KarenC, help me out here.

We've just barely begun to understand how climate works

&

No one really knows what's going to happen because no one really knows enough about the Earth's climate to make accurate predictions.

but yet

The possibility of severe and catastrophic climate changes is real enough that we need to act NOW!

I don't see how you can say this. If we don't know enough to understand something entirely, the what do you suppose we do? Don't we risk further damaging this system by acting if we don't know what we are doing.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Yes, that's right, we don't fully understand how our climate works. We don't know everything about what is going on or how it will play out in the next few decades or centuries. We do however, know enough to know that there's a good chance that we're in serious trouble. Can anyone give you an absolute guarantee of what exactly will happen, where it will happen and when exactly it will happen? No, they can't.

But so what? How can we possibly further damage the system by reducing (hopefully almost elliminating eventually) the use of fossil fuels? The worst that could possibly happen is that it won't have been necessary and we'll end up with a cleaner planet, healthier air and renewable fuel sources. How can possibly be bad? All we're suggesting is that we stop pumping more and more fossil fuels into the atmosphere. Even if they're not the cause of global warming, they are the cause of severe pollution and we're going to run out eventually anyway.

Sure, we could wait and see, take our time researching, go slowly so as to keep the status quo and not upset anyone (ie the oil companies). But why take that chance? When almost every single scientist on Earth (with no particular agenda or bias) says that we're in trouble, such serious trouble that it could actually threaten the survival of our species, why in the world would anyone say that we should wait and see just in case they're all wrong?

Karen.

I do think it is important to understand the implication of the measures we take today. There are issues with each technology that comes to market. Wind turbines disrupt airflows and ground conditions. Solar panels create small heat island effects. No technology is without its built-in detractors, but we should seek the net gain rather than the perfect solution.

We are certain to misstep along our path to a sustainable life. In fact we may be too late and may just be doing this in vain, but what if we have a chance and decide not to act. We would be our own downfall on two levels then. It isn't right to say it doesn't hurt to try. It will. We will make mistakes and we will do more harm along the way, but to do nothing is the true failure.

Good point cubano. I was responding more to the specific concern that we could do the climate more harm than good by reducing carbon emmissions and for that one specific (and particularly pressing) issue I really believe that it doesn't hurt to try. But there are other issues created by alternative technologies that absolutly need to be addressed.

Thinking long term I believe we need to look beyond alternative technologies and look at the way we live. We need to build our communities and our lives around where we live so that we can all walk, bike or take public transit to most places we need to go. As it is our communities are built around cars, most of us truly do need to drive a vehicle to do almost everything in our daily lives. Our workplaces are far away from our homes and public transit is often just not adequate. Doing that will greatly reduce the need for alternative fuel sources that indeed do have their own problems.

Karen.

Take it even further. Where we live is very important but how we live is the most important. You can live in a walkable community, but if the food you buy and the goods you consume are all from far away places, you only resolve one issue.

There are also issues to the fact that our populations are far too large to allow for this type of living for everyone. It can work on small scales, but not large ones. There is no one solution but instead hundreds of little ones that may or may not add up to a grand scheme.

For our species to be saved, many will have to fail. Either we find a way to live with the current populations (or growing ones) that allows for harmony with the planet or we reduce the population to the point where those living can continue to live as we do now. There is plenty of grey in between and the solution lies there.

Posted By cubano on 07 Aug 2009 09:58 PM
There is no one solution but instead hundreds of little ones that may or may not add up to a grand scheme.

Absolutly. Everything is all about what works locally, finding local solutions to local problems. There's no one massive solution that will solve all our problems. Each area and it's people are too unique for that to work and that's where you often create more problems than you solve by trying to import solutions from across the globe without considering if it really fits locally. A great book that seems to have this as a common thread throughout is "Good News For A Change" by David Suzuki. Amazing read and a common theme I've noticed is one of local people coming together to invest in their own communities and figure our their own solutions to environmental problems.

Karen.

Going local is the right idea but difficult as it counteracts the trends in societies to become more global and interconnected. Going local in a way also means becoming more insular in some respects. It is a tough balance indeed.

A global economy is inevitable, but a local base is needed to save the planet. Shipping our goods from China may save us money, but it kills us in the end. Not too smart. Perhaps the change we seek is in our values and our goals. We value money and material possessions and therefore we structure our society to acquire these things. If we were to change our priorities and values, then we might be able to put the environment at the top, which would change EVERYTHING!