I think this guy has nailed it. Ultimate Logical Global Warming argument. What do you think? Can you shoot any holes in it? Cheers
Sure. He is assuming that by "doing something" that the correct something will be done. By choosing column A and doing something . . . what if we do it wrong and actually end up throwing ourselves into the worst case scenario in column B? For instance, if we become over zealous with cleaning the air - what if by doing so we quickly negated the apparent, currently positive effects of Global Dimming? . . . oops! Go directly to Worst Case Scenario in Column B . . . and hurry-up about it. <_< Global Dimming: "Global dimming also creates a cooling effect that may have partially masked the effect of greenhouse gases on global warming." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/
Any doomsday scenario with a theoretical risk > 0 will win that argument, so long as the preventive measure has > 0% of success, and does not cause doomsday itself. NOT a convincing argument. The fellow's lower-left hand box is wrong. It should have been all the problems associated with the upper-left hand box, and in addition the problems associated with partially mitigated climate change. The economic 'problems' associated with a transition to a clean energy economy is far from a no-brainer. I suspect it will *increase* prosperity overall, although there will be winners and losers. I'm willing to guess that whalers prognosticated economic collapse too.
The main point is can we really risk not doing anything significant about this problem. As he says, how lucky do you think you are? I personally feel the investment of doing something significant outweighs doing nothing. That is how I see it.
Sure, if you take it down as simply as he said you get something similar to what he put up (however, there would still need to be economic depression in the lower left quad as someone already pointed out). However, it just isn't that simple... How do we know what the "right" thing to do is? How do we know that our actions won't create an increased risk of something catastrophic happening? That being said, i'm all for taking action to clean up the planet. Limit pollution, take steps to clean our air, water, and land. But don't jump into the extreme like he suggests without looking to see how deep the water is first...
I agree that this is certainly NOT a bulletproof arguement, but there are things that favor him not mentioned. For instance many many people feel that the arguement that it will be expensive to make changes to mitigate emissions/pollution and other factors that are assumed to be human related causes of GW are wrong. Indeed they feel that, in the long term (10-20 years) the changes will actually create new industry and be a cost saver. Practical things such as moving toward freedom from fossil fuels and doing things like using CFLs, solar and wind power, etc are changes that will be readily accepted and, as they become more widespread, will reduce in cost. These things, to me, seem to make sense, cost little in the short term and maybe save money in the long term. They'll reduce pollution and thus health related problems of pollution (Asthma in particular). And maybe, just maybe, it'll impact GW...if not...so what, if so our grand children will thank us.
It's kind of funny Evan... but i went in specifically trying not to mention the things you listed Most of those items listed should be done for numerous reasons besides pollution and global warming: dependence on fossil fuels will be horrible once the oil fields dry up, a subject that most people are aware of now. CFL's have a longer life and use less electricity, offering "long term" (5 years) cost savings if you "splurge" to buy them at the beginning. Solar power can be implemented on rooftops, and if you're Darrel used to save you money - from what little i know, they're about at that tipping point of being able to give you a reasonable return on your investment, if you get plenty of sun (aka southern climates)... with any luck they'll get big in a few (5-10) more years and cut the price to the point where it becomes economically feasible for northern places like MN too As far as global warming changes go, I think it's most important to focus on items that people don't already have an incentive to use. This involves primarily targeting big business into reducing their pollution.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Jun 18 2007, 06:58 PM) [snapback]464331[/snapback]</div> Sounds good to me, BTW anyone can argue any type ofd facts as we are human and we make mistakes...
What if we're on the titanic and some people want to pail out the water and others want just drink the rest of the liquor on board. Which box would you opt for.
DH and I watched the video last night. It's simplistic, yes. What it boils down to, is how many options do we really have, and what are the effects of those options, pro and con? I'm of the opinion that global warming IS a real phenomenom, and that it behooves us to do everything possible to mitigate the negative effects. For us, personally, it means: going Vegan CF bulbs driving less and driving a Prius recycling more using cloth bags at the grocery store using only biodegradable cleaners and personal care items reducing toxic footprint reducing carbon footprint Thoughtfully considering where we are living, and how climate change will affect our ability to live, work, get food and water putting our money where our beliefs are, and supporting organizations that are working on solutions to the problems that climate change is bringing. If it never gets that bad, the things that we've done, and are doing, will do nothing but make life better for us, and for our descendents. If it does get that bad, it is possible that the things that we've done, and are doing, will make the crucial difference that determines, if not our survival, at least our wellbeing.
Dr. Fusco touched on this, but please allow me to expand. The risk of directional climate change besets us, at the same time does as the risk of exhaustion of liquid fossil fuels. Let us assume that there is plenty of cheaply accesible coal to increase atmospheric CO2 eventually to above 1000 ppm, which might very well not be a nice place to be. Therefore, our reasons to 'take action' (choose column B ) include striving to keep the 'greenhouse gases' under control, but also to conserve limited liquid fossil fuels for other purposes. At present the are the cheapest starting materials for the 'plastic' polymers that we use for so many things. This is not to say that we could not make such things from coal or living plants, but for sure, it would be much more costly to do so, according to today's chemical industry. But wait, there's more. If perhaps liquid fossil fuel extraction becomes very much more expensive in the near future, then renewable energy (solar, wind, hydro, biomass, tidal, etc.) can become a much better economical play. In other words, those who *innovate* in any of those areas stand a fair chance of becoming very rich. If you please, recognize my thinking here: renewable energy innovators stand a very good chance of prospering under either 'climate change' or 'liquid fossil fuel exhaustion' scenarios. Separate from CO2 sequestration techniques, that I am not prepared to discuss as yet. The above does not include the matter of energy conservation; certainly home ground for Prius and other similar vehicles. Conservation might mean changing cars, photovoltaics on the roof, insulating the house, changing to CFL lighting, and fifty other things. In almost all cases, energy conservation requires a front-end investment. Whether most of those will 'pay out' quickly depends on how thing go during the next decade or so. Happily, I would like to suggest that Prius-driving will almost certainly be a financial benefit. Maybe in 1/1000 cases, it has not been so. A few folks have had to pay real money to keep their Prius on the road. The overwhelming majority are doing quite well. The two-dimensional matrix presented first in this thread is fine, as far as it goes. But it does not include the third dimension of economics in a liquid-fossil-fuel-limited world. But the fundamentals here are that energy will become more expensive, and that the global consequences of burning the fossils could well be quite unwelcome. In any 'matrix' constructed as that video did, reducers and conservers are apparently making the safe bet. Furthermore, energy innovators stand a good chance of leading the way in the 21st century. Does anyone doubt that that energy consumption in China and India will continue to grow? Make gobs of money and save the planet from major peril. Sounds like a pretty good business plan.
