Seven Oaks Magazine.

Global warming is back in the headlines - and you know it must be big if news about the environment is making the front page, especially in this era of the perpetual 'Orange Alert' and omnipresent terrorist threats. And the reports about climate change are coming out of United States government sources, making the Bush administration's rejection of the Kyoto accord and all-around cavalier attitude on the issue all the more untenable and embarrassing.

Last week, U.S. scientists recorded sharp increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels for the third straight year, an alarming finding and one that has led some to speculate that the worst-case scenario of "runaway" global warming may be starting to play out. CO2 is the main greenhouse gas, acting to trap heat in the atmosphere. Like a greenhouse, it lets the sun in, but doesn't let the heat out. The "runaway" effect refers to the fear that initial temperature increases will in turn bring on the release of further greenhouse gases. For instance, tropical forests killed by temperature fluctuation could release their carbon stores into the atmosphere, or melting permafrost could release massive reserves of methane, another significant greenhouse gas.

In February, the headlines were downright millennial, as the Observer reported on a leaked Pentagon report (yes, the Pentagon) warning that global climate change would cost millions of lives through wars and natural disasters. The report allegedly included descriptions of flooded European cities and a 'Siberian' United Kingdom. (One should note that the phenomenon is more accurately described as climate change because, although global average temperatures are expected to increase, the warming of oceans could wreak havoc with weather patterns, with northern Europe in particular projected to see its temperatures plunge.)

Today, only the lunatic fringe is still in explicit denial, which, I think it's not too gratuitous to say, includes the Bush administration in the United States. But it will be interesting to observe the impact of the Pentagon report on White House policy, particularly going into an election showdown with a Democrat who at least acknowledges the issue. The much-discussed Kyoto accord, which Canada has signed on to and ratified, does not actually come into effect without either Russia or the United States ratifying it. Russia has signalled that it will likely ratify by the end of the year, but the accord will remain impotent without U.S. participation.

Getting back to that lunatic fringe, neo-conservative and far-right publications are making often-hilarious contortions to maintain their case against taking any action to reduce fossil fuel emissions. The prize here goes to Eric Englund's "Global Warming: Socialism's Trojan Horse," published at LewRockwell.com, in which he asserts a "Green-Communist" (or is it Green/Communist) conspiracy to destroy individual liberty and the American way of life. And whom does Englund identify as the evil mastermind of the eco-Marxists? None other than that star of Pizza Hut commercials and former leader of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev - citing Gorby's acceptance of a position with Green Cross International, which does work on global warming, as proof that "Mr. Gorbachev has identified environmentalism as a Trojan horse capable of resurrecting socialism on a global scale."

Amongst the more mainstream opponents of Kyoto today, it is fashionable to downplay the warming, downplay our potential to correct it, to link any addressing of the problem with economic disaster, or to employ some combination of these arguments in an effort to confuse the public. It should also be noted that very real differences amongst big business are also contributing to the increasingly high-profile debate around the issue. The major insurance companies, for one, are fearful of rising claims resulting from increasingly frequent natural disasters. Minor increases in ocean temperature can increase the frequency and scale of hurricanes, for instance, potentially destroying the viability of some insurance altogether.

As of 2001, the UN Environment Program estimated that extra economic costs attributable to global warming totalled $300 billion per year. First World insurance companies, of course, will only be amongst the minor casualties of climate change, with low-lying and small island countries in the Third World bearing the brunt. Andrew Simms, of the New Economics Foundation, speculated in a August 7, 2001, piece in the International Herald Tribune that a small island state, or low-lying country like Bangladesh, could potentially sue the United States or another rogue polluter. Quixotic legal action, however, is clearly no replacement for political change and investment in the development of renewable energy sources and less polluting technologies.

In Canada, Paul Martin has been, well, Liberal on the issue of climate change, supporting Canada's ratification of Kyoto, without implementing a detailed plan for reaching emission targets and making ambivalent comments about the accord to appease Ralph Klein and the powerful oil industry in Alberta. Critics note that in the now infamous Liberal Red Book of 1993, they pledged to reduce 1988 level emissions by 20 per cent by the year 2005. But as of 2004, emissions are up close to 20 per cent. During last week's West Coast swing, Martin tried to green himself somewhat by touting the hydrogen highway, an infrastructure program to support the hydrogen fuel-cell technology being developed by Ballard here in Vancouver. Overall, though, Martin has been relatively quiet on Kyoto, as he has on the issue of the war in Iraq, preferring to "mend fences" with the U.S. administration by engaging in negotiations around missile defence, surely a major drain on public funds and a potentially terminal threat to the environment.

The accelerated change in the Earth's climate certainly ranks near the top both as an environmental and security issue. As the prominent U.K. scientist Horton has described it, global climate change could today be considered a weapon of mass destruction. This is a WMD quite unlike those in Iraq, though, since there's a high degree of expert consensus that it actually exists, and since it really does pose a clear and imminent danger to human society. Now, if only the global political will existed to launch a pre-emptive strike against global warming.