don't you think, even if your skeptical, we have no choice because the stakes are too high?

Question

I am not covinced by the global warming theory, but because of the stakes involved i believe i have no choice but to try and do my part in cutting co2, my greatest hope is that its not true, partly because we as a species dont seem to be doing enough quickly enough, but from now on i am going to try my best and do what i can, i urge you to do the same, what could be the worst outcome, knowing we ensured this planet for future generations

To the guy that said the stakes are not that high, i think you missed the point, i have reseached global warming, and although i am not convinced by the theory, i have seen no evidence that discounts it, the stake is going past the point of no return, pushing the balance too far, isnt it more responcible to act towards ensuring the worlds survival, the fossil fuels will run out sooner or later, there is no future for economys that rely on fossil fuel.

Answer 1

Saw a short video not so long back that illustrates your point and compares the four different outcomes, unfortunately I can't find the link to it. The gist of the video follows.

Either global warming is real or it's not and either we take action or we don't. There's four possible scenarios...

GW is false / we take no action
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
No problem, nothing changes

GW is false / we take action
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Very costly, could be a trillion dollars down the drain, economy affected but the planet is fine

GW is true / we take no action
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Very costly, up to 4.2 trillion dollars a year, ecomomies affected, up to 25% crop reduction leading to famines, droughts, flooding, up to 2 billion people forced to migrate, insect infestation, 300,000 deaths and 10 million affected every year through spread of disease alone, possible wars over basic commodities such as food and water, a third of species become extinct, heatwaves, wildfires, acidification of the oceans, desertification etc

GW is true / we take action
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Could cost a trillion dollars, ecomonic impact, but could avoid the above consequences.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

By acting now the worst that could happen is we blow up to a trillion dollars, by not acting the worst that could happen is we screw the planet. Even if global warming was just a tiny possibility it makes sense to take action.

If someone thought they may have cancer they'd straight away go and see a doctor instead of waiting until they knew for certain they had it. Well, the planet might have cancer and too many people want to know if it's terminal before considering treating it.

Answer 2

I'm glad that you've put some time into researching the potential problems created by global warming. How much time have you spent researching the world's present problems, the bulk of which are currently going unsolved because we either do not have the will, the technology, or the resources to solve? It's a truly unfortunate reality that we simply cannot solve all the world's problems - it FORCES us to prioritize these problems and devote our time and resources to those we can make the greatest difference.

So, which problems do we let go unsolved? Whose lives and how many do we sacrifice in order to shift our efforts to solve a problem which we're not totally sure exists and even less sure how to solve? And that's not being alarmist. If I wanted to be alarmist, I'd be discussing the very real possibility that we would be creating even greater problems than already exist, including increased destruction of the environment.

This is not just a matter of us simply conserving, recycling, etc. This is about much more than that. The world would not have spent 100s of billions of dollars so far just to pay for PSAs telling everyone to economize.

Answer 3

I don't think some people care about stakes. They're not willing to give up a wasteful lifestyle until something is actually affecting them personally. I don't know when that will be, but sooner or later, our fossil fuel based society is going to run out of fossil fuels, and things are going to have to change.

But it looks like a lot of people are too selfish to change until they absolutely have to-- hey, they might be dead by then, so what's to keep them from driving a hummer and turning up the air conditioning full blast?

Answer 4

This of course a classic example of generated hysteria. We certainly have a choice and the correct choice is to evaluate the data (the real data, not the propaganda productions but out by Al Gore and his ilk) and form your own opinions. You can then take what ever action you feel is supported by the data. In my case, I believe that global warming is unstoppable and that global temperatures will eventually rise to the same levels seen in the past - roughly 3-4 degrees higher than today - and that we should be spending our time getting ready for it.

Answer 5

Well put.
Given the choice of saving or not saving humanity, what would you do? What steps would you believe are justified? How much discomfort are you willing to tolerate for the sake of your own children and grandchildren?
Sure, nothing one person does will end Global Warming.
Worse, nothing half the people in the world do will stop Global Warming.
But, we have start somewhere, one person, one family, one town, a city, a state, a nation and a continent.
But, to win, ALL have to stop Carbon Emissions.
Either we all survive, or NONE survive.

China and India have said they are willing to participate in the next step.
Texas has stopped the planned construction of 10 large coal fueled electric power plants.
A town in the central Asia build a windmill factory for their people, not to get well water but to make electricity. All of them walk or ride bicycles. They are doing all they can do. I don't know of any other country doing more than they are.
Well put.

Answer 6

Even for those that are not convinced that global warming is a real and present problem, there are enough other environmental reasons to be conscious of your impact that people who chose to willingly do nothing are some of the most selfish creatures on the planet.

Answer 7

The stakes are not that high. And the cost of cutting coal and oil use by 90% in 50 years is definitely higher than the cost we will have to pay to cope with the warming. Global Warming is not life threatnening. People who say it is are just trying to scare you into supporting their political agenda, of taxing fuel or whatever.

Answer 8

We should all do our part even the bible tells us to be good stewards of the earth and is the manual on how to treat it few read it and do as it says but you know what if the rest of the world is not going to do their part why should we destroy our country trying to do this when no one else care because all they want to do is survive and eat and to heck with global warming.

Answer 9

I agree.... people are ignorant & companies refuse to take actions and cut back on packaging. I get SO angry in stores when I'm shopping and I see so much waste creating packaging that is unnecessary.
My wife HATES Tampax Pearl TV commercials because the product is SO wasteful. No one recycles that plastic applicator.
Every woman uses approx 5 tampons/maxi's everyday of her period x 5 day duration x 30 years.... Thats 9,000 pcs of trash per woman in the USA - Just being smart about the product you buy and how you dispose of the waste makes a huge difference!!!!
I agree that most people do nothing....

Answer 10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

There you go Trevor. Part of a series. Watch them all - belladonna