At times you can have the most distressing conversations in the most unlikely of places.
In this case I am involved in a months-long conversation via the social media platform Facebook. The ongoing conversation started out as a way to kibitz with my son and a couple of other local fellows about sports. However, as you might imagine the conversation has veered in a multitude of directions, and recently we inadvertently hit upon the topic of climate change.
It became quickly apparent the idea of climate change being an issue was pretty much a bugaboo to my two buds.
The first comment suggested the system was set up to prevent opposition to the idea of climate change.
“Try getting a government grant to work on disproving global warming. You can’t, because you wouldn’t be a real scientist,” suggested one.
I suggested it might be more a case of why waste money to look for results that are not there.
You can’t get science grants to prove the earth is flat, or moon landing was fake either, or that asbestos is good for you to breathe.
That is not to say I accept everything that is being said regarding climate change.
You can argue global warming is a natural occurrence, or about the reasons why it is happening, and certainly whether we should be doing anything to alter it, but the basic premise the earth is warming at present is not refutable in my mind. Maybe it is just nature taking its regular course of change and we will all bask in warmer temps, but they are happening.
“The planet’s average surface temperature has risen about 2.0 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere,” notes www.climate.nasa.gov/evidence. “Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 16 of the 17 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year -- from January through September, with the exception of June -- were the warmest on record for those respective months.”
Ask a farmer what changes in temperatures mean, and you recognize if the trend continues it will impact what food is produced where, and how much is produced as well. On the Canadian Prairies we farm on what would be basically a desert given annual rainfall if not for six months of winter. Increase the heat a few more degrees and you can imagine the impact.
So what should be done?
The answer, nothing too costly according to my buds.
“I just want a rational reasoned response. Flying off and making massive policy changes that only affect G8 Countries while China/India/Brazil continue to pollute is dumb.”
Apparently everyone ignoring the problem is a better solution. Certainly it would be advantageous to have every country on side, the United States for example, but a response needs to start somewhere.
But that response apparently should not come with a price tag.
Again one of my buds suggested the situation was one of Canadian “prime minister with harmful policies and crippling taxation all the while spending so far into debt that my kids and grandkids will suffer is something I have to accept because as long as the earth isn’t too warm.”
This might be my favourite response to the debate. The idea of deficit spending impacting future generations is indeed bothersome, although in general Canadians are a debt ridden populace who rely heavily on loans and credit cards. But debt load can be managed by government and individuals. There are tools at-hand.
But dealing with climate change will not be so easily managed. It may not matter what the debt is of our grandchildren if the bigger issues becomes what they have to eat. We may not imagine that as an issue here in Canada, but today many go hungry around the world. Imagine reduced food production from climate change and an increased population and the spectre of our future darkens markedly.
Calvin Daniels is Editor with Yorkton This Week.
