The issue is caused by industry and personal choices.
The effects may have major implications for the economy, health care, immigration, disaster relief, and the availability of water, food, and energy.
Deciding how to respond involves decisions on personal and societal mores and values.
The solutions must encompass industrial policy, transportation policy, regional planning, energy policy, international relations and collaboration, and so much more.

Since it’s such an all-encompassing scenario, starts with people and ends with effects on people, and since most of the human scope of the effects are not studied or addressed in the course of environmental science, why does it get tucked away as an "environmental" issue? Most of us see the "environment" as being something outside of "us." Sure, the environment will change along the way, but isn’t the issue far broader and greater, and ultimately more about our choices, and the effects those will have on us?
My guess is that it’s a calculated political move to marginalize support for responses to global warming. Environmentalists embrace it, while everyone else is glad it’s off their plate. Environmentalists can lead the charge tadn the rest of us can wait to see how it turns out. Isn’t that why after 20 years none of the other disciplines is responding (architecture, regional planning, etc)? It’s not their problem.

This is what prompted me to ask the question:

"Disaster preparedness is not an environmental problem." It is a hallmark of environmental rationality to believe that we environmentalists search for "root causes" not "symptoms."

The Death of Environmentalism
Global warming politics in a post-environmental world
https://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/01/13/doe-reprint/

Maybe we’re all missing the point by arguing about the causes instead of focusing on the responses?

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!