Editor:
Re: Sea of conflicting information in debate over sea level rise, Community Comment, Jan. 16
I'd like to thank Mike Schneider for getting me out of my post-election political apathy. He gave me the inpritation I needed to break my writer's block.
It was this line specifically that did it: "I am indifferent to the sea level debate because I am not convinced that human climate change should be a legitimate election plank for elected or potential politicians."
Did I read that right?
Isn't that how democracy works? We elect people who we believe best represent our personal, local, regional, national and, hopefully, global, interests. I would like the opportunity to elect someone who, at the very least, recognizes climate change.
Schneider claims the electorate is basically too stupid to navigate all of the conflicting information on climate change, stating: "I also do not think the electorate is capable of making sound voting decisions based on what has turned out to be an unnavigable gumbo of contradictions and infighting..."
There is no infighting.
Sound modern science (the data) tells us the sea level is rising. Since 1993, the average sea level has risen at a rate of 0.11 to 0.12 inches per year - roughly twice as fast as the long-term trend.
Not only is the sea rising, it is also warming. The ocean's PH is changing and the polar ice caps are melting. Contrary to what Schneider would have you believe, there is no great confusion about these facts within the scientific community.
Our current socio-political/economic system is based on resource exploitation and exponential poplulation growth, and it is unsustainable. Pointing that out is not fear mongering.
A rising sea level is only one of a host of problems that partially stems from human industry and greed. Perhaps we do need to reconstruct capitalism to save our planet.
Jennifer Thoss
