The question is inspired by the graphic on page 27. The image of an individual standing on the divide, not knowing or contemplating what to do is to me an effective way of illutrating how many issues out there affect our future and how much we don't know about those issues and how to deal with them.
http://magazine.downtoearth.org.in/
Come back to this part after you've looked at page 27 and thought about it for a moment.
In relation to global climate change: If we disbelieve and chose inaction and we're wrong: we will not be prepared to adapt and may have permanently lost the capacity to mitigate the factors in play.
If you believe in the theory of climate change and move to take a moderate course of action (IPCC is considered mild by many accounts), and you're wrong, you've cleaned up your act, weaned yourself off of oil, sparked the dawning of a new, more sustainable era of technology.
Your thoughts?
It's a fast-changing world. Do you know where you stand?
As usual, the deniers miss the point. The point is that even if we prepare for the worst and it doesn't come to pass, we still benefit from cleaner air, less depenence on foreign oil, new green collar jobs, higher efficiency, etc.
Really, what's so bad about that? I understand some people are resistant to change, but this is change for the better!
It's a fast-changing world. Do you know where you stand?
Ah, the age old religious argument: Best believe in God in case He's real. No thanks....I'll remain agnostic until actual physical evidence manifests the validity of such a faith. As to the image you cite: It simply makes me think of Californian fault lines, and the people who voluntarily choose to build upon them.
You want to live in a cave, fine.
Let me choose the way I want to live and you choose your's.
The IPCC is about controlling not about saving anything.
Amy, your link is nothing more to me than the usual rhetoric and fear that's been promoted by the left for years now. It's so standard that it's virtually meaningless. Much as the word environmentalist. Environmentalist, alarmist, ecology-terrorist...they all seem to be the same thing.
If the leftists are going to come out and tell me that I have to pay a lot of money and change my style of living a lot over a dream...I'm not going to listen. Either give some proof, or back off. The world can't afford to combat it 'just in case it's real'. I don't believe it's real, ever was or ever will be. And I'm not prepared to be financially drained supporting your side just to be nice.
What new era of sustainable energy technology are you talking about? Solar? I say okay, but it's prohibitively expensive to install. Windpower? It works, and I'm all for it but by the time we build enough of them global warming, from what you people are telling us, will have bar-b-qued us. What about nuclear power? That takes time too, though I think it's the best idea. When it come to transportation though, there is nothing even remotely on the horizon that will power cars, trucks trains ships and planes to any worthwhile level. Nothing at all. So for at least the near future...probably the distant future, our reliance on oil isn't going to change. In short, there simply are no other viable energy alternatives to switch to.
Your question is much like: If I don't believe in God will I go to heaven?
Even though I don't think man has a significant impact on Global warming, isn't it right to be kind to your fellow man, don't steal or kill, respect your environment, don't waste resources, don't pollute, recycle, and do all the things we need to do to make this a better place for those who follow us?
If we do these things, aren't we doing everything we can, short of reducing the population as some suggest.
Amy, you know perfectly well that was an icon for dilemma. What if it had been a tree instead of a divide? Now we're just talking symbols, and not fact. We've had over thirty years of inaction, and now I'm supposed to act surprised. Stick to being a proponent/mentor and not an alarmist, at least that way I can show respect.
ed: Excuse me, but if the question leads to a moot point what's the purpose? I can't pretend to be brain dead. Slow and persistent maybe, but that's another story.
