Global cooling and a planet in peril

Some say the sun has "Solar Cycles" and say that the sun is gonna start giving less of its wholesome goodness over the next few decades, decreasing global temperatures. Some say industrial black soot settling on Greenland and antarctic ice sheets is speeding up snow melting, by reflecting less energy and absorbing more. Some say that CO2 in the ozone is causing the suns rays to be re-reflected back to the earth's surface from the atmosphere. It seems that global warming is being debated foot and nail. And I couldn't care if you paid me to.

We are screwing up the planet in a slew of ways that whether or not scientists agree upon global warming doesn’t matter. If anthropogenic global warming is true, its implications are less than some other ways that humans are screwing with the planet . The things that really matter (from a suitability standpoint) are:

• Loss of habitat, cropland, desertification
• Huge changes in weather patterns
• Loss of biodiversity
• Reliance on stuff that can be used up (fossil fuels, mining potash for food production)
• Over-using renewable sources (over- fishing, forestry, agriculture)
  

This by no means is an exhaustive list. However, they trump global warming because – they will still be happening regardless of global temperature trends. So the question remains: how are we to change these things? What yard stick can we use to see how sustainable we are?

It turns out carbon is an OK yard stick for some of them. The “reliance on stuff that can be used up” can be exemplified in carbon (oil, natural gas, coal, trees) save for a few things like potash. As a result of trying to use less carbon, we are switching to more sustainable energy sources. Of course, we could be using more than the planet’s ability to make new stuff. Carbon can’t deal with over-fishing.

However, carbon can deal with one thing in the oceans: anthropogenic ocean acidification. Lots of ocean critters make shells which dissolve in acid. Actually – they dissolve in water that is slightly more acidic than the ocean currently is. Lots of CO2 is currently being absorbed into the ocean, making it more acidic. By controlling carbon, we give these little critters a (very slight) fighting chance.

Carbon doesn’t address the fact that we are using more than the planet can make. It also doesn’t address most biodiversity problems, and loss of habitat. And we need to address all three at the same time: over-consumption, biodiversity, and habitat loss are verily related.

Organic food won't save us since you can’t make enough organic food in a sustainable manner to feed everyone. That’s not to say that the mass use of mined fertilizer is great either. The solution has to lie somewhere in between organic food and industrial-agribusiness. And I bumped into a solution care of Jason Clay from WWF.

He says that you can address world consumption and biodiversity problems by pulling 100 companies’ legs. 100 companies control 25% of 15 of the top commodities that are having the greatest impacts on the two aforementioned problems. He says you can’t talk only with Coca-Cola, you need to get Pepsi as well. If you get both talking at the same table, you can make concessions that don’t undermine competitive advantages. Jason Clay FTW.