When I was in high school I took a class called Environmental Science. About 2/3rds through the year my teacher asked each of us 6 students whether we were optimists or pessimists when it came to the future of our environment. I tend to sway more towards the pessimistic side but deep down I know there's still hope for us. There are still many people on this planet that want to live on it as long as humanly possible.
Anyway, that is why I love this article for it's near perfect representation of what I believe we must do to curb climate change. It may be slightly pessimistic, it may be realistic, or it may be a bit over the top, the only way to know for sure is to wait and see what happens. None-the-less it's a good read.
Rationing could be key to war on climate change » [Physorg.com]
Digg It | Hugg It |
| Report this post
Possibly Related Posts:
Climate Change Vs. The Cold War
A senior policy official from the UK has said that climate change poses an even greater security threat to the world than ironically, the Cold....
Just what we need, another war
Anytime a big corporation (especially big oil) says, 'It's not about market share, it's about doing the right thing.', bullshit alarms should sound — loudly.....
The global-warming war heats up
This article is about the implications of the recent US Supreme Court decision to consider regulating tailpipe emissions. The global-warming war heats up » [OCRegister.com]....
Africa Hit Hard By Climate Change, Worse Yet To Come
A new report concludes that Africa is already feeling the pains of climate change and it's only going to get worse. It calls primarily for....
Report Has ‘Smoking Gun’ on Climate Change
A new report on climate change is going to be released next week and claims to have the smoking gun on climate change. Authored by....
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, August 1st, 2006 at 10:27 am and is filed under Climate Change, Predictions.
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.
August 11th, 2006 at 9:23 am
I think forcing people to ration their carbon is the most draconian and authoritarian idea I’ve heard this century. Supposing I don’t want to have my carbon rationed, what then? I’m I to be arrested and put before a court?
Where is the freedom to choose weither or not I want to be rationed? I have not heard one good argument in favour of this type of ‘green’ authoritarianism, except of course from our political elites.
I opposed the ‘war on terror’ because it was largely based on dodgy evidence - I oppose the ‘war on climate change’ for exactly the same reasons - pointing out that some ‘35,000 people’ were killed in a European summer heatwave is no excuse for draconian measures. Indeed, those deaths lead right back to French environmentalists policies of reducing energy consumption, by raising that price of electricity - this made air-conditioners unaffordable to those at risk in France, like the elderly.
It was global warming that killed all those people back in the summer of 2003, it was French enviromentalist policies that did all the damage.
Best wishes.
Courtney
August 11th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
Thanks for the comment, and I think we see things the same way for the most part. In my post I tried (perhaps not clearly) to point out that although carbon rationing may be a draconian solution, it may be necessary down the road if we prove unwilling or unable to curb our dirty habits voluntarily.
My position on global warming and climate change is that the risks of inaction are huge albeit immeasurable. We as a species need to rise to meet these risks with appropriate levels of action. The truth is that we do not know for sure what the effects of global warming/climate change will be. We have many guesses that run the gamut from total catastrophic destruction to well, absolutely nothing. There is no question though that the possibility of catastrophic consequences is real.
We DO know that our actions are changing our planet, and we DO know that planetary changes have the power to wipe us off it’s surface. I have always felt that this is a turning point in our existence where we can either choose to save our world as we know it or choose to exhaust it’s resources and alter it’s environment to the point of inhabitabilty, at least by it’s current occupants, including us humans.
What scares me is that many scientists have acknowledged that we have potentially created a big problem for ourselves that may threaten our survival, and most people couldn’t care less. There’s an old saying that goes something like this; when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. I personally want to live on this planet as long as I can and I want my decendents to enjoy the same pleasures I have enjoyed my whole life. The only way to do that in my opinion is to drastically change the way we live our lives.
Government regulation on oil will only ripen the markets for alternatives. It wouldn’t happen overnight, but it would happen. Just look at CFC’s or DDT. Two man made substances that were making our planet unhospitable to us. People and their governments took action and we have mostly solved those problems.
Carbon emissions may need to be next on the environmentalist hit list if we are to continue living the way we enjoy.
Whether these regulations are enforced on an individual level or on a government level, that’s not for me to decide. We just need to find a solution to the problem, and if all else fails, I’ll take draconian rationing over my planet’s death any day.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
Many thanks for your considerate, albeit, pessimistic reply.
If global warming and climate change are as big a problem as some argue, then why isn’t adapting to climate change considered a realistic approach?
One other point, you argue;
“Just look at CFC’s or DDT. Two man made substances that were making our planet unhospitable to us. People and their governments took action and we have mostly solved those problems.
Nevertheless, the banning of DDT for example, in terms of lives that have been lost due to the banning, has been an unmitigating disaster - past environmentalist obsession with the international banning of DDT has meant that over a million Africans are killed each year by a once nearly defeated disease known as malaria.
What makes me angry is that only a hand full of people would ever relate environmentalist anti-DDT policy with millions of malaria related deaths and illnesses. The example you unfortunately choose, illustrates perfectly how environmentalist obsessions can turn around and make matters far worse than it was before.
Don’t take my word for it - read on:
http://neo-jacobins.blogspot.com/2006/08/climate-change-in-africa-fight-against.html
Best wishes.
Courtney