The picture, above, is from an article that ran in The New York Times on Wednesday, October 2, 2024. The article was titled (hard copy version), "Ashville Sees Sense of Safety Washed Away."
Below, I am letting you know how the article begins. This is the text that caught my attention, and that sent me off to my computer to prepare this blog posting, which will be published late in December:
Erica Scott, a wedding photographer, spent much of her life in California, but moved to Asheville, N.C., 16 years ago with a sense that she was leaving behind the perpetual threat of natural disasters. With its cool mountain climate and a setting hundreds of miles from the ocean, the city seemed like a refuge from some of the worries that come with a warming planet.“I had always felt like we were safe from climate change in this region; we talked about that a lot in town,” Ms. Scott, 55, said. “But now this makes me question that maybe there’s nowhere that’s safe.”
Unfortunately, the article I am referencing will be just as relevant in December as it was in October, shortly after Hurricane Helene delivered its devastating blows not only to Florida (hurricanes expected, at least somewhat) and to western, non-coastal, parts of both North Carolina and South Carolina.
I live in California, and I don't know Erica Scott. What I do know - and what Erica Scott now knows - is that there is "nowhere that's safe." Recent events right near my hometown - a tornado in Scotts Valley - has made this pretty clear to local residents.
Newspapers, and people, continue to refer to events like Hurricane Helene as caused by "Climate Change." I have always preferred to call what is happening by a different name - a more honest name - "Global Warming."
First, new revelations related to "climate," like the unexpected damage that Hurricane Helene delivered to places where no one expected such an impact to occur, are "effects." The "cause" of the unexpected and unwelcome "effects," those "climate changes" that have undermined any confidence we might have felt in the stability of what we have heretofore taken for granted, is our continued combustion of fossil fuels, and other actions that add constituents to the atmosphere that cause the world to "heat up."
Let's focus on what we are doing to cause the impacts that are causing such damage. Maybe that will stimulate us to change what we're doing. If all we keep talking about the "effects" of what we are, in fact, doing - and causing - we are susceptible to the idea that nothing can be done. But something can (and must) be done!
In addition, the impacts from what some call "Climate Change" are "global," which is an important point. We are no longer going to be able to act as though "nations," or even lesser subdivisions of organized human society, are an appropriate organizational mechanism for dealing with the pressing human problems that result from the modifications that our actions are making to the Earth's environment. If we call this a "global" issue, as it really is, then we may be stimulated to start working on solutions that bring us together, as inhabitants of Planet Earth, instead of having us focus on our national and other divisions.
That is a quick outline of my justification for urging anyone reading this blog posting to start talking about "Global Warming," not "Climate Change."
Let me add something, though, to bolster my argument. Mark Twain has been quoted as having said, "We all grumble about the weather, but (dramatic pause) nothing is done about it." When we talk about "Climate Change" we are really talking about "the weather," and we all know that Twain was right. We might "grumble" about the "weather," or about "Climate Change," but we don't really demand that anything be done about it, because we don't believe that anything can be done about it.
Something can be done about "Global Warming," so let's not fall into the linguistic trap of using an expression that goes along with the idea that there is nothing much that can be done about "Climate Change." Our problem is "Global Warming," so let's make our language reflect the truth, and recognize what's happening for what it is.
"Global Warming" is something that we are doing, ourselves - heating up the Earth by our own continued pursuit of activities that we now know are deadly, and that can pretty much end all life on Earth (worst case), or put an end to human civilization (not really what anyone could call "positive"). The fact that "Global Warming" can upend human civilization is not, actually, a fanciful kind of prediction. Let's take it seriously, for the true dangers that it brings.
And let's remember the insight that Erica Scott has brought to us with her remarks to The New York Times. In the United States, we will shortly have a new administration in charge of our government. We need to dedicate the next four years to "shifting gears," pulling the world together to address "Global Warming," a challenge to every nation, and every person, on this planet. Unless forced to do so, the new administration is unlikely to take steps to change our national focus in the direction I have just urged. It is, in fact, likely to make things worse. This reality, like all political "realities," is not a statement about something "inevitable." We can - and I say "must" - force this issue upon the new administration, because our government must be made to represent the people, and what is best for them.
I don't think moving to Mars is going to solve the problem, any more than moving from California to North Carolina helped Erica Scott avoid the "Global Warming" dangers she thought she might avoid by just relocating to a place that seemed "safe," but that wasn't "safe," after all.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment!