Over the Edge + March 2, 2011 opinion 3 Chilling Predictions for our Planet? Or just hot air and nothing more? NOAH BOLINDER CONTRIBUTOR Climate change... It is April 28, 1975 and an article from Newsweek is hot off the press. The title reads, “The Cooling World”, and discuses how the earth’s cooling climate, also known as climate change, will likely devastate the world economy and create serious political ramifications around the globe (Gwynne). Crank the date to June 28, 2008 and Newsweek has published a similar article. It reads “Global Warming Is a Cause of This Year’s Extreme Weather” (Begley). In thirty short years, paradoxically, the essential claims of both articles remain the same, but for one striking difference. In the 70s it was argued the world was freezing over, yet today we are burning up, or so some would have you believe. Theories on climate change have radically changed over the past few decades and demanded immediate action to avert disaster. Unfortunately, an economic meltdown may occur if governments continue to funnel billions of dollars into hypothetical theories. On April 3, 2006, then Senator Barack Obama asserted, “[i]ncreasingly dangerous weather patterns and devastating storms are abruptly putting an end to the long-running debate over whether or not climate change is real. Not only is it real, it’s here...a frighteningly new global phenomenon: the man-made natural disaster” (Obama). That same year Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger stressed, “We simply must do everything we can in our power to slow down global warming before it is too late. The science is clear. The global warming debate is over” (Schwarzenegger). Rewind to the days when Schwarzenegger was making films such as “Hercules in New York” and the discussion of the cause of climate change was glaringly different. In 1975, Nigal Clader, former editor of the New Scientist, claimed “[t]he threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind” (United Kingdom). In his book “The Cooling” (1976) Lowell Ponte writes, “[t]he cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people in poor nations...[i]f it continues, and no strong measures are taken to deal with it, the cooling will cause world famine, world chaos, and probably world war, and this could all come by the year 2000” (Bray). Both quotes insist that dramatic action be taken to avert disaster. Both also imply debate over the cause of climate change is over. Where would we be if the world had bought into to the global cooling craze by investing billions of dollars to avoid the immanent freeze? Many who argue scientific authority today, and in the past, have claimed the climate debate to be over and the evidence in favour of their point of view overwhelming. It is, therefore, essential to analyze both sides of the climate debate before rushing to conclusions. Anytime a group on one side of a debate slams the door to further discussion by labelling opposing views as illogical, it is a sure sign of concern. If climate change claims are wrong, as they were in the 70s, we are willingly sacrificing our economy on the altar of cooked science. One basic example of the economic implications brought about by government action over climate change theory is the carbon tax implemented by the B.C. provincial government. How can one go wrong with a tax that is going to save the planet? The first two years of the tax have extracted 848 million dollars from British Columbians through additional government fuel charges (Canada). Not only does this tax decrease the buying power of British Columbians, production costs are increased for companies. Although some companies choose to absorb this cost, many decide to transfer this cost to the consumer. The result is inflation, as the price of many products increased. If the climate debate is stifled so that only one side is allowed to speak, we risk serious hemorrhaging of the economy if the claims acted on are erroneous. Consequentially, undisputed social, environmental and economic issues may garner less attention and funding. Despite the obviously different approaches to climate change taken in both Newsweek articles, there are many similarities. Newsweek 1975 opens, “There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically...” Newsweek 2008 reports, “The frequency of downpours and heat waves, as well as the power of hurricanes, has increased so dramatically...” Both articles emphasis the dramatic effects caused by climate change. Furthermore, both articles blame climate change for radical weather patterns. Newsweek 1975 says, “Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people...” Newsweek 2008 concurs, saying, “Hurricanes have become more powerful due to global warming.” Both articles also claim scientific authority. Newsweek 1975 reports, “The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.” While Newsweek 2008 declares, “...climatologists now say global warming is to blame...” (Begley). Recently, talk of saving the melting icecaps, and the impact rising sea levels will have on coastal regions, has been a hot button issue. However, Newsweek 1975 writes of a much different approach to dealing with the icecaps. The article suggests one idea to stop the freeze is to cover the icecaps with black soot to melt them (Gwynne). How times and ideas of saving the world have changed. How many billions of dollars tax dollars are politicians willing to spend gambling on the right diagnosis? One year the earth has hypothermia, the next it has a deadly fever. One moment the icecaps need to be destroyed, the next their existence is pivotal to modern society’s survival. Global warming would have been the laughing stalk of the 1970s, as global cooling would be today. The arguments, changing weather patterns, bold predictions of widespread disaster, and one-sided discussions have not changed. What has changed is the remedy to the hypothetical problem. Climate change has been constant, even before the industrial revolution when humans began emitting high levels of pollution. Humans have survived thousands of years while weather patterns cycled. However, will humans survive the tidal wave of inflation from tax dollars being spent on unsubstantiated theories of climate change that may serve only to drown the economy? Unless we announce disasters no one will listen. Sir John Houghton former Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (United Kingdom)