Climate change: Guernsey's not immune

For years people viewed warnings about man-made global warming as unnecessary scaremongering, but the tide of opinion is turning. And Guernsey is not immune to its potentially catastrophic effects,

warns Mark Windsor TOO small for rivers and flood plains, Guernsey has been unaffected by the large-scale flooding caused by torrential rainfall in parts of the UK this year. Lucky for us, but in the long term that doesn't mean to say Guernsey will be immune to the effects of global warming.

Whatever its causes, the warming that is now taking place in the world is making a notable difference to the annual seasonal melt of the world's polar ice caps and mountain glaciers.

As they deplete a little more each year, the sea level rises. As the ice caps melt, what remains of them reflects less light into space (a reduction in the so called Albedo effect), increasing atmospheric warming.

Absorbing more of the sun's heat, the Siberian Tundra and Arctic perma-frost, frozen for millions of years, are thawing in an unprecedented way, releasing huge amounts of methane into the atmosphere to add to the 'greenhouse' effect.

Increased warming on the surface of the world's oceans, where most of the planet's weather systems are generated, is now causing more extreme weather conditions - greater all-year-round frequency of major hurricanes and of storms, more rain and high winds in general.

Coral islands in the Pacific Ocean are most immediately under threat of rising sea levels, but there are signs of change closer to home. Average wave heights in the English Channel have grown, while the more frequent use of the Thames river barrier in recent years is another indicator of increased tidal and weather extremes.

The combined effects of extreme weather and global sea-rises make low coastal areas more vulnerable to breaching. Should current trends continue, much of Britain's coastal regions would be under threat. The Channel Islands are vulnerable too, particularly the low-lying areas of Guernsey, from St Peter Port northwards to the Vale and St Sampson's and all the way round to our south west coast.

The question about sea level rises is not if, but how much and when?

Until recently, the causes of the extreme weather events have been little debated by the majority of the scientific community, who denied that they were anything more than part of the natural long-term climatic cycle. Environmentalists suggested otherwise, but for years people viewed warnings about man-made global warming as unnecessary scaremongering. A large majority of the public remained indifferent to the concerns of campaign groups, following the official line of scientific scepticism touted through the media. Now the evidence seems so overwhelming that many scientists are overcoming their disbelief, ironically just as people are losing faith in the authority of science.

The truth is that the first people to disclose the systemic and climate changing damage done to the environment by humanity were scientists - albeit an isolated minority.

Evolutionary biologist Sir Julian Huxley and Sir Peter Scott, naturalist and son of the famous Scott of the Antarctic, founded the World Wildlife Fund in 1961 after Huxley's experience of the destruction of habitat and species in Africa when he was working there for Unesco.

American scientist Rachael Carson warned of the consequences to humanity and nature of the overuse of insecticides, in particular DDT, in her 1962 book Silent Spring, helping precipitate the growth of the popular environmental movement in the United States.

It was only in 1971, some 10 years later, that the environmental organisations Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth were founded in Canada and the UK respectively. The Tree Council grew directly out of its slogan 'Plant a tree in '73', after it was declared National Tree Year.

By the mid 1970s environmental organisations were campaigning against the damaging effects of cars and industry, including nuclear power, on the earth's atmosphere and environment. Their aim was to prevent the wanton extinction of species, drawing attention to some of the issues via the plight of keynote animals like the blue whale and the Giant Panda. They also highlighted the importance of the world's forests, not only as animal habitats but as regulators of our global climatic systems in their role as a 'carbon sink' in the absorption of carbon dioxide and as main producers of the oxygen and fresh water upon which all life depends.

In 1975 the Nasa scientist James Lovelock proposed the Gaia principle to describe how the Earth maintains itself as a self-regulating, living biological mechanism.

The scientific community largely disregarded his theory at the time, but Lovelock's intuitive logic seems to be borne out now by advanced computer technology that is enabling scientists to understand the intricate links and feedbacks between the many and multi-layered eco-systems of our global environment. His book Gaia was published in 1979.

Although cynics and neutrals have remained unmoved by the climatic alarm that has been sounding for at least 45 years, in my view the media has not made clear that those sounding it are scientists and not just ordinary, well meaning members of campaign groups. The arguments of concerned scientists have often been caricatured as the ranting of unscientific, tree-hugging hippies instead.

