By: Emily Hills

“Climate change is progressing at an unprecedented rate, with global temperatures accelerating 10 times faster in the past 100 years than over the previous 5,000 years. In 40 to 50 years, we may reach a point where nature crosses a threshold, making it impossible to restore a climate that’s suitable—or even habitable—for human life due to the extensive damage to Earth’s ecosystems,” says Alexander Kupershmidt, founder of the Blue Glaciers Rescue Foundation, a climate researcher, and business entrepreneur with a bachelor’s degree in physics. He challenges the widely accepted belief that human activities triggered global warming and explains that recognizing this fact would completely change the way we address it.

Interviewer: The climate has always been changing, and scientists have discussed this for years. Yes, we’ve seen record-high temperatures, but today the weather is fine. Why should we be concerned?

Alexander: The issue isn’t that the climate is changing; the issue is that it’s changing at an unprecedented and alarming rate. Since 1900s, the global temperature has increased by 1 degree Celsius (or 1.8°F), which is 10 times faster than it increased over the previous 5,000 years. Of course, a person cannot detect this insignificant change when local temperatures can vary by 20 to 40 degrees Fahrenheit in different directions throughout the year. Recently, in Los Angeles, we experienced record high temperatures of 110–115°F for several consecutive days. We might not notice if, each year, there is one extra day of heat. But within the next 30 years, there could be 30 or even more consecutive days of extreme heat. Humans may be able to adapt to 30 days of scorching temperatures, but nature and various species won’t be able to keep up with these rapid changes.

Interviewer: Many people believe that the rise in temperatures since the Industrial Revolution is due to human activities, and if we reduce CO2 emissions to net-zero by 2050, the climate should return to its previous state, correct?

Alexander: The short answer is “No.” The idea that industrial activities are the sole cause of global warming began as a hypothesis and has since evolved into a political movement. While it is now widely accepted, there is no definitive scientific study proving that human activity is the sole cause of climate change.

Interviewer: If humans aren’t the cause, what is?

Alexander: That’s the key question. A dramatic shift in climate occurred around 1910. If you look at the data, you’ll see sharp changes in global temperatures, carbon dioxide and methane concentration levels in the atmosphere, and sea levels—all of which happened simultaneously. This kind of shift can only be caused by a massive influx of energy into Earth’s climate system. Today, it is not possible to determine what events or chain of events might have occurred around 1910 that brought in that significant influx of energy, but we must understand that it was not due to human activities.

Interviewer: But why could human activities not have caused this shift in climate?

Alexander: Human activities produce extra carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that enters the atmosphere and traps heat. That’s how we affect the climate. To cause such a dramatic shift in climate in 1910, we would have had to emit as much CO2 as we have emitted up to today. However, the changes in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere prior to this significant shift in 1910 were extremely negligible. Of course, as humans, we’re contributing to global warming with our CO2 emissions, amplifying the greenhouse effect; we are cutting down forests, polluting oceans, and amplifying the damage to Earth’s ecosystems. But we must realize that we did not start global warming, and if we didn’t start it, we cannot stop it simply by eliminating our impact.

Interviewer: Are you suggesting we won’t be able to stop global warming?

Alexander: The warming trend is a natural trend, and it will not reverse itself in our lifetimes. Nature cannot defy the laws of thermodynamics and entropy. To fight global warming, we would need to fund various geoengineering projects, such as extracting CO2 from the atmosphere or dimming radiation from the Sun. However, we do not currently have any solutions that are both safe for nature and effective for us. Therefore, we need to focus on supporting ecosystems; this would buy us time to develop the necessary technologies.

Interviewer: But we are already investing trillions in green energy and helping other countries cope with climate change, and now you are suggesting we support ecosystems. Isn’t that unrealistic?

Alexander: It may sound unrealistic, but this is a life-or-death issue for us. Glaciers, for example, are expected to melt by 50 to 75 percent from their preindustrial levels within the next 50 to 80 years. Even if we achieve net-zero CO2 emissions in 30 years, hoping that temperature and climate will return to their previous human-friendly state in another 20 to 30 years, there will be nothing—or almost nothing—to return to. And yes, we are spending trillions of dollars adapting to changes in climate, but adapting has nothing to do with finding solutions to avoid a human catastrophe. We move from one disaster to the next, whether rescuing people from floods and fires or building better housing, thinking we’ve succeeded in addressing climate change, but in reality, we have not.

Interviewer: But when everything seems to be fine, and it doesn’t feel like there is global warming, how do we start this conversation?

Alexander: It’s true—we don’t feel any changes in our day-to-day lives, and we won’t notice the severity of the problem until it’s too late. Right now, we are like boiling frogs. That’s why we must start this conversation now. We need to demand that politicians and scientists address the root causes of climate change rather than focusing solely on emissions. The clock is ticking.

Published by: Martin De Juan