What have we got to lose?

[TheBiodegradableMan]

Most of the threads in this forum are simply an attempt to prove or disprove the cause and/or existance of global warming. I want to take a completely different approach to analyzing the subject. It seems pretty obvious to me that people who are set in their ways (on either side of the debate) aren't going to change their opinions. I want to set aside that debate for a moment to try and understand what motivates people to select their particular stance on the issue.

I personally believe that global warming is occuring, and that it is anthropogenic. So obviously this thread is going to sound biased. However, I am doing this so I can better understand why people do not want any action to be taken on this issue. At the moment, my understanding on this is very limited. I'm going to try and break down the pro's and con's of taking action to prevent global warming. If you think I missed any aspects, feel free to say so and I will update the list. As I said before, I'm doing this so I can understand where people are coming from on this controversial topic.

Situation: Governments agree that global warming exists and is man-made, and therefore take action.

Positives

1. Governments fund the research and implementation of renewable energy technologies that will need to be adopted eventually due to the depletion of fossil fuel sources and the instability of oil producing countries. Doing so while oil is still plentiful allows society to convert more gradually, reducing the risk of conflict or failure to find viable alternatives. It also allows oil to be conserved for things like manufacturing processes that have no current available alternative methods.

2. Governments also implement new pollution regulations for businesses. These regulations will at the very least force businesses to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and at the most will also cause businesses to reduce other types of pollution as well. This also sends a message to corporations that public health is more important than corporate profits.

3. Attention is drawn to environmental issues, which often aren't taken very seriously. This might sound radical, but people often don't give important topics a second thought, unless they feel the issues will have a direct impact on their lives. It might convince people to take a closer look at how the world works.

4. A possible (nothing is completely certain in science, especially not issues concerning the future) global catastrophe is averted. Billions of lives (possibly the entire human population and many other species) are saved. A significant amount of money is saved (assuming humans survive the event) by basically not having to rebuild society. The possibility of this point is up for debate, but is it really worth the risk?

Negatives

1. Governments might raise fuel or income taxes to go towards research and development of alternative energy and fuel sources. This might not be necessary if governments can manage their budgets better (for example, spending less on war and more on energy). If nothing else, taxes could be raised on those who can afford to be more heavily taxed (wealthy people). This will also be necessary in the near future anyway as I stated earlier because of the depletion of fossil fuels.

2. Corporations might lose money in research and development of alternative methods for production. This could also be seen as a positive for the general public, but it will of course be considered negative by CEOs and business people in general. The question is, do we care more about the economy than the well-being of the public? This could also be negated if the government provides funding to businesses so they can adopt alternative methods.

3. The money spent on the aforementioned might be a waste if global warming is not occuring or is not anthropogenic. This depends not only on whether or not global warming exists or is anthropogenic, but also on whether or not you consider researching and implementing alternative energy technologies as a waste of time, effort, and money.

As I stated earlier, I do believe that global warming is occuring, and is caused my human activities. Therefore, if you feel that I have misrepresented either side of the debate, I encourage you to post anything I might have overlooked or not been aware of.

Thank you for taking the time to read this post, and also for refraining from using insults or generalizations in your response to the topic at hand.

[Robert Northup]

I, too, am very "biased" because I have been a professional environmental scientist for more than half my life. I am intimately familiar with the valid research, and the bogus arguments being used to try to dismiss it.

I do indeed understand why people would be cautious about risking huge investment in unproven solutions. I don't understand why people refuse to believe that there is even a problem.

I do understand why people would want to engage in a lively exchange of ideas. I don't understand the need to ridicule others for caring, particularly if all that is being offered as an alternative is cynicism. Cynicism has never led to any solution to any problem that has ever faced humanity.

If one honestly believes that there is no real threat from global warming, why do they want to be in the debate at all? Inaction is the status quo, and they should be content that their side is "winning". But why would they get any joy from insulting people who care enough to express their concerns and willingness to contribute to the solution? If they truly believe that there is any objective science to support their position, I welcome it. If they just want to harrass those of us who are trying to do something to make the world a better place, I would ask that they please get out of the way if they are not going to help.

[TheBiodegradableMan]

I completely agree with those statements, Robert Northup.

However, I do hope that someone who rejects global warming will enter this topic and explain themselves a bit. I really am interested in finding out their motivations as I am also entirely clueless about what you could gain from denying (anthropogenic) global warming.

