The race to dominate the…
The shorts might be in…
Hurricane Sandy may prove to be the event that the environmentalists were waiting for, the event that makes the world, or at least a large portion of the US, sit up and take note, and perhaps begin to believe in climate change.
Michael Bloomberg, the Mayor of New York City has certainly been converted into a believer, and has announced his full support for Obama and his climate change policies; he has even set out to create a political fund to back other like-minded thinkers.
“Our climate is changing; and while the increase in extreme weather we have experienced in New York City and around the world may or may not be the result of it, the risk that it might be — given this week’s devastation — should compel all elected leaders to take immediate action.”
It is this business-like approach and evaluation style that world leaders need to be taking. The ability to look at all the factors, and, no matter how small or unlikely, create a model or contingency plan for a worst case scenario.
Related Article: Hurricane Sandy: Litmus Test for America's Utilities
Environmentalists are criticised for taking this approach, looking at the ‘worst case’ scenario and trying to make changes to avoid it. The fossil fuel sector by comparison has chosen to completely ignore the matter. At the moment that the ‘worst case’ scenario occurs, no matter how slim the chance is, those following the environmentalist’s motion of thought will be fine, whereas the fossil fuel industry will be completely unprepared.
Barack Obama has pushed for several climate change policies, such as clamping down on the coal industry in order to reduce emission levels. Whereas Mitt Romney has done almost everything he can to try and support the coal industry and gain their support.
Whilst there may be many that believe that Hurricane Sandy and the other extreme weather events that have afflicted the world in 2012 are NOT a result of climate change. If there is even the smallest chance that there might be a link, it is far safer, and cheaper, to err on the side of caution.
By. James Burgess of Oilprice.com
James Burgess studied Business Management at the University of Nottingham. He has worked in property development, chartered surveying, marketing, law, and accounts. He has also…
In reply to John D, No, not in America and not for an instant, either. But in a genuinely Christian country, certainly it is possible to believe that the population will actually care about their children and grandchildren and those who will suffer the privations of global warming, instead of themselves, their jobs and their growth. Sadly, John D is not in the least unusual for an American.
I am an atheist, but even if I were not, I could never bring myself to worship a God that would consider blessing for one moment a nation that doesn't give a damn about those less fortunate than themselves. (E.g. Bangladesh has a population of 150 million, many of whom will need a new home as the sea level rises.)
One wonders just what this God is supposed to think about America when he, she or it is believed to have sacrificed his own son, Jesus Christ, in order to spread such notions as 'Do unto others ... etc!' only to be given the finger by so-called Christians, as so excellently evidenced by John D's comment.