4 Essential Ways To Save The Earth : Part 2
- From: "Earth Blog" <earth-blog@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 22:59:25 +0100
The Earth is losing its battle against humans - animal and plant species are
being wiped out daily, entire habitats are shrinking and changing, in ways
we cannot predict, and the means to sustain even ourselves over the long
term are becoming increasingly fragile. We know we have to act now, but what
should we do and how are we going to do it?
In the first part of this article I outlined the three basic steps to
reducing our impact on the Earth and the four ways in which this reduction
can be achieved. I am now going to turn to the first of the four "legs" of
this solution - that of research.
How important do you think research is? Quite important? Very important? Not
important at all?
Research seems to have become poor cousin of the great actions that we can
take as a civilisation - we value political power, celebrity and wealth as
great attributes to look up to. Information gathering and formal learning do
not convey these things - research certainly lacks the glamour of those
three attributes, and the white coated "boffin" does not immediately spring
to mind as the key to great things; but this was not always the case. Plato
valued formal education above all else and, as has been seen from the rise
of the great early civilisations of Egypt, Mesopotamia and Greece, it was
learning that drove the rise of power above all else.
T.S.Eliot wrote in 1915:
Where is the Life we have lost in living?
Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?
Without data there can be no information, without information there can be
no knowledge, without knowledge there can be no wisdom.
Research is "the systematic investigation into the study of materials and
sources in order to establish the facts and reach new conclusions" (OED).
Put simply, without research there is no data worth taking notice of, and
without research there is no valid information, no knowledge of any
importance and no wisdom of the reality of the world around us. It is the
bedrock of everything that we know to be true.
When George Bush refused to support the re-election of Bob Watson in 2002 to
the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the
behest of ExxonMobil, he clearly recognised the importance of research in
informing the climate message. Both the Bush White House and ExxonMobil saw
that as a result of many years of objective research, the message coming out
of the IPCC was that of irrefutable human induced climate change. With
Watson out of the way Bush could, in theory, manipulate the IPCC to his own
ends. And this type of thing has been attempted by numerous companies, such
as the aforementioned ExxonMobil with their notorious "tin shed" Oregon
Institute ; AgBioWorld, a pro-genetic modification "research" organisation
funded by, among other companies, Monsanto; and most recently, the
Competitive Enterprise Institute, who have selectively misquoted research on
glacier retreat to make the case for carbon dioxide. Clearly research can
lead to power, wealth and even, in the most notorious cases, celebrity.
If research can be manipulated to maintain the status quo of untrammelled
economic growth, unequal wealth creation and political power for those who
crave it, then it can also be used as a force for good.
The first step is in ensuring that research returns to its roots of purity -
objective, non-commercial research for its own sake - after all, science
demands that data sources are free from contamination. We should ensure that
the term "contamination" includes commercial and politic influences.
The second step is giving the public the power of critical thinking. This
does not mean teaching each person the difference between the various types
of fallacy and rhetoric (although that would be an excellent start to any
child's education), but simply ensuring that any information on which
political and legal decisions are based is presented in a clear,
unexpurgated way so that individuals can make up their own minds whether the
right decisions are being made. It is impossible to hide behind a wall of
truth.
So how does that achieve the solution of Giving The Earth A Future?
With the walls of deception knocked down, the truth that research is
increasingly presenting to us can only convince people, and by inference
governments, that action is needed. Organisations, such as the IPCC and UN
Environmental Programme are showing us where we need to target action and
further research that we can run in parallel to our efforts to reverse
change. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, to be published in 2006, will
show the unequivocal damage that we are doing to all of the Earth's natural
systems and what must change to avoid further harm.
This is the result of pure, objective research and it must not be ignored or
manipulated at any cost.
Finally, we have to accept that there will always be scepticism. The climate
sceptic will wait for scientific proof, knowing that there is no such thing,
trying to protect the system that is killing the planet. Despite all our
best research efforts there will always be doubt, there will always be best
estimates, and there will never be total agreement; but given the evidence
there is no way we can sit back and do nothing.
Keith Farnish
www.theearthblog.org
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Embedded Energy: Should I replace my car? my boiler? my freezer?
- Next by Date: Russia: 'Era of cheap fuel is over'
- Previous by thread: Embedded Energy: Should I replace my car? my boiler? my freezer?
- Next by thread: Russia: 'Era of cheap fuel is over'
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
