COMMENT: Erring on the side of caution when it comes to climate change

COMMENT: Erring on the side of caution when it comes to climate change

Reading letters to the editor and speaking with individuals here and there in our communities has led me to understand that convincing some people that humans have a part in climate change is about as likely as convincing others that our current MP is doing a good job, or that our MLA belongs to the right party.

I've had the opportunity to hear from people who are actually studying the world's oceans, and I worked in industry long enough to remember the supporters of asbestos and the deniers of acid rain quite clearly. I don't think I lived in denial myself, just took my paycheque and trusted that someday we'd get things right. And things are getting better. You can hang the clothes out to dry on an overcast day and trust that the rain – if it comes – won't eat holes in your undies. Not anymore.

Well, except maybe if you're a shell fish, or a coral reef, or a plankton. Then, according to the folk I'm hearing from, their undies aren't doing so well. As the carbon uptake of the oceans increases they become more acidic and life, as we know it, begins to die. If enough life dies in the ocean, we die along with it. Or our kids do.

Now maybe the scientists and biologists and the folk who study the oceans are wrong about the cause of the problem. Maybe the folk who deny their conclusions are right this time. But what do we lose by cleaning up our emissions, taking the bus or the bike or the train a bit more, or finding other sources of energy?

Call me a gullible dupe if you like, but my memory caries the truth of rotted clothing, fresh from the line. I have sat by too many friends who's exposure to harmless asbestos or silica or cedar has taken away too much. I'd rather err on the side of caution, do what I can and look foolish to my grandchildren for believing I was protecting their lives, than light up another cigarette, 'cause we're all gonna die anyway.'

But maybe that's just me. And mine.

Keith Simmonds is a diaconal minister in the Communities in Faith Pastoral Charge serving Beaver Valley, Rossland, Salmo and Trail.

Comments

The mellifluous charms of Rose Calderon

Nice try, Keith, but basic facts and good sense don't work for some people. They'd prefer to ignore the rising tide of hellish change and spend their time sacking schools and attacking neighbours.

I respond to reports or opinions

that are put forward by a number of people.  I have my opinions and state them, hardly an attack.  It's more a defensive posture when, for example, some neighbours conspire to close schools or hospital in my town. 

tsk, tsk

Hellish change?  Maybe we should all be preparing for December 21 2012?

Aren't you tax exempt?

I would think you'd be busy tending your many flock rather than getting involved in politics.

Flock?

I bear the blame here. I should not have opened the column the way I did. I apologize for the offense caused. 

The issue should be climate change, not who is a master at getting under who's skin. Humans have been excellent at that for a very long time. Me among them.

We all live here. Our area has seen some of the worst effects of human caused climate change and continues to test children for its lingering aftermath. But we do not live in a moonscape anymore, much has changed and we continue to work for further change. That could be a message of hope to the world. Imagine the before and after pics. Things do not have to remain the way they are. Change can happen. We are living proof.

That would be a wonderful defense of our area to offer, especially for the accomplished wordsmiths on this page...

This is a regrettable descent

This is a regrettable descent from honest discussion to a baseless personal attack. Let's try to keep to the issues in this forum.

A bit flinty today Adrian?

Does it give you pleasure to not address people according to their on line name?

You're referring to Andrew Bennet

But your proper name is publicly-available in your profile--something we demand of all commenters. The only thing worse than personal attacks are anonymous personal attacks, after all.

It's an observation, not an attack

The good Rev is an adult and can surely fend for himself.  He alone is responsible for what he posts on line on various web sites or writes in print media.

Is he that weak that he needs the two A's to speak for him? I think not.

 

Do you or Andrew do that generally?

Or do you pick and choose?