3 ms·
I don't understand how all the excitement about global warming fits in with basic economics. If the Earth's sea level rose several meters in an instant, yes, i
by csense 14y ago
I don't understand how all the excitement about global warming fits in with basic economics.
If the Earth's sea level rose several meters in an instant, yes, it would be a worldwide catastrophe with massive loss of life. But I fail to understand how that's physically possible; such change would take years or decades.
This would give people time to adapt. If the ocean's risen and there's seawater in your house up to your ankles, you move; you don't stick around for three more years until it's over your head and you drown.
Agriculture would certainly be affected by climate patterns. But how do we know that the outflow of farmland that stops being usable for farming due to climate change won't be balanced by an inflow of farmland that becomes suitable for farming due to climate change?
And even if agricultural output goes down: (1) New technology is invented all the time which improves agricultural output. Maybe by the time significant amounts of farmland become unfarmable, we'll be able to make due with less.
(2) Livestock takes a lot of land, because fundamentally, growing plants and eating them is much more efficient than growing plants, feeding them to animals, and then eating the animals. Vegetarians have been around a long time, and we know that it's possible for humans to live on plants alone. So if there's less farmland, why won't we just eat less meat as food becomes more expensive?
(3) Everyone needs to eat. iPod's are a luxury; food is a necessity. As food gets more expensive due to a scarcity of land and people start spending more of their income on food and less on iPod's, Apple will just close a couple factories and their land will be converted to farmland (funding for this will be available, because, again, if food is expensive, owning farmland will be very profitable.)
I fundamentally fail to understand why global warming deserves the same level of threat as (say) a bioengineered plague, a large nuclear war or an enormous asteroid on a collision course with Earth would.
- capsule_toy 14y agoAs far as I can tell, the problem is that we really don't know about the long reaching effects of global warming, and you're not accounting for the extreme possibilities. There have been periods of time where the earth was extremely inhospitable to life. I'm not saying that will happen but to simply believe that there will be enough food without actually modeling possible outcomes is foolish.
- snowwrestler 14y agoRisk = consequences x likelihood While the catastrophes you list might have higher consequences, they are far less likely to happen than global warming--because we are virtually certain that global warming is happening right now. The greatest threat of global warming is social instability. Large, rich nations like the U.S. will most likely be able to afford the considerable investments it will take to mitigate the consequences. If Oklahoma becomes a dustbowl again, maybe the growing season in North Dakota will get longer to compensate. But most nations are not that rich, resourceful, or large. Changing precipitation patterns might mean that new water sources and farmland becomes available; but if all those new resources are in the nation next door, that does not help you. Water and food are fundamental needs, and shortages are well correlated to social unrest and warfare.