However perhaps even more concerning is that the existence of an environmental threat in the form of climate change is a political question domestically. Some groups have a vested interest in continuing to deny that climate even exists. Recently I was able to attend a conference whose theme was "What is the worst that could happen?". One of the panelist for the opening discussion was an expert on climate change. She had a lot to say about the potentially catastrophic effects of climate change however in her opening statement (limited to 8 minutes)- she felt the need to spend 7 minutes presenting the scientific evidence that climate change actually exists rather than addressing consequences and solutions. This need to justify even having the conversation inhibits actual discussions of a solution.
A source of frustration for her is that, while she is all for fair news coverage of both sides of an issue, the media reports on climate change as if scientists are divided 50-50 (not 98%-2% according to this panelist). Once the vary existence of a problem becomes a political question it is hard to come by any good solution to a commons problem. As Natsumi pointed out in class communal action on a commons problem requires an a priori agreement on at least the existence if not the nature of the problem. Hard negotiations about levels of pollutions, especially ones already tense because of country power and development disparities become that much difficult if the participants have to agree that there even is a problem. Internal political debates in the US about climate change make international multilateral action difficult.
Climate change is a threat on several levels, at least the US military thinks so: Pentagon Report: U.S. Military Considers Climate Change a 'Threat Multiplier' That Could Exacerbate Terrorism
A source of frustration for her is that, while she is all for fair news coverage of both sides of an issue, the media reports on climate change as if scientists are divided 50-50 (not 98%-2% according to this panelist). Once the vary existence of a problem becomes a political question it is hard to come by any good solution to a commons problem. As Natsumi pointed out in class communal action on a commons problem requires an a priori agreement on at least the existence if not the nature of the problem. Hard negotiations about levels of pollutions, especially ones already tense because of country power and development disparities become that much difficult if the participants have to agree that there even is a problem. Internal political debates in the US about climate change make international multilateral action difficult.
Climate change is a threat on several levels, at least the US military thinks so: Pentagon Report: U.S. Military Considers Climate Change a 'Threat Multiplier' That Could Exacerbate Terrorism
No comments:
Post a Comment