Not every environmental problem in the planet is caused by global warming and its consequences. Actually, the central issue here is the use and distribution of the finite natural resources and other forms of capital. A second aspect that deserves our attention is the impact of by-products of human activities on the environment. Climate change, which is related to the second subject, generates, however, most of our current revolutionary questions in the fields of morality, culture and Economics. Major decisions now incorporate the impact of the variable ‘climate’, especially in what comes to the measurement of emissions.

The access of most humans (and even decision-makers) to primary sources of knowledge is limited. It is true that this already happened in the past, mostly due to scarcity of information, but the reasons have changed for many of us. Anyone who has access to the Internet and to other contemporary means of information is noticing that we are actually lost on the excess of sources. Moreover, filtering them is increasingly difficult. Have you already read the documents from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), the old Club of Rome, or the Stern Review Report? Any critics, the skepticals and Bjørn Lomborg? Why not to read them?

Much of the criticism of the hypothesis of a relation between climate change and human action is motivated by the political connotation of the work of the IPCC, which has failed to remove that image throughout the years. There is a political influence in the definition of the agenda of such UN panel, and we have to admit that. However, recognition by the international scientific community (excluding those sponsored by the oil industry) also exists. Science now affirms: humans impact the environment, and will increasingly do so. The Royal Society, for example, expressed its concern about misinformation and responds to the main skeptical arguments in a page on the web.

Science is the contemporary expression of concreteness, reason and non-ignorance. Therefore, putting a consensus of the scientific community in doubt is more difficult than questioning the intentions of some actors of international politics. The two sides are interesting, and I would encourage those who want to study philosophy of science, but, in this case, the issue is different and more profound.

Experts like Jean-Marc Jancovici highlight the population expansion and the increase on the use of energy resources which has happened in the most recent slice of human history. Combined with social inequality and climate change, these factors cause the misery of environmental refugees, new residents of cities and small farmers who see their crops shrink. Much of the world population feels the consequences of global warming, reduction of volumes of rain and glaciers, and alkalinization of waters. This should be enough for us to start trying to reduce our share of responsibility on climate change.

Notice: the content of this website does not represent the position of any institution. The author does not disclose any information related to the role of the institutions he works for.

This text was originally written in Portuguese.