In 2006, former U.S. vice president and one-time presidential nominee Al Gore released a documentary and book called "An Inconvenient Truth." Both the film and the book framed climate change as the result of man-made greenhouse gases, all delivered by Gore’s amazing ability to make a PowerPoint presentation compelling. Although climate change has been studied since at least the 1930s, the success of Gore’s documentary propelled climate change to the forefront of people’s minds.
Suddenly saving the earth was in vogue, with factoids detailing how you can help reduce carbon emissions (from your own home, no less!) permeating magazine space and television time. On July 7, 2007, Live Earth, one of the largest multimedia events the world has ever seen, was held to explain the issue of global warming as well as propagate the idea that somehow reuniting The Police would convince people to ditch their SUVs and run out to purchase hybrid cars. (I kid, Sting and Andy Summers — "Synchronicity" is one of the finest releases of the new-wave era.) Nine years onward, what has changed? While the U.S. and world abroad has made tremendous steps toward curbing carbon emissions, such as President Obama and the EPA’s recent Clean Power Plan, the news is still filled to the brim with depressing reminders that climate change is here and is going to be sticking around for the foreseeable future.
As The Washington Post reported in their Sept. 9 article, "The simple statistic that perfectly captures what climate change means," a recent study conducted by two Australian researchers found that from 2000 to 2014, the number of heat-related records outpaced cold records by more than 12 to 1. For comparison’s sake, the ratio of hot to cold records was close to 1 to 1 from 1910 to 1960. Yikes. Statistics like the aforementioned illustrate a point scientists have been making for years now: It’s not a matter of deciding "if" global warming exists, or preventing it, but rather minimizing how badly it’s going to screw the human race over in the long run. It would seem all we can do is hope for the best and pray the world’s most brilliant minds find a way to minimize the impact on our day-to-day lives.
This column is not written to plead with the world at large for substantial policy changes as it pertains to energy. That is already happening as we speak, although unfortunately it may prove to be too little, too late. Rather, this column’s existence is necessitated by the fact there are politicians, such as recently ousted Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbot, who would willfully blind themselves to the realities of climate change to make a pretty penny. The unfortunate reality that the Keystone Pipeline continues to be a debated issue, rather than immediately shut down, is patently absurd. A word exists for men like Abbot and Republicans who would be overjoyed to have the Keystone Pipeline run through protected natural areas: asshole. An asshole is someone who selfishly pursues his or her own ends, even if it means inconveniencing or harming those around them. If politicians who would accelerate extinction in the name of financial gain don’t qualify as grade-A asshole, then we don’t know who does.
In the meantime, if you genuinely care about the future of yourself and your theoretical children, keep recycling those beer bottles.
