This is more than an environmental issue; what’s at stake is how we communicate, how we find common ground and solve our problems. We must become more thoughtful in how we debate contentious issues. Our community deserves it.
This false balance of two sides to every issue is detrimental to climate change action because it increases a dangerous ambiguity surrounding the issue. At the end of the day, a balanced portrayal of climate change means two sides debating what to do about the problem, not whether or not the problem exists.
Ben Kaufman ’17 and Wyatt Smitherman ’16 go head to head on the debate over climate change. Kaufman argues it is largely man-created while Smitherman claims the effects of climate change are part of the larger uncontrollable weather cycles of the earth.
How, then, can we prevent other species from meeting Lonesome George’s fate? For many of the 11,500 species listed as endangered (or critically endangered) by the IUCN, it may already be too late. Lonesome George, perhaps, would recommend a conservative course: slow and steady, taking each step with caution, steering well clear of that invisible line.
We need to figure out ways to share the economic burden of fighting climate change. If we continue to cooperate, we will pave the road for Climate Deniers to become our strongest allies in the fight against climate change.
At subway stations and bus stops, we’re warned by conductors “mind the gap.” While in those cases, the solution is a short hop from side to side, when it comes to the gap in scientific knowledge, both sides must work to shrink, not simply avoid, it.
Many of the most impactful scientific advancements, including penicillin and Velcro, were side effects of other scientific endeavours. The scientific enterprise carefully vets proposals to determine which projects would most benefit from funding in the short-term. People who have spent their lifetimes in review processes and research allocation are far better suited to make such decisions than Republican politicians who have publicly disavowed science in the past.
Super Tuesday columnists Johnathan Bowes ’15 and Matthew ’18 take on the hot button political issues of the Keystone XL Pipeline. Bowes argues that if developed ethically and with respect to landowners and Native American nations, the pipeline is a net positive for the US. Cohen suggests that the risk of affecting the American water supply and the overall increased production of oil should make us wary.