Global warming has long become one of the hottest topics for scientists, politicians and mass media. While it is posed as a serious threat to humanity, there are many experts who believe that the idea of global warming is being promoted in order to avoid addressing more significant issues or even benefiting from it. Arkady Tishkov, deputy director of the Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences, claims that any climate change is cyclical and humankind’s contributes very little to it.
Good afternoon, Mr. Tishkov. We all remember the unusually hot summer of 2010 when virtually half of Russia was engulfed in wildfires.What does this year have in store for us? Will we see a repeat of that apocalyptic scenario?
There is no reason to expect major problems like those we experienced last summer. But summer 2011 will be hot. Supposing the scale of mismanagement in Russia’s agriculture and forestry sector has remained unchanged, we should expect numerous grass fires, potentially spreading to forests and communities. Last year showed us that most fires started in abandoned fields, and that initial grass fires eventually escalated into forest fires.
But it is quite obvious that global warming is underway, and that this process is irreversible. Temperatures are rising world over, and it’s very convenient to blame everything on mismanagement. Is that being done in order to avoid addressing more serious problems?
I am talking about the fact that not all Russian regions were hit by the fires. There were no fires in areas where agricultural development was managed correctly. But here, to an extent, you have a point: whatever we do, both the number of fires and their intensity will increase. Although territory affected by fires was not at its highest in 2010, European Russia, forest steppes and steppes, which had never seen wildfires before, burned. That is why attention was drawn in particular to the large number of fires.
Does this mean that humankind is doomed, and that our actions have led to irreversible climate change?
No. Any climate change is cyclical. Humankind’s influence on nature boils down to the fact that it has created the conditions for more dramatic climate change. We should primarily fear dramatic changes in climate. Neither people nor the economy will be able to adapt to these changes in time. The state loses tens of billions of rubles each year because the economy and humans are unable to quickly adapt and adjust to these changes in climate. For example, fires have become more frequent, and the number of other catastrophic phenomena increases by 6% annually. Although recent developments in Japan bear little relation to climate change, given the effects of the earthquake, tsunami, and industrial disaster, we can speak of a natural catastrophe.
Scientists also agree that the Japanese earthquake was only to be expected: there had been no quakes there of that magnitude for almost a thousand years, therefore they were bound to happen sooner or later. Industrial disasters always impair economic activity. If a magnitude 10 quake hits populated areas of the taiga, then we couldn’t really talk about damage being inflicted there.
So global warming is not a result of human activity?
Humankind’s contribution may account for several dozen percent. But nature’s contribution is far greater. Cyclical climate change exists, and it cannot be changed by human actions. The most humankind’s impact on nature can do is change the scale on which climate change happens, which sometimes has catastrophic consequences.
So actions taken by heads of state are not just a global money laundering conspiracy. Do they have any positive effect?
Certainly. International cooperation is the most important factor because the phenomenon we are witnessing affects the global climate and countries must agree on joint action. For instance, the felling of the Amazon rainforest could have negative consequences that are felt in another part of the world. It is common knowledge that the climate of European Russia is determined by the situation in the North Atlantic. You can use the temperature in the Atlantic Ocean to predict how the climate will change in the near future. That is why no nation can act alone to protect itself against climate change, nor can it effect any global changes. This is a global issue and it demands a joint response.
The climate issue goes hand in hand with the overpopulation problem. Imagine a situation in which you have some developed, well-armed country in a region experiencing climate change so serious it makes normal life all but impossible. Can you conceive of any apocalyptic scenarios along these lines in the near future?
I’m against apocalyptic scenarios, and you are absolutely correct in raising this issue. This is not a problem that can be solved in a year, but at the same time, climate-related migration has taken place in the past and it is a natural process. It is quite possible that climatic conditions will cause military clashes, conflicts and population migration in the future. But our Siberian climate is not sufficiently amenable to the resettlement of people from bordering Chinese areas. I would also like to draw attention to the fact that climate change has already caused mass population movement, a process not solely influenced by political and geopolitical factors.
Do you think we will have time to adapt? Or will we continue to suffer from natural disasters?
First of all, I have faith in science as a discipline that can see all this and explain with the help of arguments, and here it is vital that scientists’ views are heard. Forecasts and models that we can use to these ends already exist: in effect, the solutions to these problems exist.
There are also a range of reports, both Russian and international, proving what areas of nature are susceptible to human activity and where we are dealing with natural cycles. Broadly speaking, the scientific community coalesces around the view that humans play a significant role in shaping the current situation. Humankind must take responsibility for the speed of climate change, environmental pollution, deforestation, as well as the depletion of natural resources and water sources.
Thank you very much for your time and comments.
