There are four schools of thought concerning global warming?

Question

a) Do nothing. A dozen or so scientists contend climate change from human activities is not a threat, and a few popular press commentators and writers claim that global warming is a hoax.

(b) Do more research before acting. A second group of scientists and economists point to the considerable uncertainty about climate change and its effects. They call for more research before making far-reaching economic and political decisions like phasing out fossil fuels and sharply reducing deforestation.

(c)Act now to reduce the risks from climate change. A third group of scientists and economists urge us to adopt a precautionary strategy. When dealing with risky and far-reaching environmental problems such as climate change, they believe the safest course is to take informed preventative action before overwhelming scientific evidence justifies acting. In 1997, over 2,500 scientists from a variety of disciplines signed a Scientists’ Statement on Global Climate Disruption and concluded, “We endorse those [IPCC] reports and observe that the further accumulation of greenhouse gases commits the earth irreversibly to further global climatic change and consequent ecological, economic, and social disruption. The risks associated with such changes justify preventative action through reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases.” Also in 1997, 2,700 economists led by 8 noble laureates declared, “ As economists, we believe that global climate change carries with it significant environmental, economic, social, and geopolitical risks that preventative steps are justified.”

(d)Act now as part of a no-regrets strategy. Scientists and economists supporting this approach say we should take the key actions needed to slow projected atmospheric warming even if it is not a serious threat because such actions lead to other important environmental, health and economic benefits. For example, reduction in the combustion of fossil fuels, especially coal, will lead to sharp reductions in air pollution that (I) harms and prematurely kills large numbers of people, (II) lowers food and timber productivity, and (III) decreases biodiversity.

Which of the four schools of thought about what should be done about possible global warming do you favor? why

Answer 1

D it's already too late to not act now. Go green people and do your part. It does make a difference.

Answer 2

D.

Everything that we would do to combat global warming would be a positive step for humanity regardless of global warming.

Almost all of the steps would lead to healthier and happier lives directly. Walking and biking, eating less processed foods, buying local, being self sufficient, reading instead of watching TV, breathing less exhaust, interacting more with our neighbors, etc.

Answer 3

* There is no "scientific consensus" on global warming

* Climate is always changing – with or without man

* The Medieval Warm Period was significantly warmer than temperatures today – and was a golden age for agriculture, innovation, and lifespan

* Most of Antarctica is actually getting colder

* Hurricanes are not getting worse – our tendency to build houses in their path is getting greater

* Many big businesses lobby for global warming policies that will increase their profits – and our costs

* The media only recently abandoned the "global cooling" scare

* The real agenda behind the "global warming" scare? A massive expansion of government control over the economy and our lives

Answer 4

c) & d) and beyond.  

Of course research should continue, but we already have more than enough information to act.

We already have too many problems and too short a time.

The sooner and more agressive we act, the less suffering we will endure.

Beyond = begin to attempt to limit population growth. We know from real empirical research that empowering the poor, especially women, leads to smaller families.  

What is wrong with empowering the poor and women?  Moving to a carbon free economy?  Protecting virgin ecosystems?  Restoring degraded ecosystems?  Moving to a more humane and rational way of life?

???

--------------------------------------...

From Dr. Glenn Barry, Ecological Internet, Wisconsin

http://www.ecologicalinternet.org/

No. 1 - POPULATION - Human populations surpass what the Earth can bear. We must stabilize and then reduce human population to at most a third current levels. Global limits must be placed on the number of children born, using incentives at first such as tax benefits for smaller families. Humanity can reduce population on their own accord or the Earth will do so for us.

No. 2 - GREENHOUSE GASES - Abrupt runaway climate change is happening now as energy costs the Earth dearly. Greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced by at least 70% as soon as possible. Maintaining an operable atmosphere requires phasing out coal and oil, introducing a substantial carbon tax, investing in renewable energy, and rigorously pursuing conservation and efficiency. No large-scale new energy systems such as nuclear or biofuel until shown to be environmentally benign in the long-term.

No. 3 - PROTECT ECOSYSTEMS - Large, connected and strictly protected ecosystems over much of the land and sea are a prerequisite for provision of air, water, biodiversity, soil and other services upon which life depends. Large protected marine areas must be established, ending industrial fishing. And ancient forest logging must end, strictly protecting remaining intact natural habitats.

No. 4 - CONSUMPTION - Excessive resource use to meet frivolous human wants must be restricted by promoting a consumption ethic that stresses voluntary simplicity and a sense of "enoughness", and laws that minimize impacts. Simple reforms such as standardizing consumer packaging and making all waste recyclable will reduce necessary consumption's impacts.

No. 5 - AGRICULTURE - A transition must be made to sustainable agricultural practices and eating habits with the emphasis upon organic, non-GMO, low meat diets that are locally produced. Eating habits impact virtually all ecosystems, resulting in natural forest clearing, toxic food chains, depleted water, soil loss and reduction of ecosystems' ability to hold carbon.

No. 6 - SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIES - Economic systems are a subset of ecological systems and as such all economic activities must maintain or expand natural capital. Growth that destroys natural capital is not sustainable, and growth as a measure of economic activity is an ecological malignancy. A steady state, sustainable economy must be business, industry and humanity's goal.

No. 7 - GREEN TECHNOLOGY - Technology by itself cannot bring sustainability, but clean and green technologies are important and provide huge economic opportunities. There is tremendous potential for development of energy efficient, more sustainable and fully recyclable buildings, products and services (including hybrid cars and fluorescent lightbulbs). But the use and trade of toxic chemicals must end.

No. 8 - ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION - Too many ecosystems have already been lost and diminished for humanity to persist. Achieving sustainability and preparing for post collapse societies depends upon targeted restoration of important ecosystems. Priorities for ecological restoration include watersheds, establishing ecological core areas and urban environments.

No. 9 - POVERTY- Billions living in desperate poverty is unethical and damages the environment. All cannot live like Americans, but if the Earth's wealth is shared we can all live well. The focus must be upon the overdeveloped world living more simply, sustainable development, equitable and just political and economic systems, and green technology transfer.

No. 10 - DEMILITARIZATION - Increasingly conflicts over resources fuel militarism and insurgency. Military budgets divert resources from crucial social and environmental investments, and must be slashed. Lasting security that is equitable, just and sustainable is best achieved through greater international law and investments that nurture global ecosystems.

Answer 5

d)

In a measured way we should be attempting to improve our energy efficiency and generally reducing our impact on the environment.

I notice options a,b and d are all skeptical to some degree, only b acnowledges that significant AGW is probable enough to justify more research.

Answer 6

A dozen or so scientists?  What about the 31,000 American scientists that signed the Oregon Petition?

The petition reads:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

I'll go with a) and the 31,000 scientist that say this is a crock over Algore.

Answer 7

(c)

Better to act now while more evidence comes in rather than wait until there is no argument.  It might be too late by then!

If the threat does not materialize, at least we will be better prepared for when the fossil fuels run out!

Answer 8

I believe a combination of b and c is called for.  More research is called for as models improve that will provide more and better information for those trying to implement adaptation and action plans. But this can spill over into d.  Certain actions might be favored as a course of action if they have auxiliary effects, as in reducing air pollution.

The only school of thought that seems foolhardy is a.  There is simply too much data available to want to take a chance with a "do nothing." Approach.  The risk here is considerable, because most research shows we are at a crossroads and decisive action must be taken promptly to avoid more serious consequences from global climate change.

Answer 9

d)  for another example, who could argue against the benefits of energy and resource use efficiency?

and who can honestly say that we as a species have not overshot our resources and are living unsustainably. spending the capital in other words.