I disse gasskraft-tider kan dette være av interesse.
Trond Andresen
******************************************
The Guardian (London), Thursday January 27, 2000
The seas rise, the glaciers disappear
by George Monbiot
We major users of fossil fuels are condemning continents to ruin
Between Greenland and the Faroe Islands there is an undersea waterfall 30
times the size of the River Amazon. The water cascades over a submarine
ridge, then rumbles down the ocean floor all the way to the Cape of Good
Hope. This current is a result of the high salt content of the surface of
the North Atlantic. The salty water, being denser than the water
underneath, sinks and starts to travel. The global circulation system this
flow initiates ensures that warm water travels back from the Caribbean to
western Europe. Were the North Atlantic to become less salty, in other
words, the currents keeping Europe warm would slacken.
Eight and a half thousand years ago, an ice shelf damming two vast glacial
lakes in North America exploded. The lakewater rushed through the Hudson
Strait, mingling with the salty waters of the Atlantic. The result was a
200-year ice age, during which humans became extinct in northern Europe.
In Greenland today, just to the north of the great Atlantic waterfall,
scores of glaciers and ice-dammed fjords are beginning to melt. Over the
past 20 years, an area of Arctic sea ice the size of Texas has
disappeared. As the ice retreats, the pole becomes darker, absorbing more
heat and accelerating the melting. The North Atlantic could become
significantly wetter.
It is not clear what the results will be. The dilution of the ocean is
most likely merely to slow the warming of western Europe. But there
remains a possibility that it could cause a sudden drop in temperature so
severe that Britain would, once more, become uninhabitable.
If this happens, then, calamitous as it will be, at least a kind of mortal
justice will have been done. For, in the absence of a new ice age, the
effects of global warming promise to be cruelly ironic: the impact of
fossil fuel consumption will be most severe in precisely those regions of
the world in which the least fossil fuel has been consumed. The arid parts
of sub-Saharan Africa, for example, are becoming still drier: in East
Africa, droughts of the kind which used to strike every 40 years are now
arriving every four or five. The famines of the next 20 years will surpass
any the world has seen before.
On the Indian sub-continent, the great centres of both population and food
production are the valleys of the Ganges, the Brahmaputra and the Indus,
all of which are fed by Himalayan glaciers. The glaciers are retreating so
fast that the rivers may dry up in the summer by 2040. The results, if
this happens, will be catastrophic. Bangladesh will be hit twice, as the
people of the river deltas are driven off their lands by rising sea
levels.
These projections make Britain's current "refugee crisis" look trifling.
Already, according to the Red Cross, environmental refugees outnumber the
people displaced by conflict and oppression. This week Sajeeda Choudhury,
the Bangladeshi environment minister, told the BBC that climate change
would leave her country with 20m environmental refugees. The rich nations
would have to "rethink their immigration policies". The British
environment minister, Michael Meacher, agrees: "We may have to do what Mrs
Choudhury asks," he said.
The distinction between political and economic refugees has always been an
artificial one: the poorest regions of the world remain poor largely as a
result of the policies of rich nations. But in this case our moral
responsibility is incontestable, if somewhat difficult to comprehend:
every time you turn on your kettle in Birmingham, you are helping to flood
Bangladesh. Global warming requires a wholly new ethical framework, one
which classifies actions which have hitherto seemed innocent as deadly.
There is nowhere else for the displaced people of Bangladesh or
sub-Saharan Africa to go. The cities have nothing to offer them: there
will be no industrial revolution in these regions. If we don't let them
in, they will die, and we, the consumers of fossil fuels, will be
responsible. If global warming is not contained we will be faced with a
choice of a refugee crisis of unimaginable proportions, or direct
complicity in crimes against humanity.
The alternative is to reduce our carbon consumption not, as the world's
rich nations envisage, by 10 or 20%, but by 90%, within the next 10 years.
This may sound impossible. But there are hardly any western economic
activities whose impact cannot be cut to this extent, either through
technological change or through reduced consumption, without causing
serious damage to the quality of life.
What this requires is radical thinking of a kind no government has yet
been willing to contemplate: the abandonment of GDP as the index of
prosperity, direct confrontation with the most powerful industrial lobbies
on earth, a re-regulation of the market to force both producers and
consumers to carry their own costs. Is any government brave enough to do
this? Is any government brave enough not to?
===============================
*** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes. ***
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 15 2000 - 12:52:12 MET