Most Americans are very concerned about climate change. It is a smaller percentage who are not. Even the United States is threatened by coastal inundation but the threats are largely ignored by the press and therefore not communicated to its citizens. Third Planet is making some progress on public awareness but we are a small organization and it is not enough. For example my local newspaper, The Florida Times-Union, did publish the following letter I wrote them in November:

Protect the buffers

Although “Rising seas could soak taxpayers, study says” is a news story that no one wants to read, it is a subject we might ignore at our peril.

The prudent approach for government in their planning scenarios is to take a much harder look at the 100-year floodplain, existing wetlands and low-lying agricultural lands, and consider these as ground zero upon which all future development must be based.

Ultimately the reinsurance industry will have a much louder voice about which developments can be insured. It just plain makes sense to give tidal wetlands, and the valuable services they provide to humans, the room to retreat with the possible onset of rising sea levels.

In Louisiana, for example, coastal wetlands and the buffer they provide against hurricanes are being eroded at a rate of 1 acre every 30 to 40 minutes.

It is time we started applying the precautionary principle to the expensive development decisions we are making, particularly in light of the Reality Check development exercises that have been underway in Northeast Florida for the past six months. (see http://jacksonville.com/opinion/letters_from_readers/2009-11-10/story/letters_from_readers?page=1)

We don’t know if our concerns will be considered by our local planning community in their development decisions, or not. We only know that while Florida is threatened it is not our survival that is at stake–for the time-being.

We can only hope that we all come to our senses on the global implications of climate change before it is far too late.

I can empathize with your frustrations, however I don’t believe that “analysis” of what the other side of the climate debate might be thinking or doing is productive toward a solution in the short term. And the short term has now become critical in terms of limiting the prospects of abrupt climate change.

I wrote specifically about the U.S. position toward the Kyoto Protocol in the context of COP15. But there are many other reasons why the Senate would hold up debate on any climate change treaty, Kyoto Protocol or otherwise, including Senators from the President’s own party.

For example, as The New York Times reported this morning (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/science/earth/15climate.html?hp), a group of 10 Democratic Senators wrote to the President two weeks ago. They warned, in effect, that if border carbon tariffs are not imposed on imports from foreign countries that have no requirement for limiting their emissions, a treaty could not be ratified.

They argue that American jobs would be at stake and their case is directed toward Chinese imports in particular. How that plays out at COP15 is anyone’s guess and might come down to an eleventh hour negotiating session between the U.S. and China, the main protagonists.

The point I’m trying to make is that it’s not just the Kyoto Protocol at stake in driving the actions of the Senate.

My position all along is quite different from assigning analysis to the problems of debate about climate change.

My position quite simply is to make the case for application of a precautionary principle. The engineer in me says that if I want to insure against possible losses caused by climate change I don’t have a chance of securing insurance unless I can demonstrate that every precaution has first been taken to protect the investment.

If 80% of the science tells me global warming is happening and 20% tells me it’s not, I have enough common sense to take a precautionary stance on climate change and do everything in my power to stop it. To ignore it given the balance of evidence to the contrary is not only reckless, it’s just plain stupid.