Categories
Opinion The Last Word

Facing Climate Change As One World

“… We need to do everything we can to keep [global] warming as low as possible.”

When it comes to climate change, one two-letter word has me totally perplexed: “we.” There’s an implication of global unity — a transcendent “we,” marching as to war (so to speak) — facing humanity’s greatest crisis, undoing the exploitative, Earth-destroying aspects of our social structure and grabbing control over the planet’s rising temperature. We need to do everything we can!

Yeah, sure. And then it turns out “we” aren’t doing nearly enough. The blame gets passed around — to the rich countries of the global north, to the world’s largest fossil fuel companies. And the ice keeps melting; the wildfires rage; average temperatures keep setting records. Scientists grow ever more distraught. The cry repeats itself: We need to do everything we can!

I don’t disagree with this. I just don’t know who “we” are, and hardly feel like a participant in the process, except in small ways: when I recycle stuff or argue with a climate-change denier or walk rather than drive wherever (achy legs, balance issues — I mostly drive). This isn’t enough, of course. It’s change from the social margins. The global warming — the global “weirding” — continues unabated, as do the warnings from the science community. National promises to change remain minimal, and are ultimately bypassed and ignored.

What I’m trying to say is this: There is a “we” that most Americans embrace and feel a part of, but it has nothing to do with the warming planet and collapsing ecosystem. Before we can begin “doing everything we can,” we have to transcend our limited sense of who we are and what matters. 

The New York Times’ Brad Plumer, for instance, writing about a report recently released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body of experts convened by the United Nations, noted: “Governments and companies would need to invest three to six times the roughly $600 billion they now spend annually on encouraging clean energy in order to hold global warming at 1.5 or 2 degrees, the report says. While there is currently enough global capital to do so, much of it is difficult for developing countries to acquire. The question of what wealthy, industrialized nations owe to poor, developing countries has been divisive at global climate negotiations.”

These words quietly scream for a fundamental shift in the planet’s political infrastructure. “Encouraging clean energy” isn’t really any nation’s first priority, especially if it’s rich and powerful. As I read that paragraph, what popped into my head is this: The planet’s annual military budget is about $2.2 trillion (with the United States accounting for nearly half of that). War is hell, but that’s okay. It’s the primary manifestation of nationalism, the primary expression of power. 

We have treaties and such — some nations are allies — but the essence of the situation is this: We live in an us-vs.-them world. We have to be continually cautious and, if necessary, aggressive. This is a divided world. Any questions?

The problem, of course, is that the divisions are mostly arbitrary, not to mention pragmatic. There’s nothing like a good enemy to help a country maintain its unity, to help a government assert control over the population. (Careful, he may be a commie.) But these arbitrary divisions are also distinct and specific; they’re called borders. Borders have nothing to do with reality, but “we” pretend that they matter — often to the detriment of people who need to cross them. And as climate change continues to create chaos, it makes certain regions uninhabitable. More and more human beings will find themselves being pushed out of the “human climate niche,” which means they’ll have to go somewhere else.

As Anju Anna John and Stefano Balbi write at Common Dreams, regarding a study called Quantifying the Human Cost of Global Warming: 

“In the worst-case future scenario — where the world reverts to fossil-fueled development and has a population of 9.5 billion at the end of the century — the study found that 5.3 billion people would be left behind. We would be looking at a world where about half the world’s population would no longer be able to live in regions they once considered home.”

So they’d have to move. They’d have to become climate refugees, which probably means confronting a foreign bureaucracy at some border or other. Uh oh. That could be a problem, even though, according to The Guardian: 

“… [T]he richest 1 percent of the world’s population is responsible for twice the amount of greenhouse gases as the world’s poorest 50 percent, who suffer the brunt of the harms.

“So far, the rich countries of the global north are regarded as having promised too little — and delivered even less — for climate adaptation efforts in poorer countries.”

We need to do everything we can — to minimize global warming, to deal with its inevitable effects on some. But this will only happen minimally in the context of the present moment, in which the wealthy and powerful are motivated primarily to protect and expand their wealth and power, and who will casually dehumanize those who are in the way or who attempt to cross a sacred border.

This is not the “we” that’s going to do everything it can to save the planet, but it’s the “we” we’re stuck with, at least for now. Truly dealing with climate change — doing everything we can — means transforming who we are and reorganizing ourselves as one world. 

