Over the past half century, none of our threatened
eco-pocalypses have played out as predicted. Some came partly true; some were
averted by action; some were wholly chimerical. This raises a question that many
find discomforting: With a track record like this, why should people accept the
cataclysmic claims now being made about climate change? After all, 2012 marks
the apocalyptic deadline of not just the Mayans but also a prominent figure in
our own time: Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, who said in 2007 that “if there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late
… This is the defining moment.”
Actually he could go back farther into history than the last 50 years or so. In the past religious apocalypses were more the rage. . .now we see scientific-based apocalypses. Some time something will happen, I am sure, but being obsessed with something can generate a lot of terrible public policy in addition to the human worry that takes place.
The writer calls himself the "Rational Optimist"--is there such a thing as a "Rational Pessimist?"
No comments:
Post a Comment