Re: Global Warming (Again): Phil Plait v. WSJ
posted at 7/11/2013 2:08 PM EDT
In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
In response to tvoter's comment:
Should we wreck our economy on hunch while the rest of the world expands in fossil fuels??
It's interesting to hear someone who has argued that long-term debt accumulation will eventually wreck our economy and must therefore be dealt with RIGHT NOW despite the damage austerity can cause......
...argue the opposite when it comes to the economic wreck that will ensue if even the tamest present models for global warming bear out 50 or 100 years from now?
How would you explain this seeming inconsistency? (May I recommend a denial of the future economic effects of warming? It's one of the chef's best.)
It's a given that we cannot model this with extreme precision, as we see the models changing as new data comes in. But if even rising ocean levels is the only thing to actually happen, we're talking incredible expenses. Just how many trillions would it cost to take a massive city that has existed for hundreds of years like NYC, and seal it against deeper waters?
Moved/walled up cities, changing weather patterns affecting crops/wildfires/etc, changing temperatures changing where crops can be grown, some areas becomming fertile while others becoming infertile.
Now add in global effects as said changes effect countries who do not occupy as large landmass as the U.S. Places like Africa and Europe, where the answer would not be to simply move your farm a thousand miles over because....that would be a different country and/or the ocean.... ?
The biggest problem is that the models are so far out that no one in power wants to get slammed for doing something that hurts the economy now, even if it avoids economic catastrophe for our grandchildren.
Seems like you are taking the same route you criticize in others.
When shot down, they tap dance over to a completely different position: That the political will isn't there for solutions to the problem
A dam or levee is more likely to hold back water than trusting politicians across the globe to control CO2. The dam will work, CO2 mitigation will not. Why should we waste time and money on CO2 mitigation?
I question your conclusion there is no political will for undertaking projects that protect cities, etc. from rising water. Seems to me that those are great construction jobs that unions would love to have a piece of.