А colleague in Science recently wrote in letters and I paraphrase that democracy deserves more deliberation with more sound content based on unquestionable facts with comments, including with participation from the open public.
This is all true and well and good but science in my opinion lacks strong vox in policy making especially at local levels of government and each scientist and climatologist with study may feel compelled to provide sound facts from current peer-reviewed research directly to policy and decision makers with impassioned and more convincing reasoning with regular follow up based on deep beliefs.
But not only in providing sound facts from peer-reviewed research are scientists needed to create this deliberation essential to make stronger and more effective legislation. Oversight in standing committees and mark-up sessions where the letter of law and amounts of appropriations are determined is growlingly more critical especially with administrations that continue to disregard international laws based on far sounder and more objective facts for local political gains.
New waves of legislation are rising in the spirit of 2020, including legislation to mandate commensurate resources for compliance with the Paris Accord. Writing to the Environment and Public Works subcommittee as well as congressional representatives in the US to support this legislation and specifically HR#9 as well as eTransportation commuter benefits HR#1507 are two concrete attempts to create this deliberation for effective laws based on the belief evidenced in a truer accountancy in growing probabilities of increasing intensity and frequency of human-caused climate-change events without immediate and decisive government action.
We just sent you an email. Please click the link in the email to confirm your subscription!
OKSubscriptions powered by Strikingly