That's a similar title to the last post, but this blog post in specific drew my attention.
A counter argument that has been gaining some ground goes like this – if the rich are responsible for so much of the problem, we should work with them to solve it… does this general approach make sense? Is it pragmatic?
“Most people see this as a reason to loathe the affluent, but wouldn’t it make more sense to see them as an enormous opportunity to create fast and dramatic change for global warming? If the 20% well-to-do offset their CO2 emssions by 50%, that would mean an overall decrease of 40%.”
Everything within me rankles at this suggestion, but I wonder if I’m just to idealistic? Can the wealthy really just buy us out of this mess?
A very good question. Any new approach is bound to be met with skepticism. But new ideas are never without controversy, and it's heartening to see people who are naturally skeptical give a fair hearing to a novel approach.
We're all on the same page — climate change is almost certainly the greatest existential threat any of us have faced since the end of the cold war.
It's not going to be easy, but it's going to require open minds and pragmatism, and it's great to see a glimmer of hope that all of us working towards the same goal can recognize that and act accordingly.