Another theme was “Importance of building community capacity to adapt to and mitigate environmental issues in the community.” In my view, anyone who uses phrases such as “building community capacity” and “mitigate environmental issues” ought to have all their diplomas annulled and be prohibited from contact with people under the age of 35. But here is the quote illustrating (if that is quite the word) the “theme”:
What I feel is, though I am part of the problem, I can take a few small steps like, I can plant a tree after cutting one tree. I can educate my children, I can keep my surroundings clean… If I do good things like these then people will also follow. That is how our society will progress. We should behave positively with everyone and not think negatively about others. We shouldn”t lie.
Again, the connection with climate change or global warming is not clear. Are we supposed to conclude that, but for climate change, it would be good to raise children without educating them, hygienic to live in dirt or filth, and perfectly permissible to lie? That such drivel can be published in a learned journal with a respectable history only goes to show how far the theology of the great climate god has taken hold of minds, like a virus in a cell.
Personally, I have no axe to grind on climate change because I am too ignorant to have a firm opinion on the question. Is the climate changing more than it always has? Is the change caused by human activity? Is the change entirely harmful? If harmful, is it reversible by the means proposed? I have heard intelligent, honest and informed people on both sides of these questions, and I was (immediately afterwards) convinced by what they said.
This paper seemed to me to have all the stigmata, if I may so put it, of a bandwagon being jumped on. The authors” trips to Nepal probably did far more harm to their precious environment than their investigations did it good. But at least they would have enjoyed themselves, which is a consolation.