Beats being almost-President
Everyone has an opinion on the “inconvenient truths” of global climate, and here’s mine:
I’m not sure about “global warming” per se, but global climate change has been around as long as the globe we stand on. Planet Earth has been much colder and much warmer at various times in the past, and is likely to keep cycling for eons to come. It makes sense that there would be points, even in as brief a time period as a human generation, where we could sense the pendulum shifting. We appear to be in one of those times.
I also believe that it defies logic to say that human activity has had no part in the physical state of our world. Like incredibly industrious beavers or African termites, we as a species constantly alter our environments, from the Pyramids and Great Wall to this week’s groundbreakings. Not saying that’s all a bad thing, but we and our artifacts are a part of this world, and must have at least a subtle effect on it. We add stuff to the air and water, affect water supplies and distribution, reroute streams, redistribute plant life, resculpt land surfaces and even pepper nearby outer space with all manner of objects. Since we can’t be anything but the beaver-termites that we are, we can use our intellects to make best use of those instincts and ensure that we aren’t basically pooping in our own bed.
And I believe that if major changes are underway, we are better off working on adapting to them then taking up a quixotic quest to stop them. Even if human activity is exacerbating or accelerating the Earth’s cycles, we aren’t going to be able to turn this ship around in a day, year or even a decade. It will take centuries to be certain of how much our industriousness has hurt us (or maybe even helped us as a species -- we thrive in temperate to tropical environments). The more local problems of pollution are more pressing than getting entire nations to agree to measures that their bureaucracies and power elites will find ways to cheat on anyway. But if we are going to have trade routes going over the North Pole, or North America inundated with a vast inland sea like in the Cretaceous period, it would behoove us to be ready for life in that future world.
Better technology and worldwide economic advancement will be key to a better future. Regressing in technology only leads to more pollution, and impoverished areas are rarely pristine environments. I’m under the impression that this is part of the Gore agenda; if he and his allies make more of an emphasis on advancement in these areas, the aspect of cutting back on harmful emissions and bad ecological practices should take care of itself.
I’m not sure about “global warming” per se, but global climate change has been around as long as the globe we stand on. Planet Earth has been much colder and much warmer at various times in the past, and is likely to keep cycling for eons to come. It makes sense that there would be points, even in as brief a time period as a human generation, where we could sense the pendulum shifting. We appear to be in one of those times.
I also believe that it defies logic to say that human activity has had no part in the physical state of our world. Like incredibly industrious beavers or African termites, we as a species constantly alter our environments, from the Pyramids and Great Wall to this week’s groundbreakings. Not saying that’s all a bad thing, but we and our artifacts are a part of this world, and must have at least a subtle effect on it. We add stuff to the air and water, affect water supplies and distribution, reroute streams, redistribute plant life, resculpt land surfaces and even pepper nearby outer space with all manner of objects. Since we can’t be anything but the beaver-termites that we are, we can use our intellects to make best use of those instincts and ensure that we aren’t basically pooping in our own bed.
And I believe that if major changes are underway, we are better off working on adapting to them then taking up a quixotic quest to stop them. Even if human activity is exacerbating or accelerating the Earth’s cycles, we aren’t going to be able to turn this ship around in a day, year or even a decade. It will take centuries to be certain of how much our industriousness has hurt us (or maybe even helped us as a species -- we thrive in temperate to tropical environments). The more local problems of pollution are more pressing than getting entire nations to agree to measures that their bureaucracies and power elites will find ways to cheat on anyway. But if we are going to have trade routes going over the North Pole, or North America inundated with a vast inland sea like in the Cretaceous period, it would behoove us to be ready for life in that future world.
Better technology and worldwide economic advancement will be key to a better future. Regressing in technology only leads to more pollution, and impoverished areas are rarely pristine environments. I’m under the impression that this is part of the Gore agenda; if he and his allies make more of an emphasis on advancement in these areas, the aspect of cutting back on harmful emissions and bad ecological practices should take care of itself.