(July 26, 2012 at 9:51 am)Rhythm Wrote: I think it's far more likely that we would find a way to slow ACG than to stop it. If we're looking for honest debate and practical solutions we have to set reasonable goals. We are not going to be able to exist in "equilibrium with nature" -as it were, I can't see that as anything more than a pipe-dream. I don't even know why we would want to -consider that once upon a time we did just that, and our situation has since greatly improved-. This is obviously a personal opinion, but there will always be some issue where we will need to prioritize ourselves or our environment, and in those areas I will always side with us. So, seems to me, that the best course of action would be to mitigate damage in those areas where the compromise is bearable so as to shift the weight of damage across the aggregate of all of our activities.
From what I know of climate science, climate change is usually not a gradual thing. Rather it is quite sudden, for example changes from glacial to interglacial and vice versus periods happen over a period of several years.
I shudder to think that the consquences would be for global civilization if the climate were to warm a few degrees quite suddenly. Because our global civilization is very dependent on a quite stable climate or at least gradual climate change, not a sudden big change in the climate.
undefined
