Essayist cites "the international community [for an] upper limit of tolerable warming." Using international standards for policy in the United States, white people, a minority in the world, deserve protections from the oppressive majority non white population. Maybe some affirmative action at MIT? Convince Exxon and BP to cease extracting oil. Will essayist petition ISIS in Iraq, Russia, Venezuela to join the ban? Argument that a committee majority recommends action is not a scientific finding. Ethics experts make recommendations, personal opinion, like psychiatry. Spreading disinformation is protected speech. Government agencies and PR flacks do it every day. Is he recommending a bureau of permitted speech?
[From article]
2 degrees Celsius, the upper limit of tolerable warming agreed upon by the international community, and by MIT itself.
[. . .]
I’m skeptical that MIT can convince Exxon, BP and the like to forgo extracting fossil fuel reserves
[. . .]
a three-fourths majority of the president’s own climate committee supported MIT’s divesting [. . .] form an Ethics Advisory Council to investigate ties between MIT and entities spreading disinformation on climate change.
http://cambridge.wickedlocal.com/article/20151028/NEWS/151025648
GUEST COLUMN: MIT's paltry plan for climate action
By Ben Scandella
Posted Oct. 28, 2015 at 2:24 PM
CAMBRIDGE Chronicle
Ben Scandella is a PhD candidate in MIT Civil and Environmental Engineering.
No comments:
Post a Comment