One man's opinion on climate change and environmentalism

(Image: Bjorn Holland / Getty Images / WWF)

I am no biologist. In fact, I dropped biology after grade 9 at the very first opportunity. My undergraduate in engineering, although in the sciences, briefly touched the topic of climate change in a single course in first year called critical thinking. "Briefly" may even be an overstatement as it was only part of another course and only included one essay of which I failed. It was only while pursuing a masters degree in Applied Ocean Sciences that I begun to notice how focused of a field engineering is. Although introduced to the mathematics and physics behind the workings of the natural world, the natural world itself was not included in the curriculum. As a result, the rest of the world passed by while I immersed myself in the principles of thermodynamics, and the applications of Bernoulli's equation and Fourier Transforms. Come to think of it, I don't think ignorance in other fields is a problem experienced by engineering alone. What a shame it is that we can't all learn everything about everything. The climate is changing. It is the cause of this change that is held in contention by two camps of people. The first are the advocators of human induced (anthropogenic) climate change. People from this camp believe that since the industrial revolution we have been pumping such vast quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere so as to have an adverse effect on our very climate. A sobering thought indeed considering the scale alone. The second (referred to as non-believers henceforth) are those who believe that the earth is going through a natural cycle. This opinion suggests that we humans are arrogant to think that we have the ability to have an effect on something as grand as a planet's climate. What a scary thought then, should it come to pass that we are in fact to blame. Engineers are fiercely practical. This is evident in our appalling fashion sense; we wear what works, not what looks good. Maths is our game and we like definitive answers where there is no room for discussion. Statistics, on the other hand, are a biologists' weapon of choice and by its very nature, do not give definite answers. An estimate can be given but we never really know. And it is here wherein I believe non-believers find the crack in the armour of anthropogenic climate change theory, the propagation of which leads to its dismissal. If there are logical counter arguments to be made, and it cannot be definitively proven that climate change was caused by human activity, we will not be convinced. It falls then to the individual to discern the truth, using logic and reason. Any maths loving individuals (I'm looking at you engineers) will appreciate the work done by a man named Milutin Milankovitch. I came across his work while reading a novel on ice ages recently (thank you lockdown). In the first half of the 20th century, Milankovitch spent 30 years calculating the changes in insolation (incident solar radiation) on the earth's surface based on its relative position to the sun over the past 650 000 years. This is cyclic because with respect to the sun, the angularity of the earths axis, the shape of the earths orbit (circular or oval), and the plane on which the earth orbits, are not constant. It is simply beautiful applied mathematics and I expect any engineer to become slightly aroused at its splendour. As it turned out, his calculations showed correlation between the frequency of ice ages and changes in insolation. In more recent times, the study of isotopes from ice cores and long dead marine organisms in layers of sea floor sediment have shown similar patterns, showing correlations between the Milankovitch cycle, atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures over the millennia. (Ice cores trap dust and gasses from past climates, the isotopes of which can be used to estimate CO2 levels and temperatures. The chemical composition of the shells of small marine creatures indicate atmospheric compositions at the times of their growth. All amazing science.) According to Milankovitch cycles, the earth goes through long periods of ice ages (about 80 000 - 90 000 years) and then thaws during a relatively sharp rise in temperature over about 10 000 years before dropping back into an ice age. It is worth noting here that an ice age does not mean the entire earth is covered in ice (something that I previously assumed was the case), but rather that ice sheets extend further toward the equator from both the north and south poles. The ice core and marine data mentioned previously show that CO2 levels and global temperatures have been similar to current conditions in the past during these thawing periods. This is strong evidence of temperature and CO2 rise being part of a natural cycle. However, the rate at which these changes are occurring are hundreds of times faster than previously seen. At a glance, a strong piece of evidence for anthropogenic climate change is atmospheric CO2 levels over the past 1000 years. (Go on then.) Sceptics will challenge the accuracy of the results acquired through isotopes from ice cores and sediment samples, and rightly so (one should always question), but the fact that many different data sources (Milankovitch cycles, ice core data and sediment data) come to the same conclusions, suggests validity. As an aside, the last ice age ended 10 000-20 000 years go, the Milankovitch cycle suggesting that we should be coming to the end of the thaw and dropping into the next ice age. The immersion of myself into the scientific community has resulted in a bias in the amount of encouragement I have been exposed to from the side of camp 1. And I recognise this bias. But does this not point towards the truth in itself? When you're having car trouble, you listen to the advise of a mechanic, do you not? Nevertheless, this is where I find myself. Lecturers who have been studying their fields for 20, 30, 40 years, having been around long enough to have witnessed changes in the climate first hand, have data which definitively show temperature changes, carbon dioxide changes, pH changes etc. The very fact that lecturers promote anthropogenic climate change had me asking myself 'To what end?' Why would my lecturers preach climate change and encourage more sustainable lifestyle practices? Are they going to benefit