Didn’t See This One Coming
Climate change is a complex phenomenon, so much so that it may never be possible to list all of its eventual effects. And admittedly, not all of them will be bad. In addition to the storms, droughts, famines, extinctions, etc., there will undoubtedly be a few advantages to a warmer Earth. Though no one believes that climate change will have a net benefit, we often hear of people who point to things like a longer growing season in Canada or reduced costs of shipping goods from Asia to North America due to the loss of Arctic ice (by 2040, there won’t be a single cube of ice in the Arctic Ocean in summer).
Here’s an argument that hadn’t crossed my desk until now: Climate change is a good thing because it hurts the enemies of the U.S., many of which are based on desert (already hot) regions.
Now, maybe the reason that no one had raised this point until now lies in the fact that decent and reasonable people don’t want to see massive numbers of people suffer anywhere, regardless of the unfortunate happenstance of their birth, which may have put them at the receiving end of U.S. military attacks. Sane people are trying to arrest the progress of climate change, before humankind experiences massive damage to its health and well-being, not to mention to the countless ecosystems that make this planet their home.
Craig Haha nicely summed up.
Here is my threepence worth on the subject of diversity of opinion and climate change.
Not all opinions as equal or justifiable or worthy ones. Some opinions left unchecked can be much more than misleading and have negative consequences particularly for ordinary impressionable people outside their comprehension comfort zone.
Those who see themselves as leaders or specialists in some particular field of endeavour, have a duty of care to the majority of ordinary impressionable people everywhere who may be feeling insecure and uncertain about climate change and greenhouse gasses impacting their future. Misguided or inaccurate opinions should be resisted by forceful counterbalancing opinion rather than be allowed a free pass to gather traction under the pretence of upholding the principal of encouraging diversity of opinion.
The subject of greenhouse gasses is a critical one globally and the theoretical machinations around this subject have been thoroughly exhausted. The science is in; the debate is over; the conclusions are locked in; and the solutions strategies for enduring energy dense generation technologies going forward and global regeneration strategies for all people are coalescing.
There has and will probably never be a greater challenge for people to overcome and it should not take an Einstein to conclude therefore that global policy reform initiatives and technological solutions necessary to permanently reverse greenhouse gasses whilst maintaining energy security for all people, is a challenge of such proportions that only the world’s best and brightest in their respective fields will collectively be able to mobilise and take on the challenge successfully.
This is not an issue that will be solved through the rich diversity of varying opinion from all and sundry, that we are (or should be at least) supportive and encouraging of in general life matters. This is not an issue that will be solved through a “light bulb” moment experienced by anybody anywhere and trotted out in the blogosphere.
The issue is (and always has been) in the hands of those collectively who are directly responsible for implementing the appropriate solutions across a wide range of disciplines.
So where does that leave those (most of us) who exist outside of this exclusive group? Well firstly we should become comfortable in the understanding that our individual and unique opinion on the issue will definitely not be of any interest to those who are directly involved in the issue.
Lastly, I suspect that there will be some very surprising (for many people but not all) outcomes from the Marrakesh climate change conference this week relating to reform principles and policies necessary to be adopted by nations for global energy generation technologies and security going forward.
Lawrence Coomber
Some would destroy the Earth to save us? Yes this is the same type of mentality that says I will kill my daughter because she has dishonored my family. (and so the family future is destroyed to “save the family.) Oh, doesn’t sound like a western idea? But it is not so surprising that the same stupid thought processes we attributes to “the enemy,” are actually the ones we share ourselves. You can be sure that when it comes to crunch time the same people will then be floating the idea that we should block out the sun to reduce global warming.
It is also somewhat narrow minded on another level. With so much present money innovative ideas are being pursued. Masdar city is being built that works with the natural environment to keep the inhabitants cool. Of the many new urban environments it is interesting to see how many are in the Middle East: http://weburbanist.com/2009/10/13/12-cities-from-scratch/
As an aside, I have heard similar ignorant comments saying that they can’t wait until all the Middle East oil is gone and then the people there are going to be left in poverty and without any hope of political power. Aside from the fact that there is no more sure way to foment a revolt or a war than suppression there is also the reality that the Middle East also is sited on a huge resource of solar energy.
It reminds one of the well known experiment with rats. A single male rat in a cage feels lonely. You put a female in and they start happily multiplying until they reach a critical number when they start murdering each other. This “applies to every lebensraum”, including our planet, which is becoming overcrowded and destroyed as everything is running out. Some countries, built up communities with stable numbers and relatively stable economies,like Europe. Others multiply like rabbits, but instead of sorting out the problems at home, they run to other countries destroying it. Yet the brainless majority created the fashion that it is not PC and forcing the thinking few to accept it. When someone with brains and guts says the truth, he is unpopular.
Gaston as you touch on the subject of leadership I thought of this from a tiny little “airport” book by John C Maxwell: “Wanting everyone to be happy and making tough decisions were incompatible tasks. I learned that good leadership is disappointing people at the rate they can stand.” Sounds a bit like parenting.