‘Shall’ or ‘should’ on global climate action

Herb Nakada encourages people to stop global warming for the future of mankind.

Editor:

Bow for elite power?  “Should” of the Paris “climate agreement” are the differences in attitudes, bedeviling words, detailng actions that follow.

With the climate conference in Paris, 2015(COP 21) “should” or “shall” we each consider ourselves participating parties?  A major issue were the words “should” or “shall.”  Power struggled for “should.”

For every Canadian to get it right, crucial are seeing positive or negative attitudes — actions toward global-warming and climate change.  There are no righting of wrongs going past the Paris climate goal of 1.5C.

We are adversely affected now at 1C. Damages from climate change are already considerable, irreversible.  For example, we cannot stop glaciers from disappearing globally.  Locally, the glaciers of Vancouver Island will soon be gone.  B.C.’s glaciers melt.  Imagine stopping the Athabasca Glacier’s melting retreat.

We can slow the melt only by staying below 1.5C.  Inevitably, loss of glaciers will have considerable consequences for future generations — our own children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren — profound.

Example — the melting permafrost’s tipping point could spell the end for mankind.

There are at least 11 climate tipping points every Canadian “should” or “shall” know?  Bearing responsibility, understanding, caring — respecting future generations depends on “shall”  and not “should.”

We “should” or “shall” clearly “see” which leaders we elect, holding positive or negative attitudes and actions toward global-warming.

Close your ears to their words and observe only their actions, positive or negative, for the long term future of mankind.

To stay below 1.5C, our fossil-fueled greenhouse gases “shall” be peaking, more or less in five years and “shall” decline after 2020.  Titanic forces line up negative actions going beyond 1.5C to 3C … 4C … 5C … 6C.

Can we afford “should” stop global-warming for the future of mankind?

Clearly see yourself as “shall” or “should.”  Easily choose mankind’s sustainable future or, disagreeably, choose mankind’s untimely wretched demise.

Herb Nakada

Williams Lake