From Common Dreams comes a common sense argument that seems to be lost on most climate change deniers: the fact that, should our fears about global warming turn out to be moot, we’re still better off if we change our habits of consumption and pollution:

“We might face a serious conundrum if tackling [climate change] required us to do something really awful, like exterminating all the world’s bunnies or chopping down all the evergreens.

But reducing greenhouse gas emissions is something we should do anyway, in order to cut pollution and save limited energy resources. If it turns out to be unnecessary, we’ll still be better off.”

Follow that up with a common sense analogy: “If your 2-year-old falls into a swimming pool, he might manage to thrash his way to the side without you having to jump in to save him. On the other hand, jumping in might seem like a sensible precaution…it would be like jumping into the pool to save your child, discovering he knows how to swim, and then realizing you needed a dip anyway.”

The deniers can piss and moan all they want, but what they have at stake — if they are wrong — is far greater than what anyone who stresses the increasing importance of ecological responsibility. I hope that these assholes are right and everything’s just hunky-dory and we can keep on driving our H2s and Range Rovers. But if they’re not, and things don’t change, we’re essentially tossing about seven billion kids in the pool and letting them struggle about: our kids, grandkids, and all those to come. And with Mars colonization about a thousand years away, do we really want to take that risk?