Unapologetic insolence from an aging subversive

Unapologetic insolence from an aging subversive

Saturday, 14 November 2009

Where Angels Fear to Tread

Everybody seems to be blogging about climate change.

Almost without exception, these bloggers adopt a position on the issue related to their political views.

Given that the concern originated from the scientific community, the fact that it has become controversial is bizarre. There’s no doubt that the issue has been picked up by both ends of the political spectrum to fit specific (and very different agendae) but it really isn’t a political issue.

What is to me alarming are the recent assertions of both sides of the debate. On the one hand we hear hysterical conspiracy theories about world domination. On the other we are scared witless with forecasts of death by fire, floods or starvation. These polemics simply complicate what is basically a simple issue.

Like many other Australians I have children. Like many other Australians I take out insurance. I don’t believe that this insurance is a waste of money, even when my house doesn’t burn down, or my car isn’t written off.

I believe that it is reasonable to insure the future of our planet against two basic threats which would affect the quality of the lives of my children and grandchildren. If we have to make financial and lifestyle sacrifices as part of this insurance then I can live with that.

The first threat is the strong likelihood that exponentially escalating carbon emissions are having negative effects long-term on climate. The second is that we are consuming non-renewable energy resources at a rate that isn’t sustainable if we want to enjoy the same lifestyle benefits currently available.

Either or both of these trends will bring us to a point where the benefits of not acting now will be far exceeded by the costs if we don’t. Even if you completely reject the IPCC consensus, the issue of depletion of non-renewable will simply not go away.

I’ve been trained in risk analysis. I understand the low-risk high-consequence component of basic risk management. There is no more severe consequence to taking an unnecessary risk than the degradation of our planet. That consideration alone should be enough to convince the most avid sceptic that we need to act. Sure, we don’t need the hype, we don’t need political positions to be taken and defended, but we do need basic behaviour change on the part of individuals, corporations and nations.

For me, the most convincing argument comes from personal experience.

My wife and I lost our firstborn child (a daughter), in 1982. The post-mortem indicated that she died of an aneurism that was a result of a congenital defect. The reason for the defect was never established, but studies of the children of Vietnam Veterans contain some very convincing statistics.

This experience, by itself is a powerful personal motivator to support planned and dogged action by individuals and government to maintain our planet as a viable life source for future generations.

I am one of many veterans sprayed with Agent Orange. I've returned to Vietnam on a number of occasions in the last few years and seen vast swathes of the countryside that still haven't recovered after forty years. I've visited Vietnamese institutions for people with disabilities and have been staggered and horrified by the extent and number of these congenital malformations.
Vietnam has one of the highest incidence rates of these malformations on the planet.

The use of this defoliant was an example of utter contempt of the natural environment. This mindset continues today in the attitude many of the sceptics. It is arrogant, totalitarian and basically suicidal.

These people can commit to future infanticide if they wish, but I don’t think it’s fair that they force the rest of us to join them.


Anonymous said...

A powerful emotive argument there mate.

As you know I am a denier.

What the IPCC has said is, and I noticed that you use similar terms - "it is likely that man is causing global warming."

The question I put to you is what do we do now?

How much will we spend to fix a problem that is 'likely' to happen?

Do you agree that $7billion is a fair amount for Australia to pay?

Wouldn't it be better spending this money on preparation for the effects of climate change (whatever the cause), or do you believe we can get to 350ppm which we are told will stop the warming?



1735099 said...

It's simple risk management - and it's only money. Wealth can be lost and gained but we (and our kids) have only one planet.

"Grendel" said...

I for one am not willing to take a political argument over a scientific one. I get very disturbed when I hear people accuse scientists of conspiring to fabricate evidence of global warming - there are much more lucrative careers than climate science.

I'll take the consensus view of science thanks and risk mitigate on that basis.

Good post!

Anonymous said...

I agree, let's take the politics out of it. Let's just start to do something as the elected government is trying to do.

We do only have one planet and unfortunately all the deniers, sceptics etc. are putting their heads in the sand.

Always enjoy your blogs.

Blog Archive