Getting right to the point, if you are of the position – as many people are – that climate change (CC) and/or global warming (GW) are real and humans are to blame, do you agree that is it incumbent on us to take the necessary steps to make a climate course-correcting change? And, if it is incumbent on us to take the necessary steps to make a climate course-correcting change, what should be the steps taken and to what extent should be the course-correcting effort?
If, on the other hand, you don’t believe, well, you might want to read on just the same.
As it relates, I’ve been reading a considerable amount as of late about cities such as Baltimore, New York, Oakland and San Francisco taking on Big Oil in court. The different sides have different points of view on the matter, obviously.
How I understand the so far unresolved issue, the lawsuit-filing cities that have taken the position that to reverse the damage that climate change has wrought, the job rests with Big Oil and Big Oil, by contrast, contends that the brunt of that burden should fall to the consumers.
What this says to me, meanwhile, is that CC and/or GW are real and that such is anthropogenically caused and Big Oil agrees, apparently.
So, a question: When push comes to shove and at the end of the day, aren’t we all – or shouldn’t we all be – in this fight together if for no other reason than because what’s being altered is world atmosphere and what’s being negatively impacted, by extension, is human health? Honestly, I just don’t see why we’re not all on the same side here.
Furthermore, being a consumer myself, I know of no one who is not a consumer and/or user of oil, petroleum, petroleum byproducts such as those that go into the making of plastics and other consumer goods in some way, shape or form, either today or currently and in times past. And, that being the case, shouldn’t everyone have some role to play when it comes to resolving the climate change/global warming crisis, anyway? Maybe what I’m really saying is why even go down the “consumer blame-game” avenue at all?!
What I know is that there are at least two sides of the issue and, regardless of that, the possibility that differences of opinions can be put aside, the boxing gloves can be taken off and cooperation can take the place of combativeness as in not calling on the courts to settle the matter, and instead focus energies on finding a workable, achievable, long-term solution that involves weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels over time, always exists.
Okay, so maybe that’s being a bit idealistic on my part, I don’t know. What I do know on the other hand is that just such an approach could be given a try.
That all said it’s incumbent on us that do believe to get this right!
For the record, it should be noted that the lawsuits filed by New York, Oakland and San Francisco were done in federal courts whereas that (or those) filed by Baltimore is (are) within the state court system. It is my understanding that the suits in federal court were deferred to the government for resolution while the one (or ones) in the Maryland State Court system is (are) still pending.
Image (lower): California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board
This post has been updated.