Warming up.

[Ronin Storm]

That means that millions of years ago the Earth coped with more CO2 in its atmosphere.

In a sense, whether Earth can handle it or not is probably moot. Whether we humans can handle it is the likely the real question.

Desertification in equatorial regions, sustained loss in "permanent" high altitude glaciers, increased storm instances and severity... just a passing phase or here to stay? Caused by us or just a random natural event? Doesn't seem to me that it matters. What matters if we can alleviate the damage.

We're a growing population, we humans, and only ever growing faster. We're only going to put more pressure on our environment. And each other.

 

[Taffy]

In a sense, whether Earth can handle it or not is probably moot. Whether we humans can handle it is the likely the real question.

Desertification in equatorial regions, sustained loss in "permanent" high altitude glaciers, increased storm instances and severity... just a passing phase or here to stay? Caused by us or just a random natural event? Doesn't seem to me that it matters. What matters if we can alleviate the damage.

We're a growing population, we humans, and only ever growing faster. We're only going to put more pressure on our environment. And each other.

You could look at in in a positive and at the same time inhumane way and actually be thankful for what 'global warming' might do to the planet. Desertification of certain areas, flooding of others, and extreme weather conditions in previously temperate and calm climates would wipe out a large percentage of the global population. Yet one of the biggest problems facing many governments today is huge population growth. As I say, inhumane, but a very effective way of reducing population growth...

DISCLAIMER: These are not my views. Do not flame me for this post. Please

 

[gringotsgoblin]

In a sense, whether Earth can handle it or not is probably moot. Whether we humans can handle it is the likely the real question.

We're a growing population, we humans, and only ever growing faster. We're only going to put more pressure on our environment. And each other.

Ah. But if the climate was suitable for a lush existance for dinosaurs/huge forests etc then why not humans too? Aren't we meant to be an adaptable species?

The growing population is a concern though. Ultimately this happens in all areas of nature. A population grows and grows, until it becomes unsustainable (lack of food/habitat) and collapses (repeat ad infinitum). I imagine that this is a realistic future for the human race, unless population growth massively drops.

 

[Pestcontrol]

Taffy, in that case you might as well support radical Islam because they want to reduce the population as well. With that argument everything that's bad suddenly becomes good. I don't think it contributes to the discussion.

I see global warming as an economical problem. A changing climate requires adaptations and those adaptations cost money. Slowing down the climate change by reducing emissions makes those adaptations a lot cheaper because you smear them out over more time.

The weather will be more extreme, some fertile areas will become infertile, some infertile areas will become fertile. Retreating glaciers are the least of my worries to be honest. Increasing sea level, now there's a problem.

 

[BiG D]

If we want to go the extreme route, we can prevent global warming through nuclear winter, right Pest? ^^

 

[Taffy]

Slowing down the climate change by reducing emissions makes those adaptations a lot cheaper because you smear them out over more time.

No matter what we do to stop climate change, even if we closed down all the factories and shut all the power plants, it would be too little, too late. We may as well just let nature carry out it's inevitable course, and get through it the best we can. Which shouldn't be too hard, in my opinion. Were the cleverest species this planet has ever seen, and if crocodiles have survived this long, i'm pretty confident that we'll be okay as well.

However, we will need to forget about everyone else and focus on ourselves. The worst thing we could do would be to spend money helping those worst affected rather than protecting ourselves. Selfish? Yes. Sensible? Yes.

The growing population is a concern though. Ultimately this happens in all areas of nature.

A very good point. The only reason it hasn't really happened to us before is because we've reached the top of the food chain. We have no natural predators that would cause our numbers to fluctuate significantly. Now were experiencing something that's never happened to any species before us. We have become so populace that the planet is going to struggle to sustain us. In which case, a 'survival of the fittest' approach is the best route. As sad and disastorous as it will be at the time, it'll benefit us in the long term.

 

[Ronin Storm]

if crocodiles have survived this long, i'm pretty confident that we'll be okay as well.

Unfortunately, that analogy doesn't carry. Humans number in the 8-10 billion individuals. Crocodiles probably number in the tens of thousands worldwide. If we're prepared for a 99.999% purge of humans then perhaps we could draw that analogy but, as a species and a collection of civilisations, we're not.

We have no natural predators that would cause our numbers to fluctuate significantly.

Again, basic food chain models have lost all meaning for humans. We're most a risk from viral destruction or world-killer activities (nuclear holocaust, random planet-killer asteroids, hostile alien attack, etc). It's not so long ago that the Black Death killed off between one and two thirds [sup][wikipedia][/sup] of Europe's population.

If we use "survival of the fittest" as our justification then we might as well lay on "might is right" or "the ends justify the means" and damn the rest of the ecosystem, or civilisations that might get in our way. We're not just top predator; we're practically the planet's custodians now. What's happened to "duty of care"?

I feel it's not a matter of hunker down and hope it's going to be alright. It's not going to be alright and we should do something about it. Dammit.

 

[Tetsuo_Shima]

Increasing sea level, now there's a problem.

Yeah, only because you live in the Netherlands You should come up here and pick out a nice comfy spot on the hillside, you'll be alright up here

 

[Pestcontrol]

The Netherlands can cope (but it will cost tons of money). But what about a place like Bangladesh? That nation should be evacuated.

Anyway, i think it's a moral responsibility that the west helps those who suffer most from climate change. After all we are responsible for it.

 

[DocBot]

you'll be alright up here

Yes, especially when the Gulf stream changes course and your little island becomes a big iceberg. Very comfy.

 

[Tetsuo_Shima]

Twas only a joke, why do you have to sound so cynical

 

[DocBot]

sorry, in my super-tired state I got you mixed up with taffy. Please redirect all cynicism to him.

