Q: What is the most pressing environmental issue? A: I would have to say the single most “pressing” environmental issue of our times is human hubris – the attitude among many, if not most, of the human race that we can ultimately solve any environmental problem that we face. Until humans come to realize that it is far better to work with nature rather than against it, I see little hope in the ultimate solution of what would be a series of environmental crisis. Even if we solved the energy dilemma, if tomorrow we discovered a source of boundless, non-polluting energy, how would the human race likely respond? We’d probably either use in warfare, or use the wealth it gave us to expand human populations to the point where we would again be “pressing” on some other environmental limitation like water.
Q: Can the average person help combat human hubris?
A: Yes – human populations are at fault, but those populations are made up of individuals. When those individuals act together they can effect change. Even in this increasingly homogeneous world, there are still pockets of independent cultures where respect for the environment is a cultural imperative. Those cultures give us some hope that the human race can change its ways.
Q: What can be done at the national level?
A: The best and perhaps only thing that political leaders can do on a national level is set an example.
Q: Where do you see the Environmental movement heading in the future?
A: As far as I can see, the only certain future for the environmental “movement” is a religious [or faith] one. Our lives have become increasingly complex and very competitive. The average person is not going to take the time to be swayed by technical arguments, no matter how correct. They are going to be influenced by feelings and beliefs. I see some of this shift happening already. This is a dangerous time, though. We could end up with a tyranny of wrong ideas that could put the environment in worse shape than it is today. Scientists have to realize that technical arguments alone will never sway enough people to affect fundamental change.
Q: What is your vision for America’s energy plan?
A: We should be investing more of our effort in distributed energy sources for communities, private homes and individuals. Now, a lot of our funding and legislative efforts are going into “big,” centralized energy sources. Even if they begin to pay off, we won’t see a shift in other environmental areas toward responsibly integrating that energy with the environment. On the other hand, if we were to develop an efficient, cheap battery system that could store and deliver energy at the local level, then the average person would have to come to grips with the environmental implications of the use of that energy. This is going to be difficult to accomplish politically.
Q: Which energy form is the best? Why?
A: Solar energy and wind offer great potential because we are close to “break even” in terms of cost/benefit.
Q: On a smaller scale, what can the average person do to impact the environment and reduce their carbon footprint?
A: First of all, our society is simply too wasteful. We are stuck in a conspicuous consumption mode. Far too many people see that their ability to waste everything – energy, food, materials, etc. – is “good” in the sense that it gives them status. Such consumption patterns should be ridiculed instead of being praised. Building a “McMansion” with 15 rooms, no trees to block the commanding view of the façade and two Hummers in the driveway, should be a subject of scorn.
Q: The United States only represents four percent of the world’s population, but is responsible for 22 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. What should be done at the national level to reduce the country’s carbon footprint?
A:I like the idea of individual “carbon-credit” trading. With the advent of the Internet, it may be very possible to create a system in which abusers could only practice their profligate ways by buying “credits” from those who conserve, but it would be hard to implement.
Q: Do you see global warming as an imminent problem?
A: Although global warming is a major issue, I would have to say, no, it is not an imminent problem. Change will, for the most part, come slowly. For example, even the worse scenarios would have sea- level rise by a few feet in a century. We’ll live with that – too bad for the people on Pacific atolls and river deltas – they can move. We can pick up our shorefront houses and move them back a few hundred yards. We can build dikes to protect Trump Palace. Turn on the air-conditioning in November. Many people will actually see global warming in a positive way – you’ll be able to grow tomatoes in Quebec, wear short-sleeved shirts in December, grow multiple corn and wheat crops in Iowa.
Q: Is human activity is to blame?
A: Human activity is, almost exclusively, to blame without any doubt.
Q: Is New Jersey on the right track in terms of global warming legislation?
A:I don’t think we are as far ahead as California. Yet we should be. New Jersey is one of the richest states in the Union and it has one of the highest concentrations of research capacity. We should be the leaders in sustainability, not the followers.
Q: Do you think the negative effects of global warming can ever truly be reversed?
A: No, probably not by humans. In time the Earth may reverse them herself due to natural cycles of climate change, but that’s many hundreds, if not thousands, of years away. The only chance I vaguely see is if the solution to the impact of global warming is in itself cost effective. For example, let’s say that we find that fertilizing the oceans with iron (one possible way to suck up CO2 by accelerating algal growth) is, at the same time, beneficial to fish populations. That might be one kind of scenario that could reverse a lot of damage.
But, I have to say I’m skeptical that any solution on a scale large enough to have a noticeable impact on such an enormous problem can be accomplished without other, unforeseen negative impacts. In the end, it is most likely that we will just learn to live with environmental decline.
Many people will survive, but what will it mean socially and politically?
That’s where the real imminent threats are.
Dr. Richard Pardi is an Environmental Science professor at William Paterson University.
