Just 40 years ago, we were puffing cigarettes like it was nobody’s business. While it was a widespread habit, we did not yet know the effects it had on lung cancer. We also didn’t see then the scientists behind the scenes who were fighting to let us know how dangerous cigarettes were for our health.
But those capable of creating awareness of the dangers didn’t listen until the death toll became loud enough. Incidentally, now we have the surgeon general’s warning shouting, “I told you so!”
Now, with the threat of global warming, scientists are once again fighting for a voice but are being criticized by wealthy crusaders who make all our decisions. The consequences of global warming will not just affect certain individuals but all nations and all people: our world.
This green movement that sprung from the threat to our planet is no longer just for forest-dwelling earth lovers anymore.
We’re starting to see the effects of our misdeeds. It is real, unrelenting and it seems our country’s policy makers won’t listen to its consequences. When most other industrialized countries signed the Kyoto Protocol agreement promising to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, the United States did not.
Going green is becoming a popular trend, making it easier for skeptics to negate its legitimacy.
According to The Daily Star in Lebanon, this scientific movement has some familiar critics: “Today’s campaigners against action on climate change are in many cases backed by the same individuals and organizations that sided with the tobacco industry to discredit the science linking smoking and lung cancer.”
It’s not hard to see why the skeptics of global warming can be favored, as they won’t replace our cars with hybrids or enforce mandatory household recycling. Just like those skeptics of the tobacco dispute wouldn’t make us put out our much-needed cigarette on our smoke breaks. But this leaves the question of “Why?”
When we look at the conflict surrounding global warming, we need to recognize the critics’ possible reasons for influence. Could it be that their alternative solutions are backed by financial gain? Power?
Take a look at one of the sponsors of these critics, Exxon Mobil Corp. Can you think of any reason why an oil company would want the global warming agitators to be quieted?
The plan of Exxon Mobile and other contenders instead of responding to the Kyoto Protocol is “adaptation.” They state it is simply an issue of adapting to the environmental changes caused by the effects of global warming.
They’re confidently saying we will be able to adapt to higher doses of carbon monoxide in the atmosphere just like our lungs have been able to adapt to the benzene and formaldehyde in cigarettes, eliminating our risk of lung cancer.
The truth is, we are a successful developed nation. Maybe the fear is that by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, we could threaten our position of power.
We need to stop thinking so much as a nation and start thinking as a planet. According to The New York Times, our national effort could induce a global change.
“The underlying thought is that the ultimate goal is a safe planet … The United States, embarrassingly, has no national strategy.”
We could use our power and success to create a more stable future for our planet, but instead we’re blinded by the notion that we can somehow adapt to the consequences of our actions.
Maybe we should learn from previous trial and errors and stop putting ourselves at the brunt of consequences.
SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Ignoring scientific evidence pointing towards a possible future of destruction for our planet may cause harm to its inhabitants that is irreversible. Listen this time.
Cassandra Gamboa is an OSU intern from Mondokio International News, a company that translates news from around the world in order to provide multiple perspectives on international issues.