Robert Koehler (koehlercw@gmail.com), syndicated by PeaceVoice, is a Chicago award-winning journalist and editor. He is the author of Courage Grows Strong at the Wound.

Categories
At Large Opinion

Welcome to Hell

Sometimes I stare in space

Tears all over my face

I can’t explain it, don’t understand it

I ain’t never felt like this before

Now that funny feeling has me amazed

Don’t know what to do, my head’s in a haze …

Just like a heat wave

Burning right here in my heart

— Holland-Dozier-Holland

It’s 8:30 on Saturday morning at Tobey Dog Park. Many of the regulars and their mutts are here. The humans, maybe nine of them, are gathered in the shade of the one appreciable tree. The dogs, maybe 14 of them, make brief forays out into the burnt-grass hellscape to chase a ball or wrestle or dry-hump each other or poop, but soon return to the shade. They are not stupid creatures. Neither are the humans, who don’t even try to wrestle or dry-hump each other or poop. They just stay in the shade and commiserate.

It’s the third or fourth week without rain in Memphis. No one here in the shade can remember the last time water fell from the sky. We all agree it’s been at least 10 days since the daily high temperature was less than 98 degrees, with many days reaching triple digits. On Friday, the day before my trek to the dog park, Memphis registered the highest “feels like” temperature in the United States — a balmy 114 degrees.

What the hell, y’all?

At our house, we have closed every curtain, shutter, and window blind. All the ceiling fans are turning at warp speed. We keep the lights off during the day. We open and shut exterior doors quickly so the satanic heat can’t get in. We’re now living in a dark bat cave just so our air-conditioning can keep up. Sort of. When it’s 114 outside, we consider an interior high of 76 degrees a victory.

If it’s any comfort (and no, it’s not) we’re not alone. Heat waves have been happening all over the Northern Hemisphere this summer — in Spain, France, India, the Middle East, parts of Africa, and elsewhere, leading to the usual attendant miseries of drought and crop failure. And also to forest fires like those that have ravaged the Western U.S. this year — where they’re running out of water because it doesn’t snow enough anymore.

At least we’ve got water in Memphis. For now. Unless Governor Lee decides to privatize the Memphis Sand Aquifer. Which I wouldn’t rule out.

The world’s legitimate scientists have long moved past debating whether climate change exists or even whether our addiction to greenhouse gases is the cause. In a recent New York Times story, some scientists said that the current trend to longer and more frequent heat waves renders the question obsolete. The climate has changed, and we’re going to have to deal with the consequences. Why argue about the obvious?

In the same Times article, climate scientist Andrew Dessler said, “The warming of recent decades has already made it hard for scientists to know what to call a heat wave and what to treat as simply a ‘new normal’ for hot weather. … As time goes on, more and more of the planet will be experiencing those temperatures, until eventually, with enough global warming, every land area in the mid-latitude Northern Hemisphere would be above 100 degrees.”

If this is the new normal, then summer is the new hell. And it’s not like we don’t have a few other things to worry about these days, including a major political party that can’t kick its addiction to a delusional con man, a country that can’t keep its young men from randomly gunning down dozens of strangers, and a Supreme Court apparently made up of faith healers, gun nuts, and (probably) climate-change deniers.

Where to turn? It all feels new and not at all normal. I would say we’re all going to hell in a handbasket, but it appears we may have already arrived. Which begs the question: Can you get out of hell in a handbasket?

Categories
Art Exhibit M

How to Quilt Heartbreak, Numerology & Insomnia

Memphis artist Paula Kovarik quilts about everything from nuclear testing to global warming. Her work channels a dreamlike dread, illustrated by otherworldly signs and symbols. 

Paula Kovarik

‘Round and Round’

Kovarik was recently selected to participate in a show at the Grand Rapids Art Museum during the city’s ArtPrize competition

[jump]

Check out more of Kovarik’s quilts in her online gallery

Paula Kovarik

‘Insomnia: His and Hers’

Paula Kovarik

‘Stream of Consequences’

Categories
News

Global Warming to Have Worst Impact on the South

From The Washington Post: “Climate change may be global in its sweep, but not all of the globe’s citizens will share equally in its woes. And nowhere is that truth more evident, or more worrisome, than in its projected effects on agriculture.

