There has been a rather sad account by the birder and essayist, Jonathan Franzen, who clearly feels that he has been attacked by components of bodies concerned about climate change, not because he is a denier, but mainly because he has no belief in 'the 10 years to save the planet' argument (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/nov/04/jonathan-franzen-too-late-to-save-world-donald-trump-environment). He basically argues that the 10 year figure has been quoted for decades, in spite of the situation worsening over that same period. He also thinks that bodies such as the US Audubon Society are too quick to jump to climate change as the peril for birds when habitat loss and hunting are more immediate threats. He is clearly pessimistic about humans getting their collective act together to limit climate change, pointing out that no country has actually committed to leave 'their' hydrocarbons (in the form of oil or gas) in the ground. He apparently believes that countries are driven by short-term financial issues and that even environmental bodies use the 10 year argument to drive recruitment and increase donations. It seems that there is no space for a pessimist (realist?).
No comments:
Post a Comment