So we have CO2 emissions - MUCH greater from human sources, and a greenhouse gas responsible for keeping the earth warm; and SO2 emissions - an anthropogenically emitted pollutant gas with climatic effects so obviously harmful we passed a law to regulate them 20 years ago.
And while such discourses are undeniably fascinating to me (climatology, in general, is very interesting to me personally), I admit a bit of an internal struggle over having these arguments at all. I'm torn between two equally powerful intellectual compulsions. One, that I firmly support the science that predicts looming catastrophic climate change as a result of anthropogenic carbon emissions. Two, that fighting over the science is distracting and politically impractical. While I applaud the scientists who defend their research against fierce and repugnant ignorance displayed by the likes of Sean Hannity and Chuck Grassley, I wish there were more effort put into the fight for a solution. That solution is, largely, a technological one, and the politics of clean technology and energy security are not nearly as contentious as the politics of climate change, IMO.
As a result, my readers can probably expect more coverage on global energy policy than on scientific discourses over climate change. Unless someone picks a fight with me - I really don't think I can resist.
No comments:
Post a Comment