Endgame: Understanding a Global Climate Imperative

beach well 400
Photo Credit: Philip Blenkinsop / NOOR

More than 20 years ago, David Wirth, at the time a senior attorney at the NRDC, wrote about the imperative of climate protection in global politics. “The international community cannot afford to delay elevating the greenhouse effect to the top of the foreign-policy agenda,” Wirth wrote in Foreign Policy.

The editor’s note of Endgame, the latest installment of Dispatches, a quarterly focused on issues ranging from the environment to the economy to the war in Iraq, opens with this historical claim of the importance of environment in the world’s socio-economic discourse. Two decades ago, people were saying practically the exact same thing as we are now. Though the lexicon of Wirth and James Hansen and several other notable environmental commentators from the time has slightly shifted—now the lingo is climate change or global warming—the underlying notion is still very much intact: The way we live our lives is unsustainable.

Endgame editor, Mort Rosenblum, writes:

This issue is called Endgame because climate change is only partly about climate. Our new parlance talks of ‘mitigation’ and ‘adaptation.’ There is still time, if precious little, to mitigate. But to adapt? Even if Maldives islanders might pack up and move, there are billions more of us. No political order, economic system, or social structure can stand if people, not polar bears, must think first of their very survival.

Ferry across the Padma River near Rajbari, west of Dhaka, Bangladesh
Ferry across the Padma River near Rajbari, west of Dhaka, Bangladesh. Photo Credit: Philip Blenkinsop / NOOR

Rosenblum’s assertion moves far beyond what may or may not be accomplished in Copenhagen this week. For him, it is not simply about establishing limits or carbon markets. It is about a wholesale shift in the way we as a society operate, organized by globalized political and economic systems. Climate change doesn’t merely affect endangered species in far off corners of the globe; it is increasingly impacting people’s livelihoods, our agriculture, and the production of commodities.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the developing world. The series of pictures included here are from a photo essay in Endgame entitled “The Ark,” which is focused on laborers in Bangladesh. It draws upon the human element, those who are already witnessing the effects of climate change. As water levels drastically change, people who subsisted on the tenuous balance between bodies of water and impoverished, underdeveloped lands are finding the need to rethink, in the words of Rosenblum, “their very survival.”

Cattle swim across a waterway to reach grazing land. Ferry from Barisol to Bhola, Barisal Division, Bangladesh
Cattle swim across a waterway to reach grazing land. Ferry from Barisol to Bhola, Barisal Division, Bangladesh. Photo Credit: Philip Blenkinsop / NOOR

The heavy-handedness of the title of the photo essay speaks to what the people behind Dispatches view as the great imperative facing our culture. We are on the brink of calamity, yet very few people are heeding the whirl of the emergency sirens.

As developing nations like China, India, and Brazil grow in affluence, so too grow their carbon emissions. These countries and many others have come out very publicly on their environmental stances. China commissions two new coal-fired power plants every 10 days, yet at the same time, is also erecting new wind turbines at the rate of one every hour in hopes to catch up with its exponentially growing energy demands. India is looking to clean up its act; Brazil recently announced a pledge to reduce its emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

Pumping water to irrigate crops. Meghna River, Usha Hat, Bhola, Bangladesh
Pumping water to irrigate crops. Meghna River, Usha Hat, Bhola, Bangladesh. Photo Credit: Philip Blenkinsop / NOOR

For all that the third world can do, it is not the entire picture. Endgame is unabashedly critical of U.S. reticence on the issue. Not only have we historically been the biggest emitters of carbon, we are also the largest consumer of Chinese made goods, which has made many people beg the question of carbon liability. Who ultimately is responsible for the environmental ramifications for the things we consume?

For the U.S. to step up, however, the climate change discussion needs to move beyond Capitol Hill. Initiatives like BICEP are great bridges to corporate America, as well as the recent withdrawals from the Chamber of Commerce. But what now? The signing of a binding treaty this week would attempt to create a globally level playing field (or some would argue), which means now is the time to define what the sustainable, globally competitive American economy will actually look like.