[August]

This image encapsulates a very important aspect of the modern Norwegian identity, and an integral part of the national psyche. It is an image that epitomizes much of what most Norwegians are very proud of, and feel that the nation really depends on. It's exactly like so many Norwegians are saying: "If it wasn't for the oil, we'd be living in a very poor country." - That is probably true to the point. And it is a truth that seems to leave most Norwegians with the feeling that any opposition to the continued production and consumption of oil is a direct attack on everything that every good Norwegian should be grateful for, and protect, at all cost. Every thought of possible environmental concerns give plenty of Norwegian good cause for getting angry, feeling annoyed, and succumbing to downright hateful responses. It's as if everything they stand for, and depend upon, is being ridiculed and defamed in ways that border on the blasphemic.

[screener]

I wouldn't try to justify the negative side of the argument. I agree that the incidentdal positives far outway the costs associated with implementing a plan that would break our dependance on fossil fuels. Even if the main benefit of cutting green house gases and thereby global warming aren't included.

So then came the but.... but like Norway, Canada finds itself in the position of having all this oil in the Tarsands, under the Artic Ice, gas under our farmlands, and having wealthy neighbours to the south who are willing to pay us to extract the resource.

The other aspect is that we are going to use every drop of recoverable fossil fuels. It is that rich an energy source. This doesn't mean that we have to use it as quickly as we can, or as inefficiently as we do, or as environmentally disastrous as we are. Yah, people in the industry feel threatened by any hint, of even ingratitude, let alone censure, for the effort they are putting out on our behalf.

I don't know if there is a conspiracy to misinform communities and individuals with interest in fossil fuel recovery, such as, the treehuggers will shut down this industry.
I can't see any other reason for the denials of climate change and pollution and peak oil.

Perhaps if the message is that the resource is really valuable, and we are going to use it more carefully so that the work can go on for generations rather than decades, we would see less panic.

[Robert Northup]

The emotional comfort of being a “skeptic”

If we can absolve humanity of any responsibility for climate change, we will never have to examine the impact of our comfortable lifestyle. If we can pretend that climate change isn’t even real, and maybe all suggestions that it is real are part a sinister conspiracy to advance an evil hidden agenda... Not only are we absolved of all responsibility to change anything we do, we are also being victimized by evildoers who deliberately want to hurt us. And perhaps at a more basic level, it is pretty terrifying to acknowledge the truth, because we have already passed the point of no return for much of the damage occurring.

On the other hand, as a highly-trained environmental scientist, I know that it is an absolute fact there are a whole lot of relatively simple things we could change to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The majority of the needed changes place no restriction on fossil fuel use, but rather make it possible to use a whole lot less of it for the same benefits we are accustomed to. And as we begin to recognize the impact of land management on greenhouse gas emissions, we will find that many of the solutions are completely unrelated to the use (or not) of fossil fuel. Someday we will realize how stupid we were to burn up all that pre-formed organic carbon just to get energy from it, and we will wish we had more of it still around as raw material to produce carbon-based substances of all kinds.

[Common Sense aka Science]

What you all don't see is:
IT IS NOT JUST CORPORATIONS THAT ARE SUFFERING.
Poor, starving people working on less than $1 a day are suffering too. And to them, that matters A LOT MORE than the "environmental destruction". It's not that i'm saying that humans have done nothing to the environment; I mean I know that humans have polluted some areas beyond recoginition, and have also caused deforestation in many rainforests, but imposing environmental rules on extremely poor nations is CRUEL.
Take for example Nigeria, which makes billions of dollars from their massive oil resource. If you limit consumption of oil to stop "global warming", all you leave them with is (literally) email scams.
So you, the rich, (yes RICH. You can afford a house and food... and are therefore rich) can do whatever you want. Just leave the Africans alone. While I do believe that you're all *cough*mislead*cough*, I respect your opinions (not!) and beliefs.

IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME... Read this: Green activists 'are keeping Africa poor' - Times Online

[Robert Northup]

“Just leave the Africans alone.”
- Commonsenseakascience

I am going to give Commonsenseakascience the benefit of the doubt and trust that there is genuine concern for the well-being of the inhabitants of Africa. If it is true that efforts to address global warming will aggravate the poverty in places such as Nigeria, and if there is genuine concern about the human suffering associated with that poverty, then the point is well taken that we must be conscious and conscientious about this.

I have many concerns about the suffering in Africa, and I hope that the same compassion for humanity that motivates concern over the potential harm of diminishing the oil wealth of (e.g. Nigeria) would motivate concern about the desperate suffering in many other areas of Africa. The problems are so great, and the resources that would be required to have dramatic impact to improve the quality of life for other human beings are so small, I would hope to enlist the compassion of anyone who truly cares about the well being of Africans. A more complete understanding of these problems among those of the world who live in relative comfort would surely motivate more effective actions to address these problems.

