If you think any of this gibberish looks interesting, you should poke around and subscribe to my RSS feed to keep up with new content.
I’ve seen a few posts recently (notably this one, and this one) that have had me thinking about global warming and how it’s becoming an increasingly big issue in our daily lives.
Every time I think about a debate in general, I tend to assume that there are two sides to an issue for a reason. In other words, I don’t automatically discount the arguments of my opposition. It’s a good habit to get into because I think it makes you both more aware of the flaws in your own arguments, and better able to, well, present a targeted argument.
It surprises me, then, that we are so collectively misdirected in the debate about Global Warming.
It seems like everyone wants to argue about whether or not Global Warming (or, to be more accurage, Global Climate Change) is occurring. It’s occurring. Every reputable source I can come up with says that the Earth’s Climate, by region, is changing. Probably even Michael Chrichton would agree.
In my mind the “debate” boils down to a confrontation between those who are unwilling to admit that the changes occurring in our environment are a problem, and those who are trying to point out that changes are happenening.
Of course, the vast majority on both sides are too lazy or too comfortable to actually want to do anything to accomodate, so it’s largely academic anyway.
But it can’t be for long. Whether you think it’s a natural phenomenon or something that we’ve somehow exacerbated as a species, changes are happening. What we need to start arguing about is how to go about adapting to the changes, or a lot of problems are going to crop up.
I think I agree with Fred - this solution is going to have to come from economics, not politics.
{ 8 comments }
Ben Adlin 05.30.06 at 6:52 pm
I think most people would agree that global warming (or GCC) is occurring. What I think you might have missed with this post is that the standpoint that says yes, it’s taking place, but it’s a natural phenomenon rather than a human-induced one.
I think you’re right in saying that the changes are undoubtedly going to stem from economic factors, but at the same time, I worry that our current economic system is so used to exploiting the environment and turning a blind eye to long-term consequences that, by the time we change anything about our energy/transportation/etc. practices, we’ll have caused damage that can’t be undone in time.
Good post. I really want to see An Inconvenient Truth. Too bad we’re not still in LA.
Jason 05.31.06 at 1:27 am
I’d like to see the movie as well.
2 points:
1. Regardless of whether or not it’s a human-induced change, the change is still happening. We’re going to have to deal with the consequences, so the cause is, from that perspective, a bit arbitrary.
2. Our economic system doesn’t take into account the “externalities” that are environmental effects. If the political system established laws and regulations that realized those environmental damages in economic terms, the system would, to use the phrase, “correct itself.”
Ben Adlin 05.31.06 at 2:56 am
1. The last sentence you wrote lacks a vital verb, I think.
Jason 05.31.06 at 11:41 am
Fixed
Hillary 05.31.06 at 12:02 pm
Have you by any chance seen the new “pro-carbon dioxide” ad?
Ben Adlin 05.31.06 at 3:14 pm
Jason -
(1) The cause is “arbitrary”?
(2) If the political system injected these laws and regulations that accounted for environmental damages in economic terms, I think you’d see a lot of conservatives crying foul.
Also, I don’t see how this meshes with your idea of the solution coming “from economics, not politics.”
Ben Adlin 05.31.06 at 3:16 pm
For clarification, I mean conservative in the economic, laissez-faire, don’t-you-tell-me-what-to-do-with-my-business way.
Jason 06.01.06 at 1:08 pm
I got it ;)
RE: Arbitrary
If you’re in a boat in the middle of the ocean, and somehow a hole gets punched in the side of the boat, so that it is flooding and the boat will sink in the next half-hour, is it more useful to argue about who caused the hole, or to spend time trying to bail the water and plug the hole?
The cause of the hole in this case is, “a bit arbitrary.”
RE: Crying foul
Yes conservatives would cry foul - but the point remains that from what I’ve learned in economics, our consumers and businesses do not pay the REAL price for goods and services. It’s just the way the system works - there are “externalities” that are costs that are not factored into economic decision-making.
Which is why…
RE: Meshing
It meshes because I don’t think politicians are going to make any such changes anytime soon. Consumer (and stockholder) behavior is more likely to change, and that will cause business practices to change, etc. etc. etc.
IMHO, of course.
Comments on this entry are closed.