Even with overwhelming evidence and consensus in the scientific community many people still don't believe that humans are impacting the climate. My question is simple, isn't it better to err on the side of caution and do what we can to clean up our environment, wean ourselves from fossil fuels and look into new energy alternatives than risk the outcome associated with a major climate shift?
2006-08-21 13:09:03 · 7 answers · asked by trouthunter 4 in Environment
I think it is far wiser to try to engage the problem now rather than waiting till our effect on the climate becomes irreversible. My reason however is that it is in our own best interest, economically. If we want to be a player in the world economy in the future we have to accept that change is inevitable.
We cannot expect the world to regress back into the 1950s we need to accept that if we want economic growth we must deal with the world as it is now not whine about lost jobs and pretend we can keep everything like it was in the Norman Rockwell prints. I notice that most of the people who are against taking steps to ameliorate the impact we have on climate seem to be trying to weasel out of taking responsibility for changing it. This isn't about blame. I suspect they are either just stubborn and unable to admit they are wrong, or selfish to the point of being sociopaths. The worst one try to tell us that dealing with it now will mean dire consequences (death, destruction of our way of life, end of the world, yada yada) and hardships - in fact the same argument was used to say that recycling would destroy industry. That isn't what happened; recycling was smoothly incorporated into most resource industries and became a cheap and cost effective improvement to the supply chain for wood pulp, paper, aluminium copper, lead, steel and a huge variety of plastics. The truth is that changing our dependence on primary resources like fossil fuels just opens up opportunities for new businesses, and we would be fools to miss out. Making engines that work on electricity or are fuelled by hydrogen is just another opportunity. Saving our global environment so that we can all live in it is sane, responsible behaviour, but its also smart because pays to invest in trends that will benefit us economically as well. Yes it's a challenge but one which we are quite capable of meeting.
2006-08-21 14:50:41 · answer #1 · answered by Michael Darnell 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Of course it is better to try and clean up the environment and reduce fossil fuel consumption. Any argument against that is always based desire to retain profits or regurgitation of "talking points". There is no sound reason to continue consuming fossil fuels as if they are inexhaustible. Life is better sustained on this planet with functioning ecosystems...people do not die from lack of pollution. They may be harmed by people's blind drive for profit, but they will not be harmed by concerted efforts to reduce fossil fuel consumption. It is a false choice to insist that we either live the way we do now, or we go back to the stone age. Of course, some people used to think the earth was flat, or that the moon landings were staged.
It is also rather farcical to insist that humans have no impact on climate. It took a VERY long time for those fossil fuels to accumulate. A great amount of energy, absorbed by plants, slowly transforming into coal and oil, then rapidly released. Without a doubt that has an impact. Nothing in nature can create that amount of energy release in that amount of time...not volcanoes, not earthquakes, not tsunamis...nothing. So yes, we have an impact, and yes, we should take our responsibilities seriously.
2006-08-21 21:44:50 · answer #2 · answered by Longtall T 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe your premise confuses two things.
One, I do believe we are in a global warming trend.
Two, I do not belive it is a man created trend.
So you say many people do not believe man is impacting the climate and that there is scientific data....et.cet. You are confusing two things. There is a warming trend- it is measurable. It has not been established that 1) man created it; or 2) man can do anything about it.
It might be a cycle like we find in the fossil/sediment record millions of years ago.
2006-08-21 22:01:21 · answer #3 · answered by Frust Parent 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Overwhelming evidence"? Um, I don't think so.
It absolutely astounds me that people have such a high opinion of themselves that they think they could actually hurt this planet. This planet doesn't even realize we are here. Get over yourselves!
The Overwhelming evidence is in fact to the contrary. Over 99.98% of the "greenhouse gases" that are on this planet are produced by this planet. Water vapor being the largest percentage of that. Water vapor comes from the planets cycle of evaporation.
And for those that think we are polluting our planet.... Let me enlighten you a little bit. Everything that "WE" put on this planet...> CAME FROM THIS PLANET!!! It's not like we are bringing in trash from the next galaxy.
Oh, and by the way for those of you that say stuff like our climate is warmer now than it has been in 10,000 years.... Well duuuuuuuuh!... 10K yrs. ago we were in a freakin ice age! This planet goes through cycles. It has for millions of years before we ever showed up on it. It's what it does!!! So let me ask you... Did we cause the last ice age? How bout all the ones before that?
And how the heck do they come up with the figures of what our planet will be like in 100yrs. They can't even get the weather right from day to day. Much less in 100yrs. from now.
I remember when I was a kid they were saying that we were going towards another Ice age do to pollution, then they said we were going to be a greenhouse, like Venus do to the pollution. Now they are back to the ice age thing again.... Make up your mind will you. daaaaaang!
Finally let me leave you with this. Just one of the many volcano blasts that we have had on this planet have put more "pollution" in our atmosphere in there one explosion than all the "pollution" mankind is credited in putting in the atmosphere in our entire existence.
Does anyone remember what they now say killed the dinosaurs? It is now believed to be a meteorite that hit the now Gulf of Mexico. Now the meteorite didn't kill off all the dinosaurs instantly. The credit actually goes to the dust cloud that they think covered the entire planet. Winter caused from this blackout killed the dino's and paved the way for us.
But the planet cleaned itself up and went on. Now if a freakin 5mile meteorite slamming into planet can't kill it.... WHAT MAKES YOU THINK YOU CAN? Jeeeeeeeaaaaaas!!!
So give it a rest will you. Start thinking for yourself people.
2006-08-21 22:00:02 · answer #4 · answered by USMCstingray 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If you want to go back to the stone age and give up your autos and electric powered devices you might be able to reverse the effects of global warming. However, remember that the population was about one-onethousandth of what it is today. Who will decide who will live and who will die? And most everybody will have to die. The future will be a direct result of what we do today. We should let our children's children make up for the mistakes we make today.
2006-08-21 21:08:24 · answer #5 · answered by Amphibolite 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not necessarily. The adverse effects of global warming (which may or may not be ameliorated by human action) are future and indefinte. The costs of trying to fix it are now, real, and substantial. And by substantial, I mean that people will die.
2006-08-21 20:16:39 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
most of us are underwhelmed by this PC fiasco ( the main cause of global warming is and has always been WATER VAPOR - TRY TO CONTROL THAT we have an impact but it is small ) OOPS i meant in the areas they are trying to control with legislation THE MAIN HUMAN IMPACT is DEFORESTATION IN THE THIRD WORLD
2006-08-21 20:20:07 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