Effects much older than the Industrial Revolution

The November issue of Harper's Magazine has an article by Steven Stoll of Fordham University titled The Cold We Caused. The article is online for those who are subscribers. The general question Stoll asks is, "Does human activity affect the climate?" He responds with a resounding yes though our effect is much older than the Industrial Revolution.

Stoll's case study is one that surprises. The Little Ice Age began around 1350 and ended around 1850, being most severe around 1650. This amount of time is too short to be caused by the same geologic process that caused the Ice Age, which was several thousand years long.

So what caused the Little Ice Age? Stoll notes the age began shortly after the Black Death began sweeping the world, killing a very high percentage of the population dead (half of the population in several European countries). The lack of workers meant a large part of the farmland reverted to forest, sequestering carbon. Other great plagues swept the world in this time, especially through the New World, thanks to the conquering Spanish. This Little Ice Age couldn't have been caused by variations in solar or volcanic activity because those affect climate over years, not centuries. According to this theory Humans affected the climate simply by dying off in great numbers. They affected the end of this age by clearing and burning the overgrown forests, releasing all that sequestered carbon.

So, yes, humans affect climate and have been doing so ever since forests were cleared for farmland. It is time to switch the debate from what is the natural climate to what is a just climate. What kind of climate is best for everyone rather than best for corporate growth? What is best for all nations rather than just the rich ones? Some people might be in for a surprise when the poor file suit against the rich for reckless carbon output.

It is looking less likely that the Copenhagen Climate Conference scheduled in the next few weeks will produce a treaty for participating countries to sign that would establish policies to reduce harmful pollutants. Sharon Begley of Newsweek assures us that such a failure won't stop action on the climate crisis. There might even be a silver lining. Her reasons:

* While nations are having problems cutting deals, subnations are forging ahead. For example, Arnold in Calif. has signed a law reducing greenhouse gasses, and is working on an agreement so that Calif. utilities help prevent deforestation in Brazil and Indonesia. His goal is to retool the economy, attract high-paying green jobs that can't be exported, and bypass national inaction.

* Various corporations, especially many big ones, are already gearing up for new rules (though they wish they knew what the details will be).

* Though a new treaty may not happen this time, it will happen. We can work to get it right instead of getting it fast. This extra time can be used to demonstrate America is serious and that China and India must be included (they got a free pass when the Kyoto agreement was created).

* We can perfect new strategies that are under development, such as paying landowners to sequester carbon, adding biochar to the soil, and also properly assessing the role of pollutants (such as soot) in climate change.

Just don't wait too long.