If Climate Change isn't our fault, should we still do something about it?

Question

So there's theories that the current Climate Change is natural, caused by more sunlight interacting with current greenhouse gases. If I take that to be true, then should we still do something about it? Is it our responsibility to ensure that the climate stays stable for all the other creatures on Earth that don't have air conditioning?

I should elaborate, in either case it's a matter of co2 and other greenhouse gases, which we can develop technology to use to clean out of the atmosphere. So we can regulate the amount that is in the atmosphere to take into account solar activity.

So if we're not responsible we still CAN do something, we're a technologically advanced culture after all. The thing I want to know is if we still should, or if it would be best to let it run it's course and do its damage and alter our way of life.

Answer 1

If there is an earthquake, and there are lots of victims, and that is clearly not your fault, should you do something about it?

The fact is that if the temperature is going up, the polar ice will melt, and the ocean level will raise. This will flood a lot of costal regions where million of people presently live. Even if you are not living close to a coast that could be flodded, there wil be an impact on food price, as lots of farmland area will be underwater.

No matter how you look at it, it will be major disruption.

Should you do something about it?
That is your call. Myself, I think yes.

Answer 2

IF the climate change is natural, then it would be silly to think that there's something we can do stop it. Think about it this way: If you believe that it's natural, then you must also believe that we are not having an effect on it or can't have an effect on it. So obviously, if your belief is that we can't make it warmer, it only makes sense to say that we can't make it colder, either.

So to answer your question directly, if climate change isn't our fault, then we simply CAN'T do something about it. And even if we could, why would we want to? If it's natural, the Earth certainly isn't going to destroy itself.

Answer 3

While I believe that climate change is a natural occurrence, I also believe the industrial revolution is contributing to it as well.

I think that limiting greenhouse gases associated with man-made products and industry should still be reduced. While reducing these gases won't necessarily stop any invevitable global climate change, it very well may slow down the process, which would likely make any natural climate change more manageable for humans.

Answer 4

I certainly think if you have the money to use alternative energy sources; and think it will make a difference you should. But it is another thing entirely to suggest that poor people of little or no means do so. Somehow people have forgotten that what has enabled us to live longer and better is our industry and technology. There is no Eden to go back to. As far a climate stability; clearly climate changes are not only inevitable but normal.

Answer 5

I worked out a plan with many other humans that solves GW. To that end I sent this letter to Al Gore:

Putting the technology together to start cleaning up and reintroducing new ozone to the atmosphere is possible. The cost and size of this project means taking a long term commitment. I am proposing the biggest cleanup in history. Al, I do not see any proposal that is realistic or proven at any cost, not even Washington can solve this problem. But if every person on earth does his or her share, we may be ok. Never-the-less, I see governments acting like a deer in a car’s headlights and people doing the same thing. The inevitable is almost upon us. Cleanup and change is the only option.
The first cleanup machine starts with a ten billion dollars investment. Ten year later with twenty-five machines operating, these machines will produce enough ozone to replace both holes at the poles. But more importantly, these machines will remove chemicals that deplete the ozone. Beyond making ozone, decreasing the poisons that deplete ozone, these machines reduce the major greenhouse gases and unbelievably we can have all this for fewer than one hundred billion dollars.
Beyond cleaning up our atmospheric mess as I am suggesting, we humans must do a better job reducing or cleaning up carbon monoxide, collecting and storing methane and ethane for fuel, burning less of everything, cleaning up our forests and using more solar insolation. Solar steam electric generators are the type of systems we need and are 90 percent efficient and near 100 percent if heat recovery is used. I believe nearly 30,000 MW are needed in the USA and Mexico over the next 30 years. This opens the door to new electric cars, new construction vital to our way of life, new bullet trains, and these industries produce new high paying jobs. From small scale solar generators on malls, to 2000 acre collector sights, these systems are viable and ready for production. The Federal Government must give up some land, money and have less regulation to help save the planet from disaster.
Al, spreading the message that we can help ourselves is a key to the development of these businesses. Washington can help: the businesses need grants, patents, land and regulations. Congress must create a pollution surcharge. From gas, coal, diesel, wood to cooling towers, from cattle, other ranches to cigarettes, from agriculture burning to airplane passengers, this surcharge can fund parts of these projects and many stationary pollution control devices in general.
Your personal support is very important to getting the atmosphere cleanup started and developing sights for solar generators.

Sincerely,
All humans are encouraged to help.

Answer 6

I don't buy AGW. I'd never even entertain as a reason to do anything with energy policy.

However, that isn't to say that I think we should just be cruising along using oil and coal as we are. I prefer nuclear, I think it would allow the US to reduce its importation of foreign fuel sources and reduce particulate, NOx, and SOx pollutants (all of which have well defined environmental effects in relation to emissions and dilling/mining).

Answer 7

Just because something is natural doesn't mean we shouldn't care, cultivate, and protect the Earth. Take cars for example: there are other adverse effects of their output than just potential global warming--how about the air that we actually breathe? If we take steps toward helping global warming, we will see improvements in other aspects of our lives, as well.

Answer 8

We should. It's the only environment we have, we should take care of it.

I'm just tired of a certain Limousine Liberal using it as a ticket to an academy award.

Answer 9

Yes we should. We don't know for sure, but we should still want to take care of the planet we live on.

Answer 10

Well, we certainly need to get ready for it and come up with an action plan to address the changes that we are likely to see.