preaching to the non-converted

I am very slowly returning to the blog.  After uni was over, we spent several weeks house-hunting – now we have found somewhere, we just need to get the moving all sorted and life will hopefully start settling down a little.  I’ve missed writing and there has been so much stuff in the news lately as well!

Of course, the kicker is probably Climategate Take 2 (I feel so dirty using yet another ridiculous media term ending in’-gate’ but it seems unavoidable).  More leaked emails, more bleating about how the climate scientists were obviously making things up, because it’s far more fun to have a nasty, semi-apocalyptic scenario ahead of us than to just keep on living as we are…

An article in The Guardian has done a nice job of sorting through some of the more explosive comments and explaining them in context – something that the media rarely does.  While I applaud her efforts, I’m not sure that what she’s doing is all that effective – she’s preaching to the converted.  Those who genuinely believe that the scientists at UEA are part of some sort of vast, climate conspiracy will not read his words – and if they do, they will hardly give them much credence.

That said, I’m not sure what the answer really is.  To be honest, I think that the cartoon in my last post, may have the best solution.  While climate change is a fairly dramatic call to action, maybe we need to take a step back.  Maybe we need to convince people that every step we take to counter AGW is a step towards a better future with less atmospheric and water pollution, cleaner cities and healthier, stronger people.  It doesn’t matter whether or not you ‘believe’ in climate change, you just need to believe that our world can be better.

Right here and now, I just don’t think that contexts and semantics are going to make the difference.


One thought on “preaching to the non-converted

  1. First of all, welcome back and congrats on the new home : )

    Second, I agree that there are so many advantages, other than climate change, to reduce our use of fossil fuels (reducing acid rain, oil spills, smog, etc.). I get the feeling that part of the solution is to convince people that their quality of life will not be negatively affected by such a transition. I say this because people who do not believe in climate change often equate the reduction in fossil fuel use to the thrashing of their economy and a return to the stone age.
    I think people also need to talk more about the 6:1 ratio of fossil fuel to green energy subsidies world wide. The argument is often made that solar, wind, and other form of renewable energy are too costly (relative to fossil fuels). It’s no wonder when we still subsidies fossil fuels to the tune of over $300 billion a year, globally (vs $50 billion for renewables).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s