Climate Change to Blame
AN UNPREDICTABLE KILLER
The UN Millennium Development Goals. Remember those? It's an ambitious plan to halve hunger by 2015, to say the least, which surprisingly has run into a few problems before reaching its aim. The greatest threat to reaching these goals in the near future has been identified as climate change, but let's be honest. We cannot predict sustained weather patterns from year to year regardless of supposed climate change. Carbon emissions may perpetuate potential adverse changes in temperature, rainfall, and sea level; but overall we cannot determine what will be or not be a fruitful farming season.
Admittedly, it will only be harder to determine what 2007 will hold in terms of pronounced climate fluctuations. We can't forget that the Earth is NOT stagnant: it never was and it never will be. There will be earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, typhoons, lightning storms and tornados until the end of time. So how do we determine what storms are caused by our carbon carelessness or are natural expressions of the Earth's volatile nature?
We can't. This is a great thing though because everybody wins (except for the extremely impoverished)! Politicians who act now against climate change will win favor from voters (see Arnold), religious leaders can press the issue of stewardship of the Earth, and we can push for the end of our dependency of foreign oil. Without arguing over the magnitude of climate change or the validity of its existence, I am in favor of the popular push for energy security and environmental security.
ONE OR THE OTHER
How do we achieve this delicate balance? Aren't energy security and environmental security at opposing ends? If we want sustainable, affordable energy in the near future we need to expand our capacity and increase production. Make no mistake; both will have a significant effect on the environment.On the other hand, if we want environmental security we need to develop schemes and policy that will help us along.
Whether it's carbon trading structures like that in Europe or mandating carbon emission caps like in California; control is a matter for governments (at the macro level).Let's start by saying that in 2007 our resolution will be to be economical when it comes to our use of energy. It's sort of like that butterfly that flutters its wings and causes a tidal wave half way across the globe.
The UN Millennium Development Goals. Remember those? It's an ambitious plan to halve hunger by 2015, to say the least, which surprisingly has run into a few problems before reaching its aim. The greatest threat to reaching these goals in the near future has been identified as climate change, but let's be honest. We cannot predict sustained weather patterns from year to year regardless of supposed climate change. Carbon emissions may perpetuate potential adverse changes in temperature, rainfall, and sea level; but overall we cannot determine what will be or not be a fruitful farming season.
Admittedly, it will only be harder to determine what 2007 will hold in terms of pronounced climate fluctuations. We can't forget that the Earth is NOT stagnant: it never was and it never will be. There will be earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, typhoons, lightning storms and tornados until the end of time. So how do we determine what storms are caused by our carbon carelessness or are natural expressions of the Earth's volatile nature?
We can't. This is a great thing though because everybody wins (except for the extremely impoverished)! Politicians who act now against climate change will win favor from voters (see Arnold), religious leaders can press the issue of stewardship of the Earth, and we can push for the end of our dependency of foreign oil. Without arguing over the magnitude of climate change or the validity of its existence, I am in favor of the popular push for energy security and environmental security.
ONE OR THE OTHER
How do we achieve this delicate balance? Aren't energy security and environmental security at opposing ends? If we want sustainable, affordable energy in the near future we need to expand our capacity and increase production. Make no mistake; both will have a significant effect on the environment.On the other hand, if we want environmental security we need to develop schemes and policy that will help us along.
Whether it's carbon trading structures like that in Europe or mandating carbon emission caps like in California; control is a matter for governments (at the macro level).Let's start by saying that in 2007 our resolution will be to be economical when it comes to our use of energy. It's sort of like that butterfly that flutters its wings and causes a tidal wave half way across the globe.
posted by Peter Karellas @ 12:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home