Also, do you agree or disagree that in the end, human innovation will triumph over the limits of the natural world?
Business is the primary cause of climate change and until business is motivated to significantly reduce their carbon footprint climate change wont inprorve in the future
Technology may be the answer. Here is the problem with that thought. We do not yet have the technology to sequester the extra CO2 we are adding to the atmosphere and pinning our hopes that unrealized technology can save us from ourselves is a fool's bet. I would liken this to a person betting all they own on a poker hand where they are drawing to an inside straight and three of the cards that will fill this inside straight are already showing on the table. Not that is impossible that they could hit their inside straight, it is just a fool's bet to risk all they have on the off chance they will fill their straight. You simply do not go "all in" and most assuredly when you see the makings of a royal flush across the table from you.
Business interests could also be the answer, but here is the problem with this thought. The richest industries in the world are heavily invested in being able to bring to market all of the fossil fuels. They are already lining up like vultures while they wait for the Arctic region to become ice free enough to exploit it for all of its resources. They put out misinformation, lies, deceit and misdirections in order to stall anything that would keep them from their trillion's of dollars of as yet not to market fossil fuels.
Potentially, with the added component of individual commitment. However, there are a number of issues that are yet to be resolved:
1) We don't really know enough about the issue of climate change to make all the decisions necessary, let alone put together a cohesive plan and organizing the various government bodies involved.
2) While government intervention has been practiced successfully in certain venues-such as developing railroads in the U.S. in the 19th Century and dealing with some-perhaps many- environmental problems, there are often unintended consequences that have to be dealt with later. Recently in the U.S, the ethanol mandate of 2007 generated problems both economically and environmentally.
3) Related to the above, technology and business may not have the resources to develop WITHOUT government intervention and incentives such as subsidies of various sorts. Free markets, such as they are nowadays, do not always, in and of themselves, provide the incentives, financing or timing to address issues on such a large scale. Alternative energy sources such as wind and solar would develop much more slowly-or not at all-without government investment, but we don't always have the foresight to predict how that investment in technology will pan out. Look at the waterway traffic and canal systems built prior to the advent of railroads and how that panned out for the investors in the early 19th Century. Economically canals were a failure but in terms of developing the U.S. canals contributed a great deal to trade. So were canals successes or failures? In hindsight, we may see that some sources of alternative energy were not as cost effective as others, but many people do not want to take more risks with tax money in difficult economic times, and for good reason. This could slow the development of technology and business.
In the end, though, the component of individual (followed by collective) commitment to resolving a problem is very important to innovation, technological advances and business development, regardless of what we may think of the grassroots activists that get the ball rolling, like Carson McCuller's 'Silent Spring' which alerted us to fundamental environmental problems, and Paul Erlich, who rang alarm bells about burgeoning populations but neglected to consider the development of agricultural technology which have made it possible to support a much larger population. A lot of innovation came out of that. Perhaps the climate alarm bells being rung today will contribute to developing technologies and further innovation that WILL triumph over the 'limits of the natural world,' as you put it. But we don't know yet, and we cannot yet quantify the problem or how much humans contribute to it, so that makes it more difficult to figure out what we need to do and how to go about it. We can't even figure out how to TALK about it right at the moment.
However, I am an optimist at heart and think we need to get through this difficult period, get a better handle on what is going on and what we need to do about it without giving away the house...and yes, we will emerge better off even if we cannot fully overcome the limits of the natural world. But it takes that individual commitment in addition to technology and business, it takes careful management of government, and it requires good information-including some information that we do not yet have.
I am not a scientist, BTW, and do not have a dog in the AGW fight. I'm an investor and business manager.
Business is an obstacle because multi-decadal climate change is not part of its agenda. All of the public confusion concerning climate change is the result of a campaign of disinformation, misinformation, and lies by the energy industry and its political allies.
There is no confusion, doubt, or denial among the scientists who study climate. The physical evidence overwhelmingly indicates that anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 has, and continues, to push mean global temperature upwards.
Solving the problem - whatever that may be - requires public awareness and political will. Unfortunately, we currently do not have enough of either.
No, and NO
Man can only do so much, even with the best technology; but man is also too greedy to learn to get along with 'mother nature.'
I disagree, In my years I have not seen any change in the climate. The massive changes the warmers report seem to be a mirage. AGW and the IPCC are political entities and will only be affected by politicians. That is why 97.5% of climate scientists are making predictions that are not realised.
The key to understanding and coping with climate change is...
HOMEWORK!
Yes technology is the answer. According to IPCC, an 80% cut in emissions is required to stop global warming, while China and India account for one third of emissions, and the rest of the developing world is another one third. You will not get them to replace their coal plants with more expensive energy, so to stop global warming you must develop energy sources cheap enough that they will flock to them.
Slip on over to Sumatra and ask that major volcanic eruption for its input into human intervention in that matter, as it immediately initiated climate change overnight.
1. the climate always changes
2. technology improves our quality of living and our lifespans
I believe Man has the ability to triumph, but sometimes wonder how stupid they can be also.
I mean filling our countryside with inefficient windmills, when they could be researching and developing nuclear
Why or why not?
Also, do you agree or disagree that in the end, human innovation will triumph over the limits of the natural world?
No it is a scam. There have been climate changes before Al Gore was born. How to solve the problem is to be truthful.