“Several recent analyses have concluded that the higher temperatures expected in coming years — along with salt seepage into groundwater as sea levels rise and anticipated increases in flooding and droughts — will disproportionately affect agriculture in the planet’s lower latitudes, where most of the world’s poor live …”

In the U.S., that means the South’s agriculture will be most affected. Read the whole story here.

Categories
News

Gore Wins Share of Nobel Peace Prize

Former Vice President Al Gore Jr. has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his service in informing the world about the perils of global warming. The Norwegian Nobel Committee announced Friday that the Tennessee native will share the award with a United Nations panel that monitors climate change.

In its announcement, the committee characterized Gore, whose film documentary An Inconvenient Truth had previously won an Academy Award, as “the single individual who has done most” to alert the world to the reality of climate change caused by global warming and to the imminent threat it poses worldwide.

Gore indicated he would donate his half Nobel prize money — about $750,000 — to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a nonprofit environmental group whose board he chairs. He issued this statement: “The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity, It is also our greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher level.”

The text of the Nobel committee’s announcement is as follows:

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 is to be shared, in two equal parts, between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change

.

Indications of changes in the earth’s future climate must be treated with the utmost seriousness, and with the precautionary principle uppermost in our minds. Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth’s resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world’s most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.

Through the scientific reports it has issued over the past two decades, the IPCC has created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming. Thousands of scientists and officials from over one hundred countries have collaborated to achieve greater certainty as to the scale of the warming. Whereas in the 1980s global warming seemed to be merely an interesting hypothesis, the 1990s produced firmer evidence in its support. In the last few years, the connections have become even clearer and the consequences still more apparent.

Al Gore has for a long time been one of the world’s leading environmentalist politicians. He became aware at an early stage of the climatic challenges the world is facing. His strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change. He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted.

By awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC and Al Gore, the Norwegian Nobel Committee is seeking to contribute to a sharper focus on the processes and decisions that appear to be necessary to protect the world’s future climate, and thereby to reduce the threat to the security of mankind. Action is necessary now, before climate change moves beyond man’s control.

Oslo, 12 October 2007

Categories
Film Features Film/TV

A Global-Warming Lesson Plan

Because The 11th Hour — Nadia Conners and Leila Conners Peterson’s fast-paced, oddly breezy new global-warming documentary — seldom offers any much-needed time to catch one’s breath and think about the numerous worthy issues it brings up, I’ve put together some discussion questions for use during and after the screening. Make no mistake. The 11th Hour is a noble film with a noble purpose. In trying to cover every aspect of the global-warming crisis, it works so hard that it practically sweats sincerity and good intentions. But its educational strategies could use a little guidance.

Short-Answer Questions:

1. If one of the principal problems our society has with global warming is its vast and complex sources and origins, why try for a sweeping overview of the topic rather than a focused, well-documented exploration of one or two key facets of the problem?

2. Why is it so hard for scientists to ponder (much less mention) the concept of God even though most of their pleas for climate control and citizen action are based on their carefully unspoken belief in the preservation and maintenance of a mysterious, nondenominational “spiritual force” that we need to preserve?

3. Why do the eyes of so many climatologists, researchers, and philosophers in The 11th Hour shine with something not unlike glee when they prophesy the imminent destruction of humanity?

4. In a film whose second half overflows with promising solutions to many of the climate and energy difficulties posed in the first half, why don’t the filmmakers spend more time examining the eco-friendly designs that apparently exist already?

5. If consumerism and advertising culture are two of the main obstacles preventing humans from living a less materialistic, more eco-friendly existence, why do so many of the montages from The 11th Hour feel like infomercials or music videos?

6. Why are polar bears and penguins such indie-film fetish objects?

Long Essay:

Discuss the significance of David Suzuki’s observation — “extinction is a natural part of life” — as it relates to the future of documentary films that, while intermittently thoughtful and powerful, lack the patience and intelligence to develop their central arguments.

The 11th Hour

Opening Friday, September 14th

Studio on the Square

Categories
Cover Feature News

Beachfront Property?

In a couple hundred years or so, some scientists say, Memphians who want to go to the beach will just pack up the car and head down to the river bluffs. They believe global warming could raise ocean temperatures and cause the polar ice caps to melt completely. The result: a dramatic rise in sea level that could swallow current coastal cities, eventually bringing the coastline up to Kevin Kane’s front porch.

