WP: Action to fight global warming requires "assault on our way of life"

[DeepModem Mom]

Warming to the Inconvenient Facts
By Michael Grunwald
Sunday, July 23, 2006; Page B01

Global warming is having its moment in the sun. The climate crisis is on "60 Minutes" and in Tom Brokaw's new documentary, on the cover of Time and Newsweek, and in Al Gore's new movie and best-selling book. But while polls show that most Americans now believe that global warming is real and significantly manmade -- in 100-degree Washington last week, it felt more real than ever -- they are much less concerned about the issue than non-Americans, and much less willing to support dramatic action to address it.

The problem is, most scientists now believe dramatic action is necessary to prevent a climate catastrophe. They warn that unless humans can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 70 percent, global warming could threaten the habitability of the earth. That's the inconvenient part of "An Inconvenient Truth." And when Gore's critics complain that such drastic reductions would require an assault on our way of life, they're telling the truth, too.

But what if Americans decided that such changes truly were necessary?

If our get-serious rhetoric on climate change were to be more than a new form of low-carbon emissions, we would have to change not only the way we live and the way we drive, but the way we think about political issues. And not only the politics of energy and the environment. If the scientists are right about an apocalyptic future of floods, droughts, dead coral reefs, rising sea levels and advancing deserts, global warming is an existential threat that should affect our approach to just about every issue. To take it seriously, we would have to change the way we think about transportation, agriculture, development, water resources, natural disasters, foreign relations and more.

It is possible to imagine a climate-conscious politics that would stretch far beyond the modest carbon reductions we rejected in the Kyoto Protocol, a politics where a policy's atmospheric costs would be evaluated along with its fiscal costs, a politics of inconvenient truths. In fact, the path to that politics is already starting to emerge, with talk inside the Beltway and action outside it....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/21/AR2006072101376.html?nav=most_emailed

[Boomer]

1. Fundamental change is a hard sell

The majority of humans will resist any "inconvenient" truth that turns their life upside down. And we're mired in institutions of all kinds that make that change even more difficult to envision, much less implement.

This is why, throughout time, civilizations have faced obvious dangers and done nothing to prepare. It's not until the institutions and infrastructure quite literally collapse that new patterns of thought emerge from the rubble.

It's going to be a bumpy ride.

[nam78_two]

2. A good thing imo

That "assault" that is :P. I have tried for years to be as restrained as I can with using power, I don't have a car etc. But, it always seemed a little pointless and symbolic without more widespread effort.

But, now I am finally hopeful more people would be willing to climb aboard. It would be nice if we get back to being ok with sacrificing some of our personal comfort voluntarily for something that would benefit us all. Nothing wrong with the 'Carter Cardigan'

[Boomer]

3. Ultimately a "good thing", definitely

But getting to the "ultimately" is going to be extremely painful for many people.

Your decision to not own a car is only feasible in an area where the infrastructure SUPPORTS that choice, so although I applaud your decision, it's not an option I can take myself.

I would happily give up my car if there were any public transportation in my area, but there's not. In many parts of the country a car is not a luxury or indulgence, it's a bitter necessity. And unless you're fortunate enough to garner a high wage, buying a hybrid is out of the question. I haven't owned a "new" -- as in never driven --car in over 15 years, and I'm not likely to ever be in position to buy one again. So much as I would like a more fuel-efficient vehicle, they remain out of my reach. Best I can do is drive more efficiently, keep it tuned and avoid unnecessary trips.

[nam78_two]

4. I agree completely

No no I didn't mean it as in any way chastising people who own cars etc :).

I would be the first to admit that I can only do so because I have access to some particularly good university transportation. I understand why people often are forced to own cars and use them a lot etc.

Ultimately I blame this all on the jokers who are running the show and in particular this insane Bush administration.
Their blatant disregard for science is just disgusting. THEY are the real "eco-terrorists".
I can't believe how out of hand this whole situation has become because of their really criminal neglect of environmental issues.

Nowadays hardly a day goes by when I do not reflect on what might have been, if President Gore had been able to claim his presidency in 2000.

[Reckon]

5. For now I'm just trying to do what I can to cut back.

The Tom Brokaw documentary gives a few tips. In fact it's on PBS right now.

Here's the PBS TV guide..
http://dsc.discovery.com/tvlistings/series.jsp?series=25252&gid=0&channel=DSC&clik=fanmain_leftnav

[DeepModem Mom]

8. Thanks for this info, Reckon! nt

[Harper_is_Bush]

6. .

[BlueJac]

7. President Carter wanted to change things........

But then came along Ronald Reagan.....We would have a 30 year jump on things.

[Reckon]

9. Sorry, I meant "It's on Discovery Channel"

[Lisa]

10. Ditching slavery and the monarchy, and extending the franchise ...

... to people other than rich white guys, also required a dramatic mental shift. Gore mentioned this in his documentary -- and Adam Hochschild's book "Bury the Chains", where the initial attempts to abolish slavery in the British Empire were greeted with derision and disbelief, is rather inspiring. Within a generation, slavery had gone from something which was part of the national culture and economy (it was even condoned in the Bible, and most human beings on Earth were born into a state of servitude) -- to something which was considered a crime. It really is an inspiring book to read, because the methods used to change people's minds back then (boycotts, lobbying public officials, celebrity spokespeople, ethical marketing) also became part of modern life.

[Deep13]

11. Um yup. Especially if way of life=gluttony and waste.