The open discussion of global climate change is ongoing. It has been brought to the attention of many people and steps are slowly being made to “go green.” There are arguments against what some have described as a government hoax or a serious global concern. But despite whether the environmental changes occurring are reversible or not, they are undoubtedly happening.
Bakersfield College professor of geology and physical science Natalie Bursztyn openly discusses the possible detriment humankind is inflicting upon itself. Her studies in the geological realm have led her to many educated conclusions. The end of the world is not anywhere close, rather the extinction of the human race is a much more feasible conclusion and concern.
Renegade Rip: In regards to global climate change, is it a serious problem that we should seriously be concerned about? ?And is there anything we can really do to stop it?
Natalie Bursztyn: Yes, it is a serious problem but from the human perspective. We are a highly specialized species, and we will have a very hard time adapting to global changes that continue to happen at such a rapid rate. We already are incapable of accepting the way that nature operates, and blindly try to make barriers that will inevitably fail. For example, the New Orleans levees, Sacramento delta levees, and Netherlands dikes are all already at or below sea level. Regardless of the causes of global warming, it is in fact warming, which means that sea ice will melt, produce more water vapor in the atmosphere, which is a powerful greenhouse gas, that will cause more warming, that will cause more ice to melt, that will continue to increase sea level, that will put more water vapor in the atmosphere…. you see the pattern, right? If we look at this “problem” from a strictly egocentric point of view, regardless of penguins, polar bears and the like, we are going to run out of space on land even more rapidly than we already are. Should we be concerned about it? How about yes and no for an answer? Humans are going to die out anyway. The less concerned we are about it, the sooner we’ll die off and the more rapidly the Earth will be able to repair itself. If, however, we want future generations of humans to continue to thrive on this green Earth, we’d damn well better be concerned about it because it’s not going to stay green under our current energy-land-sucking lifestyles. Can we really stop it? Again, yes and no. Yes, if everyone, today, immediately ceases to a) eat meat and b) drive. Is that going to happen? No. Why would that help? A) The meat industry uses a tremendous amount of energy in production, and believe it or not, cows, to the incredible population extent that we farm them, are insanely high producers of another greenhouse gas: methane. B) Driving, be it propane, diesel, gasoline or electric cars, consumes fossil fuels and outputs greenhouse gases. Electric? But they’re zero-emission vehicles! But, where do we get that electricity? Here, despite the commercials seen on TV, most of electricity comes from coal-burning power plants. So can we really stop it? I don’t think so. I am highly skeptical that the majority of first-world people would be willing to trade in their lifestyles of luxury and privilege for a few more centuries of time on planet earth.
RR: Rapid growth, poor land-use strategies, uncontrolled tourism development, and regional and global demand for natural resources are altering the land and seascapes of North and Central America. Is it possible to put a time span on the amount of time we have to save or prevent it from occurring?
NB: No. From a strictly scientific and statistical perspective, any prediction has to have a reliable and functional model first. We don’t have that. We only have a sample size of one: One planet Earth, and from that sample size of one, we will only ever be able to make a wild guess on a time frame as we have absolutely nothing to compare it to.
RR: Has mankind in a way become the exterminator of our own species, and is this possibly the beginning of our extinction?
NB: Yes. Good for us! The dinosaurs were around for 180 million years and did just fine from a biological perspective, even without Hummers and Xbox’s. But us, we will absolutely be our own exterminators. I think that’s just fine, perhaps that’s the Earth’s way of saving itself. Every population goes through peaks and valleys of growth, but we’ve been pretty darn good at extending our peaks. Inevitably, we will hit a valley, and it’s about time. Our population has far exceeded the land and energy resources available for our use.
RR: Does the rate in which we deplete our resources play a role in the amount of time we have?
NB: Only if you consider us incapable of living without our resources! We have to keep in mind that “resources” does not only mean fossil fuels, but it also means metals, building materials, non-metallic minerals, water and land. Besides that, we are the only species that has ever burned fossil fuels. We are most certainly making a mess of our available landspace and our fresh water supply.
