Global Warming
Not IT related, but I recall a few byteclubbers are interested in this.
I have recently read two quite different views on global warming. The first is Peter Singer’s analysis in “One World: The Ethics of Globalization” (highly recommended, although I haven’t actually finished it yet…), which argues in support of the Kyoto protocol (in particular, why developing countries should be exempt). The second was linked to today by bbspot: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/index.html. I like extreme contrasts like this since they get you thinking. Ultimately, I find Peter Singer much more convincing. He presents a much more robust coverage of the issue (in particular considering the entire world rather than just the US), and tends to avoid loaded language (loaded language rings alarm bells for me – if it’s a convincing argument you should be able to present it without hyperbole). In addition, he makes it much easier to follow his sources – both authors claim scientific studies to support their claims.
In the end, it for me it comes down to acceptable risk. Yes, there may not be a robust scientific proof that global warming is caused by man, but there is sufficient correlation, and the risks too great (for non-developed countries, not so much the developed ones that Johnston focuses on) that we cannot afford to take a chance and do nothing.
August 31, 2007 at 8:19 AM
Why are the risks greater for non-developed countries? Apart from that they will not have air conditioners?
August 31, 2007 at 8:19 AM
In the end, for me it comes down to acceptable cost. The cost of ‘preventing’ the oncoming ‘disaster’ has been estimated in hundreds of billions, if not more. The actual cost of dealing with any changes, for example, flood protection walls or levees, is highly likely to be much lower and are extremely unlikely to affect our way of life. Any effect on the way we live will take years during which we will adapt.
While I’m on the topic, claims that cities will ‘drown’ and people will die are ludicrous. The worst predictions don’t say any more than one metre of water rise in 100 years (and most say considerably less than this). That’s one centimetre per year. Even the Bracks government could construct a levee around Melbourne quicker than that!
August 31, 2007 at 8:25 AM
Basically, it’s not the developed countries we have to worry about, as they have the resources to deal with climate change. Third world countries are struggling for food, let alone having resources to provide infrastructure to adapt to global warming. For an example of drowning cities, approx 46 million people live on the Nile Delta, virtually all of which is below 2m above sea level, which faces dire consequences of even minor rises in the sea level. Consider that the destruction of agricultural land can be just as devastating as destruction of residences. Many pacific islands also face severe threat. Plenty of scholarly references around for this – just plucked http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/34.htm from google. As for cost, this may sound facetious, but when the US is spending over $500 billion on their military, I don’t think cost is going to be that much of a problem. It comes down to the fact that the developed countries can no longer justify or afford to live the affluent lifestyle they have been. The earth is a finite resource. Global warming aside, fossil fuels and oil (two prime contributors) won’t last forever.