Red, Green & Blue: Is It Time to Just Live With Climate Change?
An article in this week’s Time magazine raises an interesting point about climate change. While there’s a growing consensus that global warming is real, the author writes, there’s also an emerging body of opinion that says it’s either too late to stop it or it’s not worth trying to stop. We’d be better off, these pundits say, investing in ways to make it easier to deal with the effects of climate change: build stronger dams, dikes and levees; do more to prevent the spread of diseases like malaria; provide more aid to help the poor live with increasingly hotter, or damper, or drier, or stormier conditions; etc.
While my initial reaction to people like Bjorn Lomborg, who has written, Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming
Tags: Bjorn Lomborg, carbon emissions, climate change, Cool It, global warming, greenhouse gases, Red, Green and Blue
- Uncategorized
October 10th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Well a certain level of the balance is required.
At some point in the future we will change to cleaner/more sustainable living, but that cannot happen overnight. It takes time, energy, innovation, money and thousands of other resources. We therefore must plan ahead for the problems that climate change will bring - focussing some spending/planning on areas we anticipate to be most affected/least able to deal with change. This much is rational. Prepare for the future and continue to invest in trying to reduce what we do. To suggest either route alone is (I think) foolish.
Climate change models, as I understand it, rely on certain future predictions/ideas of what sort of economy the world will be like in X years time. There are, presumably, various scenarios open and some will be more likely (politically) than others. As this is a global concern, it means that the chance of definitive action is even more slim than at national level - we cannot even agree worldwide on things such as trade, which side of the road to drive on, when to change the clocks etc. We should aim for regional agreements, incentivisation by the rich nations to help the poor nations take part, we don’t necessarily need binding agreements that say emissions must reduce by X but we need group-agreed actions, we need clear direction from governments/international politics to try produce an air of certainty so that investment/business planning can start to take the issue seriously.
As much uncertainty climate change will bring, more is being produced by the continuous drip-feed of a new problem a day, a new solution every day, a new idea every day. Eventually policies need drawing up which can give business, individuals and nations a steer on how they should develop for the future. At present this area of politics is too sensationalist and exciting for worthwhile policy to be implemented - that can soon change by framing the debate more from “there is a problem” to “here a some solutions” - too often the ‘greens’ lambast any attempt as ‘not enough’, in time the activists will be replaced by politicians who can strike the balance much better than activists (of either side) can.
October 10th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
1) then I guess we shouldn’t try
2) wishful thinking
3) th1nkz of teh an1malz!!one and teh Gaiaz!!1
comeon, the planet or associated cosmic environment has done far worse to life then we could ever do. go lookup the Great Dying (Permian-Triassic extinction event) for some evidence of this. the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum is another killer but ultimately led to the development of the mammals that we know and love (we being one of them and also being so narcissistic). all we’re talking about is change which is the only constant in this universe. even if we don’t f*** up the environment the sun is going to make Earth smores in a few billion years. if life is to continue then an intelligent species (our status as such being debatable) must figure out a way for life to escape this rock. and to do that we must experiment, try and sometimes fail in our efforts. that’s just the way it is.
October 10th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Ok, I’ll say it. Global Warming caused Katrina, along with Human Stupidity. Had it not been for global warming, the waters would not have been as warm which led to such a strong hurricane going through. Even with the human stupidity, which more was the cause of so much damage and death, the hurricane would have gone through. It was the power of it that escalated the damage. Read Mike Tidwells book - The Ravaging Tide, he details all of this…very captavating reading.
As far as Bjorn Lomborg goes, google him and you will see the websites dedicated to his errors, lies and half truths.
October 10th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
You can’t stop mother nature, and if climate change continues and mutates into something more devastating as time goes on, there won’t be anything we can do to “adapt”. While planning to extend our abilities to live with climate change we should continue to do our best to limit our acceleration of it.
October 10th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
I, unfortunately have nothing to add. I think you all make excellent points. What I mostly wanted to say is how impressed with this thread. This is the most intelligent and polite internet conversation I have ever witnessed. Bravi.
October 10th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Andrew-
We try to keep things civil and intelligent around here, even when Digg traffic hits
Best,
David
Founder, GO
October 10th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
You all worry too much.
Don´t you know — it stands for GLOBAL WARming. What´s a little PEstilence?
Just wait until it comes to your doorstep. Few care, unless it does.
Whether you are a CONservative or a LIberal…you probably think a CONgress backed with the power of a CONstituency and CONstitution will help you. Or are you a CONsumer in an eCONomy? How much longer do you want to CON yourself? CONfidence man you are too…
October 10th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
“Smores…” lol 11:47…
I think if you look at our history you’ll see that we’re trending in the right direction. The thing to note though is that it is economic well being that gives us the luxury to even consider our relationship with mother earth in the first place. If you want to see ecologic disaster just take a look at the third world.
Like all of the other Malthusian maladies of the past we will find in the end that this one ain’t so bad either; and the Al Gore’s of the world will move on to tilt at the next eminent man-caused earth-swallowing environmental disaster to be.
“All history to the contrary be damned; THE END IS UPON US THIS TIME I TELL YOU! MEND YOUR WAYS FELLOW PASSENGERS UPON THIS SPACESHIP EARTH OR ELSE WE’RE DOOMED… DOOMED I SAY!”
http://rationalenvironmentalist.com
October 10th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
All of this talk about potential disaster is nice and good but the guys at Atom Films have identified the real peril of ignoring Global Warming.
October 10th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Who would be better off? The individual people working class or otherwise? or the people who own or control energy companies?
That’s like keeping the baby in the bathwater cause it’s hopeless to try to dry it off. There’s got to be a third option, wonder what it could be?
-M