Polar bears have been in the news quite a lot over the past few years. Just yesterday I saw a feature on a Canadian Polar Bear centre, in the Metro. There is much concern over their future. According to Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity, polar bears could be extinct in less than 40 years. (Don’t wait to save the polar bear, from January 8th 2007).
The article is saying that:
1. Numbers are declining
2. Numbers will continue to decline
3. They will probably become extinct unless we halt human-caused climate change
Regular readers of this blog will know that my thinking on the environment runs against the prevailing opinion, but I wouldn’t want anyone to think that I’m not fair. I accept that climate change might be affecting polar bears. Come to think of it, it must be: the climate has always changed and species have always been forced to adapt, or have died out. In particular, top predators have always been sensitive to changes in their habitats because of their specialized adaptation and relatively small numbers. So perhaps we should do something to prevent them from dying out.
OK, if we value the polar bear, then yes. But, first of all, this should apply whether or not human action is the culprit (or should we only protect biodiversity from human threats, because of species responsibility? This stance would appear to be more to do with the human concept of ethics than with an assessment of the intrinsic value of natural variety. Natural catastrophes and changes can lead, as they have in the past, to drastic reductions in biodiversity. The mass extinctions are the most obvious examples).
But here’s the crux. (3) implies the mainstream argument, that individually we should cut our consumption, and that as a society we should lessen our footprint on nature. My own opinion is that this argument is wrapped up in the guise of a new religious dogma, what I’ve just vainly decided to call the Doctrine of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (DCACC). Anyway, whether it’s dogma or not, the argument is explicit in Kassie Siegel’s swaggering dismissal of sceptics – you should read the article: personally, I get a sense of impatience and polemical bullying from it. As an example of serious scepticism it’s worth pointing out that a letter, signed by 60 scientists, was sent to the Canadian Prime Minister last year, asking him, essentially, not to be so taken in by the DCACC. Read it here.
It might be – she’s pretty open about it – that this story is being used as another example of how we are “killing the planet”*, the motive being to get accross the big message. The DCACC is ready and waiting to be restated and applied in many similar cases; that is, the cases are handpicked because of their utility in ramming home the DCACC. Now, I don’t accept the DCACC, and I don’t accept the need for individually curbing consumption – in fact I think it’s a dangerous and backward idea, but that’s another story. The conclusion as to action doesn’t logically follow, even if you accept the DCACC: if we have caused the endangerment of species through agriculture it doesn’t necessarily follow that we should go back to being hunter-gatherers: that conclusion depends upon other things, such as political outlook.
But aside from all that, it will be good to look at how the facts are being used here, so: are polar bears in fact dying out?
It must be frustrating for many people who think about climate change and related issues, that something which one feels one should be entitled to get an answer to, is actually answered in seemingly contradictory ways by different people, many of whom are respected experts. In this case, some say that polar bears are dying out, others say that they’re not. Some talk about a decline in numbers, others, a rise in numbers (here’s a blog post where Jennifer Marohasy – former director of the environment unit at the Institute of Public Affairs in Australia – talks of a rise in numbers. I haven’t looked into it yet but on the face of it it seems very respectable, although I was under the impression that the Australian polar bear was already highly endangered) What’s going on? At the time of writing, I don’t yet know the answer. I expect that one side is more on the side of truth than the other. It would probably strengthen my general standpoint if it turned out that polar bears were not dying out, because that would be one less justification for the DCACC (because it so happens that it’s being used as such). But it might go the other way.
I want to do this because I, like many, am frustrated and confused by the statistics. This is partly because of bad reporting and the scientific ignorance of the media. As the bad reporting in this area is normally of a sensationalist, alarmist environmentalist character (it’s fair to say that, yeah?), I am bound to find that the DCACC is partly bolstered by misrepresentations. This doesn’t make it wrong of course, and in this investigation my mind is open.
I’ll publish my findings in another post very soon.
*killing the planet
Although I’m aware that this phrase isn’t actually used by Siegel in the article, it occurred to me to examine it, because it’s become part of the language. What does it mean? How do you kill a planet? Let’s see how it’s used in these articles that came up in a Google search. (The ones I selected are from respectable or high-profile publications, writers or organizations.)
