The hijacking of climate change

It could be very easily argued that Al Gore's documentary changed the world. It has also hampered the change that is necessary. An Inconvenient Truth labelled this problem as global warming, we now know this was wrong because what was really happening was the colds getting colder, the hots getting hotter, the winds getting windier and so forth. The change in title to climate change has put the movement on the back foot.

I have two major problems with the way the debate has gone thus far, the first is that it is a debate with one side saying "We have to use clean fuels or the climate will deteriorate further," the other side retorts, "The science isn't there to back up climate change, this change to clean energy will put people out of work and will cost too much."

I am on the side of the former, however I have a suggestion as to how the argument should be put forth. We should say, "If we are wrong all that will have happened is we have implemented clean energy, which we will need for when it is no longer viable to use fossil fuels. If you are wrong we are fucked."

My second point is that climate change is only half of the problem, we are not giving enough importance to the fact that what has caused climate change has also poisoned the hell out of the planet. If we implement change we can also begin to clean this place up.

If you are looking for a good book about how we can begin to combat climate change check out Thomas Friedman's Hot, Flat and Crowded.