Let’s argue about what to call it. That’s a convenient way to “take the heat off” a problem, buy a little procrastination time and obscure the crimes of the guilty. Of course this position may arguably be my inner cynic thinking that the name game being played regarding the catastrophic destabilization of the earths climate was engineered by consultants hired by the oil companies or politicians to protect the upward momentum of Gross National Product.
As much as I think there has been deliberate attempts to diminish the warnings findings of our environmental experts, I have to admit that there is a little bit of environmental ego behind the name game as well. Kind of a terminological dick waving contest between experts in the environmental community. Not including Al Gore, there have been other examples of environmental experts getting on TV saying things to the tune of how they’ve known about this problem since the 70’s and how they were studying this and that and blah blah blah. They might as well just strike it up in the form o fa school yard chant like, “I knew something you didn’t know, na, na, nana, na…so na!” I don’t want to discredit these environmental bellringers because I know they were really there and what they profess was being studied and discussed in the environmental community. Don’t take my word for it check out publications by environmentalist Amory Lovins and hear what he had to say back in the 70’s. My issue is with the grandstand. You can’t be a poster boy unless you’re afflicted with the disease. Trying to brand yourself as the “know it all” of an environmental issue(or any other issue) is a dangerous endeavour. The risk to your cause is too great. Sorry Al Gore, but what I remember most about “An Inconvenient Truth” is the way you were plastered all over it like pictures of Fidel Castro across Cuba! Which can be OK as long as the image remains intact and the terminology of the game does’t spin your message into something different.
Where do I stand on this issue you might wonder? Well, I was studying Earth Sciences at the Universtiy of Western Ontario (UWO) in 1992, when Dr. William Fyfe, returned from addressing the United Nations Earth Summit in Rio Di Janero. Dr. Fyfe put the goods about “climate change” in very simple and convincing language to the United Nations as Key Note Speaker of the conference. It was at a lecture hall at UWO, where I got to see him deliver the same presentation, “Planet Under Stress”, where compelling research was graphically fused with analogies, comparing our ecosystem to mechanical systems and highlighting the increasing frequency and intensity climatic perturbations over the past century. It added up to our earths ecosystem risking collapse from glutonous human activity.
This is what I took away. Eventually a system under stress is run into the ground, broken. When its a car we can throw in a new engine for a few hundred bucks and life continues. When its a planet…well…lets start fixing the damage now, starting with curbing our own destructive and consumeristic tendancies, lobbying our friends (kindly and gently of course), communities and governments to adopt changes that benefit the earth.
As for my terminology “Global Climatic Destruction”, would say it best. Post your comment on how would you say it?