What I’d like to propose: variant “B” for actions against global warming.

[rotschnjak.livejournal.com]

The scientists are sure that we can stop global warming by restriction of greenhouse gas emissions. I have very intensive doubts in this aspect. Even if they are right, we cannot stop our economy, which is based on consumption of fossil fuel today. If they are not right, we try to stop the economy and begin to die because of starvation and abject poverty… and this price gives us nothing for the save.
I suppose we need to prepare our nations, our infrastructures for live in reality of globally changed climate, and don’t try to stop global warming by taxes and restrictions. All quotes, new eco-taxes and restrictions can be harmful for mankind survive, both if the scientists are right (but it’s too late) or they are not right (this is possible too). I don’t believe that politicians can stop global climatic changes by their laws.
It’s my variant “B”. It is the way for adaptation, and not the way of prevention by political declarations.If you prohibit hurricanes by laws of the state, hurricanes will be appeared anyway.

Comments

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

or they are not right (this is possible too)

When 95% of the worlds scientists have reached a consensus on something (and most of the remaining 5% at least partially agree with some of it), I find it counterproductive to treat a contrary viewpoint as equivalent to that of said consensus.


I suppose we need to prepare our nations, our infrastructures for live in reality of globally changed climate, and don’t try to stop global warming by taxes and restrictions.

We need to do both. We've already reached the point that the effects of climate change will continue for a long time, even if we were to cut all human-caused emissions of carbon today. We must prepare for the future effects this will have.

At the same time, we should do what we can to mitigate our effect on the climate, and transfer industry and other spheres to alternative energy sources. There are bad effects we are already going to see; that is no reason to amplify them and go for the "even worse" effects.

[red-pill.livejournal.com]

personally, i quite favor geo engineering. its risky (i know there are people who will call me crazy) but things like, for example, putting dust in to the atmosphere can work as a respite. we're clearly not winding down our fossil fuel emissions, and so, tbh, i think geo engineering is the best, and most likely to be done, solution.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

I agree. At some point in the future we're going to have to geo-engineer, which will no doubt cost trillions and have some serious unforeseen side effects (dust in the atmosphere = more rain = more flooding, for example) that will cost additional trillions (and lives, of course, but they don't matter as much as economic activity). In 2050 people will be saying "you mean if people in the year 2000 had actually done something then we wouldn't even really notice the economic difference now, all the technologies we now have to use would be old, proven and cheap and millions of lives could've been saved?"

People like the OP are gonna look like jerks to their grandkids.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

It seems like grand-parents are very often viewed as jerks by their grand-kids.
Well, often enough to be noticeable.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

Nobody is seriously advocating a complete elimination of fossil fuel consumption in a way that we cannot adapt to it, this whole assumption that climate scientists want people to starve and live in poverty is completely unfounded and anyone that does want it is an idiot. Measures to adapt to climate change are already being done, the effort to live with climate change involves both adaption and prevention. And, no, making a change to our western, suburban lifestyle is not the same thing as living in poverty, people should think through what is really important here.

Hurricanes are a force of nature, the aspects of global warming that are caused by humans can be fixed by humans.

This is all only a problem if you think in extremes, the problems we are facing need to be faced with rational thinking not black and white thinking. I keep saying that word, but adapt, adapt, adapt! Fossil fuels aren't so essential, we have lived without them before, we have survived millennia without them! With our ever advancement in technology there is no doubt in my mind that we can live without them again, or at least live without the need to burn them for energy. Lets find alternative ways to generate electricity and save the rest of the oil for things like plastics.

Stay focused! Stay frosty

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

Lets find alternative ways to generate electricity and save the rest of the oil for things like plastics.

That sums up much of my thoughts on it.


Stay frosty

That's not a DLR reference, is it?

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

Nah, that's that Alien reference that people use all the time XD

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

We should grow industrial hemp; use it for fuel, food, clothing, medicine. :D

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

I'm all for that! It'll grow nicely here in Florida.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

And jet fuel; that's one of the biggies with no replacement on the horizon (unless there's something new I'm not aware of).

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

If I recall, there *was* a solar plane made, it was able to stay suspended in the air indefinitely.

