a look at the pragmatic side of doing something...
For years now, an increasing majority of scientists have gotten onboard with the concept that global warming is a very real phenomenon, and yes, we are causing it. Still, there has been a increasingly small minority that shuns these views and insists that everything is A-O.K. and we should just continue on as usual.
Earlier this month, while the world was focused on the circus that was the death of Anna Nicole Smith, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released the 1st of 3 phases of it's long study. The report was authored by about 600 scientists from over 40 different countries. It was reviewed by over 600 others and governments. then, before being accepted, the entire report was reviewed, line by line by over 113 different countries last January in Paris.
The report contended that, in short, that they were over 90% sure of their findings. Was this 100%? No, it wasn't. But the evidence is strong enough and backed widely enough that they were pretty damn sure. In any civil court, this would be more than enough evidence to win the case. It indeed would be a "perponderence of the evidence."
Still some, let's say (generously) that about 10% of the scientific community doesn't buy this. Those "10%ers" certainly are entitled to have their views heard, reviewed and analyzed. To some, this is enough to puth the kabash on any moves or innovations to lower our output of greenhouse gasses or otherwise improve our overall environment. that unfortunately, is not the case. In this case, doing nothing is certainly worse than doing something.
For those of you itching to get into some "gotcha" debate on who said what about global warming or want to go out and google things till ya find just the right obscure study to somehow "disprove" 90% of the scientific community please save your breath and fingers. This isn't about trying to hyperbolically "prove" one position or the other. For the purposes of this article, I freely acknowledge that there is dissent on this issue, albeit a small one. And those folks are more than entitled to that stand.
What they are not entitled to, however, is trying to squelch anyone else doing anything about the matter. George Will recently contended that on this issue, doing nothing is the answer. He contends, that since we don't know with 100% accuracy every single cause and effect of climate change (which he even acknowledges as a real phenomenon) that we should just sit back and see what evolves. His only course of (strawman) action, is reviving he Kyoto protocols and forcing a vote on the Senate. George wants to use that a s a way to lambaste any Senator (56 still serve who voted against Kyoto a decade ago) who would dare vote for it now. Mr Will is simply playing politics on an issue that even he admits is very real. His solution is to politicize it and use it against individuals in only political ways.
But climate change isn't about politics. It's not about conservative politics, and it's not about liberal politics. It's about improving our quality of life. That is something everyone can agree is a good thing.
I am going to assume that the person reading this is in agreement with George Will and the others who suggest that doing nothing is better than doing something on climate change because no one can prove the future to them 100%. Allow me to attempt to appeal to you on another level, a pragmatic one.
If we do nothing, nothing happens. Nothing is innovated, nothing is developed. No new technology comes forth. We simply continue to look for untapped reserves orf oil and other fossil fuels that we can exploit until they are all gone, which is inevitable. We continue to only pay lip service to anything innovative, and not really give it the funding muscle it really needs to move at a pace that would matter. Inevitably, in 100 years or so, our grandchildren's grandchildren will need to find the solutions themselves, even if the earth isn't burnt to a crisp. This, while still paying for our wars and mistakes.
But if we do something, many things can happen. We will, undoubtedly, improve our conditions for living on earth. Air will be cleaner, water will be less polluted and our grandchildren's children will have 100 years of innovation, science and research on which to build. Also, with the real funding that only big organizations and the fed can fund, we have the possibility of ushering in a new age of innovations for ourselves. When President Kennedy called on America to reach the moon before the end of the 1960's, he inspired a nation to build, innovate and progress in many areas that weren't part of the space program directly. We can do that today. The space program has produced over 30,000 inventions and innovations that have benefitted most of us at one time or another. from new kinds of insulation to advances in computer technology. In fact, the only reason we can effectively study climate change, is because of the NASA programs that lead to various satellites and technologies being developed.
And whether or not you would have supported President Kennedy's goal in 1961 is irrelevant. Whether or not we needed to go the moon before 1970 didn't and doesn't matter one bit. In fact, most people thought Kennedy was out of his mind in 1960. Some of those same people might still think the space program is a waste, despite enjoying the countlessbenefits that have trickled into our daily lives.
Investing in research and development of technologies that will help improve our environment will also surely reduce, and hopefully eventually eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. And I know of no one who thinks that is not a good thing.
I remember growing up in Pittsburgh, Pa. When I was very young, Pittsburgh was known as "The Smokey City." It was a town where you could wake up and put on a white shirt, and by the end of the day, your shirt would no longer be white. And for those who don't remember that era of Pittsburgh, let me assure you, that it wasn't hyperbole. The air was so bad that it could literally change the color of your clothes. Thru the 1960's and into the 70's, just about everyone resisted any change. they cried how bad it would be for the economy, and that Pittsburgh just couldn't survive unless it was buried under a cloud of dirt and soot.
then came a man named Richard Caligiuri. The good people of Pittsburgh elected him mayor and he took an innitiative. He literally lead Pittsburgh thru a "renissance." By the time that both the Pirates were winning the World Series and the Steelers were still winning Superbowls, Pittsburgh was reintroduced to the world as a clean city looking towards the bright future instead of being mired in a dingy past.
Steelmills still remained, tho due to increased Japanese competition, mostly spurred by US Steel, based out of Pittsburgh, who built the new modern and efficient plants for the Japanese while neglecting our own older and less efficient plants here at home. Finally tho, US Steel and other steelmakers, revamped the plants that were still viable and many of them operate today in a much cleaner and efficient fashion. US Steel eventually beame "USX" as it diversified beyond steelmaking. Pittsburgh became a center of innovation and developed technologies in fields that the old steelmakers would have never thought possible just a decade before that.
Not everything was or is totally smooth in Pittsburgh. Some lost jobs and were forced to relocate or retrain. But overall, most Pittsburghers would take the city rebuilt by Caliguiri and Company over the dingy, smoke filled town that would have eventually died without the new innovations and direction. It is time for America to untertake such a "rennisance" like the people of Pittsburgh did in the 1970's. Pittsburgh now has a future, and is no longer a "dying city" as it was described back in the day.
Whether or not you personally buy into the concept that climate change is real and we are causing it simply does not matter in the end. It is clear that doing nothing, while costing nothing, will produce nothing. But doing something can only create a better world for all of us in the long run.