I understand that global warming is a difficult subject. Science is never completely cut and dried, and I think that's what leads people to think climate change is still open to debate. It's not. When you really delve into the different questions put to scientists, it becomes a little more clear. Most agree that the world is getting warmer, and most agree that man has an impact, especially in regard to the speed which heating is increasing. Beyond that, they remain skeptical, as to not put too much importance on their personal beliefs and take the focus away from what can be substantiated with facts. But we know a few things that are important - arctic ice is melting, and that spells trouble. And the oceans are becoming more acidic - a result of absorbing more CO2. "So what. I don't eat much seafood," you say, but much of the world does. If you worry about terrorism, nothing will spur attacks quicker than a world full of people who can no longer feed their family. Wouldn't you want a little payback?
Even Bill O'Reilly admits that we should work on alternatives to burning fossil fuels - he just doesn't think we should wreck the economy to do so. And there's the rub. It's unlikely that we can make a major shift in policy without upsetting a few apple carts. Just take a look at the comments following an op-ed in your local paper on the subject and you'll quickly see how worked up people can get - especially neo-cons who claim everything from it's a hoax to it's a plot to install government control over every aspect of our lives. The truth is it will cost us something, we probably can't do as much as we need to, and we really do have to try something or face even higher costs and dangers down the road.
While the conference in Copenhagen turned out to be a flop, it has led to some good. For one, environmentalists understand that we have to start at home and be the change we want to be. We have to lead and show the world how we can live with a smaller footprint. And maybe it will be a framework for when increasing evidence provides impetus for change. To continue to deny and work to scuttle reform is not only wrong, it's completely self-serving. Change is hard, and fear of the unknown is a legitimate human concern. But this issue is more than just saving a few polar bears. Our world is changing before our eyes. Whether or not we can stop the change doesn't matter. Whether or not we survive it, certainly does.
I think Bill McKibben said, pumping a bunch of gas into a stable environment is a bad idea, but fouling an unstable one is psychotic. We should worry less about what we're going to have to change, and worry more about how we can adapt to the changes.