It's been an interesting few weeks in the Climate Change arena politically. Legislation for Cap and Trade and the G-8 talks have roused both sides of the issue into a frenzy.
If you have read my previous posts on the topic, I have come down solidly on the side of no one. The realities of our planet overheating in the future may or may not be exist but...it's the two sides that now bother me...
Warmers, the people who fully believe that the planet is being warmed by man, are called alarmists. People who believe the science is wrong or rigged are called deniers. Alarmist are usually Democrats and deniers are usually Republican. Typically the deniers are described as the minority in the science world.
However, in polls of the American people there seems to be some fence sitting by many and legions for both sides who are sure their brand of religion is best and they KNOW it.
It surprises me in this day and age we can't take more moderated views and be a little more humble about what we think we KNOW. I include both sides in that concern. An AGW alarmist is just as know-it-all as a denier. Both claim the "science is on their side". Engaging in any discussion on the topic will evoke serious "know" statements from either side about the clarity of the science or the lack of clarity about the science.
The media loves a good fight so they fuel this debate for as long as they can. So, why should we care?
Because we have to take action now if we hope to forestall what is possible if all the "alarmists" are right. Man is causing the world to warm and the pace is increasing. A warming climate could cause disruption to all living things on the planet because the pace of warming is too fast for adaptation to it's subsequent climate changes.
The action required is a lot more simple than Cap and Trade and G-8 wrangling would lead you to believe. We just need to drastically reduce fossil fuel use. Don't get too caught up in discussions about deforestation, cow farts, cement plants etc. They have an impact, in fact a large one, but they aren't the real issue. The real issue is we take ancient carbon in coal and oil and turn it into atmospheric carbon in an instant, by burning it. And, our economy is totally dependant on this process.
In addition, there are very large company's and countries around the world that depend on the need for this to continue.
So all the wrangling is about changing the world's economy from a fossil fuel based one to alternative energy. The benefits of which will be enormous. The dream of running the earth on clean energy not controlled by unfriendly countries is worthy in it self. The heath and stability benefits would be an amazing boon to societies rich and poor. The world would be a better place.
And that's without the concerns about Climate Change.
The specter of rapid warming is really ugly. It's clear the effects would be significant but, what and where they are, isn't clear. So alarmists are quick to point out the latest hurricane or pine borer. And denialists are quick to point out the lack of anomaly or cause for concern. But that's not the real issue. The real issue is whether we can afford to play this out with a fossil fuel based economy? Can we wait and see who's right?
The answer is no. A rapid change in our global temperatures would threaten our way of life much more than a shift away from fossil fuel. We can't gamble and hope that the denialists are right. We are going to have to change our energy sources and while we do that, we are going to have to emit less carbon into the atmosphere by using less fossil fuel and cleaning the emissions as much as possible.
Bottom Line - The question isn't who's side is right. The question is, who's side can we afford to be wrong? That answer is clear in my view. One position protects us from calamity and improves our world. One maintains the status quo and hopes for the best.
But, back to the sides. If the sides keep arguing about "if" there is a problem then when we have a vote for cap and trade for example, how much of it is still about "if" instead of how. Does the rhetoric. or votes, reflect a senator or congressman's concerns about whether this is the best way, or if we should be doing anything at all?
I am very concerned we will end up with partisan positions, entrenched and immovable, when we can't really risk doing this wrong. It's the only thing worse than doing nothing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I saw a Pew report just within the last day or two
ReplyDeletehttp://people-press.org/reports/questionnaires/528.pdf
According to that 84% of scientists believe humans are causing global warming, 10% don't. 49% of regular people believe humans are causing global warming, 47% don't. That's quite a gap.
I don't have much confidence in some scientists, like pharmaceutical companies who lie their brains out, but I have a hard time believing the scientific community is wrong on this, particularly when every new data point says things are getting even worse than models predict.
Anyway, my bottom line is a matrix I saw someone draw in a video which says basically what you said. The consequences of doing nothing are catastrophic if humans are causing global warming, compared to the consequences of doing something if global warming is a myth.
Karen Anne, thanks for the link, that was interesting. I had to scratch my head on the last entry of political affiliation. Big difference from the GP poll???
ReplyDeleteI am pretty comfortable that it's not a myth per se, it's the degree of effect that worries me. Both ways, either under estimated or over estimated.
What's interesting is that if the globe successfully mitigates the carbon and the climate returns to the norm, will the deniers say I told you so?
I just had an aha moment. I was searching the PEW site for the Science poll referenced in the doc you linked and found this -
ReplyDeleteScientists are 6% Republican(!), 55% Democrat, 32% independent.
This lends much more insight into the partisanship in Washington. The republicans not only distrust Al Gore, they distrust scientists. They are ideologically worlds apart.
When Obama says we need to bring science back into a more central role in informing policy, now I understand...it's their constituency.
Ahhh politics...
I'm not sure what you're saying - you think Obama wants scientists involved in making public policy that involves science because they're Democrats? As opposed to because, it's, like, their field? :-)
ReplyDeleteKaren Anne,
ReplyDeleteI think I am saying that announcing that science will have a greater position in the Whitehouse and policy, is a political move. (I never saw it that way). It just seemed sensible to me.
Now I see that scientists are, by large majority, his constituents.
And that leads me to why the conservatives have had such a hard time with AGW science. They distrust the motives/biases of the scientists. Hence the aha moment.
I must admit, I would prefer that the scientists all said they were independents in the poll or that their political affiliations were more balanced.
I'm pretty sure that the more educated one is the more likely one is to be a Democrat. That's from polling data, not my bias.
ReplyDeleteNow that I think about this some more, I can understand why someone who's Republican would distrust Democratic scientists on social issues like workfare and so on but why on climate change? There doesn't seem to be a political ax to grind there.
ReplyDeleteKaren Anne -
ReplyDeleteI have always attributed it to Al Gore. He politicized the issue. He polarized the sides.
He's done some good too but a Dem VP wasn't the best leader of the cause if you want bipartisanship.