Ken Fabian
- 51
- 38
Should people elected and appointed to the highest Offices act as if the science based advice is valid - advice governments commissioned in order to make informed policy choices? I think they do. Like the bad dam example, few if any will be personally capable of assessing the validity of that advice yet communities rely on them to respond appropriately to that advice. It shouldn't be a personal choice on their part whether to take the expert advice seriously, it should be their duty to do so.
Just because constituent irrigation farming communities downstream are dependent on the dangerous dam for their livelihoods oppose draining it - and accuse the engineers making the assessments of "green" political bias or can even find other engineers who will make assessments more to their liking - doesn't make the duty to act on the advice go away.
I think making the climate problem entirely about public opinion - where a lie that presses people's buttons is on an equal footing to the IPCC or NOAA or NASA or etc (that have been extraordinarily good at predicting the course of climate change) has been profoundly inhibiting. Making it NOT about those in highest Offices having a duty to seek out such advice and act on it (until and unless overwhelming public opinion supports it) has been incredibly dangerous in my view.
It doesn't make the need to help out those communities in the face of what needs to be done go away either. But people holding high Offices have a great array of expertise and resources to draw on that ordinary people do not - expert advice including for how to reduce the risks AND support affected communities.
If addressing the climate problem effectively is up to successful political activism instead of those holding the Offices with the duty that says more about the negligent (and corrupt) failures of those holding the actual Offices where the duty lies to step up and do their jobs than about climate activists.
Just because constituent irrigation farming communities downstream are dependent on the dangerous dam for their livelihoods oppose draining it - and accuse the engineers making the assessments of "green" political bias or can even find other engineers who will make assessments more to their liking - doesn't make the duty to act on the advice go away.
I think making the climate problem entirely about public opinion - where a lie that presses people's buttons is on an equal footing to the IPCC or NOAA or NASA or etc (that have been extraordinarily good at predicting the course of climate change) has been profoundly inhibiting. Making it NOT about those in highest Offices having a duty to seek out such advice and act on it (until and unless overwhelming public opinion supports it) has been incredibly dangerous in my view.
It doesn't make the need to help out those communities in the face of what needs to be done go away either. But people holding high Offices have a great array of expertise and resources to draw on that ordinary people do not - expert advice including for how to reduce the risks AND support affected communities.
If addressing the climate problem effectively is up to successful political activism instead of those holding the Offices with the duty that says more about the negligent (and corrupt) failures of those holding the actual Offices where the duty lies to step up and do their jobs than about climate activists.