And in addition to that there's space flight, if we can get the vehicles into orbit we can cut flight times that way. I mean, what's stopping Amazon.com from building their own space station, with a warehouse, and dropping the goods down into reentry? Think about it, they could restock it quarterly and the thing will stay up there without any need for fossil fuels (no friction, minimal gravity, plenty of solar energy).

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

If you prohibit hurricanes by laws of the state, hurricanes will be appeared anyway.

Nonsense! Tropic Storm Karen was on its way to the Gulf Coast this past weekend but after receiving a fine and a strongly worded letter, dissipated into a minor rain squall.

You may personally feel that nothing can be done and we might as well look forward to a real-life version of Waterworld, but taking action to mitigate anthropogenic climate change gives us more time to adapt.

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

taking action to mitigate anthropogenic climate change gives us more time to adapt.

It's worth a try, isn't it?

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Houses on stilts, shift of coastal populations inland, etc. etc.

Humans have already survived ice ages, we're pretty clever monkeys given half a chance.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

Dear Karen

It is in the interest of the gulf cost that we ask you to kindly calm the fuck down.

Thank you.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

It's not nice to fool Mother Nature.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

The scientists are sure that we can stop global warming by restriction of greenhouse gas emissions.

No scientists I respect on this topic think this. What I do hear them saying is that we cannot do a damned thing until this restriction is made a reality.

Even if they are right, we cannot stop our economy, which is based on consumption of fossil fuel today. If they are not right, we try to stop the economy and begin to die because of starvation and abject poverty… and this price gives us nothing for the save.

Exactly. Which is why I wrote my last piece and a gazillion others. There is one aspect, though, that I didn't include; low-tech geo-engineering that replaces the fuels we currently burn (at least a small fraction of them) with energy-producing infrastructure that sequesters carbon as it functions. Biochar, baby. Biochar. Desertification reversal and restoration, also known as sucking carbon from the air with soil and root development. On that note, changing to no-till farming. Massive wood building construction. A non-hierarchical power grid with arbitrage.

I could go on.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

So you think it would be cheaper to build sea walls around all our coastal cities, resettle millions of people living on islands around the world and completely moving all centres of agriculture out of the now deserts into former tundra areas than reducing carbon emissions? Stabilising at 550ppm CO2 would cost about 3% of global GDP, around $1.5tr, or about what the US has spent on war in the last decade.

Craziness.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Stabilising at 550ppm CO2 would cost about 3% of global GDP, around $1.5tr, or about what the US has spent on war in the last decade.


Thanks for that information. And that's a drop in the bucket to what we're going to loose as a result of climate change. As if money were the only consideration. Quality of life for billions will be made worse.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

"Quality of life for billions will be made worse."

Disney World would be underwater.

DISNEY WORLD!

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Government regulations have been successful in curbing ozone-depleting emissions as well as reducing the amount of acid in precipitation. They may not stop the hurricane, but they could reduce the intensity of the hurricane.

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

Humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes global warming. Stopping adding CO2 would stop further global warming. Slowing adding CO2 would cause global warming to be slower, thus allowing more time for adaptation. Taxing fossil fuels would slow the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere, and could be done without crippling the economy. Money from taxation could be used to fund alternate ways of doing things, like nuclear/solar/wind power, and electrified public transit, that don't need fossil fuels.

So you're totally wrong.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

The scientists are sure that we can stop global warming by restriction of greenhouse gas emissions.

This is a false assertion.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

I have very intensive doubts in this aspect.

Have you subjected your doubts to scrutiny? Would you like to express what they are?

Even if they are right, we cannot stop our economy, which is based on consumption of fossil fuel today. If they are not right, we try to stop the economy and begin to die because of starvation and abject poverty

Nobody is suggesting stopping the economy; that's complete hyperbole. The objective is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. You can do this by changing energy generation (e.g., from fossil fuels to renewables). You know, we have plenty of opportunity to develop solar and wind power for example.

Plus, we could consider making some considerations of opportunity costs.

For example.

"I think dead children should be used as a unit of currency. I know this sounds controversial, but hear me out (http://www.raikoth.net/deadchild.htm)...."

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

http://www.raikoth.net/deadchild.html