Skip to main content
June 22, 2009 – I had hoped to discuss the toxicity of warfare in today’s post, but I’ve been trying for the last hour, and it seems I inevitably wind up writing about it on a sociological, rather than an environmental, level. Of course, climate change IS a sociological problem. In fact, now that I think about it, climate change produces some of the same results as warfare.
- It makes people afraid; so afraid, in fact, that people won’t even talk about it.
- It causes dislocation of people.
- It will cause panic, which reduces the ability of people to respond in a reasoned manner.
- It will cause people to have to fight for their survival, if they have
done nothing to plan for the inescapable problems.
- It could very well cause wars between groups of people, probably over clean water.
What would be the best way of avoiding panic? By planning for climate change now.
What would be the best way of assuring people’s survival? By planning for climate change now.
What would be the best way of avoiding wars? By planning for climate
change now.
What would be the best way of planning for climate change? Start today.
What would be the next best way of planning for climate change? Start reducing population growth today.
What would be the next essential step in planning for climate change? Agreeing that all international disputes would be settled by the International Courts at The Hague.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Time to be Scared

November 26, 2018 You've heard by now that the US Global Change Research Program released its Fourth National Climate Assessment last Friday. Scientists are, at last, confident enough to say that climate change is the new reality. How very much I wish they had published this bold assertion many years ago, rather than always being hesitant (" . . . we're 73% sure this could happen . . ."). While I know the politics involved cannot be allowed to sway them, and that scientists are unaccustomed to speaking for the masses, their inability to convince the scientifically uneducated of the value in climate change hypotheses has hurt us all. In any event, they have now spoken up loudly and clearly. According to NOAA, one of the 13 government agencies responsible for the Assessment, we can expect the following, should mitigating actions not be taken immediately: - Human health and safety, quality of life, and economic growth will all suffer.        The 2014 Assessment c...

A Rock and a Hard Place

October 8, 2012 - Such a pickle: we have the coal, but no longer want to burn it.  China wants the coal, but shouldn't burn it because of the resulting air pollution.  Coal mining companies in the U.S. are ready and waiting to ship their coal to China.  Citizens of the U.S. living on its west coast are adamant they want nothing to do with exporting coal.  That includes Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber.  Kitzhaber's April 25 letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar expresses his profound skepticism about shipping coal by way of Oregon's ports.  He has requested that a programatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) first be conducted for all five of the export projects currently being considered, as well as a comprehensive policy review.  Here is part of a press release announcing his letter: "I have concerns about proceeding in this direction [exporting coal to China via Oregon ports] in the absence of a full national discussion about the ramif...