Climate change talks in Paris our 'last chance', say Pacific islands

[Quetzal]

Because you naively think that the profits are the only consequences. If you live from paycheck to paycheck, and I take 10% of your money, the only consequence is not you losing money, their is bounced checks, sacrifices and plenty of other hurdles. On a national scale there are even more consequences. There are secondary and tertiary consequences. All sorts of problems can occur when one unnaturally forces action. Not thinking these through is the hallmark of bad decision making.

You're right, what about this. We are thinking a change taking place in terms one, monumental act. What if, instead, it was something enacted over the next 5-10 years? Do you think that smoother transition would make it easier?

 

[Curious George]

You're right, what about this. We are thinking a change taking place in terms one, monumental act. What if, instead, it was something enacted over the next 5-10 years? Do you think that smoother transition would make it easier?

Yes, we need to find the route with the least negative economic, and the least negative environmental impact as both are involved in human suffering. Ideally we will make the changes that cause the least over all suffering.

 

[Quetzal]

Yes, we need to find the route with the least negative economic, and the least negative environmental impact as both are involved in human suffering. Ideally we will make the changes that cause the least over all suffering.

Compromise? NEVER!

 

[YmirGF]

Should we discredit and condemn Haitians because they live in the path of Hurricanes? A family of four who lives in Oklahoma who gets their house wrecked by a tornado? Let's go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt and say the rising sea waters are coincidence (it isn't, but let's say it is). The nations in question are impoverished, where do you suggest those inhabitants go? They can't hop on their private jets and take off for better climates, you see. It is easy for you sit back in your nice house with internet; "Well, why don't they just leave?" It is rarely that simple.

Who said anything about condemning these folks? That said, people have to be responsible for their choices.

Who said that the seas are not rising? I have a better idea. Since you are the bastion of all knowledge on this aspect of 21st reality, why don't you tell us what you would suggest? How much do you expect us to donate to stop this or to lessen the impact? What do you expect or suggest people do to mitigate the effects of climate change/global warming etc... I'm all ears...

 

[Quetzal]

Who said anything about condemning these folks? That said, people have to be responsible for their choices.

Who said that the seas are not rising? I have a better idea. Since you are the bastion of all knowledge on this aspect of 21st reality, why don't you tell us what you would suggest? How much do you expect us to donate to stop this or to lessen the impact? What do you expect or suggest people do to mitigate the effects of climate change/global warming etc... I'm all ears...

Thank you for asking I would love to offer some suggestions.

1. Continue investing and supporting solar energy and wind farms. The big problem is that this kind of technology (solar especially) is not financially accessible to consumers. Working to make this more affordable would help lessen the carbon footprint.
2. Nuclear power (fusion). A clear choice for a more green option in regards to power. Problem is there isn't much attention paid to this topic but it is one that needs to be talked about.
3. Tidal Turbines. The tide is consistent and the ecological impact is small, another energy variant that needs to be considered.
4. Upgrading infrastructure. Making buildings more efficient with improved insulation, solar paneling on roofs. There is also a big push for a concept known as "solar roads". These can offer outlets as well.
5. Continue to offer tax breaks and incentives for fuel efficient vehicles and hybrids. Encourage consumers to make a more efficient choice.
6. Consumer choices are also important. The basics: recycling, electric conservation, buying less of things we don't need, buying energy efficient appliances, when you buy items that use wood or other natural materials buy used, etc

These are just a few basics. Are they expensive? You bet. But so is relocating an entire island nation full of people. I would not ask anyone to invest their entire paycheck. But I would ask everyone to pay attention and make small choices that can make a difference. Support companies and political candidates that do have the power to help. These are all important concepts and I hope more people watch a bit more closely.

 

[YmirGF]

Thank you for asking I would love to offer some suggestions.

1. Continue investing and supporting solar energy and wind farms. The big problem is that this kind of technology (solar especially) is not financially accessible to consumers. Working to make this more affordable would help lessen the carbon footprint.
2. Nuclear power (fusion). A clear choice for a more green option in regards to power. Problem is there isn't much attention paid to this topic but it is one that needs to be talked about.
3. Tidal Turbines. The tide is consistent and the ecological impact is small, another energy variant that needs to be considered.
4. Upgrading infrastructure. Making buildings more efficient with improved insulation, solar paneling on roofs. There is also a big push for a concept known as "solar roads". These can offer outlets as well.
5. Continue to offer tax breaks and incentives for fuel efficient vehicles and hybrids. Encourage consumers to make a more efficient choice.
6. Consumer choices are also important. The basics: recycling, electric conservation, buying less of things we don't need, buying energy efficient appliances, when you buy items that use wood or other natural materials buy used, etc

These are just a few basics. Are they expensive? You bet. But so is relocating an entire island nation full of people. I would not ask anyone to invest their entire paycheck. But I would ask everyone to pay attention and make small choices that can make a difference. Support companies and political candidates that do have the power to help. These are all important concepts and I hope more people watch a bit more closely.

