Rudd, Aristotle, and Climate Change

The below post is from David Rooney in response to TOTO Challenge #1

Do a quick Google on “climate change” and “food shortages”. Here, I’ll make it easy for you: http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=climate+change+%22food+shortages%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

“About 225,000 pages” Google tells me, with headlines such as “One in six countries facing food shortage”, “Billions face food shortages, study warns”, “Melting glaciers will trigger food shortages”… You get the picture.

So does this mean the jury’s in and the verdict has been passed, that we humans are guilty of raping and slowly destroying our planet?

Many would say “yes”. I think just about everyone involved with Action Aid would say “yes”. Indeed this blog post came out of a direct request from Action Aid to “explain clearly the link between climate change and poverty” using “appropriate facts, figures and case studies”. And to be fair to Action Aid, the majority of Australians are also of the belief that we are causing severe and irreversible damage to our environment and planet.

I guess about now you’re probably thinking, hang on a sec, he’s about to launch into a diatribe from the opposing point of view, where he’ll argue that the whole climate change issue is a “fairy tale” created by those with hidden agendas and a hatred for big business and SUVs! Well before I respond to that here’s some food for thought…

I was involved in an online discussion on a web forum recently, where someone was complaining about our current “scaremongering fascist government”. I asked the poster if he’d actually experienced fascism first hand, as this seemed quite an extreme view to hold within our modern Australian society. His response was to castigate me for my “blind love” of Kevin Rudd.

We live in a media & agenda driven society where merely questioning a prevailing point of view (whether on a web forum or within our wider community) can lead to accusations of an opposing, equally extreme viewpoint being directed at the questioner. So is this really what intellectual debate has become within the modern, public sphere, a series of outlandish statements followed by point scoring accusations at anyone that dare questions the reasons behind your viewpoint? Are we so far removed from those ancient Greek traditions of rhetoric and discourse that we cannot question a prevailing viewpoint with the desire to actively engage in a problem solving exercise rather than a point scoring one? If we were to believe the thirty second news grabs we see from parliament it sometimes appears that way.

So I could have very easily written a blog post filled with convincing studies, evidence and firsthand accounts of the food shortages arising as a direct consequence of climate change, as Action Aid requested. On the other hand, I could probably also have written just as convincing a blog post on the evidence that shows the minimal impact humans have had on the environment. Believe me, there are many studies, evidence and firsthand accounts that back up this point of view. And I’ve conducted debates at high school and University, I know how easy it is to form a convincing argument to a point of view I don’t believe in, whatever my beliefs on this issue.

Instead, my response to those who are convinced that climate change is being caused by humans, and that climate change is directly and irrefutably causing growing poverty due to crop failures and similar outcomes, is to make sure you constantly question your viewpoint. Make sure that even as you stand on a pulpit (or with a cold beer in your hand with a bunch of mates at the pub) and extort your conviction that we need to do something “right now” on climate change, ensure that you keep an ear open and room in your mind for an alternative point of view from wherever it may come. We humans do make mistakes, we always have and we always will. And while I do believe in erring on the side of caution where matters of health and well being are concerned – especially matters that will effect generations to come – even the most benevolent viewpoint may in time be shown to be incorrect. It wouldn’t be the first time, it won’t be the last.

And so the real reason that Kevin Rudd should personally attend the United Nations Climate Change Conference is NOT that the jury is in on climate change by any means. Indeed, perhaps we are seeing the jury deliberating right now. We ARE the jury: reading, watching, assessing all the myriad of evidence that different people and groups with different viewpoints are submitting to us as “evidence”. And we – the people of Australia, the people of the world, the governments of the world – are deliberating on what could be one of the most important decisions in our lifetime.

THAT is the reason Kevin Rudd should attend the United Nations Climate Change Conference. He – Australia – needs to be involved in these deliberations that will examine all the evidence, that will hear from all the stakeholders, that will gather together more information in one place than any of the individual groups affected by this issue – real or not – will ever otherwise see. Australia needs to ensure we are at the forefront of this environmental discourse, and ensure that we do our best to invoke the best of Achilles, Plato and Aristotle in creating an environment where shared knowledge and differing views will lead to enlightenment and advancement of our society as a whole.