Tuesday night on NPR, someone introduced as a climatologist stated that based on her most recent research on climate change, global warming and carbon/greenhouse gas impacts are irreversible and inevitable, and “Nothing” can be done to reverse them. Sea levels will rise and agricultural patterns will change as the earth warms. Then she went on to say that because “Nothing” can be done, we need to do “Something.” However, doing “Something” to try and impact a process that climatologist(s) say cannot be impacted only delays the inevitable. That doesn’t sound like good stewardship of natural, economic or social resources. We would be better off to invest in building a robust society where rising sea levels and agricultural pattern shifts are can be accommodated and adapted to.
Or the climatologist cited could be wrong, and the shifts will be different, sea levels may fall and agricultural patterns will still shift as the earth cools or bobbles or whatever it does. in that case natural, economic and social resources invested in a robust and flexible society will still be useful. Either way, investing resources into doing “Something” to change “Nothing” is poor stewardship.
There is an idea for legislation being floated around to allow neighborhoods to create Climate Benefit Districts in order to do “Something.” It needs to be squelched as a waste of resources.
Or the climatologist cited could be wrong, and the shifts will be different, sea levels may fall and agricultural patterns will still shift as the earth cools or bobbles or whatever it does. in that case natural, economic and social resources invested in a robust and flexible society will still be useful. Either way, investing resources into doing “Something” to change “Nothing” is poor stewardship.
There is an idea for legislation being floated around to allow neighborhoods to create Climate Benefit Districts in order to do “Something.” It needs to be squelched as a waste of resources.