 

[Taffy]

Yes, especially when the Gulf stream changes course and your little island becomes a big iceberg. Very comfy.

We'll be just lkike Sweden then . Except with less good looking women

sorry, in my super-tired state I got you mixed up with taffy. Please redirect all cynicism to him.

What did I do? All my statements of 'survival of the fittest' are only meant to be applied to the worst case scenario, like this map of flooded Britain shows. If we are unaffected, then clearly we should help struggling nations as much as possible.

 

[Goreshakh]

I'm glad to see everyone is so interested in the topic because it's a problem we're gunna face soon. What ever happens Sh!t will go down.

 

[Taffy]

I'm glad to see everyone is so interested in the topic because it's a problem we're gunna face soon. What ever happens Sh!t will go down.

Of course. I don't debate the fact that the planet is getting hotter. What I do debate is how much of it is down to us. At the end of the day, Global Warming is still a theory. Remember, theories, even very successful ones, are not always correct. Galen's theories about human anatomy were only theories, yet they were regarded as fect for a very very long time. Granted, that was mainly because of the Church, but we do need to bear in mind that there is plenty of evidence both for and against the climate change theorum.

 

[Ronin Storm]

What I do debate is how much of it is down to us.

If one cares to, one can make this entire venture a risk assessment.

If we are making the planet hotter, resulting in rising sea levels, less available drinking water, desertification and the geopolitical pressures all that will create, then what is the cost of us not acting?

Alternatively, if we have little or nothing to do with the planet getting hotter, and this is just a phase ol' Planet Earth is going through, be it through sunspot activity, or just cyclical effects on our biosphere, or whatever, then what is the cost of us actually acting?

The former, the cost seems to be many fold, running the gamut from mass starvation, rising poverty, conflicts over basic resources and destruction caused by flooding or other cataclysm.

The latter, the cost seems to be low, largely revolving around lost time in figuring out what we need to do about these apparently natural events or a small slow in the rate of advancement of humankind on economic and technological/industrial development fronts.

As a pure risk analysis, assuming my assessment is correct, I'd buy the low risk option without even batting an eyelid.

 

[Taffy]

But by enforcing CO2 emission restrictions, we are giving the developing and undeveloped worlds a hope in hell of evolving and breaking through the poverty barrier. If we don't act, our planet will get hotter. If we do act, the planet will get hotter. By reducing CO2 emissions, millions of Africans and Asians will continue dying. By keeping CO2 emissions at the current rate, millions of Africans will continue to die. By allowing the developing world to develop, we are at least giving them a chance. Bangladesh may drown, along with Norfolk. Europe may become a barren wasteland, and Africa may become very temperate. But even by shutting down every CO2 emitter globally, we won't make a difference in the short term. Because there will be a lag. Even if you do believe in global warming, you can't deny the fact that even turning off the power won't make enough difference in ten years time.

You can't fight nature. Simple as that.

 

[Ronin Storm]

By reducing CO2 emissions, millions of Africans and Asians will continue dying. By keeping CO2 emissions at the current rate, millions of Africans will continue to die.

How do you figure that? Not questioning the validity of what you're saying, as such, I just don't understand how the CO[sub]2[/sub] and African starvation/poverty/civil war are related.

 

[Taffy]

Well, by demanding a reduction in CO2 emissions, we inhibit the growth of African nations. If they aren't allowed to build any factories, how on earth are they supposed to develop?

I'm all for carbon emission reductions, as there is no way that it's healthy for the planet, but it needs to be introduced in such a way that economies, and therefore human beings, don't suffer.

 

[Ronin Storm]

Well, by demanding a reduction in CO2 emissions, we inhibit the growth of African nations.

I don't believe that's what's being suggested (although I could be wrong). I believe that such things as the Kyoto Protocol are adopted by developed countries to cut their emissions, not sanctioned on third world countries to prevent them developing. My impression is that large parts of the third world aren't in any serious state of industry at this time where, in comparison, the developed world is reliant on a massive industrial block.

The third world are suffering because global warming is destroying their environment. As their environment dies, their resources die with it. As resources become scarce, people with power seek to hold onto that which remains. Shortages become common. Rival people in power see that they and theirs could have more. Civil war breaks out. Thousands of people die, both from starvation and war (and diseases brought on by poverty).

Europe, the US and China have the majority of the world's industry. If that industry is contributing to the damage to our environment, and I feel strongly that it is, then we can't sit idly by. Even if we're not causing global warming, we sure as hell are polluting our water, air and earth. Something's got to change.

That it'll take years doesn't matter. That there's more destruction to come doesn't matter. That we could be wiped out by a rogue asteroid before any of this comes to pass really doesn't matter. We have to try to fix it. Or die trying. Anything else is, I feel, gross negligence on the part of humanity and, ultimately -- not in some abstract sense, in a very real, few hundred years sense -- will kill us as well.

economies, and therefore human beings

Economies are just theories too. They're statistics and numbers and consumer confidence. Just like politics. Just like whatever you care to mention.

Civilisations are defined by economics and politics and those things.

Human beings, however, are more transitory, more delicate, and beyond any light definition by such theories. We are as complex and varied as our every member and I believe our survival will not finally depend on whether we've figured out a way to balance the books but whether we have compassion enough to help each other out of the shit.

Economies are for governments. Governments exist to serve us, the people. While we focus on such worries as "economic growth" and "free market" and "technological advancement" we can forget the people we leave behind and our governments forget them too. While we remember those people, have compassion for those people, we can make our governments remember those people too. And they can make our economies help them as well as us.