How do we play our hand in dealing with global climate change?

Question

Due to uncertainties in projected climate changes and in how systems respond to those changes, adaptation options offer varying degrees of uncertainty,or risk if you will.

No-regret: Actions that make sense or are worthwhile regardless of additional or exacerbated impacts from climate change.

Opportunity: Actions that capitalize on observed or projected climatic changes. The proactive farmer who switches to a more adaptative crop, for example.

“Win-win”: Actions that provide adaptation benefits and meet other social, environmental, or economic objectives.

Low-regret: Measures with relatively low costs for which benefits under climate change scenarios are high, like factoring climate change into public land management policies.

Answer 1

Not by giving control to a less than ethical entity like the oil for food bunch(UN).

Not by embracing enviro-socialism and giving up our right to choice.

Not by taxes bans and mandates that do nothing but line the pockets of special interests.

People and free markets are a better bet than government misdirection.

Answer 2

Remember the story about hitting two sticks together to scare away mountain lions when camping?

Some people will keep hitting those sticks together for hours in the hope it gives them control over mountain lions.

Pretending that humans have control over weather is exactly the same thing.

Warmers must surely get the feeling that they are being taken advantage of, while they continue to hit those sticks together.

Answer 3

bigshadow said:

"My solution: kill a couple of billion people...The human body grows to a certain point, peaks and then starts to deteriorate. It appears the population of the world will do the same. We could let it naturally reach that point, but then the ultimate effect would be "death." This could be the eradication of humanity, or the death of the planet (which is very much alive). OR we could be pro-active and start not only limiting our growth, but cutting back to find an equilibrium."

Good thing you are not in a policy-making position....

And how will humanity be eradicated? Seriously? And how will the planet "die"? The planet and life will be here long after we are gone, which isn't any time too soon.

Humans are highly adaptable and the planet is tough as an old boot. That doesn't mean we should pollute and s***w around with nature as much as we want, but that is a separate issue of whether the planet and human's can survive major changes.

Answer 4

This planet has had climate change for millions and millions of years with out the 'help' of man.  Call that fake Gore and have a cold one on me, unless that will change the climate.

Answer 5

I don't know how quickly the past climate changes have happened, but with the rapid melting of the polar ice caps, it should cause concern.

My solution: kill a couple of billion people...The human body grows to a certain point, peaks and then starts to deteriorate. It appears the population of the world will do the same. We could let it naturally reach that point, but then the ultimate effect would be "death." This could be the eradication of humanity, or the death of the planet (which is very much alive). OR we could be pro-active and start not only limiting our growth, but cutting back to find an equilibrium.

Answer 6

Opportunity

Win-Win

Low-regret- I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Our /Other governments around the world to make a difference in global warming. It will have to be a grassroots movement. Hopefully one that isn't to late.