OPINION & EDITORIAL
Don’t despair for global warming
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Letters to the Editor:
- SSFC stipend appropriate (December 11, 2007)
- Poor plowing cuts off handicapped access (December 10, 2007)
- Cars that actually help the environment (December 10, 2007)
- Organic food: Deliciously safe (December 10, 2007)
- Diversity deserves attention at UW (December 7, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Global-warming prevention lacking (February 8, 2007)
- Kohl ought to follow Feingold (April 13, 2007)
- BH mischaracterizes FACT, climate effects (October 26, 2006)
- Ald. King combats warming (March 12, 2007)
- Climate change more than warming (February 16, 2007)
by Letters to the Editor
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
On Feb. 8 the article "Global-warming prevention lacking" was released, and after reading it I couldn't help but feel subtle hint of hopelessness. The article essentially said that despite the small-scale efforts individuals can do to positively effect the environment, we must depend mostly on the government to remedy the destruction humans have created.
I understand that sense of hopelessness was probably not the writer's intention, as the article is both well written and informed. Rather, I believe the article represents a microcosmic view of a larger American disposition regarding the bleak outlook many of us share regarding global warming.
The article concluded with this statement: "The true challenge will be for the state and country to enact a comprehensive plan for controlling climate change before it's too late." But I disagree. For it is this disposition that leaves America at the outside flanks of environmental control.
If a nation places full faith in the government to enact a plan, the citizen's drive to encourage government is lost. Without a drive from the nation, the government sets an issue on the back burner. And on America's back burner is where the global warming issue has been for years.
However, in the recent weeks a major development has taken place in the world with respect to global warming. On Feb. 3 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued an account stating there is a 90 percent chance humans are causing global warming. This report has taken the liberty of making global warming a priority for the government, and we must take it upon ourselves to keep the issue a priority.
The question then becomes how we, as students, can push our government to address the global climate issue and make a substantial difference. Change must begin locally. To the United States government we are just a student body somewhere in Wisconsin, but to the University of Wisconsin Madison, we are their student body. They will listen to us, for without us there is no university.
New buildings are being put up all over campus, dorms included. Is the new Ogg going to be energy efficient? Have we let our administrators know we feel that issue is important?
What about the apartments and houses in the university community? Madison Property Management, JSM, Tallard Apartments, Steve Brown Apartments: are these properties energy efficient? We have the power to demand they use clean energy, florescent lights, and proper insulation. Have we exercised our power? We create their business therefore we are in control.
It starts small. But it gets big. We can get involved with environmental organizations on campus. We can write to the city of Madison and let them know we disapprove of the coal burning plants. Various campaigns are already in effect to make Madison climate neutral in future generations. With civilian action we can make our plans a reality and make Madison a national leader in green technology.
We have the power to bring about change. The "true challenge" will not be to wait for the government to act. The true challenge will be to act as moral citizens of a democratic society and accept the responsibility of rescuing future generations from the atrocities we have imposed. Change is our hope and change is our challenge, but with individual effort change is tangible.
Charlie Berens
Anonymous (February 13, 2007 @ 7:09am):
The true challange will come once we reverse all the "global warming" and the long-delaed ice age brings massive sheets of ice back to the northern hemisphere. I say expanding the US armed forces is a GREAT idea. We'll need them during the great trek south to our new homes.
Anonymous (February 13, 2007 @ 7:47am):
"accept the responsibility of rescuing future generations from the atrocities we have imposed."
Dude, calm down. The temperature is going to rise 2 degrees over a century. It's global "warming," not global hotting.
Anonymous (February 13, 2007 @ 1:33pm):
why are the ice caps on mars melting again?
all the suvs ya say huh?
Anonymous (February 13, 2007 @ 8:57pm):
The ice caps on Mars melt and freeze with the Martian seasons. And we've only been watching it for a few years, so we can't really say anything about any long-term trends.
I think it's interesting that it's okay to defend polluting the Earth until it's proven 100% that the pollution is indeed harmful. Shouldn't it be the other way around?
Anonymous (February 13, 2007 @ 9:40pm):
"to act as moral citizens of a democratic society"
HAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHA
HA!
so you say you were indoctrinated...
Anonymous (February 13, 2007 @ 9:55pm):
8:57pm, In answer to your question: no. Why should there be anything wrong with "polluting the Earth" if there are no negative affects? In that case, it's not really even pollution.
Anonymous (February 13, 2007 @ 10:36pm):
An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change
Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged
"He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun's magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
Anonymous (February 15, 2007 @ 11:25am):
To anyone who believes in global warming based on a warm 2nd half of December/1st half of January:
How do you explain the fact that every day for almost a month has been well below normal in terms of temperatures, including the coldest stretch in 11 years? What about October and most of the fall? Don't jump to conclusions.
Anonymous (February 15, 2007 @ 9:40pm):
To anyone who believes in global warming based on a warm 2nd half of December/1st half of January:
you're just as ignorant as the person who posted this...
How do you explain the fact that every day for almost a month has been well below normal in terms of temperatures, including the coldest stretch in 11 years? What about October and most of the fall? Don't jump to conclusions.
Anonymous (February 16, 2007 @ 12:28am):
So basically, you're refuting short term evidence by presenting further short term evidence? That doesn't make much sense, and it's not very scientific. But why not entertain it? As mentioned above the world is only warming by 1 degree Farenheight. Now let's think about that one degree difference when referring to your short term evidence (coldest weather in 11 years or whatever). That means, yes, we're still going to have cold weather and we're still going to have warm weather. So I agree with you. Those who say global warming is occurring based on the evidence of unseasonably warm weather are just as wrong as you.
Anonymous (February 12, 2008 @ 4:28pm):
Dudes, Cold enough for ya this winter. I'm almost 50 yrs young, haven't seen a constant cold winter such as this since I was a teenager. I know because I'm outside alot. By the way, I live on the very southern border of Michigan. Let's just say that there is alot of folks collecting and analyzing data. Many disagree. Al Gore just wants a stage for attention. He shouldn't be given any. Besides he is the worst hypocrite of all. If you believe we are really destroying the planet with the burning of fossil fuels, then do something about it yourself. Don't tell us all the problem, be the answer. Stop driving your car and walk, Stop jet setting around the country on Jet's, stop using your snow blower and lawn mower and do it by hand and most importantly it might be wise to convince the chinese and russians and a bunch of other countries who just as bad on the polluting thing. There are alturnatives to oil and it's not food sources such as fuels derived from corn and soybeans. How about the french guy who has developed a car which runs off of compressed air. Where is GM, Ford and whoever. They saw all this coming 30 years ago. You see your opinions don't matter because your not the one with the money and power to make the decisions. The only decision you can make is don't by a car, a snow blower and ect.. Otherwise things will continue as such until we can't afford the oil and it runs out. One way or another if these folks who make the predications on this stuff are right. Everything you do and think will change. So just wait and see. Have a great day...bundle up it's cold out there.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
