Fossil fuel conundrum

In the Jan. 30 issue, Luc Joel Levin writes from personal experience of the ecological losses being suffered in his native land due to global warming [“Footprints in the (Lack of) Snow,” Letters]. There is no doubt that global warming is occurring. Calling it climate change seems to be in vogue. Unfortunately this seems to make it seem less threatening. Oh, climate change—that might not be so bad. Maybe the change will even be good.

For those who may harbor doubts about the extremes to which global warming is occurring, the Arctic is a great place to look. There is so much warming in the Arctic that the polar bear will probably not survive in the wild. The retreat of sea ice is making it increasingly difficult for the bears to hunt from the ice. The bears are our canary-in-the-coal-mine. Humans depend upon the Earth’s ecosystem, but we are unraveling it systematically and relentlessly. The best thing we can do is to not use any fossil fuels. Short of that, we must do whatever we can do to reduce our individual and collective carbon footprints.

Until our fuel sources are the sun and the wind, we are stuck in this conundrum: In order to pay for the basics of food and shelter that we need to survive in our own culture, we must participate in a system that is destroying the ability of human life to survive on the planet. It is hard not to become cynical or despairing and say “the hell with it.” But to survive, we must all work together to change the system and change how we behave and what we do with our time. The best things we can do are to not buy things and not go places. We need to learn how to stick around our own neighborhood, hang out and live from the resources of the land immediately surrounding our homes.

— Cicada Brokaw

About Webmaster
Mountain Xpress Webmaster Follow me @MXWebTeam

Before you comment

The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.

6 thoughts on “Fossil fuel conundrum

  1. travelah

    Maybe, just maybe, we will have to take another look at this “crisis” after this winter is over. We also need to look at the southern hemisphere which is seeing it’s polar ice pack expanding rather than retreating. I think it would be wiser for you to invest in more winter clothing.

  2. Eli Cohen

    That is a slanderous assault on science, reason, and the great majority of scientists who make it their business to study climate change. It is irresponsible to suggest that there is any evidence to the contrary regarding climate change. (other than your own anecdotes) Did you know that the Pentagon has issued a report stating that global warming is a greater threat to America’s security than terrorism? I bet you still believe the jury is out on the bad effects of cigarette smoking? You must have your head in the sand…or are being disingenuous as per usual?

  3. Matt Mercy

    Do a Google search for “eugenics quotes”. You’ll find that many of your enviro-gurus are talking about 80-90% forced human population culling. Great people, and “saving the Earth” seems to work well as a selling point.

  4. Eli Cohen

    Matt(travelah) Good try at muddying the waters. To associate eugenics with global warming is quite a stretch. I am familiar with some of the precepts of eugenics, but find it an ethically problematic (not to mention unworkable) solution to global warming. But it does beg the question: if it could be demonstrated beyond doubt that the only way to maintain a life sustaining environment on this planet required reducing human population by 90% over a 50 year span, would you favour some type of eugenics? (along with birth control)

  5. andy

    “The best things we can do are to not buy things and not go places.”
    Is it just me or is this a little much?

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.