Listing Details| ID: | 2823 |
| Title: | Global Warming Forum - http://theenvironmentsite.org/forum/ |
| Description: | The Environment Site forum is the place to discuss the whole range of environmental issues, from climate change to alternative energy sources and the impact of deforestation. |
| Category: | Forums: Global Warming |
| RSS Feed: | Latest climate change posts |
| Resources: | Climate change forum Environmental news Natural world forum |
| Added: | May 18, 2008 07:17:23 AM |
| Referrals: | 0 |
| Bookmark: |             |
| Latest feed from Global Warming Forum Sea level rise by 2100 'below 2m' Sea levels globally are very unlikely to rise by more than 2m (7ft) this century, scientists conclude. Major increases would have to be fuelled by a faster flow of glaciers on the Greenland or Antarctic ice sheets. BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Sea level rise by 2100 'below 2m' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7598861.stm) What have we got to lose? Most of the threads in this forum are simply an attempt to prove or disprove the cause and/or existance of global warming. I want to take a completely different approach to analyzing the subject. It seems pretty obvious to me that people who are set in their ways (on either side of the debate) aren't going to change their opinions. I want to set aside that debate for a moment to try and understand what motivates people to select their particular stance on the issue. I personally believe that global warming is occuring, and that it is anthropogenic. So obviously this thread is going to sound biased. However, I am doing this so I can better understand why people do not want any action to be taken on this issue. At the moment, my understanding on this is very limited. I'm going to try and break down the pro's and con's of taking action to prevent global warming. If you think I missed any aspects, feel free to say so and I will update the list. As I said before, I'm doing this so I can understand where people are coming from on this controversial topic. Situation: Governments agree that global warming exists and is man-made, and therefore take action. Positives 1. Governments fund the research and implementation of renewable energy technologies that will need to be adopted eventually due to the depletion of fossil fuel sources and the instability of oil producing countries. Doing so while oil is still plentiful allows society to convert more gradually, reducing the risk of conflict or failure to find viable alternatives. It also allows oil to be conserved for things like manufacturing processes that have no current available alternative methods. 2. Governments also implement new pollution regulations for businesses. These regulations will at the very least force businesses to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and at the most will also cause businesses to reduce other types of pollution as well. This also sends a message to corporations that public health is more important than corporate profits. 3. Attention is drawn to environmental issues, which often aren't taken very seriously. This might sound radical, but people often don't give important topics a second thought, unless they feel the issues will have a direct impact on their lives. It might convince people to take a closer look at how the world works. 4. A possible (nothing is completely certain in science, especially not issues concerning the future) global catastrophe is averted. Billions of lives (possibly the entire human population and many other species) are saved. A significant amount of money is saved (assuming humans survive the event) by basically not having to rebuild society. The possibility of this point is up for debate, but is it really worth the risk? Negatives 1. Governments might raise fuel or income taxes to go towards research and development of alternative energy and fuel sources. This might not be necessary if governments can manage their budgets better (for example, spending less on war and more on energy). If nothing else, taxes could be raised on those who can afford to be more heavily taxed (wealthy people). This will also be necessary in the near future anyway as I stated earlier because of the depletion of fossil fuels. 2. Corporations might lose money in research and development of alternative methods for production. This could also be seen as a positive for the general public, but it will of course be considered negative by CEOs and business people in general. The question is, do we care more about the economy than the well-being of the public? This could also be negated if the government provides funding to businesses so they can adopt alternative methods. 3. The money spent on the aforementioned might be a waste if global warming is not occuring or is not anthropogenic. This depends not only on whether or not global warming exists or is anthropogenic, but also on whether or not you consider researching and implementing alternative energy technologies as a waste of time, effort, and money. As I stated earlier, I do believe that global warming is occuring, and is caused my human activities. Therefore, if you feel that I have misrepresented either side of the debate, I encourage you to post anything I might have overlooked or not been aware of. Thank you for taking the time to read this post, and also for refraining from using insults or generalizations in your response to the topic at hand. Climate 'hockey stick' is revived A new study by climate scientists behind the controversial 1998 "hockey stick" graph suggests their earlier analysis was broadly correct. Michael Mann's team analysed data for the last 2,000 years, and concluded that Northern Hemisphere temperatures now are "anomalously warm". BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Climate 'hockey stick' is revived (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7592575.stm) |