Why is there controversy?

When you become environmentally-aware, you start to also become aware of the inexplicable controversy surrounding global-warming, or "climate change" as skeptics call it. It's disheartening for me to read things like this, a post from a Weather Channel pundit calling for any television meteorologists who do not agree with the theory of global warming to be plutoed. (I've been waiting for a chance to use that!) Basically, she wants their "seal of approval" stripped. While I don't necessarily agree with any sort of censorship, and when it comes to so-called experts, on whom we rely for facts--not opinion, it can become kind of a grey area, what upsets me more is the vehement anger and outright hatred the post has raised from the masses of skeptics out there, who have nothing nice to say when it comes to denying that global warming exists. I'm not saying all skeptics are rude and immature, or that all proponents are altruistic and peaceful...but it seems like most of us who believe in what we see--the obvious change in weather patterns over the course of the last decade or so, the depleting rainforests and endangered wildlife--tend to be more open-minded and welcoming of change. In fact, by our very nature (no pun intended) it's what we are trying to enact. Skeptics, on the other hand, want to keep the status quo; their two houses; their his and her's SUV's; their little styrofoam conveniences.

I started out this post with the plan to pose the question in the title: "Why is there controversy?" When it comes to climate issues, and eco-friendly issues in general, I don't see why there is an "opposition." I don't really believe in "evil," per se, so it's not like I believe skeptics want the human race to suffer. If the question is between saving the planet and not, why don't we all choose to save it? Many uber-conservative Christians are defiantly opposed to the theory of global-warming, but it seems like something to me that they of all people would feel most compelled to help heal the Earth. God gave us dominion over all living things not with the expectation that we would destroy it, but so that we could protect it. No matter race, religion, or political affiliation, I would think everyone could share the common goal of a cleaner, more sustainable world. Sadly, this doesn't seem to be the case. Anyway, the point of this post was to ask this question and try to answer it, but I feel like I answered it in the first paragraph: Skeptics simply like the status quo too much. It's not that they want a dirty, unhealthy and arrid world, they just don't like the idea of having to give up personal luxuries or the lifestyle they have grown accustomed to.

This is where it's important that I make a clarification. I agree. With that part. Enacting social change should never mean stripping personal freedoms or forcing a lifestyle upon anyone. If we can't be free, then what's the point? What I would like to see happen is just a paradigm shift--a change in the global perspective on the planet. Instead of people using their freedom to buy bigger, noisier, less-efficient cars--just because they can--it would be great if they wanted to buy smaller, more environmentally-conscious cars. There was a time when the norm was to own slaves, or to use children in labor camps. Today, in most Western societies, even if such practices weren't prohibited, I seriously doubt that the average person would suddenly take them back up again. It's just not the social norm anymore; it's something we as a culture have moved away from. That's how I'd like to see us shift on the issue of being Earth-friendly. Even if global warming is not real, and the skeptics are right, what is wrong with doing things that keep the Earth clean? The facts on climate change may be disputable, but what about population increase? I don't hear a lot of arguments that say our population is shrinking, and that we're all going to end up with way more room than we have now. And no one is holding up protest signs that say "save our landfills" or "kill all the whales." Well, Fred Phelps might be, I don't know these days. Point is, there are certain issues like these that will inevitably have long-lasting consequences on future generations--on your children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Do you want them to look back and say "Geez, Great Grandpa must've been an ignorant dick. Why would he condone this sort of world?"

Someday I'll try to organize all these thoughts into a coherent article or something. Right now they're pretty much just ramblings. But I hope they are provocative ramblings, and that it causes some discussion. My true hope is that it changes some minds, even just a little, but I can't be too optimistic.

(FOLLOW-UP - 2/20/07 - Since I wrote this post, the IPCC has released their findings on global warming. The question of whether or not this is really happening has since become moot amongst all but the most extreme hangers-on. Most of the points I made here are still valid, about doing things just because they're good things to do and not just because there's something in it for us; nevertheless, this report is sort of a "boo-yah" to all those aforementioned naysayers. But instead of gloating and dancing about, saying "nanner nanner" and thumbing my nose, I'll just say that I'm glad we have found a way to finally all be on the same page. Hopefully true progress will now begin.)