[Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
...imho it's a matter of timescales. life has been pretty good at adapting to change on "geological" timescales thanks to Darwin... sudden change is more problematic... I suppose humans have significantly pre-adapted by developing the ability to adapt through technology (within our limits at any given point in history), but that may be looking at it optimistically!
if we were to introduce a perturbation of greater magnitude (and possibly rate) than the "normal" geological fluctuations through our own behaviour, then a reasonable approach to adapt through technology might be to mitigate that perturbation. unfortunately it's non-trivial to identify the perturbation a priori...
there's no doubt that (among other factors) the earth's temperature is affected by the amount of CO2 and other "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere (regardless of the (hopefully scientific!) debates re the extent, the balance, + if it's off kilter, and why etc)...
we are currently in a nominally "cool" period over larger geological time, but in a relatively warm period within the cycling of the last million or so years...
all in all, I don't think that it is unreasonable to take steps to reduce CO2 emissions. Even if one chooses to ignore/disbelieve the scientific evidence suggesting that we might be introducing a climatic perturbation, if nothing else, many of the C02 emitters emit other things that are unpleasant in other ways (eg smog). What's the downside? some economic cost, but there is economic opportunity introduced as well... so it is a shift... not a bad thing imho if done in a reasonable manner... I often wonder why some get so worked up about this (on both sides of the "debate"), other than perhaps some sort of economic self-interest?
James...
posted by 67.158.67...
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.