That is actually a very good list of suggestions, the down-side is none of those will happen anytime soon given the glacial pace of change. I'm a true believer in the nuclear and tidal options and consider them to be "no brainers". I'm not a big fan of solar or wind in all but very limited applications. Likewise option 6 is also good and one is somewhat hard pressed to buy an energy inefficient product nowadays. I think the problem with these is that most are coming from an affluent mindset and are beyond the means of many countries that are already struggling due to their own ill-conceived fiscal policies. To dump this onto them is a bit unrealistic.

 

[Quetzal]

That is actually a very good list of suggestions, the down-side is none of those will happen anytime soon given the glacial pace of change. I'm a true believer in the nuclear and tidal options and consider them to be "no brainers". I'm not a big fan of solar or wind in all but very limited applications. Likewise option 6 is also good and one is somewhat hard pressed to buy an energy inefficient product nowadays. I think the problem with these is that most are coming from an affluent mindset and are beyond the means of many countries that are already struggling due to their own ill-conceived fiscal policies. To dump this onto them is a bit unrealistic.

Fair criticisms. I will say that if a country is financially able to invest in these things, I think they should. Obviously, we won't see ground breaking research coming out of South Africa anytime soon. But seeing the US, Europe, and parts of Asia investing here might give us some breakthroughs. It might be a pipe dream, but it's not a bad one to have.

 

[metis]

Going green is now creating more jobs internationally that what is being created in oil, coal, natural gas, etc., and more people having more of these jobs has many many positive spin-offs because of the multiplier effect and feeder industries.

 

[Nakosis]

That may be true, but should we let that theory prevent us from taking measures to help make sure it doesn't happen again? It is like one apartment being on fire and deciding not to call the fire department. "Why bother, it's already on fire. They can't save it."

Actually the Fire Dept can actually put out fires. It's an action that could actually accomplish something. This is more like complaining about forest fires and demanding other countries perform a rain dance to prevent them.

Yes the climate changes and some places in the world may no longer be habitable. Folks are going to have to learn to deal with climate change until science comes up with a proven solution to stabilize the global temperature. Even then many other events could occur to cause folks to have to relocate.

Living in Calif, I'm just waiting for part of it to slide off into the ocean. Maybe science can come up with a way to prevent earthquakes too. If they want to encourage the funding of research. I don't know that it will help either but it seems more rational than demanding countries commit to limiting global temperature. "Ok, I'll commit to it to make you happy". However knowing there is no current solution to affecting global temperature change. We don't have the knowledge or capability.

I mean sure, I'll commit to preforming a yearly rain dance to save the islands. That way no one can accuse me of not doing my part.

 

[Quetzal]

Actually the Fire Dept can actually put out fires. It's an action that could actually accomplish something. This is more like complaining about forest fires and demanding other countries perform a rain dance to prevent them.

Yes the climate changes and some places in the world may no longer be habitable. Folks are going to have to learn to deal with climate change until science comes up with a proven solution to stabilize the global temperature.

They have. I listed various things that can all work in cohesion to help stabilize the climate shifts.

Even then many other events could occur to cause folks to have to relocate.

Yes, but with events like this one we can take preventative action.

Living in Calif, I'm just waiting for part of it to slide off into the ocean. Maybe science can come up with a way to prevent earthquakes too.

That difference is we do not actively increase the probability of earth quakes in the same way we actively contribute to climate change.

If they want to encourage the funding of research. I don't know that it will help either but it seems more rational than demanding countries commit to limiting global temperature. "Ok, I'll commit to it to make you happy".

It isn't about making people "happy". It is about long term stability for the generations of people to come.

However knowing there is no current solution to affecting global temperature change. We don't have the knowledge or capability.

We most certainly do. We have a large collection of ideas but there is something you need to understand. There is no silver bullet. I do not foresee someone having the breakthrough that solves all of the problems we have created simultaneously.

I mean sure, I'll commit to preforming a yearly rain dance to save the islands. That way no one can accuse me of not doing my part.

Just remember, if you are not actively promoting realistic solutions, you are part of the problem.

 

[Nakosis]

Let's face the few basic facts.

1. Unfortunately, it is too little too late. As already discussed even if the most drastic cuts are made, it probably will not bring the results needed.
2. Despite the cause, it appears the livelihood of several island nations are at risk due to rising sea water.
3. No nation has any obligation, period. Anything from here on out is good will on the nation willing to help them.

But let's remember, we can't all take the @YmirGF approach and say "It's their fault for being born there", the immediate problem will need to be addressed. Further, I believe it is important to continue to fund research to figure out exactly what is the cause (since the mountains of data already available just aren't enough for @BSM1 and company).

