and worst-case scenario are:

-Changes in rainfall patterns will disrupt agriculture
-Sea level rise will force relocation
-Fisheries will become much less productive
-Wilderness areas will become more fragile

Rather than saying "This decade is the last possible moment that we can avert climate disaster" we could say "This decade is the first possible moment that we have the technology, understanding, and willpower to build a more secure foundation for our lives." In doing so, any effects of climate change, plus a host of unknown future challenges, will be more manageable, and the debate about whether climate change is a dire emergency or a negative fantasy will cease. To take a leading role in making this happen, consider donating to groups that work to end poverty (my personal choice is OXFAM) or one of the many exciting new flavors of sustainable-energy development groups.

Evan Variano