The withdrawal of the USA from the Paris Accord has drawn both criticism and support - from different segments of our society. Many of us felt it was an important first step for the world to join together to do something about anthropogenic global climate change (AGCC). What we American do or don't do affects everyone around the world. What goes on in the rest of the world inevitably has impacts in the USA. We're no longer isolated bands of hunter-gatherers, and so our species has become deeply interconnected and interdependent. Agriculture set us on the road to this interconnectedness, and industrialization moved us more rapidly in that direction. Electronic technology is now accelerating the pace of interdependence. Our withdrawal from the Paris accord is a profoundly disturbing step backward at a time when moving ahead to mitigate AGCC is critical for the future of our nation.
Apologists for this move are saying it was a "bad deal" for the USA. If global climate change is worrisome to the military in this nation, is it plausible to suggest it's a myth? If many business leaders supported our being part of the Paris Accord, is it plausible to suggest it was going to hurt the USA economy? The US military is not exactly a bastion of left-leaning tree-hugger libtards. Business leaders don't advocate things that will be bad for their business. There are abundant examples now showing that reducing our dependence on fossil fuels will not bankrupt our economies, but rather will energize them. As new technology is developed to replace the old, new jobs will be created and the economy should prosper. In various places around the world, including American states, this is already happening. The hard part is the transition period as we wean ourselves from fossil fuels. To step backward away from the leadership of a movement to mitigate AGCC, will cost our nation in many ways, and is not the path to American "greatness". It delays the inevitable transition, making the pain of transition last longer.
I'm not a climate scientist, so I have no evidence of my own to support or refute the reality of AGCC. I defer to the consensus of my scientific colleagues who are doing global climate research. Would you entrust your health care to someone not a medical doctor? Would you entrust your safety to a person who has no pilot training or experience? Why do you lend credibility to non-specialists in issues of science? Why do you think you know as much or more about the global climate as the consensus of climate scientists? On what basis can there be such intense political opposition to the climate science consensus about AGCC? Insofar as I can tell, only a tiny fraction of global climate scientists are arguing the consensus is wrong. The rest of the chorus of voices opposing efforts to do something about AGCC are not global climate scientists, but are mostly basing their position on propaganda, lies, distortions of the facts, and political machinations. Opposition to the Paris accord is just another rearguard action against a future technology shift toward renewable energy sources that is already well underway, even here in the USA. Opposition to progress appeals to those who feel threatened by global unity in the face of global challenges.
The current political situation in the USA is going to result in damage that will take decades to repair. The regime in power is anti-science, anti-intellectual, supportive of creeping theocracy, contributing to the massive expansion of the income inequality gap, alienating our international allies, devastating our public education systems, encouraging xenophobia and bigotry, and on ... and on ... and on. Each day, more damage to America is happening, so withdrawing from the Paris Accord is another step down a very destructive path for America.
Some have said that politics is intruding into science and that isn't good for the science. AGCC didn't become politicized by some sort of conspiracy among climate scientists. It became politicized when it became clear that something needed to be done about the threats posed by AGCC. There would be a price tag attached to any efforts at mitigation of AGCC, and where money is involved, there go some politicians and their corporate sponsors. And many political conservatives wax eloquent talking of the doom associated with progress. It's what they do - oppose progress.
No comments:
Post a Comment