Sprol

The Hemmingway classic, The Snows of Kilimanjaro, may need a new title. Scientists are concerned that global warming may cause Mount Kilimanjaro, known as the “The Shining Mountain” (Kilima Njaro in Swahili) to shine no more.


Kilimanjaro in 1993 and 2000, respectively
Source: NASA

Kilimanjaro, the highest mountain in Africa, is an inactive stratovolcano, which peaks at 19,340 feet. It is located on the edge of the great Rift Valley, in the nation of Tanzania. The ice on the mountain has been there for about 11,000 years, but the quantity has been reduced by 82% in the last century. According to Ohio State University Professor Lonnie Thompson, who published his findings four years ago, in the journal Science, this is a particularly troubling fact; given that several prior global climate changes failed to cause a significant reduction in the quantity of ice on the mountain. In other words, something has changed. That something, according to scientists, is called global warming — and not the kind nature occasionally bestows upon us.

The evidence of glacial retreat, documented over the past several decades, is causing scientists to become more and more concerned about the global warming they attribute to manmade causes: specifically, the release of heat trapping gases into the atmosphere by corporate polluters, gas guzzling vehicles and the generation of electricity. In 2001, scientists at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, projected that if the current rate of ice deterioration were to continue, most of Kilimanjaro’s glaciers would disappear within just 15 years and the summit would be completely free of ice by the year 2020.

The dwindling quantity of ice on Kilimanjaro may be an abstract issue for most of us, but experts believe that tropical glaciers like those on Kilimanjaro are highly sensitive to climate change and, therefore, are good indicators of more serious global warming trends. If they’re correct, the melting ice on Kilimanjaro is just one in a series of events that will be triggered by climate change–and they’re not all taking place in Africa. In Peru, “the rate of glacier shrinkage is increasing exponentially — one glacier is racing uphill at 155 metres each year, 33 times the rate between 1963 and 1978.”

So what does all this mean? According to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), it means that we are seeing the inevitable effects of our failure to curtail the introduction of harmful pollutants into our atmosphere: “With our industries billowing a relentless stream of gases into the atmosphere, trapping heat, we’re decimating our natural ecosystems, exacting an incalculable toll on our planet and future health.”

So why is it so hard to convince people to cut back on the practices that cause such disturbing trends? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the evidence to support the damage that will result from global warming includes so many hypotheticals–many of which are not expected to take place for many years. The challenge, it appears, is convincing people to act, now, on a problem that may not manifest, in undeniable and serious ways, for years to come.

But what about Hurricane Katrina, you may ask? Didn’t that prove global warming is problematic? Didn’t the entire scientific community agree that the degree of devastation left in her wake was attributable, at least in part, to global warming? Well, actually, no.

If you visit the web site for the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, you will see a collection of quotes from scientists debunking the idea that Hurricane Katrina was the result of global warming. But notice the phraseology. Even here they are not saying the intensity of the storm was unaffected by global warming; they are simply saying they can’t prove that the storm was more intense as a result of global warming — nobody can:

“. . . attribution of the 30-year trends [in hurricane intensity] to global warming would require a longer global data record and, especially, a deeper understanding of the role of hurricanes in the general circulation of the atmosphere and ocean, even in the present climate state.”

This is the essence of the current debate between those who insist global warming is already affecting our planet in adverse ways and those who insist on pointing out that we if can’t prove it, we shouldn’t legislate the pollutants that we believe cause it. If we continue to go back and forth regarding how much we know, or can’t know, or merely suppose, we will argue indefinitely and never really get to the heart of the problem; which is that we simply don’t have the renewable, clean energy technology we need to sustain our current usage. Or do we?

According to Mark Jaccard, author of Sustainable Fossil Fuels: The Unusual Suspect in the Quest for Clean and Enduring Energy, we should stop insisting on eliminating fossil fuels as a way of saving the environment and instead focus on modifying our fossil fuel use. Jaccard believes we have the technological capability to use fossil fuels without emitting climate-threatening greenhouse gases or other pollutants. In fact, several well-respected scientists have reviewed his book and agree with him.

Among them is Professor John Weyant, from the Department of Management Science and Engineering at Stanford University:

Mark Jaccard skillfully makes the case that those who leave modifying the way we use fossil fuels out of any plan to achieve ‘sustainability’ in our energy systems surely confuse means with ends. If our objectives are to improve energy security and protect the environment at reasonable cost, he makes clear that, with a little bit of ingenuity and resolve, our extensive fossil fuel resources could well be our best friend rather than our worst enemy.

In fact, NRDC’s Climate Center Director, David Hawkins agrees: “Jaccard makes a strong case that significant fossil fuel use and climate protection can co-exist, without harming economic growth.”

Let’s hope he’s right.