Climate Change Concerns: Less news means less time for repair

[“We might stabilize the population by the end of the century, but by then we will have to feed almost three times as many people as there were in 1970.” G. Dyer, Feb. 9, London Free Press]

I don’t know how some articles find their way into The London Free Press.

Here we are in London, trisected by a mighty river once fit to swim in, living at the very heart of Conservative Ontario - one can almost see Harperville from my front porch - and every once in a while, perhaps to suggest there is an open mind about such things in Deforest City, a Gwynne Dyer article finds its way into the editorial section, and matters related to climate change are addressed.

Thank goodness. It’s about time, I say.

Unfortunately, it happens only about once per month now. Dyer’s appearance is less frequent than in the past, I suppose because Free Press owners have other, more important agendas to pursue, i.e., Sports, Fashion, Crime, Entertainment, and the call for reductions in public spending so that the private or corporate sector can get on with the business of saving the world via consumption.

Population growth, food production and costs, rising temperatures and other essential matters are left for some time in the future, or a slow news day.

Take yesterday, for example.

Though a recent UN report estimates we’ll be able to feed a growing population, at least until we hit 9 billion, “if crop yields rise by 1% a year and the world’s farmland expands by 13%,” Dyer says “it’s a forecast that ignores the impact of global warming on food production... Since we are virtually bound to see an increase of two degrees C before global average temperature stops rising (if it does) and that’s one-fifth of the world food production gone.” (Feb. 9, Free Press)

He goes on to suggest we make food production, “especially meat production”, independent of climate by growing meat in a less carbon or emission intense manner.

Mr. Dyer says, “If half of the meat people eat was ‘cultured’, greenhouse gas emissions would drop sharply (one-fifth of global emissions from human sources comes from meat production” and suggests “about half the land that has been converted to grain-growing in the past century could be returned to natural forest covers.”

Of course, there are other ways we can help to repair the incredible amount of damage humankind has visited upon the planet:

we could ear less food, especially meat

we could reduce carbon emissions substantially by living in smaller homes and driving smaller cars

we could dust off our bicycles

we could our spending on material goods by half

we could educate people about the benefits of the above issues via local media

The odds are very slim indeed that positive public education related to climate change will take place with the help of even a few newspapers.

And what about the odds of ‘cultured’ food becoming commercially available in greater amounts, to reduce carbon emissions?

“There is very little funding,” a biological physicist, Sweden, told a newspaper recently. “What it needs is a crazy rich person.” (As reported in Dyer’s article yesterday)

The way things are going, don’t hold your breath to read about future developments in the local news.

***

Please click here to read more about Climate Change Concerns.

.