Perhaps the best single piece of advice for societies comes down to one word: generations. To add richness, expand this to three words: think seven generations.
Seven generations … Writ large, keeping this in mind when making deciosns about societal investments and structure creates a sustainable space which offers the chance for an indefinite strengthening of that basic American ideal of a “search for a more perfect union”.
Climate change is,perhaps, the most pressing example of a need to “think seven generations” with the challenge of balancing (legitimate) current demands with the provision of an ability for future generations to meet their needs — indefinitely.
It was with this in mind as I considered a question into the inbox.
What debates should we have on climate change issues?
After the fold are seven questions, for thinking seven generations. In posts to come, I will return to and address these seven seven generation questions.
1. Does accurate analysis and calculation leave climate change action as a “cost” or as an “investment”? E.g., at the end of the day, does the “economy” win or lose through action to mitigate climate change?
2. Does government (EPA) regulation, on balance, cost or benefit Americans?
3. Is government subsidy of natural gas vehicle a wise use of taxpayer money compared to other options for reducing dependence on oil and reducing greenhouse gas emissions?
4. What is the appropriate “climate change” debate? Is it whether humanity does or doesn’t impact the climate? Is it whether humanity can or can’t impact future climate change? Is it whether the risk from climate change is between high economic cost (‘chaos’) or potential near extinction of the human race (‘catastrophe’)?
5. How should journalistic outfits handle climate change? Is it responsible journalism to give voice to those who reject the science on climate change?
6. What does polling really say about climate change and global warming? Do Americans care or not care about actions to address climate chaos?
7. Climate change results from a market failure to address ‘externalities’, like polluting commons. Can we achieve the necessary change via ‘tinkering’ with capitalism/market incentives or is something more drastic required?