Today is Blog Action Day, a day set set aside for bloggers to exhibit their influence and the power of writing and words. The 2009 issue that participating bloggers will be discussing is climate change.
Climate according to Merriam-Webster Online is (1) a region of the earth having specified climatic conditions. (2a) the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years…… (3) the prevailing influence or environmental conditions characterizing a group or period.
All of these definitions assume that climate is a static state or if they allow for variation, the differences are averaged together to find “the prevailing influence.” Is “climate change” an oxymoron? Is change contradictory or incongruous when discussing climate? Can climate change or is it just what is, according to the definition?
The way we view climate (as static and unchanging) and the way we use the word change (as either an action we take or something that happens to us) illuminates some of the problems we having with the earth’s current situation.
Variations in temperature, precipitation and winds are always occurring. Weather predictors are the butt of many jokes because even with advanced equipment, a wealth of data, and intricate computer programs, they are unable to accurately tell us if the sun will shine or the wind will blow on any given day.
Humans would like to be in charge of their surroundings, internal and external. We want to be able to count on the weather, our spouse’s mood, that our home will be comfortable, or that our health will be good. We want things to stay relatively “the same” and get stressed if there is too much changing in our lives.
We don’t want change to happen to us, we want to be making the changes and in charge.
Humans also have difficulty acknowledging that there are some things we just don’t know. We like our scientists to be authoritative, rather than telling us their theories. We want definitive answers and we want to be able to predict what the outcome will be from an action.
When science comes out with new data that contradicts the old, we wonder which information is the “true fact.” And we dig in our heels, saying because it goes against our intuitive sense, “it can’t be correct.” Then we attack the messenger and spend years debating what is truth and what is not.
In the case of the earth’s climate, it is different than it was ten years ago, ten thousand years ago, and ten million years ago. It will continue to change. We have choices about how we deal with the differences.
Will we dig in our heels and spend our time arguing about whether there is change, what the changes are, and what “you” (government, the people on the other side of the world, neighbors) should do about them?
Or can we acknowledge that humans are an integrated part of the climate? Can we actively participate by making choices that help balance the systems we are a part of? Will we use our large brains to adapt to change instead of trying to turn back the clock to some set point? What would that point be—an inland sea covering eastern Colorado?
Let us look forward and adapt. Let us continue to learn more so that we can move forward. We don’t need Chicken Little. It is not helpful to berate and belittle humanity. As we change the “weather” within ourselves, we can change the climate rather than have change come down upon us.