Far-fetched? Not according to Jerry Bartholomew, chair of the University of Memphis earth sciences department. “Memphis will be beachfront property,” he says. “All of the major cities along the coast — Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, Tampa, Charleston, New Orleans — would be underwater. If you raise sea levels 300 feet, they’re under 300 feet of water.”

It may sound like a gloom-and-doom scenario, but more than 20 percent of the polar ice caps have melted since 1979, according to The Weather Makers, Tim Flannery’s new book on climate change.

Only time will tell how quickly the caps will melt — or if the melting will continue — but most scientists now agree that the earth is undergoing some sort of warming trend and that the outlook for the future is troubling.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (an international group of climatologists), the earth has already warmed one degree in recent decades. They say the reason is an excess of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the result of more people burning more and more fossil fuels.

Locally, it’s hard to say what effect, if any, global warming has had. Since it is a theory, nothing can be proven. However, Memphis has experienced hotter summers and milder winters for years now, and local plant life is changing. Some plants that don’t normally thrive here are now thriving, while some native plants aren’t faring as well. These could be temporary changes due to natural weather trends, or they could be human-induced, permanent changes resulting from global warming.

If it is indeed global warming, and the ice caps continue to melt, Memphis will experience more than just a great view of the ocean: Think overcrowding from migrating populations, crop failures, and increases in mosquitoes and disease. That scenario is admittedly a long way off, but scientists say the time to deal with the problem is now.

The Day After Tomorrow

On December 8, 1917, Memphis received more than eight inches of snow and ice. Hundreds of downtown workers were stranded in their offices. Taxis charged inflated rates to take people home. Temperatures in Memphis stayed below freezing through Christmas, and then a blizzard slammed the city in January, dropping another five inches of snow and sleet. The temperature fell to eight degrees below zero. The Mississippi River froze completely over. Steamers like the Georgia Lee and DeSoto were trapped in river ice. The Daily Appeal reported that some locals took to the frozen river on ice skates.

Eighty-year-old Memphian Jack Phillips remembers times like these.

“It wasn’t a strange sight in those days to see huge chunks of ice coming down the river. You don’t see that anymore,” says Phillips, a Native American who grew up in the city. “At Overton Park, people would go to the pond by the hundreds to ice-skate every year.”

These days, such memories seem worlds away. Memphis hasn’t seen many blizzards in recent decades, and Rainbow Lake doesn’t get ice skaters anymore.

But whether these changes are related to global warming is hard to say.

“It comes down to a difference between weather and climate,” explains Lensyl Urbano, an assistant professor of earth sciences at the U of M. “Weather is what you see every day. Climate is the average that happens over a period of time. So it’s difficult to say with any confidence at all if [recent weather patterns] are affected by global warming. You need a longtime record.”

By longtime record, Urbano means hundreds of years of data, and that simply isn’t there. So instead of studying weather patterns, scientists look to the direct correlation between increasing temperatures and the rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution.

On a local level, climate change isn’t easy to see, but there are some indicators that it may be happening. At the Memphis Botanic Garden, horticulturist Rick Pudwell says some trees are beginning to leaf earlier in the year.

“At first blush, that doesn’t seem like a problem, but if certain plants leaf out too early and then we get a cold front, it causes the flower buds to freeze and sometimes the leaf buds as well,” says Pudwell.

But while some native plants are suffering, new plants are thriving. Camelias traditionally haven’t fared well in Memphis because the weather is too cold. These days, Pudwell says, they flourish. Same goes for the Japanese Loquat tree. Planting zones are also beginning to fluctuate.

“We’re in Zone Seven, and I see plants that are normally only hearty in Zone Eight areas like Jackson, Mississippi, or Zone Nine, which is the Gulf Coast,” says Pudwell. “Five or six years ago, this wasn’t the case.”

Pudwell says he has also noticed a decline in the number of songbirds in the region. He believes they’re moving farther north due to rising temperatures in the South. This is bad news for gardeners, who see the birds as allies in insect control.

According to Batholomew, with planting zones shifting north, American farm staples such as wheat could become Canadian staples. Urbano says sugar maple trees in New England may also eventually thrive only in Canada if warming trends continue.

According to John Corbett, a retired geography professor from the U of M, these changes could be sparked by only a slight change in the temperature of the oceans.