Sure, make a rational plea for help. That's not what the summit was about though.

 

[Nakosis]

Just remember, if you are not actively promoting realistic solutions, you are part of the problem.

Yes, and this article is not proposing realistic solutions.

 

[metis]

Most of those who are familiar with the science well know what some of the solutions should be, but it's getting people and countries motivated to make these changes that's the biggest problem.

 

[Augustus]

Profit margins equal jobs, equal stability, equal less crime. I think it would be a pretty selfish choice to throw a whole country into distress in order to save the land that will likely be under the sea regardless of actions taken. Especially being that the low number of people can be relocated.

The problem of applying a cost-benefit analysis to global warming is that it relates to a complex system and is highly non-linear. In situations like this, the limitations of human knowledge make us unable to make accurate predictions.

Even if there is a small chance that Global warming is man made, it still makes sense to assume that it is man made and do everything in our powers to stop it. The cost of being wrong is too great given the limitations in our knowledge.

Also don't forget that the sea isn't only going to rise in area just around the Islands, a couple of meters is going to have very bad effects in coastal regions and cities all over the world. These effects will be disproportionately harmful in poorer countries, but will also negatively affect richer countries too.

You are only looking at costs now as if they were 'wasted' money. Costs now are not waste if you consider that they might save exponentially more money in the future. Negative effects now might save exponentially worse negative effects in the future.

Global warming doesn't need to be fact before you start acting, it needs to be a possibility. Even a relatively small possibility or a few % would make it worthwhile given the costs of being wrong.

Continue investing and supporting solar energy and wind farms. The big problem is that this kind of technology (solar especially) is not financially accessible to consumers. Working to make this more affordable would help lessen the carbon footprint.

It is expensive because it isn't widely used. If it was widely used the cost would plummet (think computer technology). You don't say 'we will start using it when it becomes cheaper', you start using it so it becomes cheaper.

 

[dust1n]

Even if we stop using all oil, gas, coal tomorrow, the temperature will continue to rise for some time. Some islands may go under water and nothing can be done about it.

"With sea levels steadily rising, spurred by melting glaciers and ice sheets and thermal expansion of the ocean as the water warms, small island developing states (SIDS) are increasingly besieged, their shores nibbled away by a swollen tideline. Latest reports by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) project a sea level rise in the range of 26 to 82 cm by 2100. The rate of rise is dependent on whether the temperature increase is kept to a minimum forecast of 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, or whether it reaches worst-case projections of 4.8 degrees Celsius by the end of the centuries."

http://thediplomat.com/2014/05/sinking-states-climate-change-and-the-pacific/

Talk about a law suit.

 

[Quetzal]

It is expensive because it isn't widely used. If it was widely used the cost would plummet (think computer technology). You don't say 'we will start using it when it becomes cheaper', you start using it so it becomes cheaper.

Excellent point. The hard part is getting businesses to invest in that initial stage.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is expensive because it isn't widely used. If it was widely used the cost would plummet (think computer technology). You don't say 'we will start using it when it becomes cheaper', you start using it so it becomes cheaper.

I remember, years ago I think when I was still in high school, finding a flash drive on sale for about 10 bucks and it had enough megabytes on it that I could put music on it, and back then one with a full gigabyte was very expensive. But they are so commonly used now that I have several 8 GB flash and none of them cost too much. Even 1.5 and 2 TB hard drives today cost less now than what hard drives with hundreds of gigabytes cost in the past.

 

[Curious George]

The problem of applying a cost-benefit analysis to global warming is that it relates to a complex system and is highly non-linear. In situations like this, the limitations of human knowledge make us unable to make accurate predictions.

Even if there is a small chance that Global warming is man made, it still makes sense to assume that it is man made and do everything in our powers to stop it. The cost of being wrong is too great given the limitations in our knowledge.

Also don't forget that the sea isn't only going to rise in area just around the Islands, a couple of meters is going to have very bad effects in coastal regions and cities all over the world. These effects will be disproportionately harmful in poorer countries, but will also negatively affect richer countries too.

You are only looking at costs now as if they were 'wasted' money. Costs now are not waste if you consider that they might save exponentially more money in the future. Negative effects now might save exponentially worse negative effects in the future.

Global warming doesn't need to be fact before you start acting, it needs to be a possibility. Even a relatively small possibility or a few % would make it worthwhile given the costs of being wrong.




It is expensive because it isn't widely used. If it was widely used the cost would plummet (think computer technology). You don't say 'we will start using it when it becomes cheaper', you start using it so it becomes cheaper.

Are you using colorful rhetoric to win sympathy points?

You really believe that we should "do anything" that has a possibility of helping?

This is rash decision making. I really hope you are just piling on cliches because it is cool and hip to do so.

Your assumptions about how I am thinking about costs shows your lack of understanding.