Climate Change Dilemna

surferdude

You've accepted that global climate change is real and that man contributes to it. You have a finite amount of money to spend to address the issue. Youe have three options in spending your money;

1. Spend it all, 100%, on prevention or lowering of man's contribution to global climate change. This may result in millions of deaths if climate change is at the point of being irreversable as some scientists think, or if the change is very slow in being reversed as many scientists think.

2. Spend it all, 100%, on adapting to climate change. This may too result in millions of deaths, and is a poor course of action if man is the primary contributor to climate change.

3. Split your spending between prevention and adapting. Otherwise known as not putting all your eggs in one basket. This lowers your risk and is the course of action anyone with any risk management knowledge would take.

Which is the prudent path to take?

Man has a remarkable record at adapting yet I've yet to see more than a handful of scientists ask for money to be spent on adapting. The scientists behind the IPCC report seemingly want course 1. taken with no money spent on adapting to climate change.

trappedinmyradio

the problem with adapting is that climate change is still occurring...fix the problem...do not fix a result of the problem.

surferdude wrote:

You've accepted that global climate change is real and that man contributes to it. You have a finite amount of money to spend to address the issue. Youe have three options in spending your money;

1. Spend it all, 100%, on prevention or lowering of man's contribution to global climate change. This may result in millions of deaths if climate change is at the point of being irreversable as some scientists think, or if the change is very slow in being reversed as many scientists think.

2. Spend it all, 100%, on adapting to climate change. This may too result in millions of deaths, and is a poor course of action if man is the primary contributor to climate change.

3. Split your spending between prevention and adapting. Otherwise known as not putting all your eggs in one basket. This lowers your risk and is the course of action anyone with any risk management knowledge would take.

Which is the prudent path to take?

Man has a remarkable record at adapting yet I've yet to see more than a handful of scientists ask for money to be spent on adapting. The scientists behind the IPCC report seemingly want course 1. taken with no money spent on adapting to climate change.

miller8966

Honestly im not even worried about it. But if i were to be worried i would take option 3.

mammasan

I say split the money, but put a little more into adaption. Global climate change is a natural occuring event and while mankind may have had a hand it it's severity or what not, it would still occur regardless of our actions. We should do as much as we can to protect our environment but not at the expense of providing option for a future where the weather in our regions will be drastically different.

surferdude

trappedinmyradio wrote:

the problem with adapting is that climate change is still occurring...fix the problem...do not fix a result of the problem.

But you can only fix the problem if climate change is 100% a man made problem. Are you willing to bet our survival on this very unproven theory?

mammasan

trappedinmyradio wrote:

the problem with adapting is that climate change is still occurring...fix the problem...do not fix a result of the problem.

The problem is that you can't stop global climate change, it is a natural event. You can restrict the impact that mankind is contributing but you can not arrest the process.

even flow?

From the Bush way of seeing the world. If we just drop a few mini nukes on the countries that we don't get along with. Not only will they not have the need to eat up oil, but the nuclear winter which would be a mini one of course, would cool the world off enough that we would not have to worry about global warming in our time anymore. As a matter of fact with no proven theory on it. We may not have to worry at all as a species anymore.

As long as there are two sides of the story the people in power who make their money on some of the supposed things that contribute in a big way to global warming, I can't see anything really happening that is going to be good and or productive.

Option 3 for me if I choose from your list.

cincybearcat

Dude it is soooo cold here right now, this global warming is killing me.

binauralman

Global Warming has inverse effects, currents shift making the air colder.. you should read a little more on global warming to get a better idea of how it would work. Infact The Day After Tomorrow explains it well!

cincybearcat

binauralman wrote:

Global Warming has inverse effects, currents shift making the air colder.. you should read a little more on global warming to get a better idea of how it would work. Infact The Day After Tomorrow explains it well!

Relax, I was joking.

And the number of errors in The Day after Tomorrow are astounding!!!

binauralman

Oh ok, lol a lot of people say that though and I'm like hello... ever watch movies!! haha

deep love Jonathan

Rushlimbo

cincybearcat wrote:

Relax, I was joking.

And the number of errors in The Day after Tomorrow are astounding!!!

Then I guess I might need to reassess my take on asteroids that I formed after watching "Armageddon".

cincybearcat

Rushlimbo wrote:

Then I guess I might need to reassess my take on asteroids that I formed after watching "Armageddon".

