Teena,
Thank you for sharing your feelings with me. May I suggest that "For now we see through a glass darkly…" [1 Corinthians 13:12]. The complete truth eludes all of us, yet I still have faith in efforts to live and learn with meaning. If I must choose between a fatalist lifestyle and the effort of education, I elect to search and study. I always feel more educated when I study both sides of an element and this issue is no exception.
I note your applause for the voluntary action of concerned citizens. Let me assure you that all of my action is voluntary. I am not a professional in this scene. I am truly voicing my opinion and asking that our government assist us in protecting the populous from harm.
When you state that you approve of voluntary stewardship does that mean that you ONLY approve of voluntary stewardship and that you either condone, accept or tolerate those who are not engaging in voluntary stewardship? If so, I am curious to know how you would feel about some issues.
If my neighbor sets up a BBQ grill in the backyard and continuously burns plastic flatware as he constructs a new form of art do you feel that he is within his rights, despite the fact that dioxin (a brain-altering chemical that harms humans and specifically children under extremely low concentrations) results when plastic is burned under low temperatures? What recourse would I or any other nearby victim have without government support? Would the situation be any different if a neighbor set up a meth lab in his basement? Do you feel that the government has a role in this situation? If a neighbor daily harvested a large tree from my yard to burn in his fireplace, should I appeal to the law? Do I own a voice in the shared resources of water, soil and air just as I do when I decide what to do with my own property? Do the actions of others affect and sometimes harm a large portion of the population? Is government an effective way to remediate the losses in any of these situations?
As a citizen, I believe that it is my duty, whether my opinion differs from others or not, to voice my conscience. I prefer to extend that conscience somewhat further by not only asking myself and my God what is right, but to apply reasoning and study with the God-given brain.
When prophets sought answers from God they were chastened in D&C 9:7-9, for God says, "Behold, ye have not understood. Ye have supposed that I would give it unto when ye took no thought save it was to ask me. Behold, I say unto you that ye must study it out in your mind, then you must ask me if it be right…"
Therefore, I gather that study is an essential component of discovering truth. Have you, then, viewed the film that you criticized in your letter? Have you read the studies on the IPCC website? How many hours have you devoted to gaining information on the study? Have you had any conversations with people who deal with the data on a daily basis? Do you believe that through constant study it may be possible to analyze a problem better than the casual observer?
It is not essential to rely on specialists as long as time and resources are within your reach to cure the ignorance that every person naturally possesses. When you have studied extensively, developed a theory, performed multiple experiments until the theory is either accepted or rejected, and then appealed to others who can repeat and confirm your findings, then you are educated. For most of us, it proves difficult to accomplish all the primary study for every question and every need we hold on this planet. Instead, we turn to the studies of others and we seek certain signs of credibility. We watch to see if the results are confirmed or rejected by independent parties that have no bias. We seek institutions of learning that have a strong record for precision and reliability. We watch for information that extends across political and national boundaries. We note that information collected over the longest time periods shows more credibility than short-term findings. By these standards, the findings of the IPCC rank among the most reliable in all of history. Their consensus is a truly unprecedented occasion.
When one person infringes upon the rights of others through irresponsible behavior the laws of the nation serve to protect us. That is the action that will be instituted in the USA when the government chooses cleaner energy and limits the pollution of our common resources of air, water and soil. This action will extend health to all, thus acting as the founding fathers intended to protect us from our own greed and avarice, a fear expressed by John Adams and Thomas Jefferson after the ratification of the Constitution.
Only governments are powerful enough to lead out in effective and broad changes that will level the playing field for capitalists, who are constantly forced to compete ruthlessly one against another. It is amazing what happens when carbon is priced. Just as we pay others to take away our visible trash we can place a dollar value on carbon emissions, which are fairly simple to calculate. Soon all of the innovation and technology that was streamlining a procedure for a manufacturer is pressed into action by the need to eliminate carbon emissions. On example of this occurred when the emissions for vehicles were first limited in the 1970s. At the time the task looked impossible and terribly costly. Still, the limits were set with a time goal in place. Before long a nifty little invention came to the scene and the price tag for compliance dropped immensely. Today all cars are manufactured with this technology, a catalytic converter, which removes pollution for a reasonable cost. [see Science Friday 3-23-07 for full story]
Today we seek further improvements that eliminate or reduce pollutants. The science, the history and the creativity of mankind all testify that change is well within our reach and that the time is ripe for us to curb our lustful living. We live among the richest 2% of all people who ever inhabited the planet. Do you feel that it is essential to consume, as a family, the energy equivalent of entire cities in other nations? I actually think that paying a little more or investing as a nation for better sources is the only responsible way to treat the other inhabitants on this planet. Other communities suffer from the global load of pollution and the effects of global warming but they reap none of the luxuries that we enjoy while we consume vast energy stores. If ethics are addressed, the evidence points toward conservation and reduction through changes in habit and altered sources of power. Since there is no natural dollar gain for choosing clean energy, government involvement is necessary. My preference is that government intervention moves to repair a faulty system, and it appears that pricing carbon is an excellent choice to mend the system while supporting capitalist ventures and free economic choices.
My mind is full of many other points of interest and responses to your letter, Teena, but my time is limited to respond. If you have true interest, go to the primary sources of data and research the question well. All of us participate in the sins of this generation. Not one of us is innocent when it comes to dropping the responsible stewardship that we know will support our planet. When we turn the keys on our cars and adjust our thermostats I hope not for a stab of guilt but for a plea for real change and a commitment to couple our efforts with many sectors and also to the allow the atoning and cleansing efforts of divinity in the heavens and the earth to their infinite work beside all that we can do for ourselves.
May your family find joy, beauty and health on this pretty blue planet,
Liz
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment