Wednesday, November 08, 2006
No Simple Answer
This story has been a long time coming in the national media. It points out that there is no simple answer for the rise and impact of global warming, at least not on the basis of fossil evidence.
Environmental issues have turned into sloganeering. Simple answers are driving complex issues. We don't really know what outcomes will be of the earth getting warmer. All we do know is that it has been warmer time and again, and life survived -- or we wouldn't be here.
Count me in the camp of those who favor control of carbon dioxide and temperature change, but also count me a skeptic. I'm still not sure what the future will bring, and neither are scientists. It all depends on the range of earth history one examines. The narrower the range, the worse the problem. The larger the range, the more normal the situation.
From a communications perspective, I have been and remain confused by global warming. We have had environmental clients who favor carbon sequestration in the form of more tree growing. That's good, but does it really solve the problem? I don't know. We would discuss among ourselves that for every forest fire, carbon dioxide was placed back into the atmosphere. Sequestration was temporary at best.
PR is asked to get involved in these issues constantly now to help sway public opinion. It's easy to write bright lines and cliches in support of the environment. It's difficult and confusing to accept that cyclical warming and cooling is the way the earth has always worked. Once it appeared to have been volcanic action -- or something similar. Today, it is human action. Does it make a difference in the long run? That question remains open, it seems to me.
Environmental issues have turned into sloganeering. Simple answers are driving complex issues. We don't really know what outcomes will be of the earth getting warmer. All we do know is that it has been warmer time and again, and life survived -- or we wouldn't be here.
Count me in the camp of those who favor control of carbon dioxide and temperature change, but also count me a skeptic. I'm still not sure what the future will bring, and neither are scientists. It all depends on the range of earth history one examines. The narrower the range, the worse the problem. The larger the range, the more normal the situation.
From a communications perspective, I have been and remain confused by global warming. We have had environmental clients who favor carbon sequestration in the form of more tree growing. That's good, but does it really solve the problem? I don't know. We would discuss among ourselves that for every forest fire, carbon dioxide was placed back into the atmosphere. Sequestration was temporary at best.
PR is asked to get involved in these issues constantly now to help sway public opinion. It's easy to write bright lines and cliches in support of the environment. It's difficult and confusing to accept that cyclical warming and cooling is the way the earth has always worked. Once it appeared to have been volcanic action -- or something similar. Today, it is human action. Does it make a difference in the long run? That question remains open, it seems to me.
Comments:
Post a Comment