Hard News: Dear Prudence
153 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last
-
IF ONLY...
I just cut and pasted this 'cause it cant be said enough. En masse we have placed emphasis in all the wrong places. We pay lipservice to ideals that should be our functioning reality not pie in the sky speech fodder for politicians.
Thanks ChrisNow imagine that the mainstream media were as interested in the thoughts of the president’s ecological team—most notably marine biologist Jane Lubchenco, who now leads the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and climate expert John Holdren, the president’s new science advisor—as they are in the opinions of his economic team. Imagine if, in primetime interview after interview, these public servants provided us regular environmental analysis. On an almost daily basis, the American citizenry would be reminded that one in every four mammals now appears to be heading toward extinction. The Gulf Stream, which drives nutrient cycling in our oceans, is starting to get wobbly, while dead zones in the oceans are growing. The oceans, we would be informed, provide half of our planetary oxygen. Shoveling coal into ovens to generate electricity is loading the atmosphere with mercury, which rains down and is transformed by ancient bacteria into the powerful brain poison methylmercury.
Methylmercury is siphoned up the food chain, concentrating as it goes, so that nearly all freshwater lakes and streams east of the Mississippi are now unfishable, and we must advise women and children against eating tuna salad sandwiches.
Imagine that all Americans find out, whether they want to or not, that atmospheric loading of carbon dioxide is acidifying the ocean in ways that, if unchecked, will drop pH to the point where calcium carbonate goes into solution, and that will spell the end of anything with a shell—from clams and oysters to coral reefs.
Suppose that ecological pundits discussed every night on cable TV the ongoing disappearance of bees, bats, and other pollinators and the possibly dire consequences for our food supply. Suppose we received daily reports on the status of our aquifers. Suppose legislators and citizens both agreed that if we don’t take immediate action to bail out our ecological system, something truly terrible will happen. Our ecology will tank.
The fact that nothing close to this is happening is the difference between economy and ecology, both of which share an etymology: eco, from the Greek oikos, meaning “household.”
-
They will have to be clever
Agreed. Very clever.
-
Gio said:
Sure, but Kyoto is a palliative at best. The changes we need are radical and require a radical rethinking of the notions of development and growth, as well as of human and environmental capital. From that broader perspective the difference between Labour and National is negligible. (And I'm a Labour voter, mind.)
I'd commend I/S's post on the Australia federal government's change of plans. It's here.
I'd be very surprised if a hell of a lot of Labor voters didn't feel completely let down. If Turnbull can manage the Liberal internal politics to develop an alternative position, it'll save his leadership and make this a major election issue next year.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.