We should be making sure we can recreate the necessary conditions for habitats. If we have massive changes to sea levels, how might the ocean’s oxygen-producing algae habitats be salvaged? Can we create contingency plans for emergency food production if our mass agriculture is washed away? If climate change is expected to cause unmanageable weather disasters, we’ll have to get better at evacuating and rescuing people.
Good luck with the desperate fantasy that people with wealth and influence will make drastic changes to their lucrative financial investments if only we can convince them it’s for the greater good. The more I think about it, the more unlikely it sounds. As I’ve said about federal governments, armed police, and social programs which attempt to pull labor back into a surplus market, we’re better off abandoning the errors and hoaxes which are only causing the worship of wealth to allow greater suffering across the board.
This economic philosophy which deifies power and wealth is fundamentally incapable of fairness and thus exacerbates exploitation and squanders profits made from both human and natural devastation.
Here we are after the collapse, laying the blame left and right and anywhere but at the beginning when government secured rights of exploitation for the wealthy. Government serves that one purpose even as it lies and sprinkles make-believe promises to return some of the profits accumulated to those suffering in darkness. Is it clear enough now?
The transition to a low-carbon economy brings huge economic opportunity, but it is not optional.
While Wente asks whether humans can control the climate, global average ocean temperatures hit record highs. More ominously, as the oceans have warmed since the 1950s, plankton levels have dropped 40 per cent. As goes plankton, so goes the rest of oceanic life.
Let’s be clear. We have known since the early 19th century that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, insulating the earth like a blanket. In 1965, the U.S. president’s Scientific Advisory Committee warned the build-up of carbon dioxide would cause changes in the climate.. By 1989, then U.K. prime minister Margaret Thatcher declared to the UN General Assembly that climate change was the single greatest threat to our very existence.
The Iron Lady, no shill for the environmental movement, was scientifically literate. The same cannot be said for those who scoff at the accumulated wisdom of our scientific elite. All national academies of science in the developed world have endorsed the basic premises of human-caused climate change. The only scientific argument remaining is not about whether climate change is real or imagined, but whether the results will be catastrophic or merely disastrous.
For Murphy, public acceptance of expert opinion on climate change amounts to religious indoctrination. Wente asserts that climate cannot be controlled by human behaviour. Beck argues that it’s a Communist conspiracy. The purported dangers are at best hypothetical constructions of a few scientists, at worst mere monsters under our bed, easily dismissed with a dose of adult skepticism. The skeptics explicitly cast themselves against the orthodoxy of our time, as noble knights standing up to society’s pressure to conform.
But we’re far past the complex theoretical models now. Ask an Australian farmer what climate change means. It’s the longest drought in human memory. To B.C. foresters, it’s the pine beetle destroying their timber. Lloyd’s of London, like most insurance companies, faces escalating costs due to extreme weather events. Russia’s scorching summer, which temporarily ended grain exports, and the floods in Pakistan are but appetizers before the main event.
The Catastrophe of Climate Change Skepticism
Dec 24 2010
by Tom Rand Lead Cleantech Advisor, MaRS Discovery District, Toronto; venture capitalist; author