Let’s assume climate change as a direct result of human actions over the past 2 centuries is a fact.
Here’s the problem: top scientists concede that even if the entire world stopped ALL greenhouse gas emissions today the planet will continue to heat up for many years (I’ve heard numbers ranging from 50 to 300 years). [1]
So what?
Well a lot of so called “solutions” for the global warming problem focus on either 1) reducing greenhouse gas emissions and/or 2) preparing vulnerable areas for rises in sea levels.
For example, take a look at the “Copenhagen Accord” that came out of the U.N. Climate Change Conference last year: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Accord.
These “defensive” strategies (reduction, adaptation, mitigation) are fine as a starting point but if stopping all greenhouse gas emissions today (something that is not going to happen) won’t yield results for at least 50 years why should trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions be a priority?
It shouldn’t.
The answer, I believe, is to focus energy and money in “offensive” strategies.
If we are going to stop the negative effects of global warming we are going to need to invent technologies that can either eliminate huge amounts of greenhouse gases or convert them into useful products (without emitting any greenhouse gases).
Inventing and deploying this type of technology won’t be easy or cheap but it is absolutely necessary: if we don’t do it our efforts to neutralize this threat to human civilization will be in vain.
[1] See http://www.livescience.com/environment/050317_global_warming.html; http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/2059.html
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
The technology exists, and there are many simple and cheap methods of reversing global warming. Putting fine particulates or SO2 gas in the atmosphere in sufficient quantities (like from lots of coal plants without scrubbing the product gasses). The problem isn’t in how to reduce temperatures. The problem is that darn “Law of Unintended Consequences.” Will we make things worse my trying to make them better?
It’s got nothing to do with weather or not the climate would continue to warm with or without our emmissions. It has long been know that the earth cools and warms periodicly and that it should be getting warmer now anyway, the problem is the RATE at which it is getting warmer. The climate can handle small increases in temperature over a long period of time and would adapt without much fuss, but with the emmisions that we are putting out increasing the rate of this warming we run the risk of creating an unstable climate which will likley cause a massive increase in dangerous extremes of weather.