The late Ernst Mayer, one of the most revered biologists of the
20th century, said a few years ago that “the average life
expectancy of a species is about 100,000 years.” This should
worry us interminably because our own species, homo sapiens
sapiens, has had the intelligence to establish civilizations for
around that same period. So why is it no one seems to care that we
are slowly sleepwalking into extinction?
Just under a month ago, the most comprehensive report regarding
the state of the planet concluded that human activities are
threatening Earth’s ability to sustain future generations.
According to British Broadcasting Corporation News, the report
found that 60 percent of world ecosystem services have been
degraded. Of 24 evaluated ecosystems, 15 are being damaged and
species extinction is now 100 to 1,000 times above the normal
rate.
And far more bleak for our generation and the one to follow is
the giddy idea that we are now hurtling toward potentially
disastrous changes in global temperature -““ the popular
parlance is “global warming.” Not in 150 years. Not in
100 years. Not even in 50 years. The British government said
recently that we are about 20 to 30 years away from man-made
fluctuations in global temperature big enough to cause rising water
levels and species extinction.
The science isn’t difficult. Water vapor and carbon
variations trap heat in our atmosphere. If the level of one is
increased, then heat gets trapped, making it hotter for us down
below. And the levels of carbon in the atmosphere are now at their
highest in 420,000 years. This fact is the result of profligate
pollution since the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century and,
naturally, all those flashy SUV’s you see nonchalantly
cruising around Westwood.
There has been a concerted international effort to scale down
the levels of carbon dioxide emissions. Most notably was the Kyoto
Protocol, an internationally binding agreement to reduce
“greenhouse emissions.” One small caveat: The Bush
administration refused to sign up.
I picked up a book appropriately titled “Bush Versus the
Environment” by Robert S. Devine which was a compelling read.
It transpired that the so-called “war on terror”
isn’t the only war Bush is fighting. He is involved in an
equally destructive “war on the environment.” Bush
can’t eat a pretzel without suffocating, so I am under no
illusion that he has some grand plan to slowly destroy the natural
world. But then why does he have such a terrible record vis-a-vis
the environment?
The answer can be found in a report by Public Campaign, a public
interest group, which found that mining, timber, chemical, oil, gas
and coal-burning utilities together contributed a whopping $44.1
million to the Bush-Cheney election campaign and to the Republican
National Committee. These were not altruistic, idealistic gifts. As
Devine points out, “The timber industry gave $3.4 million and
the administration introduced and pushed initiatives designed in
part to open up more federal lands to logging.”
And the Bush administration’s stance on global warming has
had about as much intellectual credibility as creationists and Flat
Earthers. As Devine writes, the Bush administration has “gone
to great lengths to bury scientific perspectives on global warming,
especially the fact that it is largely caused by human-generated
emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases ““
by-products of many of the industries that contributed heavily to
Bush’s election campaign.”
So will homo sapiens sapiens just turn out to be a biological
error? Will nature’s only experiment with higher intelligence
just use its allotted time to kill itself and a lot more with it?
The answer to these questions is firmly in the hands of our
generation. The moral corruption of the institutions through which
our leaders work make it rational to seek exorbitant profits at the
sake of the environment. It’s no use arguing with Bush; he is
only acting rationally ““ albeit within a suicidal doctrinal
framework.
Our generation must change the institutions from the outside. We
must create a political climate where it’s not irrational to
put the future of our children and grandchildren ahead of
short-term revenue. Otherwise, the tragic tsunami in East Asia at
Christmastime won’t be an exception but a way of life. Unless
we change the way we live pretty quickly, millions may die and the
hordes of scientist Cassandras who are warning of this impending
environmental apocalypse may have no chance to say, “We told
you so.”
Kennard is a third-year history student. E-mail him at
mkennard@media.ucla.edu.