I used to love that part of Paul Harvey's radio show! Since my other blog about the McKibben event was already too long, I decided to wait and post my reaction/reflection about it later. Those of you who know me realize that I find it difficult to mince words. I'm pretty straightforward, and actually prefer it if other people return the favor. So here's the "rest of the story" that was prompted by listening to Bill McKibben over at UNC-A last week:

My bottom line:  I'm appalled that basic science (fundamental physical and chemical processes that have been understood for over a century) have become politicized. I'm troubled by the "political fact" that there can even be a partisan position on the science of climate change. Either one accepts the evidence or rejects it; that's how science works. Gravity and CO2 work the same in red states and blue states. The science is very strong--strong enough that climate scientists are in agreement (with 95% confidence levels) that humans are affecting climate.

I'm also keenly aware of the perspective of the rest of the industrialized world, and somewhat embarrassed by the lack of leadership being shown by the U.S. government, although states, cities, and private companies are developing and implementing some really innovative, important, and worthwhile strategies. (If you haven't yet done so, please listen to this 23-minute presentation by Senator Whitehouse.)

I am happy to meet with any groups who are interested in discussing climate change. Doing so will also help me understand where the disconnect is, what is not clear, why some people don't understand (or accept) what the predicted changes mean for our shared future. I hope that some of you who are reading this will be open to learning more--for yourselves, your children, and your grandchildren. I will do the very best that I can to help you understand the evidence of change and the processes that are involved. If you raise a question that I am unable to answer, I will also do the very best I can to get a reliable and informed answer from one or more experts on the topic.

Climate change is very serious. It is not something that "may happen" or is a "possibility in the future". Predictions about the overall effects are already being shown to be "low-end"--in other words we're already emitting more than what was thought to be likely by now. Subsequent changes are already visible and apparent, and the implications may be severe. McKibben's idea of adapting to a new Eaarth, with an extra "a" to indicate that difference, is also really important. We are experiencing the effects of one degree of warming, and another degree of warming is in the pipeline. So even if we changed our ways today, we can expect additional effects...to be determined (not necessarily just double what we're seeing now). We can begin to prepare and we can still reduce the total impact. 

Bill McKibben gave the analogy of having a child with a serious diagnosis. It's logical to seek another opinion. If 97 of 100 doctors said "this is serious and you need to act quickly", and 2 of the remaining 3 said, "Yes, it's serious and you should act, but we're not SURE that what you do will help"--most prudent people would still act on the advice of those 99 doctors and ignore the one who disagreed. Our Earth has a serious diagnosis, and steps that can help are well-understood. It is prudent to act sooner than later. There are small things each of us can do (especially those regarding our food choices and our energy use) that would help considerably...and right away. 

P.S. In January, I'm traveling to Washington DC again, this time to participate in the National Council for Science and the Environment's12th annual National Conference on Science, Policy, and the Environment:  Environment and Security. We must focus on resiliency and adaptation...soon.

Views: 13

Comment

You need to be a member of Green Interfaith to add comments!

Join Green Interfaith

Events

© 2024   Created by GINI Account.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service