diverse perspectives, common ground

I have to admit that I am a moderate when it comes to environmental issues which means that few would really agree with me, but few would be completely opposed to my reasoning. For this assignment I could talk to someone completely skeptical or completely activist in environmental activism, but armed with arguments from this class and with ease of access, I chose to talk to my dad, a fairly ardent skeptic.

I let my dad open the debate mentioning that I am taking a class on environmental politics in which we are examining several different aspects of environmental protection. However, the issue quickly turned into climate change since it is the most publicized issue at the moment. I mentioned that I am somewhat inclined toward the environmentalist perspective that human activity contributes to environmental problems, but that I am not convinced that our activity as of now or in the near future spells imminent global collapse. I was impressed by my dad’s arguments. He refrained from disproved conjectures about the sun or claims that carbon dioxide is not a proven cause of warming. He mentioned the low percentage of total greenhouses gasses that are produced from human activity as opposed to all of the natural processes occurring globally, a fact which we discussed in class. In response I mentioned our discussion about natural sinks stating as more of a question than a rebuttal that if the Earth has an ability to absorb a certain amount of naturally occurring greenhouse gasses, our activity may overwhelm these natural sinks and destroy its ability to purify itself. He was not familiar with the sinks idea, but acceded to the logic only in so far as we could tell the limit of our natural sinks. He said that the Earth was getting warmer but not to an unprecedented extent despite the levels of carbon.

The point I returned to after that was that for the time being he appeared to be right, but the main question right now is how do we respond to an uncertain future. He said that was a bit of a loaded question. We rarely have an organized response to an uncertain future, and we are lucky when we have an organized, effective response to one that is short-term and certain. He is very skeptical about a top-down approach that is directed by government at the expense of populations particularly when it comes to achieving benefits that may never materialize and almost surely will not be felt in our lifetime. I have no argument there; we are certainly like-minded when it comes to political issues, but I mentioned Cradle to Cradle and the concept of redesigning. He was optimistic about this possibility as it fits with our approval of private innovation for a better lifestyle.

Through our differences we appeared to reach a compromise. Both of us believe that change has to follow practical objectives and be driven by hope of how life could be organized rather fears that are vague and uncertain. There are practical reasons to change our production and consumption behavior now, and these should be the message of the environmental movement.