I wrote this out, a few weeks ago and then didn't touch it. Renently I've gone through the process of building a new computer, trying to get microsoft to play nice and let me run XP for a reasonable cost, and then realizing what I thought I really want to do is run VISA Ultimate. Unfortunately, I don't think I like Vista, anyway on this piece of writing I appreciate the commentary.
It is my belief that global warming is inclined to be true and scientifically so. Of course there are people, corporations, governments each with their own agenda's and with thier own belife.
A lot of that truth gets lots in the bs that is the marketing and consumer world of American media, in election mode. It seems just like the commercialization of Christmas, the media is dragging out the election way before the holiday, i.e. election.
Anyway, on the subject of the global warming thing, one must answer 5 questions.
1. Is it really occuring?
I believe, the scientific data we have on hand is not really sufficient to close the book on this question and definetively answer it. However, I also believe that we have a very significant and potentially alarming correlation between our massive CO2 output, and the rise in average measured temperatures. Backed by historical correlation between temperatures in ice core samples, taken anywhere in the world where they have been frozen for hundreds of thousands of years.
2. What is causing it to occur?
There is a lack of evidence to definetly close the book on this too. It could be the sun just normally heating the planet more then in recent, recorded history, or the geological norms of the last few million years. Answer : Unknown. We only have maybe 300 to 500 years of accurately measures and recorded temperatures, and before that in written history perhaps 5000 years of recorded history, but few if any documents will provide the same level of measurable fidelity that would exist with a simple mercury therometer of today. Never mind computer models and scientific tools to measure temperatures to significant figures that were unheard of before the space age. What is lining up, and rather congruently is, the level of CO2, when the average temperature increases, in the atmosphere, that is the CO2 level goes up as the temperature goes up. They correlate. Mankind, through the industrial revolution, electrical power generation techniques, the internal combustion engine, and the global oil economy, contribute far greator CO2 emissions than in any event or point in history.
3. What are the effects if we do nothing?
This is no option and here is why. The human race is growing unchecked at a rapid pace, though not exponential, it certainly isn't linear. The planet was able to support millions, and may be able to sustain billions of people. It is hard to say, but there is obviously a number which cannot be sustainable supported with the technology we have and share today. Consider in 1950 there were 2.5 billion, only 50 years later, there were 5.9 billion, today, 6.7 billion. Perhaps in 2050 there will be 9 billion people on Earth. Drawing from the same pool of resources, causing the same level of pollution/emissions but at a greater rate because of the increased number of people. Even if we stopped contributing as a race, through industry and through individual consumption, if the human economy stopped suddendly, (which is impossible) the Earth's ecosystem is a titanic sized mass, and large masses don't change direction or speed, without great forces applied onto them.
4. What are they ways we can painlessly divert our lives to change the situation for the better?
People can continue to reduce, reuse, and recyle. Why is it that packaging materials are not reused? Why do we accept grocery stores, packing our goods for a single trip, in a brand new bag? There are lots of ways that we can intelligently conserve and develop new methods of power generation. The world is stuck on the oil economy, and though the oil companies would have you believe their objective is to move from that, their objective is to make money no matter what the costs to the environment.
5. What sacrifices are going to be necessary to both secure the future of the planet and stabilize and sustain the environment we have?
A. Get off the majority of the United States and the world off the oil economy, and into renewable and sustainable energy sources.
B. Re-invent packaging, to be recyable.
C. Change the debate from a political one to a scientic one.
Now for some responses to your interesting commentary...
"3. The planet will still be here, albeit in an altered state. This is only the natural course of things."
Unfortunately I believe that to be an unprobably event. If you plow over a plot of land, eventually you will see a forest or surrounding plant life return to the area plowed over, however if you put in a parking lot, and have traffic moving in and out daily, nothing grows there. I don't think a system as large as the Earth's will be as capable of supporting the variety of life that we have present today, in as stable a condition as we have today. However, nobody really knows.
"But can you imagine how these kinds of changes would affect the economy, and out lifestyle for that matter? I mean, imagine everyone having to change their cars just to avoid this theory of global warming? What about those who can't afford hybrids or electric cars? Don't expect me to sell my truck that is already paid for to get into a new expensive car just to save the planet. besides, who will buy my car? This just gets more and more rediculous the more you think about."
I suggest that we would make slow but determined changes. For example, on the transportation front, it is true that most people commute less than 60 mins one way to their work destination. So a trip, a charge, and another trip, and an overnight charge would work very well for an electrically owned vehicle.
If instead of shingles on your roof replaced every 20 years, you had solar powered cells, replaced every 30 years, you could not only charge your electrically powered car that way, but also pay for the bulk of your home heating and cooling bill, and if you had left over get a check or credit from the electric company.
Most Americans own two cars already, so if the second car you owned was a gas guzzler, you could drive it for long trips i.e. more than 200 miles. Or if you didn't want to own a second one, rent one when you needed to travel. Most Americans who have to travel a great distance use air travel and that is expected to increase in the future.
Do solar cells work? Yes, Do batteries work? Yes, Does the electric power grid already exist? Yes, Does the adaptor technology to charge a car from a 110 volt power outlet exist? Yes.
Instead of spending half a trillion dollars in Iraq to secure another stable oil reserve. Lets leave, and spend the next half a trillion we would have spend there, on developing the tools and technology to power our vehicles from the power outlet. Your next objection would be, that most of our power comes from coal and oil, and that is true, however with very little investment say $100 billion total, we could cheaply and easily produce solar cells, which provide power throughout the day, and build wind farms out in the country to provide power throughout the day and night. We could also build new nuclear fission power plants, because we already have a storage solution for the nuclear waste for both nuclear carriers, nuclear submarines, and the various nuclear power plants already in existence and operation in the country.
"so the solution would be to revert to pre-industrial times."
Only if you want to adopt an Amish way of life and want to live without electricity and automobile transportation. I favor a life with electricity generated cleanly or at least more efficiently, as well as better efficiency in our fuel economy by our internal combustion when necessary.
My commute to work is 20 miles there and 20 miles back. Assuming I had an electic car, instead of my 89 Buick, and I plugged in my car when I got there, it would be fully charged, after 8 hours, and ready for up to a 120 mile commute. In fact most of the trips I have taken this year have been well within an electric car's range. If I needed to go farther, or haul a load, which I do not do daily, then an internal combustion vehicle would be a good tool to use.
If I could accomplish the same trip for free and without polluting the air why would I choose to spend the money on the gas and pollute the air at the same time if I had an alternative available? Answer me that.