I almost always read David Marchese's "Talk" column in the Sunday edition of The New York Times Magazine. A while back, Marchese discussed climate change with Hannah Ritchie (pictured above), who had some good news to deliver (at least, she says it's good news):
Hannah, in your most honest, unguarded moments, how optimistic are you that humanity will rise to the challenge of climate change? We won’t reach 1.5 degrees, that’s gone. But I am optimistic we can get very close to two degrees. But the question is, Can we keep temperatures to two degrees and at the same time create resilience, lift people out of poverty, adapt such that we limit those damages as much as possible? On that, I’m fairly optimistic.
If you can access Ritchie's discussion with Marchese (and no promises that clicking that link will get you there, given The Times' paywall protections), I do recommend you do that, and read what Ritchie has to say. Ritchie's point is that predictions of "doom," are simply not reliable indications of reality. As I explained once, in a lengthy Father's Day disquisition, I have had a personal, and completely convincing, demonstration that it is possible (probably even likely) that a prediction of failure will be transformed, despite the verifiable realities, into the actual fact of failure.
In other words, we can "save the world." But not if we tell ourselves we can't.
Accepting "Climate Doom" as a fact, as an inevitability, is contraindicated!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment!