Obama: No time for 'flat-earth society' on climate change

[maxiep]

Assuming climate change is being influenced by human activities, it wouldn't even matter if everybody all of sudden got a pang of conscience and decided to "go green." We've got far too many people for the resources we possess on this planet and it's not going to get any better, especially as China and India become far more energy intensive economies/societies.

2 meters of sea level rise by 2100 (assumed to be a sort of "worst case" scenario by the IPCC) could be a minor annoyance compared to the contests we may see over a dwindling supply of cheaply gotten fossil fuels, arable land and potable water.

Exactly right. Repped.

 

[maxiep]

We should try to remove whatever negative influences we caused that we can act upon.

So, you would be fine with another ice age?

 

[Nikolokolus]

If we are causing a problem, we should try to fix it. Either direction.

Then you should be rooting hard for Super-flu.

 

[Eastoff]

So, you would be fine with another ice age?

I would be concerned.

 

[Eastoff]

Then you should be rooting hard for Super-flu.

solve mass destruction with more mass destruction? No.

 

[Nikolokolus]

solve mass destruction with more mass destruction? No.

I'm just saying that the only way out this is probably a massive die-off, because it just isn't going to happen by people changing their lifestyle or executive fiat. 7+ billion people (and growing every day) is the root of resource use and its polluting byproducts.

 

[Eastoff]

I'm just saying that the only way out this is probably a massive die-off, because it just isn't going to happen by people changing their lifestyle or executive fiat. 7+ billion people (and growing every day) is the root of resource use and its polluting byproducts.

knowing a mass die off would solve our problem and rooting for it are very different.

 

[blazerboy30]

It's not? Maybe you're not paying close enough attention. It's just like extinction. Species go extinct all the time. No big deal. It's the rate of modern day extinction that is alarming (compared to historical rates). Same story for climate change. We're not worried about a warming trend, but we are worried about an accelerated rate of warming.

What's the "correct" rate of change? What's the "correct" absolute temperature?

 

[Nikolokolus]

knowing a mass die off would solve our problem and rooting for it are very different.

"Rooting" was probably a poor word choice.

 

[Eastoff]

"Rooting" was probably a poor word choice.

Really, I don't want a lower population. I want the problems that come with a high population to be resolved. And there are other ways around that I believe.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Really, I don't want a lower population. I want the problems that come with a high population to be resolved. And there are other ways around that I believe.

I've thought about this for a long, long time and I think the trouble is our population explosion is now a physics problem, not just a social problem. The upward trend-line for the past 200 years has a pattern that is so rapid, so out of character with the rest of human history and is accompanied by an exponential increase in resource consumption that I'm not sure there is any elegant social or technological fix for the problem. For better or worse and regardless of what anybody "wants," biology usually seems to have mechanisms for sorting this kind of thing out.

 

[mobes23]

Haven't there been human-caused large scale climate changes that we have detected and corrected pretty successfully? Acid rain and the ozone hole used to be pretty scary threats, but I don't seem to hear much about them any more. Obviously, I'm no expert and maybe they still are big problems, but I get the sense that both those problems have at least been reduced, if not eliminated.

With respect to climate change, I still don't get the strong desire to discard any evidence of it and then cross our fingers that the impact we have on our environment is less than naturally occurring climate changes. Granted, much more work needs to be done to assess the extent to which we are causing climate change, but doesn't it make sense to study it? Doesn't it make sense to begin to develop ways to reduce our impact? I'm not saying that we go crazy and stop all use of fossil fuels worldwide...just sensible steps as we determine the magnitude of the problem. Last I checked, a lot of political and economic problems could be alleviated if we reduced our dependence on fossil fuel, so it's possible it's a win-win.

 

[maxiep]

Make no mistake. The policies proposed to react to climate change are meant to gain control over people, not to fix any problem

 

[mobes23]

sorry, maxiep, I don't follow.

 

[maxiep]

sorry, maxiep, I don't follow.

Reducing our consumption of energy, raising its cost, limiting our sources, reducing the choices of where and how we live (via mass transit, cost of automobiles, developing rural land to suburbs, etc.) is about control. It has nothing to do with reducing our carbon emissions; that's just an excuse.

 

[Denny Crane]

This is an important issue. Without it, the president would look even less relevant!

 

[TripTango]

I've thought about this for a long, long time and I think the trouble is our population explosion is now a physics problem, not just a social problem. The upward trend-line for the past 200 years has a pattern that is so rapid, so out of character with the rest of human history and is accompanied by an exponential increase in resource consumption that I'm not sure there is any elegant social or technological fix for the problem. For better or worse and regardless of what anybody "wants," biology usually seems to have mechanisms for sorting this kind of thing out.

Yup. And here's a sneak-preview:

Klein, David R. "The introduction, increase, and crash of reindeer on St. Matthew Island." The Journal of Wildlife Management (1968): 350-367.

 

[ant]

Reducing our consumption of energy, raising its cost, limiting our sources, reducing the choices of where and how we live (via mass transit, cost of automobiles, developing rural land to suburbs, etc.) is about control. It has nothing to do with reducing our carbon emissions; that's just an excuse.

If people are making their consumption decisions based on what's best for themselves and not on what's sustainable and reasonable for our population, then all those things you list are going to happen anyway over time.