>> Sure. But that usually occurs when things have been well-established for a long time. That isn't the case here.
I'm really not sure whether that kind of generalization applies.
If present trends continue, and they seem to be accelerating, the Arctic will be ice-free by then. And that will certainly impact the climate in Western Europe. Not to mention the crop loss from extreme weather and the impact of rising sea levels.
Currently, sea level is rising at over 3mm per year. The average from 1993 to 2009 was 3.3mm. To put that in perspective, the average from 1950 to 2009 was 1.7mm. Ok, so say the average is 3.3mm from this point forward. That is an inch and a quarter over a decade. Doesn't sound like much, but that would have a significant impact. After a century, we are talking about a foot. and this is lowballing it, sea level is almost certainly rising faster than that, and there is no reason to expect it to suddenly level of.
If the increase in temperatures cause the chlathrates in the Arctic ocean to destabilize and/or significant permafrost melting, that could give us a huge methane spike. And then all bets are off.
So waiting to see if there will be problems is a bad strategy. We already have problems. And they are already getting worse.
I don't have a problem with continued research at this point, which seems prudent. But rationally, taking any expensive action at this point is not a sensible thing to do. New technologies may find less expensive solutions without massive costs, and besides, we're flat broke and there is little we can do unilaterally. As with all things, as it becomes critical, if it does, the markets will find solutions that are more cost effective than anything government can do.
>> But it is ok to spend trillions to invade other countries and on no bid contracts for homeland security on the small probability that it will stop a terrorist attack that might not otherwise be stopped?
That really isn't a logical following to my comments; however, I do believe those were bigger near term threats and the 1.4 Trillion we spent over 10 years was reasonably well spent IMO.
>> Besides, no reason for it to cost trillions. It won't be free, but the strong possibility of developing new technologies that boost the economy is there.
As I mentioned, markets will do this when the time comes, and much more cost effectively than government or unreasonable regulation can. |
