A new political twist on climate change has emerged. This time controversy is swirling around the name we use for it. Without a name, some would say it doesnt really exist. Here's what the NY Times' "Green" blog had to say on the matter:
September 20, 2010
A Rebranding for Global Warming?
By JOHN COLLINS RUDOLF
In a speech in Oslo on Sept. 6, Dr. Holdren called “global warming” a “dangerous misnomer” because it implied that the impact of greenhouse gases would be gradual, uniform across the planet and “quite possibly benign.”
Rather, he said, changes to the climate are rapid when viewed in terms of the capacity of society and ecosystems to adjust; the impact is distributed unevenly; and the outcome will be overwhelmingly negative for most of the globe.
A better term would be “global climate disruption,” Dr. Holdren said.
Fox News saw politics at work. “Another terminology change is in the pipeline,” an unattributed report at its Web site stated on Thursday. “The new push could be an attempt to reshape climate messaging for next year’s legislative session.”
“They’re trying to come up with more politically palatable ways to sell some of this stuff,” said Adam Geller, one of two Republican organizers quoted by Fox.
Read the full article here...and let us know how you feel. And when do we have to stop "'selling' this stuff?" A rose is still a rose, right? Even if this issue smells anything but sweet.
No comments:
Post a Comment