The case for global warming
Community Rating:
Sign up to rate, write comments and more
1. Life outside of the tropics is ALWAYS more pleasant when the temperatures are warmer. Therefore, global warming offers genuine benefits that are being ignored.
I know that in the Northeastern United States, the environment is extremely hostile to human life during the winter. Increasing temperatures even a few degrees in these frigid wastelands would be an enormous benefit. Likewise, we are seeing plant growth in formerly frozen Greenland, which obviously benefits everyone there.
Warmer weather saves lives overall, makes people happier overall, and causes people to exercise and become healthier. Cold weather creates bad moods in people. It also encourages bad joints, colds and ill health in general. It seems to me that ignoring the enormous benefits of warmer weather is irresponsible to the extreme.
The very reasonable question, then, is to find out how we can take these benefits and mitigate the bad news that environmentalists add to the headlines every day. This is just what Bjorn Lomborg says in his book, Cool It, and I believed it intuitively before I even read Lomborg. Actually, Lomborg still says that global warming has bad consequences but after reading his book I am puzzled as to why he doesn't want to encourage it, like I do.
2. Temperatures in the tropics are unlikely to change significantly as a result of global warming. Winter temperatures and nightime temperatures will be affected far more than daytime temperatures. So global warming in terms of temperature appears to be a win/win for all involved.
3. It is true that species will die out as the world gets warmer. But even a short visit to the tropics should show that the warmer the weather, the more diverse the living environment. If we wanted to maximize species diversity, there is only one thing to do: Heat the planet to a constant 80degF. Cold weather species will die out, and warm weather species will replace them with blinding speed. The net effect will be far more species and a more hospitable habitat for humans. Of course it's not possible because of how the climate system works, but it's still worth chewing over that fact: Warmer weather means more species diversity, more rainforests, etc.
4. I find it remarkable that whenever someone is interviewed about the impacts of perceived global warming in their community, it's always the negative side. "Business is way down in our ski resort because of warmer weather!" Why not interview the boating people? "Our season is months longer! Business is booming and people are buying new boats for the new longer season!" How about the swimming pool operators? "We have more people swimming and they all love it!"
5. We are being asked to perform huge sacrifices to prevent global warming, while paradoxically almost all of us will benefit from it. I see that as an act that seems remarkable for its stupidity and cluelessness.
6. Why not simply remove the melting ice before it impacts our sea levels? What if we simply took a bunch of tankers, filled them with antarctic ice, and brought it to Dubai to make a new lakeside real estate development? I know that sounds silly but it sounds a lot LESS silly than changing the cars we drive, frying in the summer and freezing in the winter, and so on. And the Dubai people would pay for it all - the good publicity would be worth billions, and the waterfront homes would start at a million dollars a unit. Everyone benefits!
In short, why are we wringing our hands when we should be looking at the economic opportunity all changes bring?
7. I am not a total troglodyte. I am all for reducing our dependency on fossil fuel energy for OTHER reasons, such as lowering dependency on Arab oil, reducing pollution and so on. I think projects like the Tesla Roadster are great ideas. But this change is not going to happen overnight, no matter what we do.
8. A reasonable review of the evidence would show that stopping global warming is impossible. We are not going to be able to convince ourselves to lower our standard of living that much. Note that Kyoto has been fudged by every single country that signed it, and per Lomborg Kyoto would only postpone our evil future by a couple of years.
I think that we should accept that global warming will happen, and as problems occur due to it, we should take a small fraction of the money we were going to spend on Kyoto, and use it to solve those problems. In other words, I'm sold on the Lomborg book's premise.
Or will it? I've just read a new article that suggests decreasing solar activity might cause a new ice age. Can we all agree that would be a bad thing?
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
Maybe we shouldn't give up those SUVs just yet.
Your thoughts?
D