Global warming, how much responsibility should England take for starting the Industrial Revolution?

Question

Wow! What a can of worms, don't shoot the messenger guys. I don't think my country's responsible either, I'm just interested in cause and effect, healthy debate, all that jazz.

Of course our ancestors were ignorant of the potential damage, but do we not learn lessons from that now? Thinking about what we do before we do it?

Answer 1

We are all guilty

Answer 2

I suppose we can blame it on England if we want a scapegoat. That doesn't change the fact that many years later we still have the problem of global warming and you are still contributing the problem. The Industrial Revolution is secondary to automobile in the causing of global warming so perhaps we can scapegoat Henry Ford? I think that's a really scary mentality. Look at other famous scapegoats--Nazis scapegoated the Jews, U.S. scapegoats the imaginary 'communists' then 'terrorists'--where did taht lead us to? Fighting wars and causing more global warming by using a lot of machinery we didn't need to. Take responsibility for you own actions.

Answer 3

Do you and your friends appreciate and buy modern technology? Yes - you have a computer....New innovations are being invented all the time; we all want the latest ipod or car or washing machine, and you and I and everyone else buys them.

It was exactly the same when the steam engine and later, the internal combustion engine, were invented. They were new and modern and labour saving - and, like now, everybody wanted them.

Scientists back then knew nothing about the possibility of global warming, so we can't possibly blame an entire nation for wanting to improve their living conditions! And anyway, if the UK hadn't started it, some other nation would!

Answer 4

Nothing !

The civilization would have gone the way Angkor Wat ,, without the British !!

The "product concept" would not have evolved. The goods we buy would not be backed by insurances. Not even your house plug would have any sense of a standard measure ,, that the industrial law necessitates.

We would still be living , with barter trading. The good in that is that , we would not be sucessfull enough to over populate the globe !! But , one would not be able to be sure that the "medicines" one buys is any good ,, if not dangerous ,, as with the recent Singapore experience with medicines made in China .

If anything , the current civilization owes England something. Please recall that if France had held sway over the English ,, then under "interogation law" ,, we are deemed guilty until proven innocent !!

Answer 5

the place the hell did you get 5-8 stages from? The expected warming for a DOUBLING of atmospheric CO2 is between 2C and four.5C. Atmospheric CO2 has greater desirable via in basic terms approximately 40% with the aid of fact the preindustrial era, and that's increasing now at a some distance swifter fee than the start of the commercial revolution. your complete positioned up is an inane series of straw men, ie a chain of logical fallacies. None of your innovations have been projected via scientists. modern-day climate fashions do a stable pastime of modeling stated temperature transformations, suggesting that they are particularly stable. They venture 2-3C warming interior the present century that is particularly risky. EDIT: Beck's paintings is exciting, nonetheless nonetheless in basic terms revealed in capability & climate iirc (which isn't a recognized mag) and increasing its effects to the globe is an exceedingly questionable step to take. in case you look right here[2] the graph shows some weird and wonderful effects. at first, transformations some distance swifter than any of those stated interior the final 50ish years and in 1000's of 1000's of years of ice cores. additionally they do no longer journey with observations (at an analogous time as ice middle information do), and that they are from a single section close to an commercial centre. Realclimate[3] have an exciting representation: stages interior Paris selection via over 100ppmv! The proposed reason in [2], of warming making use of CO2 launch has no longer been stated lower back in even warmer years (unquestionably, greater desirable CO2 stages seem to be making use of the pH of the sea down - the sea is taking on CO2!). additionally, the replace in atmospheric CO2 stages reported via Beck, in the event that they have been worldwide, are such as 10% of all the biomass on earth dying off and decaying into the ambience in some years. Which became no longer stated, nor became hovering ocean pH afaik. The graph additionally seems slightly stupid right here[4]. that's a complicated one to push, even nonetheless i assume James E will blame this on me being rubbish at technological understanding. Chilingar et al is the 1st unquestionably revealed skeptical paper i've got seen in an prolonged time. i'm going to envision it!

Answer 6

Should they also take responsibility for nuclear weapons on the grounds of inventing the bow and arrow?

If England could have prevented the industrial revolution would it be guilty of causing the billions of deaths of people who have been saved by the advances produced by that revolution?

Your hypothesis is deeply flawed.

Answer 7

Absolutely none!
Think - If we had not started it somebody else would. Are you going to blame Cavemen for harnessing Fire? giving Man the ability to start polluting the planet in the first place!

Good Grief!

Answer 8

what a daft statement England should take responsibility for global warming because of the industrial revolution.. Ok all of it.. duhh

Answer 9

No, the US produces the most pollution. And dont even have half of earth's popoulation... but produce over half of the earth's pollution.

Answer 10

a lot