RR: In respect to the old saying, “If there’s a will there’s a way,” is it possible for us to survive global climate change if we were able to adapt? Will we migrate like species during the ice age and continue to evolve?
NB: Only if there is a will! We have shown pretty clearly absolutely no will to make a drastic change to our lifestyles that uses less energy (in the United States anyway). But if you want me, you’ll find me in an off-grid yurt in the mountains. I’ve already got my migration mapped out.
RR: What’s the importance of conservation? Will we actually be able to deplete our natural resources? Or do you think there are enough people in the world willing to take part in the process?
NB: The importance of conservation is to not deplete our natural resources. We are actually capable of depleting our natural resources; we can just look at the Republic of Nauru to see how easily that can happen. Are there enough people in the world who can conserve our resources? Yes. Are there enough who are willing? I doubt it. But if things keep going as they are, I imagine the biggest consumers will wipe themselves out, and the few remaining conservationist nations will generate new “greener” human populations to fill in.
RR: Are greenhouse gas emissions from energy production and fossil fuels the main cause of climate change? How does deforestation contribute to the emissions? And are there other factors researchers aren’t reporting that could equal the same kind of detriment?
NB: Now this is a loaded question! I need to refer you back to the statistics problem that I mentioned previously: We cannot know the full effect of the output of greenhouse gases through the burning of fossil fuels; we have no complete model that is as complex and long-lived as our planet. The “main” cause of climate change is hotly debated from those who think that we are the sole contributors and those who think that the Milankovitch cycles and sunspots are the sole contributors. One thing that we do know is that sunspots have nothing to do with climate change whatsoever, that lack of correlation has been shown throughout the entirety of the Earth history that we have in the rock and ice record. Deforestation does not contribute to emissions but does contribute to a decrease in greenhouse gas absorption, specifically CO2 and H2O vapor. More importantly, perhaps, is that deforestation contributes to increased solar energy absorption — trees contribute to albedo — the reflection of sun’s energy. With more barren land to absorb the solar energy, the greater the warming of the Earth. Additionally, as we begin to clean up our act and remove atmospheric pollution output, we are going to see another albedo-related issue arise. Atmospheric pollution is a bunch of little molecules of dust and particulate matter floating around in the air; this stuff actually reflects the sun’s energy as well. It has been shown in parts of Europe and India that the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth is significantly decreased by the amount of particulate matter in the air. So, what happens when this stuff is cleaned up as we get stricter and stricter regulations on atmospheric emissions? We will get more and more solar radiation reaching the increasingly paved landscape, and this will result in more warming of the Earth. Hooray. (That was said with sarcasm).
RR: How would a three-degree Celsius rise in climate change affect the Earth and the inhabitants, and when was the last time we saw something similar to the global warming occurring today?
NB: A three-degree Celsius rise would have the most detrimental effect simply by melting sea ice and raising sea level. With a dramatic rise in sea level we can say goodbye to coastal regions as we currently know them (there will still be coastal regions, but they will be a lot farther inland than they are at present). We can say goodbye to Lousiana, parts of Texas, Florida, and all sorts of other parts of the world that have low-lying regions. We can expect flooding of tributaries that enter the ocean, encroachment of seawater up estuaries and flooding rivers everywhere. We can expect major changes in local weather patterns as a result of the change in water pathways. We have never seen anything similar to this present-day occurrence. I would like to emphasize the word “seen” there. We most definitely have not seen anything like this, ever.
RR: Some people claim that climate change isn’t a problem, and we are but tiny ants on the surface of the Earth. Do you feel that ants could really destroy the planet?
NB: Tiny little ants on this Earth’s surface are a good analogy for us. And to explain why, I would like to remind everyone of the song “High Hopes,” in which an ant succeeds in moving a rubber tree plant, despite everyone knowing that an ant can’t move a rubber tree plant.