It’s been gratifying to read the small deluge of letters responding to Wednesday’s editorial briefly outlining my personal opinion – rather than the Times-Age’s position – on the most appropriate response to the climate change challenge.
Whether they’ve agreed or disagreed, most responses have been civil, informed, and nuanced, which is precisely what this discussion demands.
Regardless of the claims of certainty wrapped around various clarion calls for action – or inaction – the inconvenient truth is it’s not a clear-cut issue, and anyone who insists their answer has the authority of holy writ is trying to sell you a bill of goods that elides the messy reality.
The climate models proffered as though they’re stone tablets lugged down from Mount Sinai are actually [very] well-educated hypotheses. But while they may be the best information we’ve got to go on, the tendency to shout down anyone questioning the veracity of the data those models rely on rather miss what ‘The Science™’ actually involves [sceptical questioning is a feature, not a bug].
It makes sense to me that industrialisation has had an adverse impact on the planet’s naturally changing climate, but it doesn’t at all follow that, having broken it, we can now fix it. This doesn’t mean I reject mitigation; I simply suggest we recognise it’s a roll of the dice and we should dedicate the majority of our finite time and resource to adaptation – while noting Climate Minister James Shaw is now calling for accelerated efforts in this area.
Those who assert “there is no alternative” to their preferred course of action should remember this particular slogan is strongly associated with the policies and persona of the Conservative British prime minister Margaret Thatcher.
There are always alternatives, especially when the problem is one as complex as climate change, and none of the choices available are especially attractive.
Yet it appears we’re being funnelled towards one set of solutions that have no guarantee of success but plenty of obvious downsides.
The assumption that sharply reducing the consumption of meat will be “good for the planet” is an example of something that many see as a self-evident truth when it’s merely truthy-sounding.
Meat is actually one of the most efficient forms of human nutrition on the planet. As I [imperfectly] understand it, it’s not the product itself that’s the problem, but the way it is produced. The industrial model of farming is at fault for much of the degradation we’re inflicting on the environment, and it’s an issue whether it’s soy or sows being grown. Surely a return to regenerative farming should be seriously considered, rather than ramming through a radical reshaping of diet likely to have a deleterious effect on human health.
Cyclone Gabrielle’s impact is inarguably awful, but I again caution against the claim it’s directly related to climate change, and point to the just-announced start of a two-year study into whether the eruption of the underwater Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai volcano last year can be linked to the extreme weather events we’re experiencing.
Playing fast and loose with yet-to-be-established facts merely adds to the argumentative arsenal of actual climate change deniers.
