Global warming is in the headlines again but headlines don't change behaviour. And if behaviour does not change then it seems pretty certain that we're doomed, climatically speaking. But is anyone really worried? You know worried enough to really do something about it?
The scientific community seems to have reached some kind of concensus about the need to limit emissions, recommending we should aim to stabilise atmospheric concentrations of CO2 at 450 parts per million or below. Yet even the governments top advisers seem to see this as unachievable. The BBC quotes Sir David King, speaking on Today, "But no country is going to turn off a power station which is providing much-desired energy for its population to tackle this problem - we have to accept that.... To aim for 450 (ppm) would, I am afraid, seem unfeasible."
So should we give up before we're even started? Perhaps 450ppm is a hard target, difficult, challenging, possibly even impossible, who knows, but should we really not aim for it, make at decent effort at trying to get there or is the future of the planet not really worth bothering about? I don't see why if the stakes are so high we should accept excuses, make excuses, give people an opt out before we even try to do something. Surely if we can increase our emissions in our lifetime we can reduce them too. Why can't progress mean going backwards? It's so easy to make excuses and just as easy to clutch at them as good reasons to do nothing. We do it everyday but it's got to stop. We're all in denial and it'll be the death of us. It's increasingly obvious where doing nothing or aiming low is going to lead. And it's not where I want to go... for me or my family. What about you?
No comments:
Post a Comment