It is a classic “slow onset” type of disaster. People don’t feel any immediate danger so they are willing to “wait and see” without taking any immediate action. For those focused on quarterly profits this is many times a great course of action since it doesn’t require any immediate investment that detracts from garnering more economic wellbeing for the investors.
It is also classic in that when you have conflicting information it causes people to choose to do nothing. In the case of climate change or global warming there will always be another viewpoint put forward. Having these conflicting messages “freezes people” into inaction.
It is hard enough trying to get people motivated to do anything when all the sources are saying the same thing. I expect that in 100 years, if all the ice has melted, there will still be arguments about what caused that to happen.
For today, this is where leadership enters in. People have to put a stake in the ground and take a position on the subject and, while still listening to all the data coming in, support what needs to be done as they see it.
I would not make my decision based just on costs.
Claire Rubin shared the link to the article.
