EPTOn January 24 2013 11:21 nunez wrote:
oh... that sounds like a painfully boring century.
oh... that sounds like a painfully boring century.
"The Dismal Century"
TL vs. Climate Change (Denial) - Page 47
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
"The Dismal Century" | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
I find it unlikely. It will probably be the new religious debate of the future as we enter a "post Christian era" in the Western world. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On January 24 2013 12:16 aksfjh wrote: I find it unlikely. It will probably be the new religious debate of the future as we enter a "post Christian era" in the Western world. excellent point edit: can we both be right? These days I seem mostly to be interested in political economy and religion, so either way I win. | ||
|
ziggurat
Canada847 Posts
On January 24 2013 11:06 imallinson wrote: 1. You could say that about anything. Anything we do will probably be cheaper and easier in the future. However this relies on the fact that we continue to tackle problems now. As for whether it will be cheaper to deal with the problem or the consequences I think there have been a few studies which showed dealing with the problem will be the far cheaper alternative. 2. Why can't we deal with those problems and climate change at the same time? HIV, malaria and climate change all have a lot of research going into them currently. Also climate change can kill or adversely affect people's lives. 1. Global warming isn't really a problem right now. It's a problem for the future. We've figured out one way to tackle it now by cutting emissions drastically. The whole debate seems to take as a given that science isn't going to find any better solution. I don't believe that. I have great faith in human ingenuity to solve problems. There is a chapter on this in one of the Freakonomics books which I thought was pretty persuasive. 2. Dealing with big problems costs resources. If we devote resources to one problem we have less resources to devote to other problems. Reducing carbon emissions is particularly costly because it slows down economic growth (which most countries can't really afford to do right now). Here is a link to Bjorn Lombourg's TED talk which makes the case pretty well: http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html | ||
|
blomsterjohn
Norway474 Posts
for instance... Climate change is already contributing to the deaths of nearly 400,000 people a year and costing the world more than $1.2 trillion, wiping 1.6% annually from global GDP, according to a new study The impacts are being felt most keenly in developing countries, according to the research, where damage to agricultural production from extreme weather linked to climate change is contributing to deaths from malnutrition, poverty and their associated diseases.... By 2030, the researchers estimate, the cost of climate change and air pollution combined will rise to 3.2% of global GDP, with the world's least developed countries forecast to bear the brunt, suffering losses of up to 11% of their GDP. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/26/climate-change-damaging-global-economy And, relevant to the thread itself (and the posters a few pages back) is an interesting article in the independent today: A secretive funding organisation in the United States that guarantees anonymity for its billionaire donors has emerged as a major operator in the climate "counter movement" to undermine the science of global warming, The Independent has learnt.... Robert Brulle, a sociologist at Drexel University in Philadelphia, has estimated that over the past decade about $500m has been given to organisations devoted to undermining the science of climate change, with much of the money donated anonymously through third parties. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-billionaires-secretly-fund-attacks-on-climate-science-8466312.html | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On January 24 2013 13:47 ziggurat wrote: 1. Global warming isn't really a problem right now. It's a problem for the future. We've figured out one way to tackle it now by cutting emissions drastically. The whole debate seems to take as a given that science isn't going to find any better solution. I don't believe that. I have great faith in human ingenuity to solve problems. There is a chapter on this in one of the Freakonomics books which I thought was pretty persuasive. 2. Dealing with big problems costs resources. If we devote resources to one problem we have less resources to devote to other problems. Reducing carbon emissions is particularly costly because it slows down economic growth (which most countries can't really afford to do right now). Here is a link to Bjorn Lombourg's TED talk which makes the case pretty well: http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html While I really respect Bjoern Lomborg on economy and especially political understanding (I have seen him dictate almost exactly how COP 15 would go before it started!), he is not as much of a force in the environmental science. It is not just because of a conspiracy his scientific work on climate science was found to be "fraudulent". He is completely correct that there are a need to prioritize resources. He has a point on the exact ways proposed politically aren't long term solutions or even is screwed up in the short term. As for slowing down economic growth, that is not as much the case as it was made out to be. If you only reduce energy usage in a manageable fashion you are not loosing production, but gaining profitablity! If you invest in a future technologys materials you are less productive short term, on expectation of increasing productivity long term. While the debate is admittedly pointless on a range of issue, The carbon tax is not a good solution in this context and there are far too many ways to abuse it. It is debatable if it even has a positive effect! When that is said, the negative correlation between growing environmental costs and productivity has been curbed in at least Denmark, so at least the cost in growth is questionable. As for prioritising it is frankly impossible to say since the costs of climate changes are so uncertain. Either way your point two is weakened. What mr. Lomborg doesn't take into account, though, are things like post-usage of the infrastructure developed: Bio-fuel from crops are bad, but it ensures a lot of liquid-holding tank-capacity. Those are perfect as a step in second, third and fourth generation bio-fuels which do not have these problems (Even if they have an overcapacity they can be used for bio-production of a range of more expensive chemicals)! Reduced use of energy will make the transition easier from controlled, consuming energy production like coal, oil, gas, trees, waste, fission ao. to less controlable, renewable sources like solar, wind and water flow etc. From that I think at least some of the investments are very technologically stable. That makes point number one a lesser concern. | ||
|
ddrddrddrddr
1344 Posts