“The picture that emerges, sharply focused in haunting human detail against a broad backdrop few of us ever imaged might be possible, is dead clear,” Rosenblum writes. “One obvious response is to perfect alternatives: solar, wind, nuclear, ocean currents, and others still in dreaming phase. The other is to use less, much less. What more do we need?”

Unloading salt. Chittagong docks, Bangladesh
Unloading salt. Chittagong docks, Bangladesh. Photo Credit: Philip Blenkinsop / NOOR
Boarding a ferry for Bhola, east of Barisal, Bangladesh
Boarding a ferry for Bhola, east of Barisal, Bangladesh. Photo Credit: Philip Blenkinsop / NOOR
A man pumps water from a well on the beach at Kuakata. People here say the shoreline was three miles distant just 15 years ago. Kuakat, Bay of Bengal, Bangladesh
A man pumps water from a well on the beach at Kuakata. People here say the shoreline was three miles distant just 15 years ago. Kuakata, Bay of Bengal, Bangladesh. Photo Credit: Philip Blenkinsop / NOOR

To find out more about Endgame, or to subscribe to the quarterly Dispatches, visit the website.

Images courtesy of Dispatches.

Ashwin is an Associate Editor of Triple Pundit. He recently returned to the Bay Area after living in Argentina, where he wholeheartedly missed the Pacific Ocean. He is a freelance editor and media and marketing consultant.After a brief stint working in the wine world, when not staring blankly at a computer screen, you'll find him working on Anand Confections or at 826 Valencia, where he has been a long-time volunteer.

3 responses

  1. This is a good place to offer the following for rebuttals if anyone bugs you about “Climategate.” (Sadly, appreciating rebuttals takes intelligence and admitting to them takes honesty …) BTW 70news2, please read this carefull and especially #2. The overall science is still valid, and the CRU misconduct no more casts doubt on overall AGW theory and most data than Piltdown did on evolution as a whole. It may well be we've had some cooling lately due to the PDO (look it up folks) or sun spot scarcity etc., but the whole point is: those are separate effects. When they finally cycle back to neutral or the other way, then what will we do?

    1. The modern theory of AGW (increasing CO2 absorbs more IR and leads to warmer temperatures) was laid out way back in 1896 in a seminal paper by future Nobel Prize winner Svante Arrhenius. He wasn't trying to promote socialism or be a flunky for Al Gore, indeed SA thought the warming would be beneficial – so he didn't promote the theory to scare people.

    2. Even a case of actual cheating and cover-up, or even fabrication don't disprove an idea itself. Look at prosecutors “framing guilty men” by “improving” evidence to ensure conviction, look at the Piltdown hoax which sure doesn't mean evolution is false and other evidence couldn't be rounded up. (BTW what CRU did wasn't even that bad anyway, this just emphasizes the irrelevancy of ad hominem issues to the material point. In my bitter experience conservatives are very into projecting from personal factors onto imagined objective ones.)

    3. CO2 is a stimulus similar to lowering interest rates are for an economy: the effect is not direct and linear, there are variations and other influences. Tell someone who says, “how come it got cooler during the last ten years” (it may not have, but play along here): How come we had a cool spell e.g. during April, before summer came along? Does that make you doubt the idea that changing axis angle causes seasons?!

    4. Most of the things we would do to lower CO2 are good for the economy and national interest anyway: save money on gas and other non-renewables, reduce dependency on other nations (including Muslim ones!), it will run out anyway in decades to centuries, etc.

    5. An effect doesn't have to be “certain” or uniformly and highly damaging to be worth trying to avoid – what about terrorist threats, the irony of Cheney et al's “One percent doctrine” etc.

    6. The skeptics and doubters are way more dishonest and controlled by money interests. (You need to dig for the evidence there.)

  2. Pingback: uberVU - social comments

Leave a Reply