In their report to Congress Parker and Blodgett outline three pervasive lenses through which many laypeople, activists and policy makers see climate change. Each lens is shaped by values and beliefs about climate change, and it determines what action a person believes should be taken to counter it.
I would like to propose one all-encompassing, comprehensive lens which includes what we know with any degree of certainty about climate change at the moment. The assumption is knowledge in the science of climate change, an understanding of the consequences of inaction, and belief that in order to avert disaster (by halting the further release of CO2) and prepare for the inevitable changes that will occur, no expense should be (ethically speaking) spared.
The comprehensive view I am suggesting includes both an ideological and a practical side, or lens. On the one hand, there is the Ecological lens, which includes philosophical, ethical, and other such considerations when dealing with the problem of climate change. This approach by itself, however, is not enough. Unfortunately, not everyone views the problem in this way, and since it takes a lot of time and effort to educate people, in order to get things done more quickly, this view requires a more practical side to take action.
The other side, I propose, would be a Policy/Technology lens. It would be policy-intensive, therefore requiring the government’s full cooperation in implementing economic policies (such as taxes and cap-and-trade systems), as well as investment in research and development of new, more efficient technologies and creating a market for their wide-spread implementation. This, I believe, would be the quickest, most efficient way to prevent further damage and find ways to manage the changes that are now inevitable.
A note on the Economic lens:
The Economic lens outlined in the report assumes a gap in knowledge, because the body of evidence to date suggests grave economic consequences (among others) if the status quo continues unchanged. Therefore, a well-informed person who normally sees issues through an economic lens should see that the costs will be greater than the benefits of not doing anything to counteract climate change. This person would probably agree in general to the implementation of policy of the policy/technology lens, even if they do not agree on the finer points.
To summarize, the lenses outlined on the paper are true reflections of the views many people hold today. However, some of them are flawed given their lack of knowledge about climate change, or belief in its veracity.
