[Vision2020] Global Climate Change Responses - A Proposal

Garrett Clevenger garrettmc at verizon.net
Sat May 15 10:28:37 PDT 2010


I don't think you're immoral for questioning this issue.  That's probably a good thing.  

People will be screwed either way as we're now dependent on the very thing that's undermining our future. So you're right that we need to try to minimize that and not blunder it.

I'm sure people will take advantage of reforms and are probably rigging the system in their favor.  That's exactly why we're in the mess we're in: people generally are more concerned about their well-being then the overall "greater good."

I'm just as immoral and hypocritical as you are in any case. I'm a product of our society and use more than most people ever have (though I try to be aware of what affects my actions have)  I haven't completely given up what is probably a high standard of living compared to most people.

I'll be the first to admit I'm not perfect and can do more.

The fact that I'm a product and feel guilty about it makes me crave alternatives that have less impact. I'm not satisfied with the status quo and feel if enough people understand this we can reduce our impact while still having a high quality of life historically speaking.

But we don't have an unlimited amount of time.

I agree issues are grey, but there are "sides" to any issue.

I think it's ok to point out the folly of a particular side.  Whether that's demonization I suppose depends on how that comes across.

There is a side that doesn't think burning fossil fuels is bad.  They think it's good.  Why else would God provide this substance if we weren't supposed to use it.

They think this whole thing is a conspiracy to undermine capatilism and won't trust the science or political ramifications of changing the status quo.

If they had there way, we'd be drilling anywhere there's fossil fuel.

On the other side you have people like me are very sensitive to ecosystem destruction.  Perhaps we're bleeding hearts, but it breaks my heart knowing what we're doing to this planet.

Humans are smart enough to develop technology but not smart enough to use it wisely. We're turning this "Garden of Eden" in to "Hell" as quickly as we can.

If that isn't evil, not much is.  That is the underliying morality of it for me.

We are an out of control animal fouling our own nest (or our neighbors nest as is the case for most Americans)

So I Iook at the "drill, baby, drill" crowd and see arrogant fools.  It seems that even tragedies like what's happening in the Gulf are no big deal. They're probably upset that more regulations will hopefully be put in place to prevent things like this from happening as they see that as an overbearing government.

I don't like partisenship probably as much as you but that's the world we're living in. Maybe most people are not on any particular side.  It could be that complacency and apathy are the root of this evil. But there are enough powerful people on the "other side" who are thwarting any meaningful reform.

Environmental destruction is something each of us needs to take responsiblilty for.  Government can produce policy, but it's really up to you and me to do what we both feel needs to be done: reduce our personal impact as much as we can.

Good luck!


May 15, 2010 08:35:46 AM, godshatter at yahoo.com wrote:


>I did not intend to imply that banning fossil fuels was actually on the 
>table.  I was exaggerating for effect.  It's too bad that sad mistake 
>completely undermined the rest of my post because, well, crap.  I was on 
>a roll.
>I concede that this issue has a moral component.  I just don't think 
>it's as cut-and-dry as you seem to imply.  That sort of perspective also 
>tends to demonize anyone who, for whatever reason, takes a stand (even 
>in a small way) that is not on "your side". 
>More to the point, do you think *I* am being immoral when I suggest that 
>we don't jump on these carbon trading/taxing/sequestering schemes 
>because we don't know enough about it yet and we could seriously fuck 
>things up if we jump the gun on this one - even if it removes one lever 
>that might actually reduce our fossil fuel usage in the short term?  Is 
>it not OK to worry about the people that will be hurt when prices across 
>the board go up?  Should I not be offended that someone may be trying to 
>scare me into doing "the right thing" when they may not have all the 
>facts?  Should I not feel angered that, while some are in this for "the 
>greater good", others very likely stand to make millions on dubious 
>carbon credit schemes at the expense of everyone in line at the grocery 
>I don't like black-and-white, "my side" vs. "your side" 
>type of thinking 
>from left-wing progressives anymore than I like it from right-wing 
>neocons.  The world is gray and nuanced, and difficult to know if you 
>are doing the right thing.  I don't like that anymore than anyone else 
>does, but attempts to simplify the world's problems to those sorts of 
>binary terms haven't seemed to work out very well in the past.
>Having said that, I think there is plenty of room for agreement between 
>us and others here on the list.  I, too, think that we should stop 
>chopping down rain forests and spewing toxic chemicals across the length 
>and breadth of the earth and that we should reduce our dependence on 
>fossil fuels, specifically foreign oil in the short term.
>Garrett Clevenger wrote:
>> Paul writes:
>> "I don't like the tendency to frame this issue as a moral one. 
>There are all sorts of good reasons not to just ban oil and coal tomorrow. How do 
>you think your food gets to the supermarket? How many people survive the winters 
>because of coal plants? How much are crop yields increased because of modern fertilizers?"
>> This is a moral issue.  It wouldn't be an issue if it weren't.
>> The fact that we're being asked to reduce our use of fossil fuel (what 
>feeds our desires) in order to reduce the impact we have on the future is a moral 
>> I have little faith humans will do the right thing.  We don't like 
>to change, especially if it means potential hardships and loss of profits.  This 
>is an uphill fight for conservationists and people who understand the underlying 
>> People are too self-centered to be concerned about possible future impacts. 
> The course we're on probably won't be changed in time.  There will always 
>be people who resist seeing the bigger picture and the world will suffer from that.
>> Paul implies that a ban on fossil fuels is seriously being suggested.  
>That's a red herring.  I can appreciate his argument to an extent but that statement 
>ruins it.
>> Of course we rely on fossil fuels for all kinds of things.  I'm a farmer 
>who uses a tractor and appreciates having that instead of breaking my back tilling 
>the soil.  I don't want to live in cave.
>> We don't have to use so much, though.  There are ways to reduce our 
>> The fact is that fossil fuel is the enabler for our lifestyle which in 
>turn is probaly the greater threat to the planet.
>> That is, we now are able to chop down the rain forests at unprecedented 
>rates.  We're now able to produce all kinds of toxic chemicals which are the 
>silent killer we're subjecting the world to.  Countless airplanes crisscross 
>the sky pumping their pollution right into the ozone layer.
>> Unsustainable human populations, habitat loss, high levels of species extinction 
>and water and air pollution are the consequence of burning fossil fuel and that 
>will have as much impact on the future as climate change may.
>> While climate change may be an important issue to address, it's too 
>bad that people are more fixated on that then on all the other real and drastic 
>consequences of burning fossil fuel.
>> We may be richer then ever due to fossil fuel, but that'll come at 
>a cost to future generations.
>> That to me is the definition of immoral behavior...
>> Garrett

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list