.
Warming and climate change have been hotly disputed for nearly a decade. Some say it is a real man-made threat; others say it is a farce. But all agree on one thing--the implications of such a thing would be trying. The answer, the authors say, is complex and involves political interests and the global economy-things that will concern every American. They also point out that if Americans follow a traditional approach it will ultimately fail. They propose an additional plan, one that centers on a global energy transition and an effort to "think big and take what appears to be an outrageous and, at a first glance, wildly unrealistic approach" (1).
Mr. Adler and Mr. Gelbspan begin by creating an understanding of "the imminence and magnitude" of climate change and global warming (1). They claim that the signs of such a catastrophe have begun with the markings of an unstable climate. These include more floods, droughts, severe rainfall and snowstorms, altered rain patterns and extreme temperatures. They cite a consensus of 2,000 scientists reporting to the UN that determined humans are altering earth's climate. The spread of infectious disease and weather disasters also mark ominous global disaster. All together, these examples "constitute irrefutable evidence" that global warming is showing itself to earth's population (2). They claim that to return to the earth's hospitable state, a reduction of coal and oil emissions of at least 60-70 percent must be made. Mr. Adler and Mr. Gelbspan go on to explain that the cuts proposed at the Kyoto Conference are unsatisfactory to the environment. The 10-20 percent cuts proposed will not remedy the situation. But in reality they say that even these cuts will induce unemployment, loss of wages, and a 3.5 percent drop in the gross national product. Mr. Adler and Mr. Gelbspan claim that this is a number presented by oil lobbyists and that they exaggerate the economic repercussions and ignore the great offsetting cost of climatic instability. They say that even though these results are exaggerated, they are still correct in their projections.
The solution then is to move from fossil fuels to renewable resources. In this way, the authors reason, jobs would not be lost but created, thus allowing the workers and the wages to make a transition from dirty to clean industry. They speak of a redirection of 25 billion dollars in oil subsidiaries to developing countries to implement these industries in order to make a global transition. This would help recreate the economy and base it on climate friendly industries such as solar, wind , and ethanol power sources for energy. Mr. Adler and Mr. Gelbspan believe that this transition could be done in a five-year period. They point out that renewable resource industries are more labor intensive than fossil fuel industry and would employ 23 people for every 1.5 people employed in coal and oil power sources. This global energy transition, Mr. Adler and Mr. Gelbspan say, is a solution which will work environmentally and economically for the planet.
Apart from the heavily disputed scientific basis of global warming, Mr. Adler and Mr. Gelbspan assume that a trained workforce, or even an adequate workforce, will be available in their proposed five-year transition period. To train the massive manpower for these resource industries is a staggering project. Many of these industries and technologies are undeveloped and new educational facilities would have to be organized to accomplish this mass education of workers. Also, in order to avoid employment loss, they propose to convert all the fossil fuel industry employees to the new renewable industries that claim to be more labor intensive. This is good, but in a 23-1.5-employee ratio, where are the other 21 people required to operate such an industry? Even all the people that are currently unemployed in addition to the fossil fuel workers would be terribly inadequate. If these plans were undertaken, would not there be an economic disaster after these industries are in place with no manpower to run them? The fossil fuel industry would be disbanded and inoperable and more than 90 percent of the employees of these new industries would simply not be there. The economy would suffer and the standard of living would plummet because of the lack of energy.
Despite these unaddressed concerns, the authors feel that a global warming disaster is immanent, and that a global energy transition is the answer. Mr. Adler and Mr. Gelbspan pose the choice of enduring in a unacceptable climate or creating the means for a solution and unprecedented growth. They go on to express their feelings that "between the disastrous effects of our shifting climate and the ferocious scramble for competitive survival in the global marketplace, a solution of partial economic and political compromise and gradualism will not work" (4).
Works Cited
Gelbspan, Ross, and Jonathan H Adler. "Q: will remedies to reverse global warming be good for the economy?" Insight on the News. 25 Aug. 1997 v31n31p24(4). IAC Searchbank. Online. Pioneer. 26 Jan. 1998