A Certain Likelihood of Facing Global Warming
Debate over global warming has heated up again with a recent Times editorial, “Facing Up to Climate Shift,” and a flurry of letters in response.
Is it possible that the negative consequences of ignoring the “possibility” of a climate shift could be far greater than any negative inconvenience placed upon us to reduce it? I suggest this scenario in case this climate shift it is not a “certainty,” as the Nov. 6 editorial suggested. Subsequent letters to The Times strongly objected to this wording.
Quite a number of people do not believe that global warming is even a possibility, let alone a certainty. How many who have newer sport utility vehicles (SUVs) have brought them back to the dealer to be retrofitted for better fuel efficiency? Isn’t this possible, and why doesn’t Uncle Sam demand it?
A personal observation from the latest round of Girl Scout cookie sales in my Oak Park neighborhood: On a relatively frigid California day of about 55 degrees, an idling Chevy Suburban escorted a child door to door selling Thin Mints, etc. When I told the mom that I would buy some if she got out of her vehicle, she said it was too cold. They lived just one block away. I like Thin Mints but I passed on the temptation, as she would have stayed (idled) longer.
I have also made numerous daily observations of vehicles (convertibles included) idling for long periods of time to keep the inside temperature at the optimum comfort level. I’d like to see little warning lights on the dashboards--perhaps in the shape of our planet--that say “Global Warming Alert” when the vehicle idles too long. I suppose we could insert the word “possibility” on the dashboard.
Perhaps Uncle Sam could offer tax credits to upgrade vehicles for fuel efficiency or to scrap the older, more polluting ones. Maybe these credits could be extended to upgrading home appliances to more efficient designs, and insulating homes and upgrading heating systems to top current (and possible) efficiency. If Uncle Sam won’t give us back our tax dollar surplus, then how about not taking as much from us in the future through these tax credits. Is this possibly (or certainly) a good idea?
*
Isn’t it a possibility that all this could help reduce the possibility of global warming? Would it, with any certainty, really hurt anyone if it did? And if a climate shift is almost certainly a possibility, then why not try to save a few ancient glaciers for our grandkids, or their grandkids?
