Environment

WomenMatter will continuously post updates on all this and other issues as we monitor the continuing philosophical and practical debates nationwide. Please check back often for updates. Past updates are available for reference on the Environment Archives page.

The Social and The Natural: The Politics of Global Warming

The earth's climate is changing. We know that average temperatures are rising at an alarming rate. What we don't know is the cause of the change. While many scientists blame CO2 emissions, other scientists say that the climate variation could be natural.

There is one thing that we know for sure: We need accurate information about global warming in order to create solutions.

In 2001, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) commissioned a report on various environmental issues, including global warming. The report is scheduled to be released at the end of June, 2003.

On June 19, 2003, The New York Times reported that the White House cut data from this report.

A former EPA official gave The Times unedited drafts of the report, the White House edits, and an internal EPA memo which protests the changes. Two current EPA officials have verified that the documents are authentic.

According to The Times, these documents demonstrate that the global warming section of the report has been changed substantially.

What was deleted?

The conclusion that humans have contributed significantly to global warming has been deleted from the report.

Also missing are data that suggest the last decade to be significantly warmer than the last 1,000 years.

The Bush administration has defended the edits by claiming that there exists valid research that questions the above conclusions. Since there is not a consensus among the studies, the information has been dropped. In addition, a White House advisor claims that the discussion on global warming has been exhausted and that these sections of the report are not necessary.

This episode brings up some important questions about the relationship between the environment and information.

In order to respond to changes in the environment, or the natural world, we must utilize our governing bodies, our money and technology, or, our social world.

So the natural is very much subordinated to the social, as this controversy over information demonstrates.

If we were able to conclude, without a doubt, that CO2 emissions from human technologies were causing the earth's climate to change drastically, quickly and unnaturally, and if all humans were alerted to the consequences of this by our leaders and by widespread media, then it is likely that some of us would demand that our government, tax dollars, and technologies work toward a remedy.

However, we do not have such conclusive and available information.

There is a disagreement among scientists as to the effects of our CO2 emissions. The edited version of the EPA report includes a new study that questions the relationship between emissions and rising temperatures. It should be noted, though, that this new study was financed, in part, by the American Petroleum Institute.

Nature is caught in the snares of society and politics. Even language (or, perhaps, especially language) shapes our interactions with the natural world. The New York Times revealed the specific revision of an introductory sentence in the report. The unedited version said: "Climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment." This was replaced by a sentence that reads: "The complexity of the Earth system and the interconnections among its components make it a scientific challenge to document change, diagnose its causes, and develop useful projections of how natural variability and human actions may affect the global environment in the future."

Let's do a close reading of the before and after

The first sentence uses plain language to say that climate change is bad for our health and for the earth's health. The second sentence uses complicated language structures to admit that scientists have a difficult time determining if global warming is natural, human-made, or both. The second sentence gives us no information. If it were to be a simple sentence, it would read, "we don't know."

So we end where we began

It seems that the edited version of the EPA report leaves us with our original questions about global warming: Why is it happening and what will happen to us if it continues?

The unedited version at least told us that global warming is harmful; it may have also cited CO2 emissions as the cause.

WomenMatter is non-partisan and committed to information and education. We believe people can think through details and decide for themselves. It is up to each of us to determine if the Bush administration is protecting us from false information (scientists really do disagree about global warming), or protecting itself from change.

Posted on: 6/24/2003

click here to go to next section

return to top