In a world where one can crunch numbers and create graphs “supporting” almost anything, the study of climate change becomes increasingly riddled with massive amounts of (often contradictory) scientific “evidence.” For those of us, like myself, without much skill in the realm of scientific knowledge, it can get confusing to tell fact apart from fiction. When confronted with two sources (such as those presented to us in this blog question), that both appear legitimate but provide contradictory information, it is easy to get lost in the shuffle of “scientific” debate. In addition, in a society where political action may be taken or is in the process of becoming policy, some individuals begin to view their freedom as being compromised in the name of eco-friendly policies. This arguably results in fierce competition and competing interests around the science of climate change.
Admittedly, I’m not one for science. I most likely will never have the skill to intelligently enter into a heated scientific debate. However, climate change and environmental issues still stir me, even if I’m unable to scientifically grasp the exact nature of the problem. Why is this so? Because I realize that everything has some sort of a consequence. I don’t believe that anything just happens without causing something else, either positive or negative, to happen as a result. Thus, regardless of the scientific debate, it remains clear to me that our intense consumption and reliance on fossil fuel must be having some consequence. For me, my desire to reduce climate change and cultivate a more positive impact on the environment doesn’t need to be rooted in specific scientific information. Regardless of how fancy a chart you can make, it’s hard to miss the thick black smoke billowing out of the tailpipe a car.
No comments:
Post a Comment