






































Iguana 13.2 b&w text


156 IGUANA  •  VOLUME 13, NUMBER 2  •  JUNE 2006 COMMENTARIES

Global Climate Change: 
Should You Care?

Gad Perry

Department of Range, Wildlife, and Fisheries Management
Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas

About ten years ago, I was seated at a large lecture hall at Ohio
State University, waiting for an economist to talk about

environmental issues. It’s good to get a different perspective every
once in a while, after all. The speaker was clear: “I don’t believe
for a moment that global climate change is happening,” he stated
emphatically, then paused for dramatic effect. “But if it is,” he
continued, “all that means is that we need bigger and better air
conditioners!” Reactions in the room were mixed. About one
third of the listeners cheered, another third seemed unclear about
what he had said, and the final third were close to apoplectic. A
decade later, things have not changed much. Some people are still
warning that the future does not look good. The remainder
appears to be divided between those happy not to think about
environmental issues and an influential sector that pretends noth-
ing is going on or that bigger AC units will solve our problems.

So, does a problem really exist? Much of the U.S. political
and business leadership has spent the last decade or more claim-
ing either that climate change is not occurring or that it is occur-
ring as a consequence of natural processes over which we have no
control. Recently, this argument received surprising support from
author Michael Crichton. His 2004 book, State of Fear, used a
hunt for environmental terrorists as a device for bashing environ-
mentalists, and especially anything to do with climate change.
Sounding a lot like my economist, one of the characters stated
(p. 407): “The threat of global warming is essentially nonexist-
ent. Even if it were a real phenomenon, it would probably result

in a net benefit to most of the world.” Although climate scien-
tists have repeatedly shown the book to be scientifically lacking,
an adventure yarn is certainly entitled to have a preposterous
premise (consider some of Crichton’s other novels, such as Jurassic
Park, for which one must suspend any critical analysis to enjoy
the story). However, for the U.S. Senate to invite Mr. Crichton
to testify on environmental issues is just wrong — and my stu-
dents using his fiction as an authority by which to reject the evi-
dence compiled by many hundreds of scientists is even worse.
Science is built on observing a phenomenon and making predic-
tions that are supported by previous knowledge. A climate expert
would know that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas and would con-
sequently predict that global climate will change in certain ways
if CO2 levels continue to rise.

Could climate change scientists be wrong? Of course they
could. Our data remain limited, and the pattern that has emerged
might not be representative of long-term trends. Nonetheless, we
have to work with the data at hand, revealed by multiple scien-
tific papers and reports by individual scientists and national and
international bodies. The hallmark of science is to test those pre-
dictions, which have so far proven depressingly realistic, varying
only in assessments of the extent to which the damage will
accrue. The scientific community overwhelmingly agrees: Global
climate change is occurring, appears to be tied to human activi-
ties, and is likely to have devastating effects on both people and
other organisms. Because of the magnitude of the impacts and

Fisheries to place a moratorium on the taking of Alligator
Snapping Turtles.” The resolution notes that these turtles have
“historically been a vital and integral part of the Louisiana
wildlife ecosystem [and are] presently suffering excessive exploita-
tion for meat in local commercial markets, as well as an increas-
ing international market.”

The impact of such a resolution will go far in setting the sys-
tem right for Alligator Snappers in Louisiana. Other states should
consider taking similar steps to protect their turtle species.
Although resolutions are only suggestions, and the state’s wildlife
department does not have to honor them, such a suggestion by
a state senate is a positive start. The Louisiana Wildlife and
Fisheries Commission has now taken action and voted to “stop
the taking and possession of Alligator Snapping Turtles by any-
body with a commercial license.” Recreational trapping of
Alligator Snappers was not affected.

I asked Dr. Joseph Pechmann, a biologist at the University
of New Orleans, how he thought the Louisiana senate had ever

been able to pass a resolution that would protect the turtles.
“They accepted the idea that part of Louisiana’s natural heritage
was going to disappear if commercial harvest was allowed to con-
tinue. Recreational harvesting of Alligator Snappers is a pastime
important to many in the state, but the current levels of com-
mercial removal were clearly unsustainable.”

The southeastern turtle saga is not over, and I’m not sure
how it will end before meaningful regulations are in place in all
states. I do know the loss of Alligator Snappers from the com-
mercial scene will have little effect on the turtle soup au sherry at
Commander’s Palace restaurant in New Orleans. But I do not
know whether the South Carolina legislature will realize that it
must now step forward and take some action to protect its own
turtles. When I asked Dr. Pechmann how he personally felt
about the resolution to protect the giant turtles in Louisiana, he
said, “It’s about time.” Let’s hope tight restrictions on overhar-
vesting will not be too late coming for Alligator Snappers in
Louisiana, or for other turtles elsewhere.

