The characters in this seven-day dialogue are described in the Foreword. Please read it first to get a better appreciation of what they're saying.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chaud: As responsible world citizens, regardless of country, we have a duty to respond to the global warming challenges responsibly. We need to consider the impact on future generations not just the present. It's clear that atmospheric greenhouse gas levels have increased, and continue to increase at a rapid pace. The increase is primarily due to human-made activities, mostly by the burning of fossil fuels. If we continue to do that, we put future generations at greater risk of cataclysmic events, such as storms or droughts. To do nothing would be irresponsible. We cannot ignore the problem. It won't go away on its own!
Froid: I wish it were that simple! We're standing on the threshold of ignorance. If you believe those predicting that unimaginable climate change will occur because the earth is getting warmer, then you are absolutely correct. On the other hand, if you believe those predicting that the next ice age may be just around the corner, then you would be absolutely wrong.
That's the dilemma: no one knows the answer. We are damned if we do, and damned if we don't! In a way, we are like a deer in the middle of the road trapped between the headlights of an approaching car. It knows that something is coming, but it doesn't know what.
Chaud: Suppose that the global warmers are right, but we don't do anything, then we can turn most of the earth into a dust bowl. People will die from starvation. How can we let it happen?
Froid: I understand what you're saying. On the other hand, suppose that we're on the verge of another ice age, and the only thing that's saving us is the high atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. If you reduce the greenhouse effect, on the belief that it will save us from droughts, then you convert agricultural land to ice fields, and people will die from starvation. We reach the same end result!
Chaud: I suppose you're right. People are either going to die from a scorched earth or from a frozen one. There appears to be no middle ground.
Froid: My guess is that nothing drastic is going to happen for at least a few centuries. In the meanwhile, we keep assessing the situation until it becomes clear what type of future we face. This will allow us to focus on the more pressing issues of population growth, clean water shortages, and contaminated air, which are all exacerbated by our overconsumption.
If we don't address these problems, we will face more waterborne and airborne diseases, potentially leading to new pandemics. Then it won't matter what kind of future awaits us from climate change! But we don't have to wait for the answer. North Americans and Europeans can reduce consumption without significant hardship. We just need to become more frugal, like our parents and grandparents. Their lifestyle was sustainable: ours isn't. And that's the problem we have to address!
Chaud: I completely agree. We can talk about global warming, climate change, carbon taxes, CO2 trading and capture schemes until we are blue in the face, but unless we reduce personal consumption to sustainable levels, it's all hot air; and we certainly don't need anymore of that!
Froid: All of the hullabaloo about global warming and climate change will eventually be shown to be nothing more than a tempest in a teacup. Ultimately, common sense will prevail. Young people know that their parent's lifestyle is not supportable and they are adopting more sustainable lifestyles. They are definitely more environmentally conscious than our generation, and they are consequently less materialistic. That's the bright light that I see on the horizon!
Chaud: Will they have the wherewithal to stand up to the power of megalithic corporations who will continue to shove consumerism down their throats?
Froid: I hope so! But, wouldn't it be wonderful if world leaders were gathered in Paris this week to rally forces against those powerful multinational corporations that are the opponents in the fight against overconsumption? Why have they chosen instead the misguided fight against the phantom of global warming?
Imagine how much more fruitful it would have been for them to discuss concrete approaches to reducing global consumption and making sustainability the global objective and rallying cry!
Why are we hell-bent on destroying the same Earth that sustains us and all other living things?
Why aren't all the gods that Man has ever created coming to rescue their own creation? Why are they allowing us to slowly poison it and everything else that lives?
If we can believe that a god created Earth and everything that moves on it, and the same god allows Man to destroy it, then we can believe in the global-warming myth and the need to capture greenhouse gases. But, just as science has shown all creation myths for what they are, it will also show the global-warming myth for what it is!
That is my belief, and the betterment of the world is my hope! Join in the fight for a better world: we owe it to our children and grandchildren!
YOU ARE READING
CLIMATE CHANGE: what does it mean?
Phi Hư CấuThe words Climate Change have entered our vocabulary with hurricane force. It's difficult to pick up a newspaper, view the evening news, or read more than a few minutes on social networks, or the web without encountering these words. But what do the...