from me car-pooling to university or using public transport? Probably not. But they would benefit from research grants for projects related to the hot topic of climate change (You see, there's an argument to made everywhere). Admittedly, it is in my nature to trust people, to my own detriment in the past. (I once effectively gave my phone away, assuming the man I had just lent it to was not a criminal.) The scientific community is not without blame when it comes to conveying the facts of climate change and the state of the natural world. A field in which a scientists' name is their most valuable asset opens itself up to some skulduggery. Arguing for arguing's sake is as good a way as any for getting your name out there and unfortunately there have been and will continue to be those ethically challenged among us who exploit holes in the scientific method to back predetermined results in the hunt for publications, citations and funding. Although social media is brilliant for raising awareness and sharing the joys of science and nature, it is also an unfiltered source of information where outrageous headlines draw users in with clickbait. As an example I will make a few statements that contradict what most of us have heard over the past few years on social media, facts I came across recently while reading Apocalypse Never by Michael Shellenberger (A brilliant book, in my opinion, accepting that he has cherry picked facts to make his points and therefore, like anything these days, needs to be taken with a pinch of salt). During the Australian bushfire of 2019 and 2020, based on its sensationalist headlines, I assumed that it was far worse than anything in recent history, when in fact it ranks 5th in area burnt, 6th in fatalities and 2nd in houses razed. Polar bears have been significantly effected by melting ice in the Arctic. It is surprising therefore to find that there is no evidence that their population is declining. Certain sub-populations are declining, but others are increasing, and still others are stable. (I encourage fact checking of these. I have a rule of checking at least 2 separate sources after a google search before taking a 'fact' seriously.) The result of this misinterpretation and misrepresentation of data is a culture of mistrust. Corruption has become a given assumption in my mind, much like the 'negligible friction' assumption of many an engineering problem. As we can see, climate change is a highly contested topic, made worse by some climate activists trying to shove it down the throats of the unsuspecting public. There are better ways of spreading a message. Civil, intelligent conversation among peers is one example. I say civil to underline the necessity to remain so during conversation. There are few things worse than being patronised. Keep in mind that everyone has topics in which they can make others look ignorant. Now lets forget about climate change. Irrespective of whether we're to blame, we are destroying the natural world around us. Animal populations are diminishing, forests are being cut down, glaciers are receding and ice caps are melting. This is a fact. The WWF thinks that we've lost half the number of wild animals we had 40 years ago. Having been to the Antarctic, I can tell you that it is a place of staggering beauty and one I would not like to have diminish. Most, if not all, commercial fish species are being overfished and bycatch is out of control. Our audacity in judging an animals' fate based on its utility to us is simply outrageous. Imagine a world without the duck-billed platypus. I love those weird little bastards. We can do better, and therefore, are we not obligated to do so? So what is the solution? Don't panic. Hope is not lost as some will have us believe. I understand that extremisms are necessary to get media attention but think of the impact all this negative messaging has on society. In an already stressful world, we should not be adding anxiety and depression into the lives of the younger generations (Google 'eco-anxiety'). We do seem to be heading in the right direction. The global population growth rate peaked in the 1960/70's and has been decreasing since. The limited research I've done into the subject showed that most developing countries' growth rates have already peaked as well. This suggests that the global population will start to level out at some point. Overpopulation is a problem, but I think we need to exercise some patience and give the developing nations time to develop. And how can we help them develop faster? By helping them to develop infrastructure that allows for more efficient farming methods and the building of factories. And key to all of this is a reliable power supply. Unfortunately, renewables do not seem to be up to the task, yet. Wind and solar plants often need back-up fossil fuel stations due to the nature of the wind and sun. The areas of land needed for solar and wind farms are much larger than those needed for nuclear and fossil fuel based stations, and can be detrimental to local wildlife (for example, birds and bats are not willing to share the sky with wind turbines it seems). Hydro-plants are also an option but the building of dams can often displace communities and affect local ecosystems. Renewables are brilliant. These few points I've made are just worth considering when developing solutions. Nuclear power is an extremely promising way forward in my opinion. Technological developments are making nuclear plants safer, even though far more people die every year from air pollution than have ever been killed from nuclear accidents. We need to get rid of the negative stigma associated with nuclear energy and implement it wherever possible. As with any real world solution, trade-offs need to be made. This happens in every project that's ever been undertaken; financial, technological and practical limitations mean that a perfect solution is unattainable. And while coming up with these solutions, and this is key, the locals need to be included in the decision making process. This approach, known as ecosystem approach to management, acknowledges the role of socio-economics in environmental management; the human role in the ecosystem. I am not suggesting that what I've mentioned above is the solution, I'm saying it is worth considering. Ultimately, the solution is development, but it needs to be sustainable. It's hypocritical of