There is not a single source that does not have its own agenda. As much as one source may be left-leaning, another source is right-leaning. Science and logic do not lean one way or the other. I have studied science, not politics for the past 4.5 years, and there are countless scientific studies proving man-made climate change.
There is no scientific doubt that carbon dioxide, along with other unnatural pollutants are warming the Earth's atmosphere and that human pollution is a significant factor. Large manufacturers are the worst offenders when it comes to CO2 emissions, so it will take some public policy to change their activity. Landfills are something that I have taken a particular interest in, since it is something that I can personally affect with ease and without the involvement of governmental agencies.
I have a friend who is very involved in politics, and does not believe scientists who say that climate change is a very real threat to our planet, and that humans are a major cause. That friend uses disposable plastic water bottles to refill his coffee-maker at work, I suppose because he finds carrying multiple, small, disposable bottles more convenient than refilling a single larger bottle and because he thinks the water in his office space is dirty. I find it ironic that he is concerned about the cleanliness of his office tap water because he does not believe that there is an environmental crisis, but he does believe that the tap water at his work is too contaminated to be consumed even after it is boiled in the coffee-maker. The plastic water bottles he uses instead are contributing to the warming of the Earth. Not only do the plastic bottles themselves pollute landfills, the production of the bottles is oil and water dependent and greenhouse gases are emitted by vehicles transporting the bottles to your local store. The climax of these effects will probably not happen in his lifetime, and it might not happen in mine. But, are we really willing to risk the destruction of our planet - the only place in the universe that we know of that can sustain life - for future generations because it saves a few extra seconds of our time?
Often when environmentalists call for sustainable practices, they are accused of wanting to send the world back in time before the industrial revolution. I do not think that we need to return to pre-industrial revolution practices. I love and am highly dependent on technology for most of my daily activities. I do believe however that there are many small, sustainable actions that can be easily implemented into our daily lives. A few extra seconds of my friend's time refilling a water bottle could delay the destruction of life on Earth. Is that possibility really not worth it? Even if plastic bottles did not contribute to global warming (which I assure you, they do), is it not worth a few extra seconds of time to reduce the risk of that destruction? Another easily implementable practice is reusable grocery bags. I find that reusable bags are easier to carry than the plastic bags anyway. The only slight inconvenience is the $1.50 price for a bag, and making sure to bring the bags with you to the store. Now that I've formed the habit, I hardly have to think about it.
I did a little bit of math on my savings, out of curiosity and to make myself feel a little important. I go to the grocery store approximately once a week, and when I used plastic bags, I received approximately 10 bags per trip. So, for the year I would get approximately 10*52 = 520 bags. According to Stanford, a plastic grocery bag weighs 5.5 grams on average. Therefore I am saving 5.5*520 = 2.86 kg of plastic a year (6.30 lbs). I went to the gym after I made that calculation and picked up a 5 lb weight. I enjoyed imagining it was made out of plastic trash, and that I made it disappear from the dump this year.
I know better than to argue politics with politicians. I do not know about the sources of funding for various agencies or how funding for specific studies is distributed. I do not know who is in control of which agency, and frankly do not care as long as the agency is committed to ethical practices. Scientists deserve a similar respect from those involved in politics. When 99% of scientists agree that climate change is a very real danger, politicians need to listen, not create emotional arguments based on their beliefs on taxes or religion. I will need more fact-based proof, not emotional arguments before I reconsider what I know to be true of science.
No comments:
Post a Comment