The absolute minimum that we ( the world) needs to do in order to avoid some catastrophic consequences by 2030 is to take steps that will keep the change in temperature under 2 degrees centigrade.
What are the chances of meeting such a standard? I do not believe that they are that good. But let me share with you a few of the findings by McKiney &Co who have just completed a lengthy, detailed and extensive study of this matter. Then you can judge for yourself.
The goal cannot be met through reliance on the marketonly. Government standards and regulations are essential.
Global efforts to combat GHG must start ASAP. A 10 year delay in implementation means that the set goal of limiting increase in temperature to 2 degrees centigrade will become impossible to meet.
Changes will have to be in all fields: diet, transportation, travel,leisure...
Method of production for construction, cars,trucks, planes machines will have to become much more efficient.
The world must generate 70% of its electricity from low carbon.
We need to plant 330 million hectares of forests.
The cost for all of this is high but not exorbitant. It is estimated that we need to spend less than $500 billion a year by 2030. If you are to put that figure in perspective then it will represent less than 1% of global GDP and it is just about half of what the current US stimulus might wind up costing.
So why wouldn't we do the right thing? Could it be because the future does not have the right to vote?
6 comments:
It certainly will require enormous pressure to bring together the nations around the globe in this effort. Unfortunately, many today only live for the present and do not think of the future. Perhaps we need to convince people that future environmental damage (including temperature change) will impact them both physically and financially (job loss, etc.).
Jackson
I don't know if you should assume that "the future" would vote for taking these steps. There are many scientists who still do not subscribe to the theory of global warming, and a number of indicators suggesting that the period of warming has already come to an end, and the winter temperatures recorded in 2007-2008, as well as this years winter temperatures seem to support the idea that we are now entering into a period of cooling. Since the body of evidence suggesting man-made global warming is much smaller than the body of evidence suggesting cycles in global temperatures (You can look all the way back to the ice age for evidence of previous periods of warming and cooling).
Whether or not you believe that global warming exists as a man-made problem, I am confident that even those in future generations may not feel that it is an issue worth spending that amount of money on. Since they do not have a vote, how can you assume that they will vote for preserving the environment. Perhaps the costs of such an endeavor would be too much for the results that would come from them. Just spending money on the problem is not always the answer, especially when there is no guarantee that the efforts will actually impact temperatures.
-Mike Fitzgerald
Many people are starting to change but alot more people are not gonna change because of the "Tragedy of the Commons." Many believe that if they don't use the resources someone else will. "The Little bit I use or pollute is not enough to matter and such resources are renewable." If we change this additude then some changes on how we treat the environment will occur.
~Robin Pozzi
A paradigm shift must happen. Unfortunately, it will probably take an irreversible catastrophic event (one that includes at least some high-profile deaths) that effects the food, water, or air of a developed nation before people will wake up to the realization that our planet cannot support this kind of growth.
I have no idea if ignoring this myriad of critical environmental issues will eventually lead to the catastrophic results that scientists predict. However, I do know that the risk of ignoring these threats far outways any monetary savings that would occur without action. As we have seen in the recent financial crisis, failure to act responsibly in the present only leads to major problems in the future. Only this time instead of money it is human lives with which we are dealing.
While I would like to see action, I also don't want to see America jump in feet first and bear the majority of the financial obligations, like we do in almost everything else. This needs to be a global effort and all countries of the world need to be involved. America needs to help the world see it is their planet and their responsibility as well.
We can debate global warming for hours. However that is not the only problem facing the future of the environment, population, pollution, wildlife habitat destruction and species extinction are real. A paradigm shift absolutely has to happen. Otherwise clean water and decent food will become luxury items. The loss of certain animal species especially predators can throw the ecosystems into turmoil.
I think we must take into account the Future because if we dont bad things can hppen. For many many years the Levees in Louisiana werent upgraded, everyone left it to Future generations to upgrade. When Katrina came around it was too late for the current generation to upgrade the leveey system. Had the levee system been updated, there might 1,464 deaths. I believe the United Staes as well as the world should take preemptative measures to bring down all of our carbon emissions, plant as many trees as neccesary, and do waht we must to overt the 2 degree change that is predicted to happen in 2030.
-Joel Campbell-
Post a Comment