The climate has been a contentious point of discussion for many years. As much as many of us try to make a difference in our own home or work, in my opinion the Government and the Opposition must come to a bi-partisan agreement on this issue.
So many other countries, with arguably better politicians, have opted for a price of carbon. Their implementation of the policies may be different but the intent is the same. They have opted to do something rather than nothing.
We need to ask ourselves, is the opinion of a minority of sceptics worth taking a risk on our planet’s future?
Our children and their children will have to live with the world that we hand over based on the decisions we make now.
Barry Jone’s article on the SMH website (7th December 2010) neatly puts the situation in writing.
I have chosen to give you a snippet of his article below but please click here to read it all.
“I have proposed my own variant of ”Pascal’s wager” to examine the options for climate change:
■If we take action on climate change and disaster is averted, there will be massive avoidance of human suffering.
■If we take action and the climate change problem abates for other reasons, little is lost and we benefit from a cleaner environment.
■If we fail to act and disaster results, then massive suffering will have been aggravated by stupidity.
■If we do not take action and there is no disaster, the outcome will be due to luck alone, like an idiot winning the lottery.
Failure to act appears to favour the present but it certainly prejudices the future. As the French diplomat Talleyrand acutely observed 200 years ago, ”Not to choose is to choose”.”