First, from the Independent: Eau, no: Clean, healthy and pure? Hardly. Bottled water is killing the planet
The phrase only appears in the headline. The crux of the article is that bottled water requires lots of energy and it’s no better than tap water. So in this case it appears to be shorthand for the DCACC. It’s saying here’s another example of how you are really bad. But does a major rise in temperatures risk the life of the planet itself? It seems likely that it would risk some biodiversity, and, without investment, some human populations, but what does this have to do with planet death? Even if you take it to mean the death of all life, that is not something that, as far as I know, any scientist has predicted. While I agree that bottled water is a bit silly – living in Scotland I’m blessed with lovely tap water – I also think it’s silly to single out one product. Civilization uses up a lot of energy, and bottled water is just one small convenience. In my opinion the article is a tabloid-style piece and shouldn’t be taken too seriously.
Another one from the Independent, this time a comment piece by Charles Secrett, environmental adviser to the Mayor of London and executive director of Friends of the Earth from 1993 until 2003: We are killing the planet. That is not an exaggeration
“We have got to make the connection between our own lifestyles and big, global problems like climate change.
The couldn’t-care-less attitude puts our future in peril. Our generation and future generations cannot afford it – we are killing the planet. That is not an exaggeration, but a scientific fact.”
This is an odd conception of science. If it makes more sense to invest in technologies and global infrastructure, encouraging development everywhere, so that we might adapt to changes in climate, the science can hardly be said to point to the need for changes in individual behaviour. It is political polemic. Friends of the Earth’s orientation is anti-development, and they are in positions of influence at the moment because mainstream opinion has fallen in to line with their ideas. Again, from a scientific standpoint, although he appeals to science, it is difficult to take it seriously. I’m not sure what the statistics were that he refers to, but as it stands the piece uses killing the planet in an emotive and rhetorical way whilst attemting to establish it as unquestionable fact, but without any scientific argumentation. Even if you don’t accept my views, you can surely concede that in this case killing the planet is placard-language and doesn’t bear scrutiny.
Here’s one from the WWF website (that’s the World Wide Fund for Nature, not the World Wrestling Federation): Is your lunch killing the planet?
“A simple everyday office lunch may seem innocent at first purchase but could be responsible for rainforest clearance, endangering wildlife, bankrupting small farmers and poisoning water supplies.”
I hope you’ll forgive me for finding this rather bizarre and amusing. Anyway, how does it imply planet death, and what is planet death? We’re no nearer finding out what it means.
Here’s one from the Mirror: Why Garden Centres are Killing the Planet
I think we’re beginning to see a pattern here. Journalists are very fond of the phrase. It’s ideal for headlines, where they make use of apparently absurd juxtapositions to attract the attention.
George Monbiot is a famous proponent of the DCACC. In this piece he says:
“Like Bush, Blair will contemplate anything except restraining the people who are killing the planet. While the UK produces 2.2% of the world’s greenhouse gases, the companies which extract the fossil fuels responsible for over 10% of global emissions are listed on the London Stock Exchange.”
This gives it a bit more of a leftish, anti-capitalist hue, but is still simply about the DCACC, and doesn’t stop to explain how the changes might cause the planet to die.
Well, I’m pretty unimpressed. The phrase is facile, sensational and rhetorical, and loosely coupled with facts. It’s often accompanied by a moralizing sentiment designed to make us feel guilty. It reminds me of something I wrote when I was about 14, for my English class, in which I blamed the motor car for the needless deaths of millions (ahead of my time!). If these people want to convince me of the truth of the DCACC, they should refrain from using this kind of adolescent sensationalism.
Clearly James Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis has been influential: the Earth as a living organism. But even before that we had Mother Nature, so I suppose that, as with anthropomorphism, it’s natural to think of things in this way. This partly explains why it’s so strong as a metaphor, but I’ll assume that it is just a metaphor, because these people seem not to mean “there is an actual living organism called Earth and humans are in the process of ending its life”. At least, this meaning is not central to their arguments.
But to conclude, it seems to me that the phrase is pretty useless in a reasonable argument, and I think that the reason it’s so readily accepted is that the changes that are taking place in the world are widely seen as part of a trend towards utter destruction: things are always getting worse and the ultimate outcome is the annihalation of all that is good. This is the mood of the age in the western world, and I don’t think it has anything to do with reality.