> we need to move beyond the "whodunit" aspect of this debate and realistically assess what our options are.
With respect, I disagree.
This logic would be sound if our Environmental state was boolean. Then we might say, "Damage is done, lets move to sound solutions"
But our Environment is not Boolean, the damaging behaviors are ongoing, and the consequences take up a continuum. The "whodunit" phase is vital, because only it can legitimize the steps necessary to prevent the further changes that may make today's "sound solutions" irrelevant in future decades.
To illustrate: It is not enough to plan for the relocation and compensation of everyone who lives within a meter of sea level, while ignoring current energy policy, since continued fossil fuel use might lead to a two meter rise, or to ecological changes in the highlands you propose to relocate people to.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 12/3/12 05:58 (UTC)With respect, I disagree.
This logic would be sound if our Environmental state was boolean. Then we might say, "Damage is done, lets move to sound solutions"
But our Environment is not Boolean, the damaging behaviors are ongoing, and the consequences take up a continuum. The "whodunit" phase is vital, because only it can legitimize the steps necessary to prevent the further changes that may make today's "sound solutions" irrelevant in future decades.
To illustrate: It is not enough to plan for the relocation and compensation of everyone who lives within a meter of sea level, while ignoring current energy policy, since continued fossil fuel use might lead to a two meter rise, or to ecological changes in the highlands you propose to relocate people to.