5 ms·

We need to because we are aware of the detrimental effects our environmental behavior has not only on nature, but on ourselves too. (And we like preserving ours

by manux 15y ago

We need to because we are aware of the detrimental effects our environmental behavior has not only on nature, but on ourselves too. (And we like preserving ourselves right?)

krschultz 15y ago
That doesn't actually answer my question at all. The GP said that the earth has natural temperature swings and we can't/shouldn't do anything about them. But we need (emphasis mine) to do something about unnatural temperature swings. Why is there a distinction between temperature changes caused by man and temperature changes caused by nature? If nature were to cause the Earth to warm by the same amount as humans are going to, we would face the same detrimental impacts on the environment that you mentioned (that I don't deny will happen). But given those effects we have 3 and only 3 choices. We can die off. We can adapt to the changes. Or we can force the Earth back to the temperature it is now. Obviously we will ignore the idea of dieing off. But given that our response to a natural temperature increase of the same magnitude as the one caused by humans is either A) Adapt or B) Force cool the climate, why aren't these options considered when we are talking about human derived climate change? Then really the question becomes, is it cheaper/better for us to fix the climate now? Or is it cheaper for us to adapt/change it back later? That really become an economic question, one of net present value. To say that we need to do it now without addressing the other options is a philosophical position, one that puts keeping nature the way it is today at a higher value than anything else.
- tedsuo 15y ago
  As for the cost of adaption, floods and hurricanes are the most costly disasters we face. In addition to that, moving infrastructure around on a short timescale (50 years) to deal with changing climate involves a massive, massive output of effort. In short, it is far more inefficient to move a large part of our infrastructure and deal with increasingly damaging weather than it is to clean up our emissions. Also, what makes human generated forcings special is their outsized impact on climate: they appear to be moving the climate an much faster that than other forcings. The earth is currently in a cooling cycle, but is now heating rapidly as a result of industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. Because we have such an outsized impact, we need to regulate our behavior. It would be just as terrible if a thousand new volcanos suddenly opened up and started spewing out carbon, but that's not what we're dealing with.
- anigbrowl 15y ago
  Force-cooling the climate by artificial means is not a trivial undertaking, in either scientific or political terms. Even though it might become necessary in response to natural variations, those tend to happen across fairly large timescales. Accelerating such changes by artificial means, as seems to be happening right now, is a bad thing not because it's artificial but because it likely increases the cost and difficulty of future mitigation, much like hitting the gas pedal on a steep downward slope would. In other words, I think it's going to be more expensive later than now - not to the point of shutting down all industry or anything like that, but to the extent of budgeting 1-2% for efficiency/mitigation.
cpeterso 15y ago
> detrimental effects our environmental behavior has not only on nature, but on ourselves too. Is the goal environmentalism to preserve the earth or to preserve humanity? The earth will survive perfectly well without humans, so I believe the (generally unacknowledged) goal of mainstream environmentalism to help humanity. That said, there are environmental fundamentalists who believe (with almost religious fervor) humans are "evil".
- manux 15y ago
  Haha, I am not one of those. I think humanity needs to be selfish in this case, and you know, it needs to be some kind of long term selfishness. IMO there is no rationale behind the "humans are evil" thing. Just a very poor self-esteem.
  - cpeterso 15y ago
    I agree. I think the mainstream environmental movement would get more traction if they reframed their position to focus on the benefits to humanity (of protecting the environment) rather than talking so much about the sacrifices humanity must endured to "save the environment." Compare with VHEMT, the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement: http://www.vhemt.org/ http://www.vhemt.org/

by manux 15y ago

We need to because we are aware of the detrimental effects our environmental behavior has not only on nature, but on ourselves too. (And we like preserving ourselves right?)

krschultz 15y ago

That doesn't actually answer my question at all. The GP said that the earth has natural temperature swings and we can't/shouldn't do anything about them. But we need (emphasis mine) to do something about unnatural temperature swings. Why is there a distinction between temperature changes caused by man and temperature changes caused by nature? If nature were to cause the Earth to warm by the same amount as humans are going to, we would face the same detrimental impacts on the environment that you mentioned (that I don't deny will happen). But given those effects we have 3 and only 3 choices. We can die off. We can adapt to the changes. Or we can force the Earth back to the temperature it is now. Obviously we will ignore the idea of dieing off. But given that our response to a natural temperature increase of the same magnitude as the one caused by humans is either A) Adapt or B) Force cool the climate, why aren't these options considered when we are talking about human derived climate change? Then really the question becomes, is it cheaper/better for us to fix the climate now? Or is it cheaper for us to adapt/change it back later? That really become an economic question, one of net present value. To say that we need to do it now without addressing the other options is a philosophical position, one that puts keeping nature the way it is today at a higher value than anything else.

tedsuo 15y ago
As for the cost of adaption, floods and hurricanes are the most costly disasters we face. In addition to that, moving infrastructure around on a short timescale (50 years) to deal with changing climate involves a massive, massive output of effort. In short, it is far more inefficient to move a large part of our infrastructure and deal with increasingly damaging weather than it is to clean up our emissions. Also, what makes human generated forcings special is their outsized impact on climate: they appear to be moving the climate an much faster that than other forcings. The earth is currently in a cooling cycle, but is now heating rapidly as a result of industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. Because we have such an outsized impact, we need to regulate our behavior. It would be just as terrible if a thousand new volcanos suddenly opened up and started spewing out carbon, but that's not what we're dealing with.
anigbrowl 15y ago
Force-cooling the climate by artificial means is not a trivial undertaking, in either scientific or political terms. Even though it might become necessary in response to natural variations, those tend to happen across fairly large timescales. Accelerating such changes by artificial means, as seems to be happening right now, is a bad thing not because it's artificial but because it likely increases the cost and difficulty of future mitigation, much like hitting the gas pedal on a steep downward slope would. In other words, I think it's going to be more expensive later than now - not to the point of shutting down all industry or anything like that, but to the extent of budgeting 1-2% for efficiency/mitigation.

cpeterso 15y ago

> detrimental effects our environmental behavior has not only on nature, but on ourselves too. Is the goal environmentalism to preserve the earth or to preserve humanity? The earth will survive perfectly well without humans, so I believe the (generally unacknowledged) goal of mainstream environmentalism to help humanity. That said, there are environmental fundamentalists who believe (with almost religious fervor) humans are "evil".

manux 15y ago
Haha, I am not one of those. I think humanity needs to be selfish in this case, and you know, it needs to be some kind of long term selfishness. IMO there is no rationale behind the "humans are evil" thing. Just a very poor self-esteem.
- cpeterso 15y ago
  I agree. I think the mainstream environmental movement would get more traction if they reframed their position to focus on the benefits to humanity (of protecting the environment) rather than talking so much about the sacrifices humanity must endured to "save the environment." Compare with VHEMT, the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement: http://www.vhemt.org/ http://www.vhemt.org/