Sango says I don't blog enough. The issue is I have so many musings and contemplations going through my head during the day BUT I'm not disciplined enough to refine those thoughts into something articulate for others to read. In my quest to write more and challenge my own laziness (and to satisfy Sango :p) , I've decided to blog weekly on the topic of my favourite show, Insight.
For those who are not aware, Insight is a discussion forum focussing on a single issue with the participation of a studio audience (which ranges from experts, politicians, to your average person off the street). It covers many issues and topics, engages in often heated debates (this is hardly surprising considering it delves into contentious topics like euthanasia, Iraq, IR laws, racism), and encourages Australians from all walks of life to have their say. It is hosted in great style by Jenny Brockie - who I have to say is outstanding in remaining objective, fair and unbiased yet still asks the hard questions. Insight is shown on SBS every Tuesday night @ 7:30pm. (Along with the Amazing Race & Survivor, it is one of the only shows our household rarely misses!)
This week's topic was "Climate Change" and here is my perspective on the issue.
To be honest, the thing that irks me most are people who deny the causality between climate change and human behaviour ie. that it's all part of the natural cycle. I mean, I'm not saying that the reason for climate change is due to only human factors nor am I dismissing arguments that climate variability and change are normal. But evidence suggests that the amount of increase is actually outside natural variability in climatic cycles. Certainly, there are scientifically trained people who question the proposition. But very few of these are climate scientists and bear in mind, most of these contrarian scientists are funded by the fossil-fuel industry.
However, even if there is no causality, what would be wrong with slowing our use of fossil fuels, conserving it & saving the environment in the process?? Also, we have (non-Co2) substitutes like solar energy worth pursuing as well. It's not like there are no alternatives.
And while I'm on the subject, what is the deal with Australia refusing to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Are we going to ignore the opportunity to use emission trading to finance investment and is there really a viable alternative to multilateral cooperation on climate protection?
From an economic perspective, it makes little sense. What is going to be the possible cost for Australia of not being a signatory to the protocol and being barred from participating in the global emissions trading regime that would be established? I'm viewing it in a more long-term perspective I guess. From an environmental perspective, well, I think we have a moral obligation to ourselves and to future generations to protect our environment and live sustainably. It's a big lose-lose in both terms and thus, we do really need to act on it and governments need to legislate.
It really is demoralising when our own government are denialists.