“The Memphis area would become more humid,” said Corbett. “We’d have more storms and more frequent flooding. If it’s more humid, we’d have more termites, and the wood would start rotting more. The area would start to favor little things you wouldn’t want it to favor, like mold.”

On a worldwide scale, Corbett projects mass migrations due to crop failures and more wars as fossil fuel supplies decrease. As ocean temperatures rise, Corbett says, the world can expect stronger hurricanes. These changes, he says, are mostly human-induced.

“We’re cutting down the rain forests. We’re using more and more fuel,” says Corbett. “The cities are more crowded. We’re destroying animal habitats. The real problem is us — humans.”

Global Warming for Dummies

In a greenhouse, thin sheets of glass protect sensitive plants from cold and frost. But that glass also allows solar energy to come through, where it is absorbed by the plants and the ground inside. The glass traps the heat, similar to a parked car left out in the sun with the windows rolled up.

Carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, and nitrous oxide are gases in the earth’s atmosphere. They operate much like greenhouse glass. The sun’s energy penetrates the gases, which trap the solar energy. That heat keeps the earth warm and habitable. If it weren’t for the greenhouse effect, the earth would be 60 degrees cooler.

So the greenhouse effect is a good thing. However, the rise of industry, especially in the past hundred or so years, has led to increased burning of fossil fuels that contain carbon dioxide. From the coal burned to fuel power plants to the petroleum burned by cars, each year over the past century, more and more CO2 has been released into the atmosphere.

“Carbon dioxide is a minor gas in the air,” explains Corbett. “[The air] is mostly oxygen and nitrogen. But carbon dioxide is called a greenhouse gas because it has more ability to do what that glass in the greenhouse does.”

Climatologist Charles Keeling has been recording carbon dioxide concentrations in the air above Mt. Mauna Loa in Hawaii since the 1950s. His findings through 2005 show that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen every year since his study began.

While the earth has natural cycles of warming and cooling, global-warming-theory proponents say the earth is heating up at a faster rate than what should occur naturally.

“The temperature of the earth has already risen about one degree Celsius over the last 100 years,” says Urbano. “In the next 100 years, it could be one or two or even four or five degrees higher.”

One degree may not sound like much, but 100 years isn’t long in the grand scheme of things.

“The temperature difference between now and the last glacial maximum about 20,000 years ago is 10 to 12 degrees Celsius. Back then, the glaciers came all the way down to [where] New York City [is now],” says Urbano.

According to Hsing-te Kung, a U of M geology professor, we may not have enough data to determine if global warming is happening, but he points out that some very old data does exist in the form of core samples climatologists have taken from glaciers in the Arctic region.

“The earth has been around for about 5.6 billion years, and the universe may be 50 billion years old,” says Kung. “Human life is only 10,000 to 15,000 years old. So to really understand climate change, that’s going to be a real challenge.”

The Politics of Warming

In December 1997, a climate-change control treaty known as the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in Japan. Countries that signed on to the agreement pledged to reduce collective emissions of greenhouse gas by 5.2 percent compared to the emissions from 1990.

As of April of this year, 163 countries have signed the agreement. Australia, Monaco, Liechtenstein, and the U.S. have not. In July 1997, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed a resolution stating that agreeing to such terms “would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States.”

“By not signing the Kyoto [Protocol], the administration has postponed any change in our production of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for another eight years,” says Barthlomew. “Another administration may do something different, but since this one has chosen to delay that, we’ll pay the price.”

It could be a dangerous decision, considering that the U.S. is one of the largest polluters of the atmosphere. According to Bartholomew, about 80 percent of the fossil fuel consumption in the world comes from the U.S., Europe, and Japan.

He points out that while Europe and Japan may be major contributors to pollution, they’re doing more to effect change.

“They drive more fuel-efficient cars. In Europe, you have to hold the shower nozzle for it to stay on, so you’re not wasting water as the shower runs,” says Bartholomew.

“If we wait until all the other countries of the world produce as much emissions as we do, we’re in big trouble,” says Bartholomew. “You won’t have to worry about the sea level coming up from global warming, because you won’t be able to see [because of] all the smog.”

The White House has come under criticism from environmentalists for downplaying the potential link between global warming and human activity. President Bush dismissed a 2002 report by the Environmental Protection Agency that stated human activity is playing a hand in climate change.

