Journal entry on readings associated with the Fall, An Inconvenient Truth
-
The thrust of the
article by B. Lomborg is that, via cost-benefit analysis, it makes
much more sense to devote funds to ending hunger, curing disease,
and providing clean water and education throughout the world. (Of
course, this analysis relies on the premise that we can do little to
curb global warming anyway.) What if his argument won out? What do
you think would happen? And, What do you think of his statement that
we cannot address the problems he mentions and global warming at the
same time?
-
One complaint raised about An Inconvenient Truth, voiced
even by people who are fundamentally behind movements to decrease
emissions of greenhouse gases, is that Gore consistently presents
worst-case scenarios. Scientists tend to speak in probabilities,
giving best, middle and worst-case scenarios. When asked about this
at a screening of the film, Gore is recorded (click
for the article) to have said, Science thrives on uncertainty.
(But,) politics is paralyzed by uncertainty. Comment on what
he means by this. Do you think the need for quick action trumps any
calls to wait until the science is more certain about the actual
effects of global warming?
-
Scientists working in climatology are supposed to be experts. For
we who are not experts, it is tempting, especially when we
have particular leanings on a divisive issue, to find experts that
provide a justification for our positions, and then stand immovably
on the foundations they provide, all the while looking for hidden
agendas on the part of anyone who questions our positions. What
types of sin can you find in this type of behavior? Is it necessary
to keep an open mind so as to avoid these sins? How do you behave
while your mind remains open?
-
The Statement
of the Evangelical Climate Initiative, signed by President Gaylen
Byker along with many other American evangelical Christian leaders,
offers what it calls a moral argument related to the matter of
human-induced climate change. Is global warming a moral
issue? Are we each morally involved by what we do (the CO2
we produce) and how we choose to act on our knowledge of the negative
consequences of our actions? How is the moral equation changed when
it is the collective actions en masse rather than of one person
that has consequences? How about when there is so much uncertainty
about which actions cause which effects?
-
Gore claims that he experienced some frustration in bringing the issue
of global warming before congress because politicians tend to care only
about the issues their constituents care about. If global warming was
not on the radar screen of their constituencies, politicians weren't
going to deal with it. If true, what does this say about the limits or
drawbacks of our democracy as a form of popular representation? For
important issues, does the burden lie with politicians to educate and
motivate their constituencies, or must it be a citizen movement
motivating politicians? Would you say An Inconvenient Truth
is primarily trying to bring about the latter? Or is it focused more
upon changing our personal behaviors that contribute to greenhouse gases?
Last Modified: