Steve Yastrow on Tom Peters’ blog wonders why “global warming” is the Issue most poorly marketed?

Many comments (64 by the time I got my licks in), but most of them with
relatively little knowledge of cutting edge initiaitves inthis space.

My late night two cents, posted there:

1. The science is not as confused as
many people (even here!) seem to think it to be. In addition to the
overwhelming majority of scientific opinion that has concluded “global
warming” (I do like “global weirding”; Arthur Waskow calls it “global
scorching”) is a real concern, and the very substantial concern of
re-insurance giants like Swiss Re and Munich Re (who can’t afford even
the risk of the scientists begin right, much less the reality), there’s
the physics of the thing. As I wrote 9 years ago: “Simply put, if we
shift the amount or the nature of energy society adds to the
atmospheric engine, the engine–our climate and weather–will change
its behavior. It can’t do anything but that. There may be dispute over
how it will change, in what patterns, how quickly, and who will benefit
or suffer. There can be no dispute over whether it will change. The
laws of physics take care of that one.” (See <a
Weather or not: Risk and the physics of climate change.)

2. The other problem is that most
folks — business people, environmentalists, government regulators,
commenters here — are still in the grip of the dangerously obsolete
aassumption that better environmental performance will cost money. The
reality is that it can be a sound business investment with very
handsome ROI. (See my recent <a
and <a
and Amory Lovins’ <a href=””>
Winning the Oil Endgame</a>).
Or talk to the CEOs and CFOs of companies like DuPont, BP, STMicro —
and now <a

Spread the love