Have we reached the point where even the most hardened global warming skeptics have to look upon the debate as an environmental version of Pascal’s Wager? Okay, look at the harms of fossile fuel use even if we discount global warming as being human caused:
Smog- In many parts of America smog is so bad those with asthma can scarcely leave their homes.
Acidification of the oceans- Burning fossile fuels is changing the PH of the Earths oceans. Things like corral are extremely vulnerable to these changes and are starting to die off.
Wars- Since the Industrial Revolution we’ve been hard at work killing each other over energy reserves. Most of the West’s involvement in the Mid East is tied to oil, and it was the cause of both Gulf Wars.
Exploitatoin- Those with the wealth to hoard oil have become vastly rich, many of them at the expense of their subjects. The Oil Princes of Kuwait & Saudi, for example, are among the richest people in the world while their citizens are among the worlds poorest. “3rd World” countries are practically owned by large oil conglomerates that rake in billions yearly while raping the environments of the countries that have the oil. These same companies reap record profits while poor and middle class people groan under the strain of just getting to work. The worlds economies stagger under the weight of energy costs, slowing even as oil profits soar.
Finite Supplies- Everyone except Gobbo concedes that no matter how much oil there is, it’s finite, and eventually it will all be gone.
Okay, a world economy based on fossile fuels has a lot of problems, even if we discount global warming. So we have lots of reasons to proceed with plans to wean ourselves off of oil, even if global warming isn’t man made.
But what if it is? And what are the possible risks of failing to act vs the risks of acting if there’s no need? Isn’t it true that if we fail to act and man is causing global warming, we could doom human civilization to ruin? And isn’t it also true that if we act and it’s not necessary, we’d mostly just be alleviating problems we’d have had if we kept using oil?
I think once oil peaks, people in third world countries will start using coal, and once hundreds of millions of people start burning coal, we will have this:
excerpt:
“Fifty years ago this month, a toxic mix of dense fog and sooty black coal smoke killed thousands of Londoners in four days. It remains the deadliest environmental episode in recorded history.”
No Shit Sherlock! Londoners cleaned some of this mess up, but gas still pollutes. Guess what, the US and the coal industry is pushing for a switch to coal as a cheap form of energy. Currently, the coal industry has ads running claim it is “clean.” Geez.
The neocons are out, so this may be prevented, and a cleaner source can be funded.
Very sensible, well said Phaedrus. The only comment I have is that the above reasoning will not work when considered through economics only. At the moment is seems that the motivation for governments to act is only through the realisation that the costs of global warming exceeds the increase in cost of reducing carbon emissions. If global warming does not exist due to carbon emissions (most of us know this is erroneous), then the economic costs of the other problems you listed, with a fossil fuel based economy, will likely not be large enough to enforce change.
