Video: Should We Combat Global Warming?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Environment, The World, VideoThis video has been making its way across the interwebs, so I figured I’d post it here and get some feedback.
Why? Well, the argument is very compelling so take some time today, watch it and decide for yourself.
This entry was posted on Friday, June 15th, 2007 and is filed under Environment, The World, Video. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
June 15th, 2007 at 10:45 am
One problem with the “grid” is the “global depression” on column “A” is in both the true and false choices. That is, the economic hit will occur if global warming trend is true of false.
A second problem is, is that the top corner has other issues. That is, if the global warming problem is not a problem that doesn’t insure that the “fixes” we apply will not affect the climate. That is instead of failing to fix a problem we don’t have it (and then doing nothing except cost money). It might instead create a climate problem (and cost money) in order to avert something that isn’t going to happen (or isn’t as bad as we predict).
June 15th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
I think this line of thinking is over simplified. It does not take into account the difficulty that humanity has in agreeing on things, especially as important as something like this.
We (the United States and Europe) could agree on solutions, both economic and evironmental that could put odds in our favor, however, this does not take into all the minute variables involved in the end problem. Take for example the rest of the world, China and India. These two massive countries are steam-rolling ahead at speeds Industrial America would be amazed by. They are in position to decide the fate of our planet, not us. Even if America and Europe did everything right (which is an impossiblity for such a complex problem) we are only a part of the solution.
America is no doubt the largest polluter on the planet, and regardless whether global warming is a reality or not we should be taking seriously the task of not polluting our world for other related reasons such as human health and the health of the ecosystem which sustains humanity.
The U.S. has failed to be a leader in an area which effects not just us but the entire human race. When I hear people say “free-market capitalism” is the only way to go I also think about where this utter indifferent materialistic world view has gotten us.
Money and profit are so intertwined in government and business that to go backwards is seen as heresy but to save our planet is seen as “too costly”. Lol, what can be more costly than the destruction of humanity?
Also, the guy in the video says humanity will go on no matter what happens, albeit they will live in a terrible world. But how does he know this? How does he know whether or not more and more nations develope nuclear weapons and global warming takes place that it will not set in motion a all out nuclear exchange? In that case, I don’t believe humanity will totter on. I believe it will be the end. And only humanity itself will be to blame.
June 16th, 2007 at 10:58 am
This is my biggest thing. Ultimately I don’t think we’re going to have all out nuclear war, but whether or not the earth revolts against us we may be creating enough pollution to choke us out of existence anyway. Why not start now? It’ll be so much cheaper in the long run.
June 16th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
The stupidest thing about this whole discussion is nay-sayers’ absolute refusal to do ANYTHING about it, or allow anyone else to do anything about it. One wonders whether they are really that eager to reach the Rapture within their lifetimes, or just that incredibly stupid and shortsighted. Whether or not the world’s environmental system is headed for collapse (as I and almost all reputable climatologists believe), the fact remains that oil supplies are dwindling fast, and the remaining supplies are getting harder, more expensive, and more energy intensive to obtain.
When (not if) the climate changes, the cost of rising sea levels alone will be astronomical, as probably over a billion people will need to relocate worldwide, and that ignores such other factors as hurricanes, tornadoes, flooding, drought, famine, disease, and the societal unrest (read - massive warfare) all these factors will engender. Proven facts such as the rapidly melting glaciers of Greenland and Antarctica (melting at an accelerating rate that is far faster than most models had predicted), pretty much guarantee sea level will rise by at least several METERS in this century, probably in this generation. The real question at this point is whether we are already too late to mitigate the degree of the impending disaster, not whether or not disaster will occur.
Nay-sayers usually ignore the fact that many of the changes recommended for energy efficiency actually pay for themselves in the long term, such as fluorescent (or soon, LED) lightbulbs, better gas mileage cars (once American auto lobbies stop whining about cost and do what Toyota and Honda have already done), better insulation and green construction projects, more efficient appliances, etc.
Another fact most Americans don’t realize is that a significant percentage of emissions in this country are from our own power plants, many of which have grandfather clauses that exempt them from the clean air act. Bush and the Republicans changed the rules a few years back so these companies can practically replace their entire plant in a few years, and still remain under the grandfather clause - but with double the pollution output from increased capacity. Another fact is that a small percentage of the plants in America put out a majority of the pollution (can’t remember the exact figures, but it was something around 10% of the plants putting out way over half the pollution) By phasing out ALL grandfather clauses, and forcing all plants that don’t meet the standards to upgrade or close, we would remove a significant fraction of America’s pollution.
Finally, though America is a huge problem in this arena, the true danger comes from China and other industrializing nations, which, though they have a much lower per capita emission than America, have a fast and accelerating growth rate in emissions. China alone is putting a new, dirty coal-powered power plant every WEEK, with no environmental controls or scrubbers. We, and the world, need to work with these nations to make sure that the new plants they are building (which will be polluting for decades to come) are using modern pollution control techniques, and that whenever possible use green alternatives to dirty coal. I’m sure there are many places in China where wind, wave, or solar farms could be quite viable additions to the power generation structure, and world pressure combined with world assistance could move them towards a greener and more survivable long-term energy infrastructure.
June 16th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
I noticed this too. In fact, one would not even know whether their actions prevented global warming or were completely useless. In light of this, the choice becomes buying a lottery ticket that is guaranteed to lose, or buying a more expensive ticket with a chance of hitting the jackpot.
June 17th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Good points on both sides guys. I do think that something should be done but that the effects of whatever it is that is done should be thoroughly looked at before implementation though.
July 13th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
I think you liberal hypocrites should set the example and stop using your fuel hog personal jet planes and that Al Gore should not use twenty times the electricity in his several mansions as the common man. I will leave a lightbulb I don’t need burn all night in protest.