This past Wednesday, columnist Margaret Wente published an article on the lack of concern for environmental issues due to what she says is the "apocalyptic language of environmentalists."
Apparently, the latest public poll states that the general public is "cooling" on "global warming", and Wente thinks that pessimistic word choice is to blame.
She may be right, but that's not the point of my letter to her editor.
Her choice to use the term "global warming" in her article when what she is really referring to is "climate change" reflects a common trend that illustrates a lack of understanding about what impending environmental change - whatever you want to call it - really entails.
NASA has posted an article on their website that addresses this very topic. They clarify that the term global warming is used to specify surface temperature increases only, while climate change refers to any long-term changes in the Earth's climate that will result from an increase in greenhouse gases, which includes global warming.
How many times have I heard Canadians joke that global warming may be a good thing for us frozen northerners?
I hate this joke, but I will give them the benefit of the doubt and say that maybe (just maybe?) they don't fully understand the climactic changes to come.
Climate change means, among a vast list of changes, an increase in the amount and intensity of natural disasters, the invasion of exotic species into vulnerable habitats, and the endangerment and extinction of many animals. It does not mean that our poor driving habits and gas-guzzler SUVs will turn Winnipeg into a future balmy sun-seeking destination.
Proper terminology is necessary if we are to turn public indifference into public concern for an issue that deserves more attention than any economic recession. (Hey, even if I don't get into the Globe and Mail, I should at least score points for ranting in rhyme.)
No comments:
Post a Comment