sundin13 said:
1. I would like to ask though, if you do not think that the current models are viable, then what alternative do you propose? In order to plan for the future, models are essential. While I think most people in the scientific community acknowledge their limitations, if you do not propose an alternative you really cannot take away the importance of these models. 2. I also think that downplaying the potential negative effects can have the opposite effect of the one that you hope to see. You say that science and the market will naturally push towards greener energy sources and whatnot, but I think that the environmental push is a large part of the reason we will see this. Numerous companies push towards green off the back of the "green movement", using positive public reception to counteract the (potentially) increased costs. If we take the wind from beneath the wings of this movement, whos to say that advancement will continue at the same rate? |
1. I think the models give us useful information to inform our understanding, and they do tell us the range of possible futures as well as their likelihoods, but only to an extent, and we must always consider that extent when we make large policy decisions. It just bothers me when environmentalists use what they call their "precautionary principle" and choose to assume the worst case scenario without considering the costs of assuming the worst case scenario to human lives. Some even go as far as to say it is the ethical scientific position, and I disagree. Fearmongering is not an ethical means to educate people about science. People must accept these facts based on reason.
2. I'm not against pressure for companies to go green. There are many environmental concerns besides global warming that companies should be scrutinized and/or sued for. Pollution isn't a good thing even if global warming weren't a major concern. I am against top-down legislation, however. Mandating that CO2 outputs must be a certain level has huge costs for minute benefits, and will affect different populations unequally. Either way though, fossil fuels are not sustainable. Eventually the cost to obtain them will exceed the declining costs of alternative energy, especially if we targeted and removed the plethora of government subsidies the fossil fuel companies get. In such a situation, we will see a market distribution where alternative energy is more profitable than fossil fuels. Furthermore, sooner or later (likely a few centuries at most), as our technology progresses, we will figure out new cheap means to obtain as much energy as we could need to live on Earth (nuclear fusion, collecting solar energy in space and moving it down to Earth, Geothermal energy, etc, etc.) Renewable non-pollutant energy is inevitable, and if one doesn't believe that it is very likely we will destroy all human civilization due to accelerating climate change, it feels less far away than if one does believe such a scenario will come to be.
