In reply to Rick Monteverde's message of Fri, 5 Sep 2008 12:45:00 -1000: Hi, [snip] >Robin - > >Well and concisely put. > >I only take issue with #3 because of the assumptions that we should be >trying to interfere with the situation, and that warming is necessarily a >bad thing in the long run. Used to be a lot warmer, and for a very long >time. > >I say let nature handle the climate. It's our job to adapt to it. So let's >put our opposable thumbs and big brains to work on the right problems. That >still leaves people like you for #6 in at least the same, if not an even >better, position. Right? [snip] While a warmer world might be nice in some respects, it could have major consequences for humanity.
1) Coastal flooding (where most major cities have been located for historical reasons). 2) Spreading of tropical diseases into temperate zones. 3) Possible major shifts in what will grow where. This could have a serious impact on agriculture. 4) Increases in the frequency and severity of weather extremes (which will also impact on agriculture). While we undoubtedly have the ingenuity to deal with all of these things, it is unlikely we can do so at no economic and political cost. By political cost, I mean the cost in lives lost due to wars brought on by major migrations of people when the region where they currently live becomes unsustainable. A primary example of this is Bangladesh. Therefore it seems wise to me to make a profit by pulling on the only lever we have and possibly making a difference, rather than just sitting back and doing nothing (while probably making the situation worse) while we incur considerable extra costs. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
