A win-win situation

When Al Gore recently won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work in raising awareness for global warming, it was received with both validation and condemnation. It was yet another moment in the debate over global warming held in the venue of public opinion.

Ever since the theory of global warming was introduced, there have always been forces to argue against it. Though now, as we all at least admit that the climate is changing on our planet, the argument continues. Whether you believe that global warming is real or not, one thing cannot be debated: action on our part must be taken, and we must progress in how we view our way of life and infrastructure.

At first, people simply denied global warming-it just didn’t exist to the skeptics. There was no reason for human beings to threaten their comforts for the environment. Then, as time went on, many skeptics came around. Some went halfway, calling it (the more politically correct) “climate change.” Some admitted the earth is in fact warming, but still refused to see any human connection.

Now we have a wide spectrum of views regarding the issue. Though it seems that many people form their belief based on what political team they root for, as opposed to factual evidence. Do some people deny global warming merely because they don’t like Al Gore?

With all the pros and cons aside, one aspect of these arguments that can be agreed upon is that changing how we operate as a people is necessary.

Take oil: It lies at the center of the global warming debate. If you wish to assume that the consumption of oil is harmless in regard to climate change, fine. Though it is not harmless to us, the use of oil is known to pollute the air, causing a variety of cancers, breathing issues and other health concerns. Oil harms our health.

Oil also harms our country. President Bush coined the term “addiction to oil” in his 2006 State of the Union address. He cited that it is “often imported from unstable parts of the world.” Having such an “addiction” leaves us depending upon unstable governments, and populations that really don’t like us too much. This is not in the best interest of America and can be very unsafe for us. Depending upon oil puts us under someone else’s thumb. Oil is definitely an aspect of our lives we need to learn to do without.

Taking this one example into consideration, we can see benefits from changing our habits that coincidentally benefit us if global warming does happen to exist. If we ended our dependence on oil and found other ways to support our own energy needs, we would gain cleaner air, lowering the risks to our health. We also would not rely upon outside sources that threaten our independence in the world.

These benefits are void of any global warming arguments–they merely hold potential profit for us, personally and as a society. You can take any global warming “solution” that is provided for us, and you too can find an advantage aside from fighting global warming.

Either way you see it, we live in an age where the solutions to these problems do exist. We have more than sufficient electric cars, which can take most hot rods in a race, by the way. We have alternate methods to produce plenty of energy, or at least to supplement what we have by a great deal. The only real issue is why we aren’t taking charge and correcting these problems.

Disregarding either side of the debate, one thing can be said: if global warming does exist and we don’t act, then we are certainly in a heap of trouble. But if it doesn’t exist and we act anyway, we benefit on a massive scale. In the end, it is a win-win situation.