The Associated Press
Greenpeace activists protest water pollution in the Philippines.
Featured
Topic |
Posted 31 weeks 6 days ago
Does Earth Day help the environment -- or is it just another guilt trip?
Today is Earth Day -- a time for environmentalists and their opponents to set aside their differences and ... no, sorry, that's the way other holidays work. Earth Day only serves to highlight the the divide over the existence of global warming and what to do about it. Environmentalists see skeptics clinging selfishly to their Hummers and energy-consuming lifestyle; skeptics see self-righteous environmentalists caring more about the fate of polar bears than people. Is there any common ground to be found? And can it be found on Earth Day?
Thoughts
absurd
Submitted on April 23rd, 2008 by rom12921Since (not if) there is no conclusive proof of human causation, it would seem absurd to pursue solutions to a problem that may not exist.
"If" is an operative word
Submitted on April 22nd, 2008 by JobbaBoyI agree, that if the payoff is minimal, the changes you suggest would be unnecessary.
However, if, as most of the scientific community agrees, failure to address climate change results in catastrophic disasters across the world, resulting in immeasurable loss of life, due to famine, disease and war over decreased resources, isn't it absurd NOT to make the change?
Then I'll attempt to explain it
Submitted on April 22nd, 2008 by BenThe criticism of Time's analogy is rooted specifically in the symbol of war. "We beat the Nazis, by golly, we can beat global warming!" Conservatives instinctively think: One of these things is not like the other.
Conservatives then think: Do we really want or need a massive mobilization of society, a centralization of government, a command-and-control economy, a drastic reduction in American quality of life, if the payoff is minimal?
Joel, you're right that Bush and others have acknowledged that global warming -- or climate change, if you like -- is real. But the argument about solutions isn't over. And it ain't just symbolism.
Linchpin
Submitted on April 22nd, 2008 by Anonymous"...humanity isn't smart enough to know which things are linchpins for the entire ecosystem..." Then how are we smart enough to even know there are linchpins?
"...wisest thing to do is to try to avoid the risks entirely" We cannot avoid climate change (risks)unless we can control solar flares, volcanic activity and changes in Earth's axis. Your statement assumes mankind has alot of power over natural phenomenon or that human causation has a measurable and significant effect.
Re: Not getting it
Submitted on April 22nd, 2008 by JoelWith all due respect to my Republican friends, when you have President Bush acknowledging that something should be done about global warming (a little bit, someday) and Newt Gingrich making ads for the Al Gore campaign (what's he up to, anyway?), it's a pretty good sign that the jig is up with regards to global warming. On the substance, a good chunk of the debate looks to be over already.
So if the substantive attacks on climate change aren't going so hot (heh), what's the next thing to attack on? Symbolism. Attitude. It's not a constructive approach to addressing the issue, and it's not meant to be: If you can turn a scientific fight into another battle into the culture wars -- Those environmentalists aren't like us! -- you've managed to delay the day of reckoning and you've won!
Any resemblance to the presidential campaign is purely intentional.
I don't get it...
Submitted on April 22nd, 2008 by JobbaBoyBecause Time made an analogy (which I think is appropriate), it negates their argument?
It's not quite an ad hominem... ad analagum, perhaps?