Pearl Harbour a Million Times Over

June-July 1996

This is an article from WaveLength Magazine, available in print in North America and globally on the web.

We're not listening to the scientists

by Dr David Suzuki

A chartered accountant once told me the smartest companies project the most pessimistic scenario for the next year and then build an action plan on that to maximize their options and survival. That's sound advice in all other spheres.

At a time when politicians, the media and business people inspire a low level of popular confidence, scientists continue to enjoy high public regard. So when eminent scientists suggest that global ecological degradation represents a threat to human survival exceeded only by all-out nuclear war, one would think their warning would be taken very seriously. Yet governments ignore them.

The main excuse is a lack of money and the uncertainty of the hazards. But we already spend hundreds of billions of dollars each year to counter military dangers that are far more speculative and uncertain than environmental threats.

Those calling for urgent environmental action are often depicted by their detractors and reported by the media as "fuzzy-headed", "urban do-gooders", "anti-progress", "anti-people", and "neo-Luddites." But for years, the motivation for the environmental movement has been the work and claims of scientists.

Scientists are understandably cautious about predicting the future and prescribing solutions. So their conclusions and generalizations must be tentative and subject to change as more information is acquired.

Nevertheless, the planet has been undergoing such a massive transformation in this century that the detrimental consequences are undeniable. By now, the problems are familiar, from exploding populations to loss of topsoil and biodiversity, toxic pollution and atmosphere change. For decades, leading scientists have sounded the alarm.

In 1988, researchers who gathered in Toronto warned of the hazards of rapid global warming caused by increased levels of greenhouse gases contributed by human activity. An abrupt rise in average planetary temperature will submerge large parts of marine coastlines as warmer oceans expand. Terrestrial and marine ecosystems will change radically and weather extremes will increase. There are immense implications for human health, agriculture and economics. The Toronto delegates called for a 20 per cent reduction in 1988 level of carbon dioxide within 15 years.

In 1990, more than 700 climate experts gathered in Geneva for a meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. More than 700 scientists and delegates from more than 70 nations signed a document urging governments to take immediate action to curb carbon dioxide production. Global warming as a real possibility has not been controversial within the scientific community for years, yet it continues to be reported as if it is still in dispute. By giving both "sides" equal time in the name of "fairness" and "balance", the media actually distort the scientific discussion.

In November, 1992, the Union of Concerned Scientists released a Warning to Humanity, part of which outlined the catastrophic potential of global warming and urged immediate action to cut carbon dioxide. It was signed by more than half of all living Nobel prize winners, yet was completely ignored by most media.

In February, 1994, 58 national academies of science, which represent most of the world's top scientists, released a report reiterating the warning. They, too, were ignored by the media.

In September, 1995, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change took a major step by declaring there is enough evidence that heat waves, the cluster of hottest years in the last two decades, forest fires, water shortages and rising ocean temperature and sea level are not merely fluctuations in natural cycles. There is more than a 90 per cent probability they are being caused by increased levels of human-generated greenhouse gases.

When confronted with the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor, society responded immediately. Stanford's Paul Ehrlich says we have a million ecological Pearl Harbors going off at once. When as cautious a group as eminent scientists urgently calls for action, what more does it take to respond?

Geneticist Dr David Suzuki is a writer, broadcaster and leading analyst of social and environmental issues.