No, not really. I think that the political mobilization you have in mind won't ever happen, has not a snowball's chance in hell of happening, and it a big waste of precious time and energy trying to generate. Therefore, any time spent on that delays and reduces the opportunity for coming up with something feasible. It is irritating and counterproductive.
Actually, we do agree on where we disagree and the above statement is as good an illustration as any I've seen.
I don't see how global warming issues can be addressed without the political will to do so and that will only arrives on the scene when a sense of crisis makes an appearance.
"We" can't come up with something feasible and enact it without political mobilization.
We also disagree as to how those "solutions" are likely to arrive on the scene. I see them as emerging out of the political process, as damaged as that little instrument is now, or not at all. You seem to think it will emerge out of the heads of engineers and simply be enacted.
I think part of our disagreement is with the word, "solution." I think that you think of "solution" strictly in terms of sharp curbs on greenhouse gasses from cars and factories and the like. I think of "solution" as anything that will mitigate, acclimate to, and otherwise help us survive global warming.
And you've misread me. As I've said several times, I think solutions have to emerge out of the political process. If we can manage the oncoming crisis of global warming without sharp curbs on greenhouse gases, so be it. The first point to me is to get a widespread sense of alarm, that something has to be done, then see what solutions the political process can endure. |
