Since new generations are being born into the inheritance of this
problem, is it not likely that a certain acceptance will occur and an
erosion of the idea that climate stability is a birthright? We have
already heard from this administration, in press conference with Dick
Cheney about 2 years ago, that we may have to give up our affection
for “Rocky Mountain meadows”. It seems to me that one of the most
ineffectual elements in the ability to persuade people of the dangers
of climate change is the failure to forecast in hard terms what life
might be like on an ever-warming Earth. Is there a reason why no
prognosticators I’ve read seem to be able to see beyond the year
2100? Why not 2200? At what point do much of our inland continents
come to resemble Mars? Only James Lovelock, that I know of, seems to
be looking that far ahead–correctly or incorrectly.
I’m wondering why the issue cannot be framed as simply as follows: We
cannot allow carbon currently sequestered in the earth to be released
into the atmosphere for a net gain in atmospheric CO2 any longer.
Anyone not working against this outcome, let alone working to
exacerbate it, is ultimately committing a crime against humanity.
What are the barriers to deeply cultivating this understanding in the
human psyche? Are we incapable of reacting “before the fact” (because
after the fact, as it turns out will be too late) due to some fact of
our evolution? Is there no precedent for our ability to respond
proactively?
