Sea Change or Littoral Disaster

Islands always seemed like the ultimate luxury item; have lunch, toast your success, buy an island. If not your own island then maybe just an estate with a small exclusive beach. An escape from the hubub of work, no deadlines, only the warm sun, gently lapping water and sand in which to dig your toes; quintessential relaxation. Perusing the news in this getaway state of mind on these chilly December-January-February-March-April days, advertisements for beach vacations of any sort seem attractive. Even the gratuitous palm tree in an online airline ad has me pining for warm sand, as do the much grander getaways advertised in newspapers and magazines.

These are the places with the private boat docks, dozens of bedrooms and helicopter pads; "bungalows" with turrets here and there and golf course-like lawns. An advertisement for St. Regis resorts and residences in Florida in the New York Times Magazine caught my eye a while back: "couture living", it bragged. The ad summoned the languor of luxury in a not so understated way: "introducing unparalleled oceanfront residences...exquisite design...bespoke lifestyle...enviable address." The escape that shouts you've arrived.

The come hither text in the ad accompanied a woman shot perambulating the surf in a white evening dress, a take no prisoners expression on her face, a box suitcase in hand, and a white-gloved attendant trailing behind with the luggage. The photo seems derived from Jack Vettriano, Oh, Happy Days, would be a guess. But the vignette nags uncomfortably, despite the cold of the day and the rain pounding against the window. There is a threatening amount of ocean in the photo, a montage of water up to the well-off vacationer's shins, tugging at her fancy clothes and clunky suitcases. Vettriano didn't do this to his subjects, he placed them safely on solid sand to dance. As reports of glaciers melting and oceans rising pour in, wading through in water in your evening wear, even with lots of gumption, seems like a not so happy harbinger of things to come.

I'm not the first to think that island properties and beach front resorts in Florida are worrisome, but what's perhaps more discomfiting about the ad is the insouciance of the presentation, its inadvertent reflection of common attitudes about global climate change. Of course many people with a business stake wave off concern. In my non-random sampling, for instance, realtors or the online purveyors of island properties thrust e-mail brochures in my direction and say that business is just fine, thank-you. Obviously these people have a livelihood to protect. However, others who dismiss global warming don't have such obviously vested interests.

It's tempting to hope that only a few lost sheep doubt climate change, that only White House and Senator Inohe have been bamboozled by Crichton's "State of Fear". However many people, it seems, consider this book to be so well argued that it is suitable for non-fiction climate discussions. This, despite the fact that Crichton himself writes in his book that there are 'real footnotes', but the story is fiction. Fiction.

In a casual discussion about global climate change that I engaged in recently, more then a few of the dozen or so participants said that there was not enough evidence for climate change to support taking steps to lower carbon emissions. Besides Crichton, they recruited the usual suspects to bolster their arguments, like George Will, who rhetorically rolls his eyes, throws his hands in the air and complains that first the scientists thought it was global cooling, and now they're saying it's global warming. When scientists aren't being wishy-washy, according the Will, they don't have data.

It takes a concerted effort to assert that there's no data. One must steadfastly ignore decades of evidence as well as the advice of a growing number of corporations who also acknowledge the evidence. When oil companies such as Shell, and British Petroleum, who expressed concern for global warming in 1997, admit to dangerous global climate problems (whatever their intent), how can citizens who don't own an oil companies deny it? But they do and as staunchly as they deny this most obvious evidence, they have a rebuttal for everything else too. Carbon reduction is too expensive they say, ignoring the cost of denying climate change. They brush off the fact that businesses, insurers and investors are paying very close attention to the problem. Businesses know that it's a real problem and are participating with organizations like Ceres, and the Carbon Disclosure Project, which Acronym Required wrote about here, to monitor and lower carbon emissions. Insurers and investors know that any business that isn't paying attention is a risky investment.

Will and his ilk carry the proof of active intelligence, degrees from top schools and positions with bonuses and/or prestige. You want to trust that at least they are sincere and if they would just taken one more science class we could all band together in recognizing the urgency of the problem. But as the evidence spans decades and the tenor of the climate rhetoric remains relentlessly constant; it's obvious that this is a game of posturing, where roles are defined, for and against. This is a game that's structured for many decades of disagreement. It's not so much a path to resolution as a faceoff, and like a couple of gangs of boys in a schoolyard there's much shoving and staredowns. Climate change denialists aren't unlike those belligerent bullies daring the next geek to call them on their roughshot ways. Predictably, should one point to the fallacies in their argument of the day, they remain defiantly unconvinced. But they're not looking to be convinced.

