Home Object Activities Contact Who's Who How to Join NSF How to support NSF What's on
Nature and Society Editorial - August-September 2006 After the Canadian elections earlier this year a number of international scientists took the opportunity to write to the new Government, to urge them to rethink the country’s commitment to the Kyoto Protocol. There were several Australians among the signatories. Possibly the best known among these was Ian Plimer, the geologist who gained fame some years ago when he took a ‘creation scientist’ to court, leading to a long public battle. In 2002 Plimer’s book A Short History of Planet Earth won the Reed New Holland Science Book prize. As a professor of geology, Plimer sees his job as being to profess his discipline and to try to educate the public on how planet Earth works. This he does with verve and flair. His Short History provides a very readable account of the mechanisms that drive the planet, of plate tectonics and continental movements, ice ages and warm periods, of changes in sea and land levels. Plimer’s thesis is the one that has underpinned geological studies for a long time and that will continue to be true while the earth and the sun continue in their present relationship: the present is the key to the past. Geological processes will continue to grind on, the earth will warm and cool, species will become extinct and new ones evolve, and all geologists know it. But certainly not all geologists agree with Plimer that human actions cannot make any difference to the details of this story. Geologists know, for instance, that several thousand million years ago bacteria evolved that emitted oxygen, thus changing the composition of the atmosphere and wiping out some of their bacterial brethren. This generation of oxygen by life modified the geology of earth by enabling extensive precipitation of iron oxides in the ocean, ones that now provide the iron rich rocks of the Hammersley Basin, amongst others. Since that time life, the atmosphere, the rocks and the oceans have continued to interact. Of all people, geologists should be aware that humans have now become at least a minor geological force in their own right. Whereas beavers build small dams and slightly alter individual river flows, we stop whole networks of rivers from functioning properly. We stress the earth so much by loading it with the waters of massive dams that we can cause earthquakes. By mining coal or extracting oil we also cause small ‘quakes. We blast away mountains, doing in one year what natural erosive forces would take thousands of years to do. We change the composition of the atmosphere, not only by burning stored carbon in fossil fuels, but by putting totally new chemicals, such as CFCs, into the air. It seems disingenuous to claim that human activities cannot affect the climate. That is the point of conflict. Some geologists dispute any significant impact by humans on the climate. Others see only too clearly that humans are currently enhancing the greenhouse effect that makes the planet habitable, and they trace the increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide to our industrial exhalations. Of course any geologist will shudder at simplified slogans such as one conservation group’s appalling titled Extinction Denied campaign ‘Make extinction extinct’. Don’t these people know anything about the history of life on earth, and that 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are extinct? ‘Stop climate change’ is equally inane, probably equalling the ‘chemical free’ label on ‘organic’ food. All food is organic in a strictly chemical sense and everything except a total vacuum consists of chemicals. But one must admit that ‘stop enhancing the greenhouse effect’ or ‘prevent human-induced climate change’ don’t have much zing; they don’t work as slogans. Also, although the slogans are nonsense, scientifically, we usually do know what they are really supposed to mean. So what do proponents of ‘stop climate change’ actually want, and is it so terrible? They want us to stop burning fossil fuels, and to find ways to live within the free allowance of sunlight the sun bestows on us. As, at last, the decline of the oil age is making headlines you would think that everyone would welcome efforts to find and implement non-polluting ways of generating the energy we need including, very importantly, energy conservation so we can do more with less. Measures to build buildings that keep the occupants warmer in winter and cooler in summer should be welcomed by almost everyone. Cutting down on oil use by having food grown locally, and with people able to work, shop and play locally, would be to most people’s benefit. This is not looking back to a mythical golden age that actually never existed. It is looking forward, trying to bring about a better world. It is also a world in which, importantly, people will be better placed to live passably comfortable lives, despite the vagaries of climate on an earth, which, as Plimer and others tell us, will change in ways over which we have no control, maybe getting hotter, maybe colder. Greenhouse and Ice house will recur, as they have through geological ages. To achieve this somewhat happier ending, the Nature and Society Forum agrees wholeheartedly with Ian Plimer that education of the public is vital. People need to know how the earth works, how geological forces have shaped it and will continue to do so, how life interacts with the atmosphere, soils and oceans, and also what happens when progress is simply equated with growth. That is why NSF considers education on these key matters to be a major activity for our organisation. Whereas Plimer sees the downfall of previous civilisations as being the result of natural climate change, volcanic eruptions and other natural events, we agree with the many other scientists who see human actions as at least compounding those problems, and of being a major cause in some cases. If people do not understand the global forces that have made and continue to mould the earth and its inhabitants, they have precious little hope of avoiding the downfall of our own civilisation. Jenny Wanless August-September 2006 edition accessible here
|