Many African nations were battlefields during the “cold war”. The US and the Soviet Union competed to over arm dictators. Some nations, such as Somalia, switched sides more than once, with a fresh new package of arms to sweeten each new alliance. Following the cold war, the leftover arsenals were still available for military coups, border incursions, supply to militant ethnic minorities in neighboring nations, or slaughter of ethic minorities at home. Summing up the numbers of those who died in places such as the Congo, Sudan, Rwanda, Angola, Eritrea... It rivals the first world war.

Most of the millions who have died in these endless little wars were not killed by weapons, but rather succumbed to disease or hunger after fleeing their homes.
Little warlords command rag-tag armies of thugs who wreak havoc with impunity. So long as the oil, gems, precious minerals, and other valuable resources keep flowing, it doesn’t seem to bother the powers that be too much that all too often the riches are extracted by slave labor, at gunpoint and at the mercy of child soldiers. Not a whole lot of “trickle down” from the vast wealth changing hands to raise the standard of living under the present circumstances.

Food aid, in which we dump our excess subsidized production from our glutted markets at a cost the local farmers can’t compete with, has not always been helpful. It is also absurdly expensive to ship it so far, and a whole lot of fossil fuel is burned for transport. Agricultural development aid, in which we help to finance the chemical-intensive production of cash crops for export, hasn’t always been helpful either. Many subsistence farmers lost their farms in the process, and land that previously produced food for local consumption now supplies agricultural products to wealthy nations. It is a proven fact the famine relief dollars have a whole lot more bang for the buck when they are used to purchase food from local farmers, rather than shipping food across oceans. It has been suggested that for as little as twenty billion dollars, hundreds of millions of Africans could experience a dramatic improvement to their quality of life. How much do you really care about the well-being of all those poor people in Africa, Commonsenseakascience?

[Bored Wombat]

Originally Posted by Common Sense aka Science

What you all don't see is:
IT IS NOT JUST CORPORATIONS THAT ARE SUFFERING.
Poor, starving people working on less than $1 a day are suffering too. And to them, that matters A LOT MORE than the "environmental destruction". It's not that I'm saying that humans have done nothing to the environment; I mean I know that humans have polluted some areas beyond recognition, and have also caused deforestation in many rainforests, but imposing environmental rules on extremely poor nations is CRUEL.
Take for example Nigeria, which makes billions of dollars from their massive oil resource. If you limit consumption of oil to stop "global warming", all you leave them with is (literally) email scams.
So you, the rich, (yes RICH. You can afford a house and food... and are therefore rich) can do whatever you want. Just leave the Africans alone. While I do believe that you're all *cough*mislead*cough*, I respect your opinions (not!) and beliefs.

IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME... Read this: Green activists 'are keeping Africa poor' - Times Online

A more intuitively satisfying and also more effective form of Kyoto would be to apportion emission rights on a per capita basis rather than on an emissions as at 1990 basis.

Then they can be traded on the world market.

This gives everyone the same right to pollute, regardless of their country of birth, and encourages even undeveloped nations to limit emissions, because it leaves them with more emissions to sell to developed nations.

And I think that it is reasonable to pay the nomadic peoples of the sahel for not burning fossil fuels. It also removes the problem of companies simply moving their factories to annex 2 nations to avoid the cost of emissions.

It is all much more sensible and robust, but the first world won't hear of it, so we're stuck with what can be agreed to.

But even so Kyoto is not bad for Africa in the sense that it provides greater competitiveness with western industries and money and technology for cleaner industrial methods and power generation.

However climate change is bad for Africa. Many of the world's 150,000 deaths per year that was the WHO estimate of deaths due to climate change as at 2000 were in the Horn of Africa (floods, giving rise to disease and famine) and the Sahel (droughts giving rise to famine).

Neither has Nigeria's oil brought any peace or prosperity to the bulk of the people there. Nor Sudan's. Nor the DRC's.

Displacement, starvation, rape and abduction and coercion of child soldiers seems to be more the pattern. All against a background of rampant HIV, kala-azar, malaria and TB ... with some occasional Ebola outbreaks just in case dodging AK-47 rounds isn't enough to keep you on your toes.

Although Egypt and South Africa do produce oil too.

[prashamk]

Originally Posted by Robert Northup

If one honestly believes that there is no real threat from global warming, why do they want to be in the debate at all? Inaction is the status quo, and they should be content that their side is "winning". But why would they get any joy from insulting people who care enough to express their concerns and willingness to contribute to the solution? If they truly believe that there is any objective science to support their position, I welcome it. If they just want to harrass those of us who are trying to do something to make the world a better place, I would ask that they please get out of the way if they are not going to help.

RN: Everyone wants to help others. That is the motto behind these forums. I don't agree your point about "WINNING".

If you believe it to be man made, you try to make people understand its pros and cons while if someone doesn't he tries to explain it according to his understanding. There is no harrasing involved there.