If climate change was a natural phenomenon, would environmentalists still feel the need to combat change?

Question

In other words, if the planet was changing even discounting anthropomorphic factors, would environmentalists instead be called interventionists?

Answer 1

Even if it was completely natural, environmentalists would still want to do something about it, just like they'd want to put out forrest fires, even the ones caused by lightning strikes.

The response to natural warming would probably not be to cause induced cooling, but to use it as a justification for more environmental protection measures like wildlife reserves and preservation of endangered species.

Answer 2

It depends on to what degree that change was expected to occur. If it where likely it would reach an additional warming of 2-3 degrees Celsius and above we would need to try to come up with solutions to mitigate that change. The higher the expected warming the more we would have to try to find solutions. If the expected rise in temperature was expected to go above 6 degrees Celsius (which currently is not an impossible scenario if we don't take any actions at all to limit our emissions), then humanity it self would be in severe risk in the long run if we couldn't come up with solutions to stop the warming.

Fortunately, though it's a very tough task to limit emissions of greenhouse gases it's not impossible. If the sun or any other "natural cause" where responsible then we would probably have had an even tougher, maybe impossible, mission ahead of us.

Answer 3

In the first place, environmentalists are people who are well acquainted with the science of ecology, which is a branch of the life sciences (it includes biology, botany, zoology and some geology and paleontology). Environmentalists care about the Earth and the creatures that live on it, which is more than I can say for Republicans and fundamentalist Christians.

People are a part of nature as well, but we have enormous powers at our disposal for both good purposes, ignorant purposes and evil purposes. The impact that people have on the Earth is very readily visible, and people ought to be rational stewards of the planet.

As for intervening in nature, environmentalists don't like to intervene with many things, unless it is a case of an alien species invading an area that is helpless to fight it. For example foresters are still trying to fight the fungus that killed off the American Chestnut forests. These trees provided valuable food for people and all kinds of animals, and their wood was also valuable for furniture. Why shouldn't we try to restore them by manipulating chestnut tree genes until we hit upon a formula that can protect these trees from the Asian fungus?

I once saw a tiger beetle kill a frog by chewing underneath its armpit until its lung came out. I could have easily squashed the beetle and saved the frog. I prefer frogs to beetles, and even like them (after all they eat a lot of mosquitoes). But this was part of the world of nature, and I felt I didn't have a right to intervene. Most environmentalists would agree with me.

Answer 4

bcoz at the end of day we r responsible for climate changes due to pollution.

Answer 5

The problem is that climate change is not entirely natural and it is possible to mitigate it to some extent. If you were trapped in a swimming pool with the water up to your eyes, but only 4" of the depth controllable, would you want someone to lower the depth to below your nose or would you want to drown because most of the depth was "natural"?

Answer 6

There are people that will always see man as inherently evil, and cast the blame on man no matter what happens.

History is full of accounts where floods, famine, droughts, and petulance was blamed on man for not living a proper lifestyle.

Why should a 0.6 degree increase over the last 100 years be any different?

Answer 7

This is an interesting question. My answer would depend on the source of the change, how much change was expected, and the negative consequences associated with a “fix”.

For example, if a huge asteroid was on a collision course with Earth, and that an impact was believed to be catastrophic, then I would support a mission to knock that asteroid into a new orbit.

If the globe was warming slightly because of the sun, then I would be against an effort to place giant mirrors[1] in space to deflect sunlight away from Earth. This “quick fix” would reduce the total amount of sunlight reaching Earth, and would have wide consequences on crops and wildlife.

If however, the globe was warming severely because of the sun and the expected consequences were a 140 foot sea level rise that floods half the earth and scorching heat that turns the other half of the world into desert, then I would be all for placing those giant mirrors in space.

Answer 8

Some would yes, because its about pleasing politicians that "finance" their research and not about the facts of climate change.

Last I heard, there are about 400 brave scientists risking their careers and research funds by coming out against man-made climate change.

Environmentalists should never be confused with any scientist, they are a political activist group and seek to make themselves feel better and be judged by their intentions and not by the results.