[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Friday afternoon rant - "An Inconvenient Truth"
Rick Yoder, in a self-described rant,
> What to do with those who want
to argue? [assumedly, he asked in the context of those who want to
argue about the issue of climate change, not argue in general....that's another
He suggested pointing them at World Changing (or at
least, at a page established for denialists). I would suggest a different
this will come as a shock to most of you, I spend some of my evenings thinking
about things other than pollution prevention -- specifically, I spend a lot of
time thinking about fly fishing.
know, that's a real shocker.
pursuit of all that is true and noble about my chosen, ummm "sport" (yeah,
that's what it is!), I spend a certain number of hours (the actual number is
embarrasingly large) arguing politics with other fly fisher people online.
This is purely recreational arguing -- no one ever changes anyone's mind in
these things -- and on occassion, the issue of climate change, how much of
it is our fault, what we can do about it, etc comes up.
Surprisingly enough, some fly fishers are pretty
conservative politically. Not me, of course, but some.
found that engaging these folks in debate over the veracity of climate
change is all but useless. The handful of professional skeptics out there
( Lindzen, Singer, et al) are persuasive enough writers that they are not
easily debunked in the minds of those likely to listen to them in the first
found it much more productive, instead, to shift the nature of the debate, along
the following lines:
so we don't agree on whether climate change is real, or whether people can stop
what would we do if it were? What sorts of steps would we take as
individuals, as a nation?"
do any of these steps make sense, irrespective of what the truth about climate
ends up being?"
leads pretty naturally to discussions of energy efficiency, of increased
dependence on renewables, of reforestation...none of which are very far from Mom
and Apple pie themes. Especially now, in light of rising fuel prices and
concern over the Middle East, even my most politically conservative friends will
find common ground on most of these issues, at least when painted in broad
strokes (we may disagree on specifics such as the appropriate role of regulatory
vs. market incentives, whether CAFE standards should be raised, etc -- but the
general goals are pretty hard to disagree with).
net result is, as many in the p2 community have observed in other contexts, that
many of the walls come down, some common ground is established from which
broader agreement can be forged, and progress can be made.
Subversion beats submission, any
c/o Pacific NW National
Voice: (509)-372-4946/Fax: (509) 375-2443
Hi - and apologies for cross-posting
I have word from a friend in an environmental office that
their entire staff will be taking a field trip to see "An Inconvenient
Truth" which opens today in select theaters.
Movie link: http://www.climatecrisis.net/
So many in my region are nowhere near a
theater showing the film!
I thought I'd let them and you know of a link to the slideshow from which
the movie was built. It will take about an hour of your time, but
it's easy to watch as background while you fill out other paperwork.
Link to link of the slideshow:
modified link to the slideshow that worked for
As an offer to be "fair and balanced"
<grin> - I'll point out the amazing ads that the Competitive Enterprise
Institute started airing late last week in select cities.
You can for yourself track down much of the blog chatter
about these ads - entries which tackle them from many ways, including looking at
the surprising names of companies who contribute to CEI. And
honestly, could Stephen Colbert have done a better parody than what you'll see
Really, when CEO Scott
of Wal-Mart says the following, isn't it time to dismiss the "is it so?"
discussions in the same way we do comments from those who tell us smoking won't
kill, the world is flat, or the walk on the moon was a fake?
"We are looking at innovative ways to reduce our greenhouse gas
emissions. This used to be controversial, but the science is in and it is
overwhelming. Climate change doesn't cause hurricanes, but hot ocean water makes
them more powerful. Climate change doesn't cause rainfall, but it can increase
the frequency and severity of heavy flooding. Climate change doesn't cause
droughts, but it makes droughts longer. We believe every company has a
responsibility to reduce greenhouse gases as quickly as it can."
Last night, a town meeting was held here at the UNO campus; it had a
great panel discussion by the following folks from diverse backgrounds who have
all reached the same conclusions as CEO Scott:
- Rev. Dr. Bob Edgar, General Secretary, National Council of
- Tim Wagner, Commissioner,
Nebraska Department of Insurance
Dan Lashof, Climate Center Science Director, Natural Resources Defense
- John Hansen, President,
Nebraska Farmers Union
I commend those who put together the panel - but it needed a stronger
call to specific actions for those who attended. In brief, it asked
everyone to get involved with spreading the message that now is the time
What to do with those who
want to argue? I agree with the folks at World Changing who suggest that
it's time to put up the reference page for denialists.
So for those of you who can - enjoy the
movie. But to everyone, send your best reference links to WorldChanging
and in the future simply point those who squawk to the soon-to-be-built
reference page as an FAQ page, or as a RTFM (Read the Friggin' Manual) hand-off.
You and I shouldn't get bogged down with the stalling tactic
discussions. The next action steps are steps that you and I know so much
about - how to conserve resources and prevent pollution. The next steps to
be taken will be taken by many menmbers of the public who want to act but
don't know quite how to do so.
We're gonna be busy!
P2RIC, the Pollution Prevention
Information Center, is
a proud member of the Pollution Prevention
Resource Exchange, P2Rx.org.