Are we really going to change our lives to avert global ecological catastrophe?

Question

After at least 50 years of warnings and predictions of global mayhem due to capitalistic ecological vanalism, in 2006 an economist presents a paper on the effects of the global economy not turning green, and everyone is suddenly interested. It's reconned that we have 10 years to change or we're in for some serious sh1t. Can we really be expected to cooperate on a global scale to sort this mess out given the current global political and economic maelstrom?

Answer 1

No - Because people are only interested in short term benefits to themselves.

However, in Europe there is a general move towards a more enviromental stance althougth without the US and the developing nations on board it isn't going to be much help.

The only real solution is for govemments to force the issue, which means they will not get re-elected so they wont do it - isn't democracy a fantastic thing.

Answer 2

Why do people believe this rubbish?

"It's reconned that we have 10 years to change or we're in for some serious sh1t."

Really? "reconned" by whom, exactly?

In the last 100 years the average global temperature rose by (at best guess) 0.6°C. At that rate, in the next 10 years temperatures will rise by a further 0.06°C. Even if temperatures rise 30 times faster in the next 10 years (hardly very likely) we'd *still* get less than a 2°C rise.

Now, given that during the Medieval Warm Period (nearly 1000 years ago) it was 3°C warmer than it is now, and everybody lived perfectly happily, thank-you very much, I seriously doubt that we're going to have any problems in the next 10 years!

This is pure scaremongering from the global warming alarmist as per usual.

Oh, and to answer your question...

Since it's entirely likely that the current global warming is being caused by the sun getting hotter, and has very little (if anything) to do with man's activities, I would have to say no, we're not going to change our lives to avert global warming, because there's nothing we can do to change the sun anyway!

Answer 3

This is one of those questions that is becoming more and more contentious. From an environmental point of view, we are exiting a mini ice age anyway so the temperature is bound to increase a little. The problem, of course, is that in past times there was no real 'development' in the human race (we were all nomads) and this has now changed with cities and large areas becoming permanently developed across the globe. I doubt we will have global mayhem, but I think we should be encouraged to think and act on recycling and reducing emmissions etc. for those interested, look at the Koyoto agreement principles here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Agreement

Answer 4

I am not sure I buy into all the hype. I know the government does but then it is a great way to raise tax.

Even if it is true, u cant expect civilisation to go back 500 years.
Science has a duty to find a solution. Surly there must be a cleaner fuel that could be produced in big enough quantity's to make it economic (IE: nuclear). Or away of dealing with the Co2. (IE: Algi)

Answer 5

This sort of thing really annoys me.Just remember,no-one was interested in global warming until quite recently,people who were, were always seen as sandal wearing liberals.The only reason the government are interested now is because it sees the problem as a legitimate way to tax everyone to the hilt,high taxes for anyone who gets off their backside and finds work and has to drive to work (probably in rush hour traffic) which of course will be charged extra under proposed "pay as you drive" schemes.Why not let people drive to and from work for free as they are contributing to the economy.The real problem here is not environmental change which is a natural phenomenon,but a Labour government that would ideally have all your income paid to them,then they could give you back as much as they think you could exist on and keep the rest for themselves.When will this country wake up and realise that LABOUR = COMMUNISM!

Answer 6

You have assumed in your question that cooperation on a global scale can make a difference. Turning 'green' might make a slight difference, but given population pressure, the difference would be minimal. It's nice to think we can make a difference, but it's also fuzzy thinking. The best we can do is prepare for the coming problems as best we can.

Answer 7

I hope that if we all make even a little effort we can help with the problems that we have. We who have children owe it to them to educate them on using the world wisely. I for one want to enjoy the rest of my life in the knowledge my grandchildren and theirs will still be able to see things that I have seen and been able to have quality of life before the environment is damaged beuond repair. On recently reading a P.D. James book called Children of Men, I was made aware of what could be if we dont do something now. How do we get other countries to do their bit. it is beyond my ken.

Answer 8

If the government keeps going the way it has been by taxing all sources of fuel, energy and transport it won't be long before only the mega super rich will be able to travel anyway so we will change our lifestyles by default.
Better start learning how to ride a horse just now as it won't be long before we return to the good old days when people rarely travelled outside their town or county.

Answer 9

the reply must be e mail! e mail has revolutionized the paintings surroundings and kept distinct funds on telephone calls, and so on. Now as a replace of spending hours on the phone we deliver a short message with the help of e mail and ought to move onto different themes mutually - this helps multi tasking subsequently saving a corporation workers expenditures. Many corporation applications at the instantaneous are dealt with with the help of e mail as a replace of the submit workplace. e mail also keeps family contributors in contact that in the course of the different case gained't be able of talk.

Answer 10

Climate change happens all the time, and yes, so many people on the planet does affect it. But to think we are going to 'destroy' the entire ecology is pretentious, and it is politically motivated.