I used to do a lot more heavy construction
work than I do now. I've pared it down to painting because as I “become more
advanced”, lifting heavy objects becomes more difficult. I can
still lift heavy things and there is certain groaning sound emitting
from me that is a harbinger of things to come if I am not careful.
Basically, I don't want to look like a
hunchback when I'm eighty-nine.
Of course, there are ladders involved in building structures and whenever I was up a ladder doing this
or that, it seemed inevitable I would drop that one tool I needed
most to complete the job. For a moment I would stare at the offending
tool (it was the tool's fault, don't you know) attempting to deny
gravity existed by using some Yoda eyes-roll-into-the-back-of-head
extreme concentration of the mind I would magically make the thing
float back into my hand. Then, admitting defeat, I would trundle down
the ladder, retrieve the tool and huff back up the ladder to complete
said chore.
Yoda is cool and sometimes he gets on my
nerves... smart-ass green whatever you are.
Whether I deny it or not, gravity
exists. It is a part of the reality in which I exist. I can explore
the idea that overcoming gravity is a mind trick or I can argue with
Sir Issac Newton to utter boredom that there is no such thing as
gravity or I can deny it and ignore it. The simple fact is, whether I
believe it or not, gravity exists.
Can we all agree on that?
Good.
Whether we deny it or rename it or are
being funded by big energy companies or cannot get past the idea that
we have the right to wipe out half of the planet's flora and fauna without retribution, Global
Warming exists. Denying it will not change the scientific data.
Denying it will not save our children and grandchildren from a life
of anguish. Denying Global Warming exists and that we, humans, are
affecting the change will not change the fact that it is
happening.
Here is what I don't understand.
How is it we can put dollars before
humanity? How is it our leaders can be affected by how much money is
in their purse and from whom? Why is cost even entering the
discussion? When are we, humanity, going to understand money is not
the impetus one uses to make ethical decisions? When do we figure out
that concern about cost will always be at odds with ethics.
Ethics has nothing to do with cost.
Nothing. If a person's (those in power) ethics decisions are skewed
by how much it will cost, that person is displaying a complete lack
of ethics. We cannot have an ethical debate when dollars enter the
fray. It's... just... not... possible.
Perhaps if Big Energy took the enormous
funds they scatter around our decision maker's pocketbooks and used
it to fund safe clean energy, we would have much less of a problem.
Human beings figure things out. We just
do. It's in our nature. Decreasing our dependence on fossil fuels is
not a problem. It's an opportunity. If a company goes bankrupt
because we stop buying into the fossil fuel regime and another grows
because we buy into the renewable energy regime, how have we lost?
People who are now employed in fossil fuels would then be employed in
renewable energy. It's simple economics. In actual fact, if Big
Energy took all of the money they paid decision makers and scientists
to promote their viewpoint and put it into retooling themselves
toward renewable energy, they would not need to worry about their
company going under. The "we can't afford to dump oil and gas" economics argument is unethical and idiotic and even
those who use the argument know it.
If decisions continue to be made by
economics instead of ethics, empirical evidence and right action,
then we are doomed.
I guess the real question is this... Do
we continue to allow our leaders to stand on the ladder staring at the solution in
the mud denying Global Warming exists or do we make them admit the
simple truth and tell them to go get the damned thing to finish the job?
The answer seems pretty simple to me.
Namaste
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please leave comments here.