Shall we reap the Whirlwind? Or shall we act?

FP offers up a brilliant debate between two leading environmentalists, one (Carl Pope) an idealistic big picture type with a view towards the future and the global good, the other (Bjorn Lomborg) a self-styled practical realist that is more concerned with the here and now and other factors affecting humanity's well being. I unabashedly empathsize with the former, but I respect Lomberg's position and recognize that the real solution lies somewhere in between--a practical plan grounded in future-oriented strategic initiatives. The debate is fiery, intelligent, and fact-laden, and I strongly recommend the read. Here's a textbyte:

Foreign Policy: The State of Nature: "This global leadership vacuum is dangerous. Anger at the chasm between better energy solutions and our scarcity of leadership is not confined to tree–hugging environmentalists. Listen to former President Ronald Reagan’s secretary of state, George Schultz: “How many more times must we be hit on the head by a two–by–four before we do something about this acute problem.… New ultralight–but–safe materials can nearly redouble fuel economy at little or no extra cost.”

The world has a choice. We can let go of the archaic technologies and reckless practices of the past, recognize that solutions are better than anxieties, and watch science pleasantly surprise us. Or we can remain in denial, insist that modest change now is more painful than eventual catastrophe, and reap the whirlwind."

That of course would be from Mr. Pope, a man of my own mindset attuned to flourishing rhetoric and soaring hyperbolic statements.....I love it! His argument *does strike me as the stronger of the two, but it's Achille's heel must be the presumption that politicians will actually act to enforce the changes that need to happen. Unlike the media and the blogosphere, I don't yet see a way for the impassioned, informed individual to seize matters into his/her own hands. Change for a greener world still depends on politics and business. And politics and business are awash in greed and "the moment" and are dragging their feet.

On the other hand, Lomborg's argument neglects the medium and long term serious consequences of neglecting to act on big picture issues. Sure, giving individuals better stoves will cut down on indoor polution and improve their own health, but will it be at the cost of their children's health because the global environment has been wrecked and raped beyond repair?

Some very interesting statitistics included in the article as well, including the speculation that American's being more attentitive to proper air tire pressure in their cars would save as much oil as is hoped to be discovered by the destruction of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Interesting--and probably very true. I know it makes all the difference on my bike when I'm out cycling, and that only carries my own weight, not the weigh of several tons of steel.

Read up.