What can be done about global warming, is the problem inherent within our economic system?

Answer 1

yes and a fine balance needs to be struck between sustaining economic growth and protecting the environment, not an easy task.

blockhead how many times do people with that opinion need to be told, a hole in a theory doesn't prove it wrong!

nobody knows the truth about global warming, so we need to prepare for the worst. hoping for the best is the most wreckless action we could take, and if we're proven wrong, this generation will be blamed in the future for the kind of mass destruction of the environment a nuclear bomb can only dream of.

Answer 2

It's actually very simple. We as consumers decide what we buy and what we don't. Therefore, we can influence the behaviour of companies whether it's about pollution, global warming, child labour... ...

Nowadays, given that a company can go ahead and cause massive pollution, but the goods it produces are still bought by us the consumers, do you think the company has any incentive to change its methods of production?

Our economic system is about incentives.

So if enough of individuals decide that company A is a major polluter and is playing a big part in destroying the earth and take action by boycotting the products of company A, then as sales plummet, company A will have to decide whether it wants to reform or close shop.

Of course there are huge problems with this approach; but that's the way our economic system deals with such issues. By giving the right incentive (in this case a disincentive) to the producers, consumers can get what they want.

The issues with the approach are quite obvious.

First the free rider problem - I do think this company is a bad polluter, but if enough people boycott the product, I won't make much of a difference, so I can conveniently continue consuming.

Secondly it's a question of information. How do we know who are the giant polluters? This is even more complicated with the mess of ownership networks.

Answer 3

The need for energy is inherent in our economic system. All we can do is slow CO2 production and hope new technology will solve the problem. For most people going back to the subsistence farming economy that existed before the industrial revolution would be worse than the effects of global warming.

Answer 4

Probably nothing.

Nevertheless, if you can make people believe that there is a problem, it is always possible to make money out of their concern. Whether it is a tax on use of energy, selling low energy lamps, wind generators or replacing plastic bags with something more expensive: there is a lot of scope for making a profit within our economic system.

Still waiting to hear someone announce that it would be better for football and other sports events to be played in daylight hours, rather than using large amounts of power on floodlighting a stadium, but maybe we are not really that concerned about it!

Answer 5

Just wait it out. In a couple hundred centuries or so, the Earth will start naturally cooling down again for a spell. Just like it always has. See what insignificant difference your guilt laden 'carbon footprint' makes then!

Edit for Earl: Maybe Sir, but it would seem that the powers that be would have us believe otherwise - to tax us if nothing less. I would prefer to stand in the corner of 'don't know for sure but sure as hell know that mankinds' proven contribution to carbon monoxide content within the Earth's environment' is but a literal and quite poetic 'drop in the Ocean'.

Answer 6

What we need to do is open our freezers, air conditioners and windows until the media tells us global cooling is out of control.

Then, we should panic.