« "Grow Up, Not Out"? | Main | It's Unanimous »
June 13, 2005
The Debate is Over. Finally.
Mark today in your calendars because USA Today's headlines just made it official: "The debate's over: Globe is warming." My first reaction was astonishment. I kept scanning their website for other up-to-the-minute revelations. What's next? Are the Beatle's really about to break-up? Is the Berlin Wall really going to come down?
But my second reaction was more optimistic--and less sarcastic. I shouldn't scoff at USA Today's belated recognition as much as I should marvel that a tipping point is happening right before our eyes. The real news here is not that the debate is over--it's been over, of course, for quite some time--but that USA Today and other media like it have finally awarded a TKO to climate scientists and greens.
As it turns out, USA Today's conviction is because big corporations, utilities, republican governors, and even religious groups are now demanding action on climate change. There really is increasingly broad-based recognition of the problem. Still, it's more than a little annoying that media evaluate critical issues based not on the overwhelming scientific evidence, but rather on the proclamations of Arnold and a few CEOs.
But on the other hand, if even USA Today says there's a consensus on climate change, then we're just about to arrive in a brave new world where we can actually begin to do something about it on a large and systemic level. Hold on to your hats: next week we'll find out that burning gasoline warms the atmosphere through something called the "greenhouse effect"...
Posted by Eric de Place | Permalink
Comments
Be prepared for the "do nothing" fall-back position ... that we can't stop it anyway, so why worry.
Posted by: odograph | Jun 13, 2005 7:54:18 PM
That's been out there for a long time, odo, as has the 'CO2 is GOOD for you' and various and sundry other things.
D
Posted by: Dano | Jun 13, 2005 8:16:35 PM
I must confess, I too was agog at the USA proclamation.
Next, pigs don't fly - 9 out of 10 scientists agree! Bush administration fires flying pig apologist! News at 11...
Posted by: Jon S. | Jun 14, 2005 12:46:36 AM
Actually, there hasn't been much debate about whether the climate is changing. In fact, the climate is in a perpetual state of flux. Furthermore, there hasn't been much debate about whether or not it's been warming...that's been pretty easy to observe in recent temperature records.
The questions being debated are; is this warming abnormal, to what extent is it anthropogenic, how much will it change, and what might the impacts be.
Questions surrounding what to do about it are also out there. But, until those first questions are addressed, proposed "solutions" are futile.
Posted by: Jeremy Brown | Jun 14, 2005 9:31:45 AM
Wrong Jeremy...
While I agree that the anthropogenic origins of climate change are at least debatable with a straight face, our response on the other hand should be a no-brainer. If we follow the maxim 'do no harm', the debate becomes irrelevant as we improve our standing in the court of world opinion, increase our national security, reduce dependance on foreign sources of energy, make our economy more competitive and sustainabile, reduce pollution, and oh by the way in the off chance that climate change is anthropogenically induced, reduce that risk as well.
Posted by: Ron | Jun 14, 2005 11:08:39 AM
Ron,
I don't follow your argument; who is following the maxim 'do no harm'? None of us on here, that's for sure. Look at what you're typing on this very moment, or the building you're sitting in...
We must follow something closer to rational risk management. Everything we do involves trade-offs, and we need to balance those trade-offs. As an extreme example, I haven't heard anyone turn to the hospitals and demand that they be the first to cut total energy consumption by 1/3.
"Do no harm" is appropriate in a lot of settings (research, therapy, travel, etc.) but simple tasks such as sanitation, safety, and communication require energy consumption. I suppose you could plant a tree for every hour of long-distance calls :)
Posted by: Jeremy Brown | Jun 16, 2005 10:42:54 AM
Jeremy,
Agreed, our economy is unsustainable. The computer I'm typing on, the building I'm in, the food I eat... What we have is a lack of systems thinking when it comes to design and function. What can I do? Conserve energy, insulate my home, eat vegetarian... I do what I can on a personal level but for the big issues we need leadership that is capable of seeing beyond their own special interest benefactors. Your notion of 'rational risk management' sounds closer to burying your head in the sand to me. Framing the debate about global warming in the context of whether it is anthropogenic in nature or not, rather than considering the multifarious benefits of a comprehensive reduction strategy, is to me irresponsible. The one argument against Kyoto is that it will harm our economy (when in fact it may be an economic boon) and yet arguments for action abound. A rational risk management strategy assumes actors have a clear idea of all the actual risks associated with the activity rather than just one particular aspect (ie economic activity).
Whatever the case, I appreciate your viewpoint regarding personal action. Although my purchase of green energy and carbon offset tags may not green the planet much, I fell less guilty when mounting my soapbox. ;)
Ron
Posted by: Ron | Jun 17, 2005 9:20:44 AM