Craig Klugman, Ph.D.
On May 9, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography independently reported measurements of mean concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels of nearly 400 parts per million (it was actually 399.89 ppm). For the last 800,000 years, the Earth has not broken 300ppm. This is significant because it shows that despite weak international efforts, atmospheric carbon levels are increasing on an exponential curve.
The number 400ppm is arbitrary but was chosen as a milestone to draw attention to the continuing scientific concern over the increase of atmospheric carbon. The last time that the Earth saw levels this high is believed to be the Pliocene epoch, 3.2 million to 5 million years ago. During that time, the average world temperature was 3.6 to 5.4 degrees F (2 to 3 degrees Celsius) higher than today and sea levels averaged 82 feet (25m) higher. There was far less diversity in plant life.
Why is this issue important in bioethics? When Van Rensselaer Potter created the term “bioethics” in 1970, he did not equate “bioethics” with “medical ethics” as the term is often used today. What he meant was a way of looking at science and the humanities to examine larger issues that affect human survival including health, population and the environment. In other words, Potter had in mind “bio(sphere)ethics.” Thus issues related to the environment are at the heart of bioethics.
While there is strong evidence for changes in climate measures occurring, what is not so clear is what this mean? Some have postulated that it can mean shifting weather patterns including more frequent and intense storms, shifting rain patterns, and changes in flora and fauna ranges. This has implication for not only increasing cycles of drought and wet, but also for what areas are arable for the production of food crops. For human health, there will be less fresh water, less productive farmland (meaning worsening nutrition), and the geographic ranges of diseases may shift.
Of course, there are many Americans who believe that if climate is real, it is not caused by humans but is a “natural cycle.” Many political concerns have been raised that have kept the United States from entering into international climate pacts or even developing domestic climate protection programs such as a carbon exchange market. The vast majority of climate scientists (97-98%) believe that human-caused climate change is real. Irrespective of the cause, the implications for human health and the environment are real.
That the world continues to ignore this issue is unethical. The implications for human health and well-being are staggering including increases in infectious disease, lung disease, cancer, malnutrition and decreases in sanitation clean water. The consequences for the Earth’s flora and fauna are incalculable. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change calculates that 20 to 30% of species would face extinction and another study suggests that two-thirds all of plants and animals would have their geographic range narrowed by half.
As a world we cannot ignore these changes any longer. To do so is to put ourselves and our planet in peril. Even while Americans are using less fossil fuel (the economic downturn has us driving less and gas prices have us in more fuel efficient cars), other countries are significantly increasing their output of carbon dioxide. All nations need to work together to create a workable solution and this will mean drastic changes to the way that much of the industrialized (and post-industrialized) world lives. One individual cannot do that. One nation cannot do this. It will take a global effort that puts the protection of our planet ahead of our own national and individual interests. However, given that the U.S. Congress cannot even pass a budget, I am not hopeful.