Taking a closer look at the full costs of energy acquisition and dissipation
I think this statement merely scratches the surface of the issue, but it is one of the few articles I have come across which succinctly dismisses the viewpoint that scientists and evangelicals cannot find common ground when it comes to preserving the ecosystems and life on earth. There were a few key beliefs which both parties agreed upon. First, the earth is suffering as a direct result of human activity. Secondly, if these problems are ignored, intergenerational equity will be destroyed as problems are simply pushed to future generations. Thirdly, both parties believe the protection of the earth to be a moral imperative. Through articulating in scripture and supporting that with science, there is a chance that the message will resonate with people of varying religions, geographies, and socioeconomic backgrounds. They also mentioned that there is great concern for the “poorest of the poor.” I truly believe that education as well as implementing laws and regulations in both the developed and developing world are two critical components to combating problems such as global climate change. In my globalization class, we read that there is a great deal of tension between the developing world and countries such as the U.S. and many in Europe as they argue that they should be allowed to industrialize without restraint, just as we had in the past. Regulations should be put in place before they begin to develop; this way lowering emissions is no longer the issue. This prevents future problems and may help to restore intergenerational equity.
In a Democratic nation, cooperation is necessary. As Hilary points out, these article proves that cooperation IS possible in the realm of environmental policy. As the article implies, cooperation requires both parties to identify "overlapping initiatives." The convention between these two parties illuminates just one example of possibility, and the benefits, of cooperation. This is, obviously, only a beginning phase, but is a step in the right direction. Only once groups are willing to come to the table and address issues such as environmental policy, will any advances be made.
I agree with Hilary that the article scratches the surface and that we still have quite a ways to go. A lot of great rhetoric could be found in this article, but there wasn't much of a plan for action. Considering the varying groups that came together for this article though, I wouldn't have expected such a plan. Thus, I found this article very encouraging and a great starting point. A large part of the battle is different viewpoints coming to a consensus that climate change as a result of human activity is very real and that we have responsibility to address it. If groups like these can come together maturely, so can the rest of society and Congress. It provides hope that something concrete and effective can be done in the climate change battle.
This paper gives a solid foundation on which to begin a plan for mitigating some of the environmental issues we are currently facing. As said in the previous comments, the fact that these various groups can come together and find common ground gives added hope to mitigation efforts, especially their mutual agreement on certain points, such as human activity being the main cause of environmental degradation. This paper constitutes the beginning of a hopefully long-lasting relationship focused on addressing our environmental crisis.
Post a Comment