The evidence for man-made global warming continued to mount during the 1980s and 90s but the majority of the scientific and political communities remained in denial, along with most of the population. The best the scientific community could say was that man-made climate change was not yet proven.

It will come as no surprise that the scientists most consistently cynical about global warming tend to belong to organisations such as the American Association of Petroleum Geologists and those most defensive about the dangers of environmental pollution work for global corporations like Dow, Monsanto and American Cyanamid.

But this is not as unreasonable as it sounds. You wouldn't expect scientists working for Greenpeace to do anything other than support their organisation's underlying philosophy. The difference, of course, is one of ethics and the balance scientists make between social conscience and salary.

In 2007, despite the reluctance of global corporations in the petrochemical industries to fully acknowledge and accept their massive share of responsibility for the damage being done to the planet, a threshold seems to have been reached in scientists' beliefs. Now politicians are starting to agree, with some arguing convincingly that global climatic change is a greater threat to humanity than terrorism.

It is sadly predictable that previously laggard scientists have finally reached the threshold of belief in man-made climate change only now that the Earth's climatic regulatory systems have passed several 'tipping' points. Is this a classic illustration of the consequences of inaction arising out of a commercial cynicism disguised as rational scientific thinking?

Even people like the highly respected British naturalist and broadcaster David Attenborough felt obliged to remain sceptical for years. But after observing climate change over decades, he now finally concludes that it is mostly man-made.

What seems to have swung it for Sir David is the work of the UK's Meteorological Service and its powerful computer at Hadley. From historical weather information gleaned from polar ice core samples and from information assimilated by meteorologists over the last hundred years, the service has formulated comprehensive climatic models that provide our deepest understanding yet of the recent and past history of climate change, with a worrying prognosis for the future.Meanwhile, with massive historical momentum, the wheels of commerce and society continue to grind on in their mostly carefree groove.

It is hard to believe that global warming is happening. Bedazzled and confused by the mix of information and misinformation, people are resistant to change and the perceived threat to profits and lifestyles. 'Bring on the sunshine, let's have global warming' some Brits say, overlooking the fact that heavier rainfall and flooding can be one of the consequences.

Global warming seems by default to be a conspiracy of negative interests that nobody really wants to believe in: 'an inconvenient truth' as Al Gore put it in the film and book of the same name. Of course, the complexity of these issues is compounded by the frailty of our communication mechanisms, which do not readily allow us to distinguish between material reality and the propaganda of vested interests.

Whether or not there is a 'commercial' explanation for the previous lethargy of the politicians and the scientists, the public are finally coming to realise that we are no less accountable for the damage done to our environment. Common sense tells us that Nimbyism can be rational only with the recognition that all the Earth is our back yard.

In Guernsey, for example, people now sense that it is no longer acceptable to eject largely untreated effluent into the sea simply because the island is lucky enough to have strong tides that disperse it elsewhere.

Nor is it acceptable for us to export Guernsey's household waste in containers to some other part of Europe simply to allow us to continue the waste of conspicuous consumerism unchecked.

It's about being less wasteful, adjusting lifestyles accordingly and pursuing a proper waste management strategy in which the conservation and effective use of resources is paramount from the outset. In this context, respect for the local and global environment become one and the same thing.

Were mankind only part of the cause of global warming, it would still not be a good enough reason to passively accept the industrial deforestation of the world's arboreal landscapes and jungles and the desertification of large tracts of China and of the Sahel in Africa.

This is not a fair price to pay for the much-vaunted 'democratic freedom' that, among other things, enables many to drive around Guernsey and elsewhere in petrol-guzzling SUVs, even as world oil production enters the early stages of terminal decline.

Pigs might fly the day that Guernsey shows true independence and legislates to reduce its reliance on the size and numbers of vehicles the island currently boasts.

But if it wanted to, the island could show true autonomy and exercise communal restraint and responsibility by significantly reducing its dependency on the car. Guernsey may be a small island but ecologically speaking, it is part of the global village.

We owe it to ourselves to do the best we can in the place in which we in because it's also good for the rest of the planet.

Whoever said the efficient management of resources is bad for business? With the proper ecological management of resources, short-term pain will make for long-term gain.

The climate is changing and the climate for change is definitely ripe. Now, about Guernsey's coastal sea defences...