I can understand the reluctance to accept climate change if you live in a state that depends on coal or burning fossil fuels or even if you think that God determines weather and all its aftermaths. What I don't get is what if you are wrong? If it is 25 -50 years down the line and people, many of which are alive today, suffer consequences of us being wrong, then who do they complain to? All they can do is be angry at those of us who in this part of the century ignored warnings, resisted information and fought against all scientific evidence that we would face environmental problems. The people who made these decisions to fight global warming will be long gone from this world and will have not a care in the world for the irrational decisions they made so many years ago. For those living in the 2050's and beyond the problem will only be exacerbated by the frustration of not being able to hold the "deciders" accountable.
For my money all of us should at least agree that it MIGHT happen. If it turns out not to be true, global warming is not an issue, something I don't think will be the case, then everyone will be happy. But if it does happen and we made no plans for it then everyone living at the time will be paying a massive price and through no fault of their own.
So what has to happen? Those who disagree extensively and fight it to the core need to accept the fact that it MIGHT. They need to participate in all the conversations about what to do about it. They can still offer their resistance at every step, but, they must realistically look at solutions, at ideas on plans in the event that the problem should it come to pass. Taxes, alternate energy sources, conservation, education are all on the table as solutions. There is no panacea. Multiple ideas will have to be offered, some accepted, some rejected, others modified. Remember too, when we all get involved in something potentially this big there may be equally enormous opportunities, so just saving your political butt might sound like a good approach today but offering jobs, resources and new industries might have some positive appeal as well.
My only point is everyone has to accept they, the scientists, MIGHT be right. We will make a mockery of our multiple generations if the future is held hostage to the head in the sand approach to serious issues that face us all because elected officials want to get re elected.
Everyone of us will be leaving children and grandchildren to take care of the decisions we either did or did not make on their behalf.
The climate change deniers blather on about environmentalists having an "agenda." Would they believe that the oil companies may have an agenda? You're right about them being long gone when those most affected are lamenting what should have been done. It reminds me of Reagan's Interior Secretary James Watt who was selling off government land to the energy companies for pennies an acre. He said that "Jesus will be coming soon and none of this will matter."
ReplyDeleteThe damage we do to the environment is irreparable and there is only a finite amount of resources we can draw from the earth. Industry relies on these dwindling natural resources, so they need to be doing everything they can do to protect it - not because they are responsible to the environment, but because its the best way to be responsible to shareholders. It's just smart business to ensure there is a steady source of input materials. The cost of those materials will only increase the scarcer they become. The smart companies are making investments now in bio-materials, synthetics, renewables and are employing closed-loop operational methods. On the one hand, its smart business. On the other, being responsible to the environment is a moral imperative. No matter the deity followed, doctrine states that we are "stewards" of this planet, not the owners - meaning, we rent our time on this earth and need to leave it in the same (if not better) shape as we found it. It is a big security deposit we are risking.
ReplyDelete