Long ago, the media and some scientists cemented the idea that this was a simple split between those who are characterized as oil company shills and those who are characterized as environmentalists. We are conditioned to think that for every side there is an equal and opposite side. Our inclinations are exploited by the oil companies such as Exxon Mobil, who have paid "skeptics" to instill doubt in global warming. Each side calls the other the same names, so the uncurious or intellectually preoccupied can simply parrot back the accusations of the other side. Tuvalu, whose highest point is 5 meters above sea level, is ostensibly greedy (as many would accuse the oil companies of being) because it threatened to sue the U.S. and Australia for environmental negligence. Tuvalu was accused of trying to exploit global warming with the "phony neck brace of 21st-century litigiousness", according to one op-ed writer. Oil company advocates accused a collective of states in the U.S., who legally demanded federal action to reduce emissions, of trying to ruin the economy via "pseudo-tort intimidation suits".

Each headline that shows more evidence of warming is greeted with hope from those who believe that the naysayers really, really do need one more piece of evidence to convince them. Then the barrage of squawky letters to editors follows from the people who insist the science is all flawed. All sides are fiercely engaged in this disagreement, which is undoubtedly more pleasant then having to change, since everyone can stall together as they wait for another headline. The media updates are always relevant but never surprising. In 2002, when Tuvalu threatened to sue, their plight had been well documented since at least the 1980's, when the media began to report the rising seas and global warming with titles that are familiar today..."Tuvalu's...Sinking Feelings", appeared again and again. Similiarly, the demise of the coral reefs due to bleaching and other causes has been documented at least since the 1980's when large parts of the Carribean reefs died off. There is the always increasing, always alarming rate of glacial melting. We need no more evidence. We have decades of studies indicating that our lives will change, but its easier to wait for another headline and hope a miracle intervenes, if nothing else than in the guise of government action.

It's forever puzzling that people who seem to have no stake in preserving carbon fuel dependency relentlessly defend the status quo. In a letter to the editor of the Los Angeles Times June 22, 2005 someone wrote to suggest that people interested in the "facts rather than liberal scare tactics", should read Crichton's "State of Fear." There are many islands, according to Wikipedia, and I'm sure someone, somewhere has an island to sell him. But what's striking is that he's not nervous, considering the address he included in his snappy letter, Surfside, California. While Surfside is not Florida or Louisiana, as you can see on the map it looks to be on a small peninsula between an ocean and a bay. A luxurious vacation home today, water gently rolling in...then tomorrow?

Even those who do have the most immediate, perilous stake in global warming are sometimes reluctant to change, as Nature reports this week in an interesting article about Tuvalu. Their reporter noted that some Tuvalu islanders, as affected as they are by global warming "refuse even to talk about climate, or dismiss it with a weary wave of the hand.", and that "frequent workshops on climate and the dangers of accelerating sea-level rise fail to provoke a sense of urgency. (Samir S. Patel: Nature: 440, 734-736, 6 April 2006: "Climate science: A Sinking Feeling"). It's not only oil companies who are in denial. For Tuvaluans this must be the most difficult subject as they will need to leave they're homeland. But we are not immune to equally difficult life changes. As the vacationer at the St. Regis Resort wades through the surf in Florida, and the Tuvaluan islanders "sink" up to their knees on the "main street", someday we will all notice that all our fates are entwined with global climate change.

Some related Acronym Required articles:

Business and Climate Change: "Carbon Emissions Disclosure Project"

Ice core research to study atmospheric conditions 650,000 years ago: "Holocene Days"

Politics and climate change: "Will Loose Lips - Or Global Warming - Sink Ships?".

Carbon emissions regulation after Katrina: "The Environment & Katrina-Slick Oil Fallout"

Drought in the "Amazon", and in "Australia".

Science research communication and climate change: "Research, Politics and Working Less", and "Science Communication".

--------------------------------------

June 20, 2006: The New York Times writes a piece on erosion and global warming titled Next Victim Of Warming: The Beaches"