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.

Your Vote Affects the Silver-Studded Blue Butterfly: Policy and Climate Change

A scientific study released on January 8, 2004 concluded that global warming is likely to cause the extinction of an estimated 1.25 million species by 2050.

The study was conducted by an international group of scientists who published their results in the journal Nature. The report is unique because it concentrates on the way that global warming affects living beings; most global warming studies produce climate models only.

In addition to approximating animal and plant responses to rising temperatures, the researchers concluded that so-called greenhouse gasses must be cut drastically and quickly in order to prevent mass extinction.

Enter U.S. Emissions Policies

Many scientists believe that the rapid increase in global warming is due to "greenhouse gases," such as car exhaust and fossil fuels emissions. Others argue 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.

The lack of agreement among scientists prevents the Bush administration from being motivated to cut back on emissions. In fact, some Bush policies are likely to increase air pollution and, perhaps, the rate of global warming. For example, Bush decided to relax existing regulations that require power plants to install pollution controls when making upgrades to their facilities. (A federal appeals court has since blocked this policy change for fear that it may harm the environment.)

Without unquestionable proof that emissions directly contribute to global warming, Bush is wary of compromising industry, especially in a time of economic uncertainty.

Do we really have to trade the economy for the environment?

Environmentalists are often pitted against industry. When environmentalists push for the regulation of car, truck, and SUV emissions the auto industry screams that their profit margins will fall and that jobs will be lost. When environmentalists push for more pollution controls for industrial plants, plant operators argue that they cannot afford the millions it will take to install such pollution-prevention devices.

Is there not a way for environmental protection and economic growth to walk hand in hand towards a better America?

No lofty proposals will be made here; the point is that the argument doesn’t have to be as simple as environment v. industry, and that each group could do more to compromise with the other.

Back to the silver-studded blue butterfly

Based upon observations of six regions through Central America, South America, Australia, and Africa, the study published in Nature explained that animals that are unable to migrate to cooler areas are likely to become extinct.

For example, the silver-studded blue butterfly, which needs to move north but cannot because its food remains in its too-warm habitat, is unlikely to survive. On the other hand, the comma butterfly of Britain is able to migrate many miles, feeding on stinging nettles all the way.

So, is this just a case of natural selection, in which the weak are weeded out and the strong survive? The answer depends on whether the current rate of global warming is natural or unnatural. Further, animals are often prevented from moving to a cooler area because their path has been blocked by human development.

The New York Times reports that species are becoming extinct 100 to 1,000 times faster than they would without human interference.

How reliable is this study anyway?

The scientists behind the new study admit that their conclusions rest in uncertainty. For example, they had to estimate the rate of warming, using the U.N. projection that temperatures will rise somewhere between 2-10 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100.

Some critics claim that the study underestimates species’ ability to adapt to higher temperatures. In addition, the scientists used various computer models of extinction and climate change, each with its own margin of error. Layered together, these predictions are likely to be somewhat inaccurate.

Scientist J. Alan Pounds, who wrote an article accompanying the study, claims that the results of the study are, “if anything, too conservative." Any inaccuracy in the study may result in underestimation as well as overestimation of the number of species who face extinction.

What can I do?

Global warming is a problem that is just that - global. It is a world issue, not just a domestic one. But as a world leader, the U.S. sets an example with its domestic policies. If you believe that warming may be worsened by emissions, you can vote for candidates who are in favor of stricter regulations. If you are still shaping your opinion, continue to explore WomenMatter’s Environment life issue. You can also discuss with other WomenMatter readers in one of our online forums. When you’re ready, let your representatives know what you think.

Posted on: 1/13/2004

click here to go to next section

return to top