P.O.V.

It occurs to me that the debate over global warming and climate change breaks down along fairly ideological lines.  Apart from the obvious conservative-liberal split, I have come to think of people as having one of the following attitudes as it pertains to the environment, planet, and relevant issues:

• Custodial - meaning that the primary role of humans in the environment should be as caretakers and guardians of endangered animals, plants, ecosystems, and habitats.  These people are generally alarmed and saddened when a species goes extinct, or there is a prospect of gradual change in our climate.  Or when they seize upon so-called evidence that change in the climate has already occurred.  They may be whiny and obnoxious, but without their efforts we would not have places like our national parks.
  
• Development - meaning that the planet and its resources lay open to our use, and that we should make the most of that fact.  Cut down forests and build houses for people.  Raise animals and slaughter them for food.  Engage in mining operations and gather materials to develop technologies that make human life easier, better, or more productive.  These people are generally portrayed as villains on the show Captain Planet.  They may draw too deep from the well at times, going from legitimate use to exploitation.  But the attitude is necessary to make the sort of progress we've seen in the last century.

Contrast the two.  On the one hand you have Custodians who might put everything in test tubes and never let another Amazonian parasite go extinct, or halt forestry efforts to save owls who are displaced anyway when their owl-homes burn due to overgrowth.  Then you have Developers who might turn our planet into one of those weird sci-fi factory worlds or who would build condos on Indian burial grounds or something.
Both perspectives have their legitimate points.  My sympathies lie mostly with the Developers.  They have a much tougher time pleading their case due to its pragmatic nature.  Custodians only have to flash a picture of a panda cub or get a celebrity to chain themselves to a tree to convince people to support them.
What I feel we're seeing now is a clash between those who are very alarmed at the changes in our planet, and those who are rather laconic about the whole thing.  The "alarmists" feel a sense of righteous indignation at anyone who refuses to jump on the wagon.  These people cry out that we have to save the planet now, now, now!  They lack perspective.  Meanwhile, the folks who aren't so upset about it bristle at the notion that they are somehow equivalent to Holocaust-deniers.  They dismiss the arguments of the scientific community because if they disagree they are lumped in with gentleman like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Is there a middle ground?  I think so.  We can be stewards of the environment without trying to put it into stasis.  We can adapt to changes in the environment, develop resources and maintain our standard of living while at the same time take good care of what we have.

Global climate change is certainly a challenging issue for future generations and for us today.  But I maintain that we are smart enough to confront it without dramatizing it, without panicking, and without punishing ourselves in a misguided attempt to "save" the planet.  It's all a matter of perspective.