Global WHAT?

It's Easy Being Green.

I'm tentatively opening this pink book, which feels like it's made out of some kind of papier-mache'd burlap, hesitant to intake what inevitably waits inside. A book about "green." Well, outside of the fact that green's my favorite hue on the color spectrum, I'm a major fan of flora and fauna. My backyard is an aviary cemetary, a site where I've tearfully buried the deceased sparrows and ducklings found in my neighborhood (four currently occupy the graveyard). I tend to a colorful tulip garden spared of pesticides and artificial decoration a la Michael Pollan, and always ask for paper bags at Harris Teeter (occasionally, if I'm not that hungry and can fit everything, I'll carry a reusable Trader Joe's tote). Water's off while I brush my teeth. My laptop uses 50% less power than the average desktop. I'm a member of "green" Facebook groups; trite as they seem, they emanate that sense of ultramodern eco-consciousness and on-the-go "charity" that's convenient for a busy youth such as myself.

Early last March, before I was editing Intermission (my high school newspaper) and was still a lowly copy editor, I piped up during a story brainstorm one day and mentioned my interest in covering both sides of the global warming issue. The staff was taken aback. What two sides? their expressions seemed to say. A sense of minor discomfort entered the conversation, though I was signed off for the story, one of my first features. As I began to boot up Internet Explorer to begin research, an associate editor pulled me aside and reminded me urgently that 99% of scientists supported the existence of global warming, and that sticking to the facts would be paramount. I nodded, I typed out my 300 words, I created a non-controversial document that essentially reminded all students to leave lights off in rooms and watch the news for more information. What bothered me most as I read over my published copy of the article was the 99% statistic; 99% of people rarely agree on anything, so I decided to look further into an issue I already questioned. I'd heard the story from CNN, from Teen Vogue, from an enviromental science textbook. It was time to check out the "other side."

My time was well-spent. I'm the last person to look for an excuse to trash instead of recycle; I expected any arguments against global warming to be written by hoggish, oil-suckling capitalists with little researched evidence. The first notable statistic I found was 17k--- that's 17,000 scientists have signed a petition produced by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine stating that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate." This petition is accessible at oism.org.

So my interest was piqued-- that's a pretty big 1%, right? I'd already heard the claims that similiar temperatures shifts had cycled through our atmosphere during medieval times, but I wanted more facts. It turns out that this Medieval Warm Period circa 800-1200 AD allowed Vikings to settle in Greenland, which was previously inhospitable; earlier "warmings," such as the Climactic Optimum seen around 5000-3000 BC, marked the time period when mankind began to develop early civilization.

Anyone remember global cooling? For those (myself included) who hadn't been conceived yet, it was all the rage back in the 70's; the same kind of media spectacle turned "chic movement" that global warming has become for GenY. Research organizations had produced masses of "evidence," convincing as ours seems today, that the earth was, in fact, chilling out. Seems that wasn't the case. (Maybe this is part of the reason why "global cooling" doesn't ring a bell-- because it was all media hype?)

Most of the "statistics" we hear are purported climate models or "estimates" of what will happen to our enviroment, many produced by Arctic research organizations that we seem to consider legitimate because they have their own acronyms. No connection has been made between extreme weather events and a warming trend. The 0.6 degree rise in global temperature in the past century is on the lower end of scientists' estimates for normal temperature swings. What we're seeing here is the government's manipulation of these small numbers and the gullibility and naivete of the people to enforce regulation.

What kind of regulation are we talking? Well, it hasn't been put in place yet; we're still under Bushy's administration, and anyone who wants to make changes is going to take their time (ever heard the "frog in a boiling pot" adage?). Candidates have suggested that we use one square of toilet paper when we use the restroom. I don't know about you, but one square seems pretty deprived-- and I'm pretty sure that if every major industrialized nation in the world is producing enough harmful emissions to microwave our enviroment, random clusters of big-city yuppies on a TP-fast is not going to change things much.

You'll notice that "green" celebrities like Al Gore and Sheryl Crow are still driving tour buses that expend far more than our measly cars ever will, and likely participating in even less eco-friendly activities that they're not letting on (THREE squares of paper? OH NO!) Schwarznegger, for example, advocates green policy, yet he flies to work every week. Raise your hands, guys, how many of you take JetBlue to your cubicle? ..Eh, didn't think so--Oh, there's one guy in the back-- never mind, he's just stretching.

If these "admirable" figures don't have to play by their rules, why should we? I'm not suggesting that we throw out these principles simply because celebrities have failed us (it wouldn't be the first time they have). The problem here is when we enforce enviromental regulation without even holding the proof that a climate threat exists. It's apparent that global warming is not a fact, but a controversy; statistics have been published that support both sides, but there is NO scientific consensus-- only a horde of babbling movie stars (did we ever ask for their opinions?) and something that smells like an agenda of control. Don't give up on nature; whether warming exists or not, taking care of our planet is always a smart idea. The problem comes when the government is telling us how to purchase, how to consume, how much to light our house and run our water. That's scary, 1984-style.

So, I'm opening to page two, unafraid to read my Green book. I'll cut out the "fact" crap, the "proof" crap, the "global community" nausea. I'll learn the best places to buy shade-grown coffee and the most comfortable organic materials. But I'll be doing it on my terms. :D