TOO LATE? Why scientists say we should expect the worst, page 12

Originally posted by melatonin
I really don't know, Stellar. The answers and solution to the problem are not my forte.

I apologise for the belated response; this was just about my best effort to avoid this particular subject matter.

As i wanted to make even clearer earlier this issue is for me at least ALL about the solutions even if i believe that the problem poses a comparatively small threat as compared to the non 'global warming gases' that are destroying our quality of life or killing us outright.

I don't see why the solutions to climate change would need a significant reduction in living standards.

If this is your position then you have already set yourself apart from the 'doomers' who can not accept a world without peak oil and global warming and can't accept any solution short of forced mass starvation or reduced living standards for 'all' ( meaning poor people somewhere else)>

As I said, I despise the politics.

Much like hating oxygen and refusing to use any more of it one has to 'despising politics' is a huge problem for people such as myself that understand how intertwined science and politics have been for at least the last few centuries. If one discusses science and why it isn't improving our lives faster than it is discussing politics as that's what is holding science to the same old unworkable, profitable 'solutions' that is systematically destroying our planet irrespective of warming or cooling trends or forcing.

I'm all for moving to nuclear energy for the time-being. We have to find renewable energy sources anyway.

If nuclear is the best thing they will allow us then i will accept it but we , the people etc, should be pursuing solar, wind, tidal and hydro at our best pace to arrive at the relative municiple level 'generation' of power that could ultimately allow truly exotic technologies ( 'vacuum' , etc) a breach trough which to enter the market.

We have to make that energy source self-sustainable, as the cheap and dirty energy won't last forever. It was essentially a freebie the earth has given us to for the opportunity to kickstart a sustainable process.

I wouldn't bet on dirty energy not 'lasting' as current estimates for coal paints a somewhat dark picture for us in the coming 200 - 500 years. There is a remote possibility that we might reach a peak oil usage in fifty or so years but is in my reading a worse case scenario and unless we do something oil could be a primary transport and industrial commodity for the rest of this century.

As for population reductions, I think it makes sense for humans to reduce their sprog-output. I don't think it needs anything more than that. Nothing subversive.

Yes, it does make sense to have fewer children and that's exactly what women will have if given access to the freedom of action that economic power allows the women of industrialized societies. The best way to save the planet is to spread just the current wealth fairly but since our current economic model would rather pollute us into oblivion or propose truly subversive population reduction schemes there isn't much hope that anything good will be implemented from the top down. At least we can agree that politics don't yield such positive changes without immense pressure from the bottom up.

This is the reason i have no faith in the 'consensus' reached by the very same European leaders that are so desperately trying to undermine the freedoms their citizens have so far gained. This is why scientific consensus should never be sponsored or imposed by the very same people who don't give us anything positive we ( or our parents before us) didn't fight to achieve. This is why their proposed 'solutions' will benefit them, not us.

Stellar