Tuesday, March 8, 2011

I hate angry global-warming-inspired debates.

I hate when common sense is so damningly overshadowed by politics that something simple has become a for-or-against, all-out war.

After reading an article in Rolling Stone (“Who’s to Blame”) and listening to a 14-year-old rail against the existence of global warming on a recent This American Life podcast, I’m appalled. Why has this become a political debate? Because that’s what drives the world.

Would you stand behind a running car and happily breathe the exhaust? No? Well, then we should make a big move toward changing those cars so that we’re not all breathing that exhaust on a daily basis. Fossil fuels are limited. Okay, so let’s move the jobs to renewable sources of energy, ones that aren’t going to run out and leave us all like a bunch of junkies grasping around for one last little fix.

And that’s where it all goes wrong—if we have to change manufacturing, society’s dependence, and jobs—well, what better to do that than politics? What better than to make it a two-sided argument of whether it’s real or not, whether remedies are necessary or driven by the political machine, right-wing, left-wing, blame blame blame. Right. So rather than just look as people and say, “Gosh, all of that smog over L.A. and all of that oil in the Gulf—maybe not the best way to do things,” we turn it into a debate of existence and jobs and necessity.

Way to go, world.