Slashdot Mirror
Could Global Warming Make Life on Earth Better?
mikee805 writes "A lengthy article in Spiegel explores the possibility that global warming might make life on Earth better, not just for humans, but all species. The article argues that 'worst-case scenarios' are often the result of inaccurate simulations made in the 1980s. While climate change is a reality, as far as the article is concerned, some planning and forethought may mean that more benefits than drawbacks will result from higher temperatures. From the article:'The medical benefits of higher average temperatures have also been ignored. According to Richard Tol, an environmental economist, "warming temperatures will mean that in 2050 there will be about 40,000 fewer deaths in Germany attributable to cold-related illnesses like the flu." Another widespread fear about global warming -- that it will cause super-storms that could devastate towns and villages with unprecedented fury -- also appears to be unfounded. Current long-term simulations, at any rate, do not suggest that such a trend will in fact materialize.'"
the two most stereotypical perspectives on global warming center on two points: whether mankind is changing the environment, and what to do about our impact
...but impact it positively. in other words, mankind is obviously the steward of this planet. arguing about our negative impact and concluding we can lessen the footprint of 6 billion plus rapidly modernizing human beings is insane. how about this: i accept we have a negative, unintentional impact. so counter with a positive intentional impact
stereotype #1 is:
1. mankind isn't changing the environment, it's just changing naturally, and
2. we don't have to change our behavior, we have no impact
stereotype #2 is:
1. mankind is changing the environment, and
2. we have to change our behavior by impacting our environment LESS
i am of another mind:
1. who cares if mankind is changing the environment or not. whether natural or manmade, the earth is clearly warming. i don't care about who is to blame, that's a political partisan's game.
2. we have to change our behavior by impacting our environment MORE
we should be actively cooling the planet: seeding dead areas of the ocean with iron to sequester CO2, for example. or purposefully trigger a volcanic eruption to cool the atmosphere with high smog. all sorts of dieas exist
and the point of trying to cool the planet? not to return it to some natural state as if mankind didn't exist, but to actively terraform earth to our liking. there are a million moneyed and vested interests: rich coastal communities sensitive to sealevel, agriculture sensitive to rain, plain old nostalgia, etc.
the point would be, at first, to try and maintain the earth as we have been used to it the last 1,000 years. then, we could talk about things like: if we have another krakatoa or such (increased volcanic activity initiated a little ice age in the early 1800s), we could temporarily increase our C02 output to offset the cooling that would create. and given enough time, maybe we can micromanage the greening of the sahara by changing ocean currents on purpose (in such a way that the UK or the caribbean aren't affected). who knows.
the whole point is, NOT having an impact is an impossibility. once you accept that fact, that we WILL have an impact, one way or another, then you embrace the idea of actively counteracting your negatvie impact
i really think that saying we have no impact on the atmosphere (and shouldn't change our behavior), or expecting us to have no impact on the atmosphere (and that we somehow could have no impact), are both completely useless points of view. the issue for BOTH sides of the climate debate is to ACCEPT that mankind IS impacting the environment, and will CONTINUE to do so. this changes the tenor of the debate from one of denial of current or future no impact to "ok, we have an impact, what can we do to make our impact POSITIVE."
on a deepr philosophical level, no problem was ever solved by walking away from the situation. are you more interested in assigning political blame? or do you want to make the earth cooler? any problem is improved by MORE involvement, not less. this lesson applies to those who would deny that we have an impact now, and those who somehow beleive we could ever have no impact
an active hand on the thermostat: pushing it up at time, pushing it down at times, through various manipulations, is the right answer. MORE manipulation of our environment, not less. and to do it for completely selfish human interests is not a problem too: for the most part, mankind wants the planet to stay habitable and temperate
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Religion is not a hoax. Most of the people who spread religion actually believe it. I think it is crap, but not a hoax. Very, very different thing.