Yep, Deep Impact is where it's at.

onelongsong

i'd like to add that new discoveries have been made since the initial report went into review. in greenland; meltwater is trailing down the cracks to the base and lubricating the ice; making it move faster than previously predicted. in antartica; meltwater is filling the cracks; freezing and expanding to break off large pieces of ice. according to nasa; 1250 square miles of ice broke off and disappeared in 2005. in 1997 the earths ice cover was about the size of the us. in 2003 we'd lost the equivelant of all the states east of the mississippi.
the earths ice cover is the earths fail safe system. it reflects heat back into space. this is the importance of our ice; not just rising sea levels.

there is no adapting. once we hit 6 to 7 degrees of temperature increase the frozen methane will be released into the atmosphere. ask any scientist that has studied the permian extinction and the discoveries of 1998 in greenland. scientists; as other professions; have specialties. for example; for almost 30 years my uncle was the top bio/chemical warfare scientist in the us. yet; his knowledge in other fields was limited. my specialty is nutritional research and proper diet to cure disease. my contribution would be that plants will die and thus the animals that eat the plants will die; the animals that eat those animals will then die. the point is; we all look at the problem from our own perspective.

onelongsong

cincybearcat wrote:

Dude it is soooo cold here right now, this global warming is killing me.

it's been freezing here in the deserts the last month or so. the warming shifted the jetstream pushing the cold air from the ice caps further south. thus; you have a much warmer christmas then normal. it's all relative.

gue_barium

surferdude wrote:

You've accepted that global climate change is real and that man contributes to it. You have a finite amount of money to spend to address the issue. Youe have three options in spending your money;

1. Spend it all, 100%, on prevention or lowering of man's contribution to global climate change. This may result in millions of deaths if climate change is at the point of being irreversable as some scientists think, or if the change is very slow in being reversed as many scientists think.

2. Spend it all, 100%, on adapting to climate change. This may too result in millions of deaths, and is a poor course of action if man is the primary contributor to climate change.

3. Split your spending between prevention and adapting. Otherwise known as not putting all your eggs in one basket. This lowers your risk and is the course of action anyone with any risk management knowledge would take.

Which is the prudent path to take?

Man has a remarkable record at adapting yet I've yet to see more than a handful of scientists ask for money to be spent on adapting. The scientists behind the IPCC report seemingly want course 1. taken with no money spent on adapting to climate change.

Option 4. Stop printing money and giving government checks (like the american dollar, for example) any worth whatsover.

polaris

people are trying to adapt to climate change all the time ... but like dude said - you aren't fixing the problem ... this is akin to having a leak in your tire ... u can fill it up with air every few days or u can fix the leak ...

and part of addressing climate change is debunking this myth that it will cost us money ... people are changing light bulbs and re-insulating their homes all the while saving money!! ... the problem originates where there is no regulation and competitive benefits supercede societal ones ...

ie regulating emissions from high polluters ... if we leave it to the open market - no one is gonna make the effort because they will lose out to the competition however, if there was regulations - everyone would be playing on the same field ... this is the crux of our problem now ... and ignorance

onelongsong

polaris wrote:

people are trying to adapt to climate change all the time ... but like dude said - you aren't fixing the problem ... this is akin to having a leak in your tire ... u can fill it up with air every few days or u can fix the leak ...

and part of addressing climate change is debunking this myth that it will cost us money ... people are changing light bulbs and re-insulating their homes all the while saving money!! ... the problem originates where there is no regulation and competitive benefits supercede societal ones ...

ie regulating emissions from high polluters ... if we leave it to the open market - no one is gonna make the effort because they will lose out to the competition however, if there was regulations - everyone would be playing on the same field ... this is the crux of our problem now ... and ignorance

you are so right. i went 100% solar and the government paid for most of the system. adding what i used to pay the power company; my system was paid off in less than a year and i now enjoy free electricity. i'll have to replace batteries in another 5 years but the savings far outweigh the costs. i'm adding a wind generator in 2 months and i'm set.

polaris

onelongsong wrote:

you are so right. i went 100% solar and the government paid for most of the system. adding what i used to pay the power company; my system was paid off in less than a year and i now enjoy free electricity. i'll have to replace batteries in another 5 years but the savings far outweigh the costs. i'm adding a wind generator in 2 months and i'm set.

the big problem is that many only look at the immediate costs ... if we factor in impact to life and health and the true cost of energy use ... combating climate change is a win-win situation ...

onelongsong

polaris wrote:

the big problem is that many only look at the immediate costs ... if we factor in impact to life and health and the true cost of energy use ... combating climate change is a win-win situation ...

exactly. and to those who complain they don't get enough sun to produce electricity:
i lived in northern illinois where the sun never shines. i put in a 10 Kw wind generator and had enough power to sell back to the power company. at my farm in wisconsin i damed up a creek and built a hydroelectric generator from an article in mother earth news. because of the milking machines; it didn't support the entire farm but it did supply the house.

polaris

onelongsong wrote:

exactly. and to those who complain they don't get enough sun to produce electricity:
i lived in northern illinois where the sun never shines. i put in a 10 Kw wind generator and had enough power to sell back to the power company. at my farm in wisconsin i damed up a creek and built a hydroelectric generator from an article in mother earth news. because of the milking machines; it didn't support the entire farm but it did supply the house.

if u don't mind me asking - what were your costs for the wind generator? ... broken up by the main parts ... batteries, turbine and pole ...