Comments on: Global Warming– no longer a hot topic?

By: Affiliate Network

Affiliate Network — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 07:10:07 +0000

Such a great site. I am saving this page.

By: Affiliate Network

Affiliate Network — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:36:38 +0000

Such a good site. I am saving this page.

By: Realist

Realist — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 02:49:28 +0000

People aren’t concerned with Global Warming because Global Warming is nothing more than a scare tactic dreamed up by the political yahoos trying to make some money by deceiving the uneducated, naive, leftest wackjobs that make up the Democratic party. This is proven merely by looking at the figurehead of the Global Warming propaganda machine – Al Gore, who absolutely profits from his scam through his company Generation Investment Management (GIM) which deals in “carbon offsets.” Another fact disproving global warming is that the global temperature went DOWN by 1.3 degrees last year which has caused even the most devote global warming proponents to re-bran the scam to “climate change.”

By: tanner

tanner — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:13:16 +0000

Um, yeah. Disappointing. If one were into argumentation, a case could be made for the fact (perceived or real, I’m not sure) that the climate change discourse gets lumped together with a post-nationalist “one world” political agenda typically associated with the traditional left. Climate change is usually thought of as something that needs to be mandated on a global scale, by the UN or some other influential body, and that would then filter down to the various nations. From a sociopolitical isolationist’s perspective, this could seem to be a threat to national sovereignty and even individual rights. A valid point – in order for global legislation to work, it would need a global executive body with the power necessary to enforce and regulate. That kind of power is, well, scary.

In my [sortof] humble opinion, the problem is that the politics of climate change drown out the pragmatic discussions that address environmental degradation within our own borders, cities, and communities. Climate change needs to be re-framed into the language of civil society, much in the way that the politics of human rights are. Human rights, more and more a global phenomenon, is still a very potent area in national politics – most of the major social debates revolve around some conception of “rights”, whether its the right to marry, the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion, the right to a secular education, the right to vote, the right to not be enslaved… Although all of these apply to people everywhere, they are visceral and personal enough on a community level to motivate people to take action on them.

In the same vein, climate change needs to be not about the extreme top-down enforcement, but about the very personal struggle for the right to live in a healthy world. Where appropriate, it could even take the “rights of nature” stance, as was done in Ecuador. In either case, the point is that instead of expecting the global political community (which, by the way, is grossly out-matched by global commercial interests like the WTO, IMF, World Bank, etc.) to take a stand, we must emphatically demand that our rights and especially the rights of those most affected by climate change – humans and non-humans alike – are acknowledged, respected, and protected. Because the only thing that has the power to single-handedly dictate the global climate is physics and sunlight. There is no single human entity that has created the horrendous environmental disease of the present – it has been and is being done by billions of individuals and their respective social bodies. The only way to change that is to change billions of minds, starting with just one and then radiating outward until it becomes a growing, changing web of inter-collaborative yet independent wholes. In other words, a movement.

By: roz

roz — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 05:30:44 +0000

Maybe the reason it is less of an interest to the American public is that people’s consciences became exhausted. It is quite a demanding job to be a conscientious citizen of the world, and I have endless respect for those who can keep their thoughtfulness thriving at all times. Unfortunately, I don’t think the average person can keep an energized and proactive attitude toward such a big issue for very long. I agree that if it were broken down, ideally by something as far-reaching as the government, into a manageable problem with reasonable solutions, it would hold more people’s conscientious attentions. But life is never so simple, and we’re talking about a countless number of lives here. As Johanna said, keep fighting the good fight, proactive people; exercise your conscientiousness at least 42 times a day!!!!!!!!!!!

By: Evelyne G

Evelyne G — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:04:53 +0000

I don’t think the topic of global warming has cooled off, but the factions responding to it have changed somewhat. The issue has grown from one more associated with liberal grass-root groups to something that has become more corporate and political. Companies are now doing more to promote their “green-ness” and many countries are coming together try to deal with climate change –just recently German Chancellor Angela Merkel spoke about the importance of having a strong worldwide coalition to combat warming.

The fact that climate change has attracted the attention of these corporate and political forces is positive–they have the power to actually have an impact on climate change. This does not mean that we as individuals can just sit back–we need to keep this issue near the forefront of politicians minds to emphasize its importance to the future of our world, and do our own small part to fight climate change.

By: Riva

Riva — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:37:35 +0000

A thought: The term “global warming” is not very accurate; a more appropriate one is “global climate change.” With some parts of the country experiencing cooler than normal temperatures (such as where I am in Arkansas) this past summer, “global warming” doesn’t seem to be a pressing issue. Thus, it may be hard for people that only hear the term as a catch-phrase in the news to pay attention. Obviously this doesn’t mean that it isn’t happening and that we shouldn’t be worried, but with the duration of the economic recession it maybe isn’t surprising that it is less of a priority on a personal level for many people.

By: KT

KT — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:42:03 +0000

Of course, climate change is a social issue as much as it is an environmental issue. Think something like the weather affects everybody equally? No way. As with so many other things, those who can pay will be able to more easily avoid the crisis, while those who are already marginalized by our society will only become further marginalized by environmental issues (take the privilege of mobility, for example, and look no further than Hurricane Katrina).

I think a lot of this “cooling down” of interest you mention stems from our inability to see our own ecological footprints.

Plus, Al Gore was SO 2007.

By: Maureen White

Maureen White — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:29:50 +0000

First it’s trendy, then it’s not… looks like Americans still have short attention spans. A result of too much T.V., maybe?

By: Caroll Spelke

Caroll Spelke — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:29:24 +0000

I think the climate change as a “serious” topic has been green washed and with a sense of hopelessness in that things will never change. In my experience with people in the United States is seems like many want to ignore global warming as problem or don’t care that it is an issue that effects all life on this planet. I think our culture needs more people that carry a message of hope and creativity that inspires others to want to become stewards of the earth. Just the simple acts of composting have made friends open to talking to me about environmental issues and the effects of global warming. The scale at which humans are responsible or not responsible for global warming is irrelevant. The rate at which the earth is heating up effects the life that is currently on the planet. It is a serious issue that has widespread impacts. These impacts are arguably positive and/or negative depending upon which angle you choose argue from or they are simply what is so. Ironically, we are currently in a cold stage in relation to the earths history according to geological history.