The New York Times reported that Philip Cooney, a former White House official and former oil-industry advocate, altered 2002 and 2003 EPA reports on climate research to downplay the link between emissions and global warming.

Much of the propaganda against climate change is funded by Lee Raymond, the recently retired CEO of ExxonMobil. Rolling Stone reported that since 2000, Raymond has donated $8 million to “right-wing think-tanks that ridicule climate change in the mainstream media.”

“When you look at the naysayers, you need to look at what kind of grants they’re operating on,” says Clark Buchner, the chair of Tennessee Sierra Club’s Global Warming Committee. “Exxon has been one of the most egregious groups about not wanting information on global warming to reach the public.”

In the end, it comes down to economics. Bartholomew points out that the U.S. economy is very complex; any change the U.S. institutes would have a ripple effect economically. But dramatic economic changes may be a sacrifice the U.S. will eventually have to make.

“We’ve got to get the politicians in this country to realize what the hell they’re doing,” says Phillips.

Baby Steps

Since the U.S. government isn’t doing much at this point, what can ordinary people do? And will it make a difference?

These are the questions on the minds of environmentalists like the Sierra Club’s Buchner. His job is to educate the public on the little things that add up to big change. He says the club is currently studying its overall energy policy so they can better inform the public.

“We don’t want to look like alarmist fools,” says Buchner. “In the movie The Day After Tomorrow, 100-foot waves hit New York. Places were icing over in five minutes. That was pretty extreme. But on the other hand, when you have a hurricane like Katrina, that’s extreme, too. Extremes do play out but not necessarily in a Hollywood special-effects manner.”

One of the things the club is looking at is the effect of planting more trees, which absorb carbon from the atmosphere. Other considerations include encouraging power plants to switch to treated coal that emits less carbon dioxide, supporting wind power, and lobbying for corporate standards to reduce vehicle emissions.

One obvious change that drivers can make is to switch to hybrid fuels or more fuel-efficient vehicles.

“There are a lot of things that could be done, but the fact is, we have a society that has fostered, over the last 20 years, the use of SUVs,” says Bartholomew. “Some people buy them for safety, but they waste a lot of fuel. Most people don’t need a vehicle that size.”

Bartholomew says making homes more energy-efficient will also help. Since carbon dioxide emissions are generated by power plants, reducing electrical use can help reduce emmissions. He also suggests using items longer. “The idea of recycling is not just putting things in the recycle bin,” says Bartholomew. “Using cars or cell phones until they are worn out is an important part of reducing carbon emissions. We can’t produce anything new without burning fuel of some kind.”

Locally, Shelby County government has taken several steps that could have an impact on reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The county was designated a “non-attainment” area for poor air quality by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2004.

Last week, county air-quality coordinator Ronné Atkins announced several projects intended to improve air quality. Atkins said some county fleet-services vehicles will be switched to biodiesel, a blend of petroleum and soybean oil that is believed to reduce emissions. And MATA will test the fuel on 25 of its paratransit vehicles. If results are positive, the county may switch more vehicles to biodiesel.

County school buses will soon be retrofitted with special mufflers and emissions filtration systems. And the existing local RideShare program, a free car-pool organization that pairs commuters, has been revamped to be more efficient.

Buchner says the key is making people understand that while the effects of global warming may not affect them in a large way, it may have a huge impact on future generations. “There’s a real difficulty with thinking about doing anything on a long-range basis,” he says. “Unless there’s a threat right in front of them, you can’t get people’s attention.”

According to Urbano, we may not see the effect from changes that are made in our lifetime. But that doesn’t mean they won’t make a difference.

“Assuming we cut off [producing] all carbon dioxide tomorrow, it could still take a couple hundred years for the level of CO2 in the atmosphere to return to where it was before. No matter what we do, some degree of warming is going to be with us,” says Urbano.

It comes down to adopting a new worldview.

“We have to take care of this world because it doesn’t belong to us,” says Phillips. “That’s what Native Americans have been trying to tell everybody since Christopher Columbus first came. We are just the keepers of the earth, and when we leave here, we have to leave it in the condition we found it.”

If more people thought like Phillips, global warming probably wouldn’t be a problem. But until they do, generations to come may be at risk.

Let’s hope future Memphians have plenty of beach towels.