developed nations to deny developing countries the cheap power supplies they used to lift themselves out of poverty, in favour of expensive, less reliable renewables. Maybe third world countries should be allowed to exploit avenues that will lead to the swiftest upliftment of their populations from the depths of poverty. These 'dirty' solutions can then be replaced or phased out after a predetermined number of years by more efficient green solutions, having been developed by first world countries over the same period. This is where I encourage any young professional seeking to make a positive impact with their career to look: the development of sustainable green solutions, be that in solar, wind, hydro or nuclear energy, battery technology or direct air capture of CO2, water purification or agriculture, or even steel and concrete manufacturing (the biggest contributors to annual global greenhouse gas emissions). (I recommend reading Bill Gates' How to avoid a climate disaster for his view on climate solutions.) Food has become an increasingly contentious topic over the past few years. From nutritionists doing 180 degree turns in their belief of what we should and should not consume, to the inhumane practices of some meat farms, it is difficult to decide what one's diet should consist of while being an ethical consumer. I am not a vegetarian. But I also do not exclusively consume meat. South African cuisine is heavily based around meat, myself having grown up in a household where meat was the centre of every single dinner. I do not think this is sustainable. But neither is veganism in my mind. Much like my mother's motto 'everything in moderation', I believe a balance is what we need to progress towards sustainability. And this is already happening. Most, if not all, of my peers have introduced vegetarian meals into their lifestyles, myself having at least halved my meat based meals. And I don't think this is uncommon in our younger generation. We are already much more environmentally conscious than older generations. Following the advice of my good friend David (Attenborough, you may have heard of him), we understand the importance of not wasting. This includes food, clothing, electricity, water and plastic. (Many of us are still working on not wasting time.) On the topic of food production, farmland is being used more efficiently as technology improves, producing more food from less land. We are already producing around 50% more food than the global population needs. As a result, areas used for farming are decreasing in developed nations, opening up more space for conservation zones and 're-wilding'. Sustainable farming practices are also becoming better, eliminating the need for harmful pesticides and protecting soil. The solution to the plastic problem, as with everything else mentioned thus far, is a complicated one. I do not believe it realistic that the world can significantly reduce their plastic usage because it is a wonderous material. We do not seem to have a feasible replacement as yet and many products advertised as biodegradable either simply are not, or require such levels of energy to produce that they actually end up being more harmful to the environment in the long run. (Research how many times you need to reuse recycled or cotton shopping bags to make up for the extra environmental impact of manufacturing them.) I believe the area for improvement is in the waste management systems, particularly in developing nations. We need to develop circular economies and get away from systems that rely on dumping non-recyclables in landfills where they can be blown away. We need litter catchment systems at river mouths to reduce ocean pollution. We need reliable waste disposal systems in rural and semi-rural townships so their waste does not end up in rivers in the first place. This all requires infrastructure development. How can we encourage good waste management practices in communities who struggle to get food and clean drinking water? Do you think recycling is at the forefront of their minds? Nothing is cut and dry in todays world. With a simple google search, one can easily find evidence of whatever it is one is looking for. Finding the truth requires work which is often too much effort when scrolling through social media in our free time, and I therefore encourage everyone to be very careful of formulating an opinion based solely off headlines from social media. Please. As to my opinion on climate change, I believe that we have affected the climate but probably not to the extent to which we threaten our existence. The results of overpopulation, deforestation, pollution and overfishing on the natural world have been more devastating than climate change in my opinion, and it is these that we can and must improve on. Many of the solutions to these problems will result in fewer emissions in any case. Whether we like it or not, we are part of the ecosystem, one with species interactions that are not yet fully understood, and one which is far more complex than we can fathom. We are resilient. I do not think we will be wiped out any time soon because our ability to adapt surpasses the time scales over which the natural world can change. This is both a comforting and sobering thought. We have mastered survival. It is the quality of the world that we must consider when moving forward, however. I, for one, would not like future generations to grow up without the duck-billed platypus, coral reefs, the emperor penguin, the elephant, or the humble honey bee, simply because of the joy they and their brethren have brought to my life. At the end of the day, its your choice what you believe. And it is about time to choose. Ps. Writing something like the above is a brilliant way to order one's thoughts and clarify one's own opinion, and I encourage writing as a tool to do so. My views on certain topics change as new information comes to my attention and it is a pity that every bit of information on a given topic cannot be read before forming an opinion. With this limitation in mind, we must understand that there will always be conflicting evidence to our views, and stay open to change; differing opinions don't necessarily indicate stupidity. I am not steadfastly committed to any of the views I have mentioned above, and will admit ignorance. I will commit to having an educated opinion, however; something I think I have achieved.