Editor,
It would serve us well to clarify and agree on definitions of terms widely used in reports and discussions about the general subject, ‘climate-change’.
First, many people seem to consider Environment, ‘Sustainability’, and ‘Climate-change’ as one issue. In fact, they are three distinct subjects. But anyone not fully committed to mainstream positions on all three might well be labelled a climate denier.
Climate-change: Some may think that studying Climate-change is to seek understanding of all causes of a changing climate and their relative importance. But, as a counter example, the scope of the UN-appointed IPCC is not broad and general. It is limited to the impact of our CO2 emissions.
Climate pollution: Why do we use the term ‘pollution’? CO2 is not a pollutant.
Fighting climate-change: The use of this vague term implies that we can successfully control Earth’s climate by reducing our CO2 emissions. But it is by no means clear we can do that. So why not simply say ‘fighting to reduce our CO2 emissions’. That is a well-defined specific goal and is measurable.
Climate scientist: What is a climate scientist? What universities offer degrees in climate-science and what subjects does the syllabus cover? Why are the views and contributions of geologists, geophysicists, and chemists etc. rejected because they are not ‘climate scientists’?
Renewable energy: Why is there such an obsession with currently-mainstream ‘renewable’ energy (wind and solar with storage) as the only acceptable path forward? Why not also consider broader options for ‘energy with low CO2 emissions’ such as nuclear generation?
Clear specific definitions could help us understand what we are actually talking about! That in turn could help us assess and plan forward.
Ron Hartlen, Clarksburg
