Climate change vs sustainability
It’s all over the news. Texas governor and Republican presidential hopeful Rick Perry doubts that human activity contributes to climate change and doesn’t believe that the federal government can afford to pay for something that can’t possibly solve a problem caused entirely by natural solar and geologic processes. Predictably, his detractors are all in a huff about Republicans not believing in Science. I might as well capitalize Science, because the accusation comes in the same way that others huff and puff about someone not believing in God. Issues of sustainability get lost in the scuffle.Well, for a moment, let’s seriously consider, what if Perry is right? What difference would that make? If the only reason to care about the environment is how human activity drives climate change, Perry being right would probably put an end to the environmental movement. But let’s rephrase that question that we’re taking seriously. If climate change is not caused by human activity, which environmental causes become unnecessary? Not a one. So what does it matter if Perry is right or wrong? It doesn’t matter at all.In that case, arguing for the environment on the basis of climate change is counterproductive. It makes caring for the environment a matter of partisan politics, not a matter of quality of life. Sustainability, on the other hand, does not focus on some hypothetical looming disaster. It focuses on solving problems that we can see and that have unpleasant consequences that are painfully evident.
Why do we need to wean ourselves from burning fossil fuels?
Why do we need to wean ourselves from plastic?
Why do we need to be concerned about deforestation?
[For the bullet points and conclusion, see the original blog post]
