It’s newsworthy, because it probably won’t happen again. Salt Lake Tribune:
There was Energy Secretary Steven Chu bearing the grim news: Climate change — from shrinking ice caps and swelling sea levels to fire-prone forests and a drought-plagued West — is more ominous than previously projected.
Then came Utah’s governor-in-waiting, turning Monday’s discussion here at the Western Governors’ Association gathering from how states should combat global warming to whether a climate threat even exists.
“Help me understand the science if, in fact, the science is conclusive,” Lt. Gov. Gary Herbert said. “And, if it’s not [conclusive], what do we do to get us there as a population so we can actually solve the problem?”
Herbert, who did not hear Chu’s remarks, is poised to take Utah’s reins once Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. is confirmed as ambassador to China. (The lieutenant governor’s absence was “purely coincidental,” said his chief of staff, Joe Demma, a case of “bad timing” that required Herbert to leave for another meeting.)
But when he returned, Herbert, who does not share Huntsman’s convictions in battling climate change — told conference-goers that the problem cannot be solved “unless the people of the world believe the science is conclusive.”
Ironically, “bad timing” is what this may all be about. Herbert (who was backed up by MT Gov Brian Schweitzer, a political hero of mine) is right, in many ways. Though a consensus on warming exists, there is no such agreement on whether our behavior is influencing it. That is a fact many on both sides of the issue try to downplay. The caps are melting, sea levels are rising, and weather patterns are becoming erratic. Are we causing it? Many say yes, many say no, and that will continue for quite some time.
But I’d ask the Gov to be the same questions I ask everyone: If there is even a chance we are facilitating a warming trend (which there is), and if we may not get a “redo” should such “proof” come too late (a realistic possibility), wouldn’t an intelligent species err on the side of caution? And as a follow up, when did we become so fragile that doing so (as the 100% convinced “deniers” warn) that addressing a potential problem stands to bring down our economic system entirely? When did oil companies making gigantic profits become the golden calf of our future prosperity? When did ideology become more important than just simple cost and effect decision making, all possible futures, not just the one’s we have a faith-like conviction will or will not come to be?
We’re smarter than that, and more capable than that, and should the consensus come too late yet prove that we are influencing a damaging warming trend… well, things are going to suck. The only consensus that currently exists, in my experience, is that both warners and deniers practice an ideological conviction, and pragmatism has been tossed aside. And the only certainty I can see is that the negative effects of doing nothing and being wrong are much greater than the effects of doing something and having it be an over-reaction. We can survive without wealthy oil tycoons. Massive loss of dry land and life with daily hurricanes would be a bit more of a challenge, no?
“Our Bad” isn’t going to change anything for future generations living the effects of belligerent (and unjustified) certainty when we have the opportunity to do something now “just in case.” And in daily life, being unable to act to protect oneself from possible harm without undeniable proof would be classified as a debilitating personality disorder.
UPDATES: Looks my support for Gary stops there, as it turns out he didn’t stick around to hear his own question answered.
