CLIMATE: The constructive approach

The whole global warming debate is centered on the wrong issue. It doesn’t matter whether humans are at fault or not. What matters is whether we can affect the phenomenon in a way that helps us.

When a flood comes, we don’t decide whether to get the sand bags out based on what caused the flood. When the house is on fire, we don’t decide whether to put it out based on who lit the match. We do what we can to mitigate damage.

The gases that cause the phenomenon come from many different sources, industry, forest fires, volcanic activity and methane released by organic life, to name a few.

The problem is some of these sources represent various people’s sacred cows and the fixes mean altering vigorously defended views that span the political spectrum.

The environmental crowd has a real problem with the idea that catastrophic fire might be mitigated by getting fuels out of the forest before they literally go up in smoke. They want a house, but don’t want a tree cut to build it. The industry people can’t seem to pull their heads out of the fossil fuel feed bag long enough to seriously consider more renewable alternatives.

We want the car, but not the mine it takes to make one. We want the water in the glass to be clean, but don’t mind making our living doing something that fouls the water.

We share these hypocrisies. We will find solutions when we suspend our attachments to these sacred cows long enough to meet in the middle.

STEPHEN BRUNO

Dalton Gardens