|
As the speculation continues about the ramifications of COP15, the prospects of COP16 and the likelihood of a Waxman-Markey (or Kerry-Boxer?) coup in the US Congress, the marvelous din of democratic disagreement is reaching an increasingly feverish pitch. If the ENGOs thought they were the only ones who recognized the urgency of figuring out the question du décennie – "uh, what now?" – they’re getting their due wake-up call. The folks hawking the other side of the climate change story are equally eager to move the world on their terms; they don’t think global warming will sink us – but they do think the “solutions” might, and they too are afeard. This lesser brain has always been intrigued (and confounded) that brilliant minds with the same end goals (perpetual peace, prosperity, freedom, general welfare) can reach such fundamentally different conclusions about how to achieve them. From whence do these divergences develop? Who’s right? How do we reconcile? While I have yet to make headway on these epistemological conundrums (let me know if you figure them out), I have come across pithy crystallizations of two prevailing schools of thought about climate change, how the US should contend with it, and what the results of those efforts could be (particularly for businesses). The Tom Friedman interview with Amanda Little of Grist and Pete Du Pont’s opinion piece for the WSJ offer two takes on the COP talks and the takeaways. Concur, dissent, deplore – no matter, at least we can all agree on the glory of the free press.
|
