But I posted a comment on the importance of considering the moral
arguments for action on global warming in the context of the many other moral questions surrounding human development.
See the video of Prof. Mike Hulme for a resounding challenge to
political arguments for action on climate change, based on the idea that the consensus is that global warming will cause catastrophe.
But it's important not to conclude that
moral arguments for action on global warming, even conveyed by a pope, are a world - changing breakthrough.
That's why the new center's latest effort, «An Open Letter to the American People and America's Leaders: A New Era for U.S. Energy Security,»
focuses arguments for action on oil mainly on the basis of economic and geopolitical conflict, with the environment and climate in the background.
As
various arguments for action on global warming have failed to blunt growth in emissions in recent years, environmental groups and international agencies have sometimes tried to turn the focus to diseases that could pose a growing threat in a warming world — with malaria being a frequent talking point.
Rosenberg then provides a fresh framing of the
economic argument for action against the argument favored by many of those favoring sustained dependence on fossil fuels:
For example, we reported on last year's Ipsos Mori's poll, which found that the majority of people are not convinced that the
scientific argument for action on climate change is clear - cut.
The other thread has to do with a familiar question: why, given increasingly dire warnings from scientists and increasingly
strong arguments for action, is the world (particularly the U.S.) doing so little to address climate change?
Revkin wrote Hansen: «given that quite a few folks (Gore and some environmentalists particularly) have often used the USA temp trends
in arguments for action (string of record years), its hard for me to ignore the re-analysis of these annual temperatures...» Its hard to know exactly what Revkin is aiming to say; there is ambiguity.
But, as I wrote in a comment on that post, «It's important not to conclude that
moral arguments for action on global warming, even conveyed by a pope, are a world - changing breakthrough.
«They're brothers and sisters,» Cuomo said during his speech, making a moral
argument for action.
Newark, Cleveland, Compton, Detroit, East St. Louis, and Philadelphia have all been the subjects of outside intervention in which fiscal mismanagement was one of
the arguments for action.
About 15 minutes in, we talk about a Grist piece trying to link the earthquake to
arguments for action on greenhouse gases.
The core of the issue that I worry most about, as do others, is that
arguments for action on climate change that evoke only one particular vision of the future will reflect only the priorities and values of certain parties, rather than a broad, pragmatic set of choices designed to both effectively manage the problem of climate change and align a diversity of political interests in support of policy action.
In other words,
the argument for action to mitigate climate change takes its own conclusion as its premise.
I have written two previous posts that address the idea that uncertainty increases the argument for action
My first comment on this thread said the article is all about uncertainty as
an argument for action, the certainty of action being greater than the uncertainty of the science.
The body is all about uncertainty as
an argument for action, the certainty of action being greater than the uncertainty of the science.
It seems to me no different except in tone than uncertainty does not preclude action and could be
an argument for action.