climate change

As weird as this sounds.... There are some religious folk out there, who actually welcome the destruction of the environment. As hard as that might be to believe, some people are ok about it. They say it is “inevitable” and must happen to fulfill Biblical Prophecy (especially as in the Book of Revelation). The world will see a third of the trees die; a third of the rivers become unusable; a third of all fish life destroyed… and more. It is all written in the good book (the word “good” suddenly seems quite inappropriate!). So they say.

Since my last installment about climate change deniers down in the south east metro area of Melbourne... the letters have continued in our local papers.

In recent weeks I have landed in the middle of a "letter to the editor" debate about climate change. The local south east Metro Melbourne papers have had some fun with it...

Initially I wrote a letter in response to a gentleman who was saying that Rudd's inaction on climate change was probably a sign that it is not really happening. Here is what I wrote:

When skeptics attack the fight against global warming (such as Alan Oxley in his speech that was reported in the Journal Sep 1), it worries me. 
 
At least Mr Oxley offered an alternative strategy and so the debate might be seen to be more about "the best way to fight it". But I got the impression that Mr Oxley would be just as happy for Australia to do nothing, and to wait for China and India to lead the way.
 

Shaun Inguanzo raises some good questions in his short piece in Star Dust (21st August). If Australia only puts out 1.5% of the carbon emissions of the world, then even if we stopped completely, (and no one else copied us), the world will still become an overheated hell on earth. So ...why bother doing anything? Thanks Shaun for opening up a good discussion with a question asked by many.
 
Well, there are a number of good reasons to be leading the way in what needs to be done.