Iguana 13.2 b&w text.QX6  6/26/06  1:20 PM  Page 156



IGUANA  •  VOLUME 13, NUMBER 2  •  JUNE 2006 157COMMENTARIES

the long time required to reverse global climate changes, many
feel that the risk of not doing anything if climate change is indeed
occurring far exceeds the cost of reacting to a threat that we can-
not yet fully predict.

This is a good time to distinguish the commonly-used but
naïve “global warming” from the more appropriate “global cli-
mate change.” The first term implies two things: First, that we
are going to see higher temperatures everywhere, and second, that
no other impacts are to be expected. In fact, neither of these is
correct. The best predictions current science allows us to make
indicate that different locations are likely to be affected in differ-
ent ways, with impacts to some, such as the Arctic, far exceeding
those to others. In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) released its third report. It was based on the work
of about 1,200 scientists from all over the world, went through
three review cycles, and is thousands of pages long. The authors
concluded that an increase in extreme temperature events is to be
expected, with higher maximum temperatures, more hot days
and heat waves, and fewer cold days. However, these impacts
were not going to affect the entire globe uniformly, so some areas
might see a cooling trend even as most become warmer. The
IPCC also predicted an increase in extreme precipitation events
in many places. With more intense storms dropping more rain
in less time, increased flooding, more intense drying during the

summer, and more frequent droughts are likely in many regions.
Data collected in the past few years have certainly supported

these predictions and raised additional concerns. Doubting the
validity or the magnitude of the problem has become increasingly
difficult for the unbiased observer. After all, the ten hottest years
ever recorded have all occurred since 1990. Moreover, this past
year’s climate brought the issue closer to home for many of us. In
December, NASA scientists estimated that 2005 would be the
hottest year since reliable records have been kept for about the
past 125 years. More viscerally, people notice when a hurricane
the magnitude of Katrina slams into the U.S. gulf coast. When
storm after storm gets wide media coverage — 26 named storms
developed in 2005, an all-time record, and an unprecedented 16
became hurricanes — climate becomes a topic of discussion.
“ConocoPhillips recognizes that human activity, including the
burning of fossil fuels, is contributing to increased concentrations
of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that can lead to adverse
changes in global climate,” now states the energy giant
(www.conocophillips.com/about/Sustainable+Development).
Impacts on humans have begun to be quantified. Here are a few
numbers from recent reports:
• Worldwide, natural disasters caused by climate change cost

over $60 billion in 2003, according to the UN
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3308959.stm).

These graphs, released by the IPCC (http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/05.16.jpg) show the increase in temperature in the recent
past (top) and last 1000 years (bottom).

Iguana 13.2 b&w text.QX6  6/26/06  1:20 PM  Page 157



158 IGUANA  •  VOLUME 13, NUMBER 2  •  JUNE 2006 COMMENTARIES

• A June 2005 report by the Association of British Insurers
(www.abi.org.uk/climatechange) predicted that the cost of
cleaning up after climate change will have risen by as much as
two-thirds by 2080. Reducing carbon emissions now could
reduce insurance costs by 80%.

• According to the members of the G8 economic group of
nations (http://www.g8.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=Open
Market/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1098795669277),
the number of people affected by floods worldwide has already
risen in the last four decades from 7 to 150 million today —
much faster than population growth. The 2002 flooding in
Europe caused 37 deaths and $16 billion in damages. The
2003 European heatwave caused 26,000 premature deaths and
$13.5 billion in damages.

• In the U.S., in 2005 alone, over 1,300 people lost their lives to
Hurricane Katrina and costs are estimated at up to $200 bil-
lion. Damage from Hurricane Rita topped $9 billion.

So far I have discussed broad patterns that should concern every
citizen, but this journal is aimed at people who are interested in
biological diversity and its conservation. Should we as biologists
be especially concerned? Yes! The data to support that now
include dozens of studies on hundreds of species and encompass
up to 50 years. Plants are flowering, frogs are emerging, and bird
spring migrations are starting earlier than they have in recorded
history. The distributions of species are changing, with many

extending their ranges towards the poles or higher elevations and
contracting in lower elevations or latitudes. In addition, coral
bleaching, associated with warmer water, is becoming more
prevalent — being recorded for the first time at two of the
Caribbean sites where I work. Even more disconcertingly, 
the effects of climate change are meshing with those of habitat
degradation and invasive species. For example, the Observer
has reported (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/
0,6903,1670017,00.html) that Atlantic Puffins (Fratercula 
arctica), colorful seabirds that nest in Scotland, are in trouble.
Over-fishing has depleted their food source, and now global cli-
mate change is allowing the invasive Tree Mallow (Lavatera
arborea) to expand its range, covering the ground where birds
used to nest. Such effects are not going to limit themselves to
puffins. Unfortunately, the impacts to non-humans are rarely
monitored. How many iguanas died when storms lashed the
Caribbean this year? How many sea turtles will lose their nesting
beaches as sea levels rise in the decades ahead? How much money
would each of these lives be worth, if we could replace it?

