Letter: Going nowhere with twisted logicYow! In his Jan. 16 opinion column (“Try to keep the debate from going nowhere,” Bulletin), Thomas St. Martin consumes hundreds of words — with a tasty sprinkling of Latin phrases, too.
Yow! In his Jan. 16 opinion column (“Try to keep the debate from going nowhere,” Bulletin), Thomas St. Martin consumes hundreds of words — with a tasty sprinkling of Latin phrases, too — attempting to twist logic to conclude that those who question the veracity of his sources are obstructionists bent on halting meaningful discussion of global climate change — the very existence of which he believes is still in question.
St. Martin suggests we ask "who benefits" when evaluating a source. I'd suggest instead we ask "who's got the most to loose," particularly when it comes to those who insist that the reality of global climate change is somehow still in question.
Who would be the big looser if America curbed its unsustainable consumption of fossil fuels? Who stands to loose if our communities manage and contain irresponsible growth? Who would fall behind if everyday Americans lead the way by reducing unnecessary consumption?
Indeed, a significant part of the reason we're in this mess is because we've focused too much on "who benefits" and not nearly enough on who loses.
Global climate change is a reality and it is upon us, despite the opinions of a few — no matter what their motivation.
Fortunately, we've already got the tools and technology we need to begin to address the climate crisis.
The question is whether or not we have the will to take responsibility for our actions, and whether or not we can afford to waste precious time being distracted from the reality that faces us.