I've been writing all this week on some sticky questions related to global warming -- particularly on the reality that the biggest vulnerabilities to climate and coastal hazards are in the world's poorest places, which for the most part have not yet added significantly to the atmosphere's burden of greenhouse gases, which scientists say are likely to exacerbate climate-related risks.
Brings out the ethics dimension of this global environmental issue. Do the rich owe the poor climate protection? And if so, how best to 'pay' particularly when the vulnerable countries' governments are also often dysfunctional, corrupt, or both.... If only this problem were easier...
Package of news and features and Web elements is here.
Particularly notable is my former colleague Bill Steven's prescient piece on winners & losers in a warming world (clickable in box at left of page) -- from way back in 1991. Still relevant right now.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 6
We've had some lengthy discussions here about global warming and the impact around the world. It's almost too obvious that those of us whose lifestyle is the farthest removed from farming are the least aware of what we have achieved in terms of making the planet unlivable.
Now that it is "fashionable" (and I don't mean that negatively) to eat whole foods and get closer to the food sources, perhaps even those who deny global warming will, through new choices, effectively stop some of their destructive behaviors.
It all reminds me of Michael Jerling's song, How Can People Live Like That?
What is the best route for us now?
How do we view ourselves in this situation and how do we view the 'rest of the world' and ... how do we view our relation to the rest of the world?
I suppose one could take the view that because we are more capable of possibly absorbing expected disruptions from this current/future climate change situation that we focus on building up our 'pot of gold' , spend some on 'adapting' to expected change from the environment, spend some on 'protecting ourselves' from disrupted populations beyond our borders, and use the rest where needed... while doing the least amount necessary to actually aleviate the trajectory of warming in the short term or the long... essentially: building reserves and hunkering down...letting the chips fall where they may...
To me, that view seems evil in its utmost... At its least it seems to be a mind set more appropriate to 8000, 4000, 2000, 1000, even 500 years ago ...
Aside from its abhorent nature, that view would be just wrong in its expectations of being able to 'ride it out' or 'adapt' in that manner and it does not account for the practical reality of human societies that interact with each other (as the world does now on a global scale)...
An increase in destabalized populations around the world is a security threat to every nation in the world, including the United States regardless of the cause. What might be the best way to approach that situation from the perspective of nations with means and resources (human, economic, technological) to act? Would there be a way to minimize the effects of climate change on those more vulnerable nations to avoid the following security threat from their disrupted populations?
Considering the current difficulties nations have with disrupted/displaced populations, including ourselves with our neighbor Mexico (would they really be coming here in such numbers if things were 'working right' there?)...what might be expected by increased and wider spread disruptions?
What might our realistic ability to deal with internal disruptions be here when our international diplomacy has devolved around the world because we have chosen to 'take our own route because we felt could and preffered not to make good faith effort?' How reliant are we now on an interconnected world beyond just the consideration of "foreing oil?"
Do we really play the "I won't 'til you do" game now? That, despite the fact that the bulk of greenhouse gases lingering in the air now are ours? Is that who we are? Is that how we define ourselves? Is it what our ancestors would have expected of us? Is it how we want our future progeny to think of us?
Where is our human energy and potential best spent?
Thank you for your article, Andrew...