by LukeM » Jan 11, 2012 11:26 am
Since there's still a lot of controversy surrounding the global warming debate, and there likely will be for some time, I'd like to sum up my thoughts on the issue (inspired by a video I came across a few years ago). A lot of the science behind climate change is complicated and difficult even for climate scientists to understand, so what point is there in having a scientific debate among the general public? Why not have a debate that everyone can participate in? A philosophical debate.
Here are the possible scenarios that I propose could occur as we go into the future:
a) We react to global warming in the way that climate scientists would recommend AND man made global warming is occurring. Result: We've done what we can and will possibly turn things around in time to permit the continued existence of human life. Hooray!
b) We react to global warming in the way that scientists would recommend AND man made global warming isn't occurring. Result: We spend a whole lot of money on something that turned out to not be a concern BUT we end up with a robust green economy, more sustainable fuels, and an all around healthier planet. As a side benefit we now don't have to worry about pulling crap out from miles underground and burning it to power our lives.
c) We don't react to global warming in the way that's recommended AND man made global warming is occurring. Result: Catastrophic climate change resulting in massive flooding, storms, droughts, and an overall failure of the world's agriculture. Humans will suffer greatly, with at-risk populations being wiped out. Many species of animals die out. The stress on the world's resources likely causes wars. A lack of alternative fuel options and an apparent need to stop using fossil fuels leads to a massive energy crisis, throwing even first world countries into third world conditions.
d) We don't react to global warming in the way that's recommended AND man made global warming isn't occurring. Result: Everything is ok. We may have some climate change, but at least we're not causing it. We continue to use fossil fuels and eventually start running out, hopefully developing viable alternative fuels before this happens.
Now, we can only control one of the factors in this equation; we either react like it's real or we don't. The worst that happens if we do react is that we spend a bunch of money on developing new technologies, but end up with alternative fuels which we'll need pretty soon anyway the way oil resources are heading. We also end up with a strong non-war motivator for economic activity which we need anyway, and pollution is greatly reduced which we already know will have positive effects outside of the possible climate change benefits. The worst that happens if we don't react is that the world changes forever with massive die-offs or extinctions.
If there's anything I support taking a conservative approach toward it's how we treat the planet we live on. Hell, we can be as reckless as we want with our money if the alternative is treating the only biosphere we've got poorly. You think we have no idea how to prevent climate change? Imagine how much of an idea we'd have about how to reverse if it does occur. Some risks aren't worth taking. If you think you're sure about what's going to happen you're suffering from delusions of grandeur.