Archives
6:53:00 PM EST
Is There a 'Middle Stance' on Climate Change?
Traditional Media, Web Media Go At It: The New York Times published an article January 1 by science reporter Andrew Revkin, "A New Middle Stance Emerges in Debate Over Climate." In it, he quotes many climate scientists who concur that we must address climate change now, but who don't employ the strategy of crying "doom" in the media. Instead they:
"... agree that accumulating carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping smokestack and tailpipe gases probably pose a momentous environmental challenge, but say the appropriate response is more akin to buying fire insurance and installing sprinklers and new wiring in an old, irreplaceable house (the home planet) than to fighting a fire already raging."
Revkin adds that "These experts see a clear need for the public to engage now, but not to panic. They worry that portrayals of the issue like that in “An Inconvenient Truth,” the documentary focused on the views of Mr. Gore, may push too hard. Many in this group also see a need to portray clearly that the response would require far more than switching to fluorescent light bulbs and to hybrid cars."
In the other corner is David Roberts, writer for Grist Magazine (www.grist.org) and its blog, Gristmill. In the blog he criticized Revkin for saying there is a "middle" to the climate "debate," when in reality there is no debate -- and thus there can't be a middle.
Revkin wrote a response on the blog, explaining why he wrote the story and gave some ink to voices that normally aren't heard.
My take: I agree that society should "take out some insurance" against climate change, by doing things like putting more money into alternative, renewble energy and instituting controls or caps on carbon dioxide emissions. I think we can do this without hurting the big winners in private industry; we can instead grow a new, renewable energy industry that creates new jobs.
I'm also not an alarmist by nature. I think crying doom over and over again loses its effectiveness. We still need to push policymakers to take action, however.
But, in support of Mr. Roberts, I agree that there does not seem to be a true climate debate. Instead, there is a John Cleese/Monty Python-like argument going on ("Climate's changing" vs. "Oh, no it isn't" / "Yes it is" etc). Something like 99 percent of climate scientists agree that carbon dioxide is causing the planet to warm up and the humans are responsible for most of the increase in carbon dioxide. And that we need to do something about it.
I think Mr. Revkin's article is important and I'm glad the NY Times published it. More Americans in the political middle need to read about climate change in this context, that it's not all about environmentalists and conservatives shouting back and forth at each other. There are other voices in the crowd.
Written by downtoearthblog Blog about this entry |
Add to del.icio.us | 
digg this
-
"Chicken Little" may be right this time, is it worth the risk? What harm will it do to be more efficient? If we keep ignoring it, the sky will fall, humanity along with it.
-
The Permian extinction took out 99% of all species on the earth a much bigger lose the the dinosaur extinction that allowed the rise of mammals. It is narcisistic to believe that we have more effect on the climate than the outgassing of the volcanoes above subduction zones. Look it up and then you'll star making more sense than "Chicken Little".
-
the effects are already happening, so of course we will be around for it. And I wish you people would stop looking to the past, WE ARENT THE DINOSAURS! We are human beings and soon we will be human beings in deep $#!+
-
well well well i do agree that yes GW my be an issue . This issue evoles around this ever growing human ego that think that some how we will acually be around to see it's effects.Lets see take a close look at last vast species extinction.Did there bovin emmisions contribute to there demise. Or was it there proximity to an asteriod distrution? humm
Brian Selfridge
1/28/07 10:09 PM