What to do? This is where things get tricky. Different peo-
ple see the threat of climate change in different ways and have
widely varying views on the acceptable price for addressing it.
Many in the business and political sectors have taken the stance
that doing anything about climate change would cost too much.
In a September 2002 speech in New Jersey, President Bush took
an unusually clear position: “We need an energy bill that encour-

The economic damage of extreme weather events is on the rise (source: IPCC, http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/08.17.jpg).

Iguana 13.2 b&w text.QX6  6/26/06  1:20 PM  Page 158



ages consumption” rather than reducing greenhouse gas emis-
sions. In his much-hyped book, The Skeptical Environmentalist
(on which Crichton based much of his novel), Bjorn Lomborg
estimated the cost of controlling climate change to be between
$3 and $33 trillion, compared to a benefit of $5 trillion, and rec-
ommended against doing anything. Lomborg’s work has been
widely attacked as inaccurate and biased but, not being an econ-
omist, I do not feel qualified to judge the details. However, this
kind of argument has been made many times. For example, a
similar attitude was used to delay the banning of leaded gas and
lead-based paints in the U.S. The overwhelming experience with
environmental legislation has been a huge payoff in improving
public health, developing new technology, and environmental
benefits. For example, the CDC estimates that banning the use
of lead has reduced the number of U.S. children suffering from
lead poisoning from nearly 15 million in 1978 to fewer than
900,000 by the early 1990s. In analyzing the costs and benefits
of additional regulations related to the use of lead, the EPA esti-
mated an economic benefit of over $2.5 billion per year (just as
with climate change, however, that is rarely the real issue — in
2004, the EPA decided to scrap the new lead rules). Similarly, the
banning of CFCs after a hole was discovered in the ozone layer
was initially predicted to create a huge economic impact, yet
quickly led to development of alternative chemicals that also
allowed more energy-efficient cooling.

Unlike the national U.S. leadership, others inside and out-
side the country have shown considerable concern. “In my view,
climate change is the most severe problem that we are facing
today, more serious even than the threat of terrorism,” said Sir
David King, chief scientific adviser to Britain’s Prime Minister, in
a January 2004 article in the journal Science. “We must protect
our environment even if it results in great sacrifices,” said Mayor
Richard Ward of Hurst, Texas, regarding the climate agreement
(http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/mayor/climate/default.htm) unani-
mously approved by the U.S. Conference of Mayors in June
2005. In December 2005, New York Governor George Pataki, a
Republican, led the governors of seven northeastern U.S. states
in signing the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which hopes
to use market-based initiatives to first freeze gas emissions at cur-
rent levels, and then reduce them. The expectation is that house-
hold expenses will initially rise slightly (up to $24/family/year),
but that the development of cleaner technologies will ultimately
offset the extra cost. The Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty
intended to address greenhouse gas emissions, was negotiated in

1997, ratified by 156 countries so far (not including the U.S.,
which was also one of the last to ban lead), and has come into
force in early 2005. The Protocol has helped raise awareness and
hope. Over 90% of companies responding to information
requests from the Carbon Disclosure Project (http://www.cdpro-
ject.net/report.asp) identified risks and opportunities associated
with global climate change. Just over one half have put in place
programs to reduce emission levels. Yet plans and pacts are not
enough. While 13% of companies in the Fortune 500 reported
reductions in emission levels over the past few years, 17%
reported increases.

As individuals, we hope to be here for many more years. As
a species, we would like to stick around for a few million more
years before going extinct. As people interested in conservation,
we hope that as many other species as possible will see that future
with us. The impacts from global climate change add up quickly,
and the excuses for delaying action grow more and more feeble.
Unfortunately, both the citizens of the U.S. and their elected
leadership are characterized by an abysmal lack of scientific pro-
ficiency, which makes many people unable to assess issues as
complex as global climate change. We need to remedy this, and
we need to act on global climate change before too much more
damage is caused. Scientists already estimate that many decades
will pass before the effects of our past actions on global climate
can be countered.

IGUANA  •  VOLUME 13, NUMBER 2  •  JUNE 2006 159COMMENTARIES

Glaciers are melting all over the world. In this example, released by
Greenpeace (http://www.svalbard-images.com/spitzbergen/climate-
change-a.php), the top picture was taken in 1918 and the bottom pic-
ture was taken in 2002.

Michelangelo’s view of the biblical flood illustrates the catastrophic
impacts of sea level rise.

Iguana 13.2 b&w text.QX6  6/26/06  1:21 PM  Page 159