On January 24 2013 10:52 ziggurat wrote: I personally believe that global warming is happening, and that a significant part of it is caused by human activity. However I still don't think we should spent much in the way or resources trying to reverse it. There are two basic reasons why I believe this: 1. It will be many, many years until the effects of climate change start to cause serious harm. The world will change a lot in that time. Many people believe we are approaching a "technological singularity" which will arrive before 2100. Practically everyone agrees that technology is advancing at a very rapid pace. I believe that human ingenuity will find much cheaper solutions to climate change, or, alternatively that it will be cheaper to adapt to the changes than reverse them. 2. The world has much more pressing problems than climate change. For example malaria, HIV, etc that are killing hundreds of thousands of people. This is basically Bjorn Lomborg's argument. I would rather see faster economic growth than any big investments in trying to reverse global warming (which is probably impossible anyway). Do you really want to gamble with the fate of the entire species? We can let malaria and HIV run rampant, but that would not cause our extinction. If we thoroughly destroy our ecosystem the only people who will survive will be in shelters. | ||
|
Quincel
119 Posts
On January 26 2013 01:53 ddrddrddrddr wrote: Do you really want to gamble with the fate of the entire species? We can let malaria and HIV run rampant, but that would not cause our extinction. If we thoroughly destroy our ecosystem the only people who will survive will be in shelters. I must admit, I see you as the one who is gambling. You want to pursue a course of action to deal with climate change which has never worked to deal with any problem in history. He wants to take the risk that the method which has solved countless resource problems will come through again (and give us as good a chance as possible by conserving global GDP for this plan). Isn't there a gamble in your plan as well? | ||
|
ddrddrddrddr
1344 Posts
On January 26 2013 02:10 Quincel wrote: I must admit, I see you as the one who is gambling. You want to pursue a course of action to deal with climate change which has never worked to deal with any problem in history. Isn't there a gamble in your plan as well? You want to pursue a course of action to deal with climate change which has never worked to deal with any problem in history. I didn't ask for a course of action, I was talking about the way of thinking. He wants to take the risk that the method which has solved countless resource problems will come through again (and give us as good a chance as possible by conserving global GDP for this plan). His method is to wait and hopefully we'll come up with something. We've never had an irreversible crisis, much less one that some people don't believe is a lie, some people believe is not a problem, some people believe is a problem not worth dealing with, some people believing it is a problem but someone else will take care of it. You dump money into alternative energy and research such as terra forming, worst thing that happens is you energy source becomes sustainable early and it takes a hit in terms of initial investment. If a solution is found, you have a slower economy than you would otherwise. The alternative is death for everyone (except those who can afford shelter I suppose). If there was any signs of international cooperation to find a solution the risk is much less, but we're still working on the stage of whether we should do anything at all. | ||
|
Quincel
119 Posts
| ||
|
ddrddrddrddr
1344 Posts
On January 26 2013 02:37 Quincel wrote: So what exactly are you suggesting instead of his idea? Because it seems to me you are suggesting we work on convincing everyone to stop consuming so much, which I don't think has ever worked. I know. I personally think the human race is doomed. Human race has the tendency to band together only on the brink of destruction, but here might be an instance where hitting the break just before the cliff isn't going to do much. I've read articles that claim global warming may already be irreversible. I have no ideas that would work on the current society, no. | ||
|
Quincel
119 Posts
| ||
|
ninini
Sweden1204 Posts
On January 24 2013 12:16 aksfjh wrote: I find it unlikely. It will probably be the new religious debate of the future as we enter a "post Christian era" in the Western world. The post christian era started hundreds of years ago in the french age of enlightenment. Are we approaching a new religious reformation? I don't think so. Looking back 100, even 200 years, I don't see how the western world have changed significantly in terms of religion. I see more signs of a religious renaissance if anything. | ||
|
G3CKO
Canada1430 Posts
| ||
|
Emzeeshady
Canada4203 Posts
| ||
Myles
United States5162 Posts
On January 26 2013 03:43 G3CKO wrote: I'm a proud denialist. I took 2 years of geology electives just so I can shut people up about global warming. Is this sarcasm? I really hope it is. Whether you believe in climate change or not, 2 years of geology electives is hardly a worthy background to be shutting anyone up. | ||
|
JinDesu
United States3990 Posts
On January 26 2013 03:43 G3CKO wrote: I'm a proud denialist. I took 2 years of geology electives just so I can shut people up about global warming. It's terribly sad to see that spending 2 years in a science course has taught you nothing. | ||
|
kmillz
United States1548 Posts
On January 25 2013 19:31 blomsterjohn wrote: The claim that climate change is not a problem now seems rather dubious as well though.... for instance... http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/26/climate-change-damaging-global-economy And, relevant to the thread itself (and the posters a few pages back) is an interesting article in the independent today: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-billionaires-secretly-fund-attacks-on-climate-science-8466312.html I'm pretty skeptical with how they came up with their numbers in the conclusion of that new study. Did they take into consideration the people who benefited from the climate change in other parts of the world as well? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
On January 26 2013 03:39 ninini wrote: The post christian era started hundreds of years ago in the french age of enlightenment. Are we approaching a new religious reformation? I don't think so. Looking back 100, even 200 years, I don't see how the western world have changed significantly in terms of religion. I see more signs of a religious renaissance if anything. Well I cannot speak for Sweden, but here in the states I firmly believe that we are far overdue for another "Great Awakening". Now that is to suppose that such an event necessarily occurs in cycle, but I think the clash between over-exposed, over-indulgent self-reference in individualism and the weakening societal acknowledgements of organized power structures is going to come to a head in one way or another, and matters of faith and religion will most certainly be involved. | ||
|
Zergofobic
Macedonia50 Posts
On January 23 2013 23:49 ragz_gt wrote: I'm loving this global warming thing. I'm not freezing my butt off this winter! + Show Spoiler + Yes, I know it's different. Good for you, here is Eastern Europe is cold as could be, and Asia has had it really terrible this winter as well, with record cold, especially China. So much for global warming, more like global cooling. | ||
| ||
