It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is the best that could be hoped for now be to work on how to cope with/survive climate change?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 09:12 AM
link   
A few years ago, the UK/Blair government proclaimed that Climate Change - specifically Warming, was THE biggest threat to national security.

My question is this:

Given the ongoing fallout of the Global Financial collapse, an increasingly anticipated Double-Dip causing depression, massive job layoffs and uncertainty, growing international instability and political tensions, major conflicts, potentially nuclear, anticipated in the Middle East, Asia, and possibly the Arctic, the passing of a global flue pandemic - which turned out to be perhaps less dangerous than experts say it could be next time, ongoing environmental catastrophes such as in the Gulf of Mexico, China, Africa....and, having raised the alert several years ago at the highest level, it does NOT appear to have, or be likely to, overcome economic and political tensions around the world, or superceded those other threats as the priority most people's everyday lives.

So, is it really possible, or viable, or prudent to continue to attempt to prevent climate change amidst so many serious and competing priorities? Is the best that could be hoped for now, realistically, be to work on how to attempt to cope with/survive climate change?




[edit on 31-7-2010 by curioustype]

[edit on 31-7-2010 by curioustype]




posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   
I think the overall tone on ATS about climate change is as followed

Do nothing, scientists are wrong, politicians and corporations are right and its all a scam.
Hope nothing bad happens
head, meet dirt.

deny ignorance


So ya, we are more than likely just going to talk about it until the cows come home and either nothing happens (rush limbaugh was right...omg), or we will adapt to our Dune inspired planet, followed by our pluto inspired planet.



[edit on 31-7-2010 by SaturnFX]



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 10:34 AM
link   
I'm not convinced of man made climate change but I will say this.

We need a rich entrepreneur to invest in solar power or hydrogen power infrastructure on a massive enough scale to allow electric cars the ability to recharge without using coal or oil, then we need car manufacturers to follow suit and phase out gas combustion engines, or that same entrepreneur needs to build new electric cars and sell them at a fraction of the price of a used gas combustion engine car.

I don't see why someone doesn't do this, they can monopolize the energy market and phase out 'fossil' fuels while they're at it.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by curioustype
So, is it really possible, or viable, or prudent to continue to attempt to prevent climate change amidst so many serious and competing priorities? Is the best that could be hoped for now, realistically, be to work on how to attempt to cope with/survive climate change?

An excellent series of questions.


It's been said that when we know the right question to ask we will know the answer. And given how clearly you listed many issues for humanity it would seem the more effective answer would be to take all into account, extrapolate the current trends forward maybe 5, 10 or 20 years.. then base your choice on that.

By then you may have only two paths to choose from. Tow the line or self-sufficient lifestyle away from the madding crowds.

I've thought for many years now that we passed the point where we could make significant change for the long term future, simply because we did not act as if it was a priority to survive in a healthy way. "Always More" led the charge past our balance point for being sustainable, in all aspects of our endeavours.

It seems there is little if anything we can do to effect what is currently in play and how it moves to its natural conclusion. If this is the case then working toward self-sufficiency soon would be a wise choice now perhaps.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Climate has been changing on this planet ever since there was enough atmosphere to actually have a climate.

There have been times when it was much hotter, much colder, more co2, more oxygen, more moisture, mored desert, more ice...the list goes on.

The planet has been changing for billions of years and it won't stop until the sun burns out. Species rise and fall. They adapt and change or disappear.

We can not now or ever stop climate change. It is an impossibility.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by badgerprints
 


Of course - my error - I neglected to frame the debate within the concept of man-made (accelerated or diverted) climate change rather than the, of course, ongoing natural changes.

I am admitting here to accepting that IMO it is likely that the massive increase in human population over the past 150 years - more than doubling within the lifespan of my father-in-law to the present 7 billion, combined with massive documented changes in our emissions/industrialisation are likely to have had an impact on the natural climate movement, one way or another (warmer/colder).



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by againuntodust
 


I'd be interested to know: Do you think it is more important to phase out fossil fuels due to political/security/ethical or other side effects or due to the theoretical cause of climate change from our burning of them?



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by badgerprints
 


I'm interested, what would you say are your top three concerns - for the future of your nation/planet, in place of climate change?



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Seems like a logical plan to me. I've always said this. Doesn't matter what is causing it, does it? It's happening. We need to prepare. And we've wasted a lot of precious time bickering and playing politics, so we have some catching up to do.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by curioustype
reply to post by againuntodust
 


I'd be interested to know: Do you think it is more important to phase out fossil fuels due to political/security/ethical or other side effects or due to the theoretical cause of climate change from our burning of them?


From a technological standpoint, we need to advance to at least our current level of science when it comes to energy.

From an ethical standpoint, oil and gas cause cancer and we need to move away from 'fossil fuels' for health reasons.

From a political standpoint, some of the most greedy, cut-throat corporations are the oil companies and they are influencing our politicians with money and lobbying to maintain their stranglehold on our society and energy sources, so we need to cut the umbilical cord.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Unfortunately since the economic collapse and the climategate affair, it will be come increasingly difficult to persuade the deniers of the importance of climate change.

I don't think humans are capable of reversing the damage we have done, especially when there is no financial gain in doing so. I imagine we will just have to react and adapt to the changing climate and problems it brings. I can't see a global effort to tackle climate change or even to prevent the damage it causes. They come up with Cap and trade as it is a way to make money out of climate change but Cap and Trade doesn't tackle the problem of climate change or help clean the environment. It just another scheme and something else to trade.

Until we stop worshiping at the alter of financial growth we will never do anything about the environment.




top topics



 
1

log in

join