13 thoughts on “Carl Sagan on Climate Change – Earth Day 1990”
The insurance policy analogy shows where the debate should be. Nobody would insure a 100,000$ house if they had to pay more than a minimal fraction of that on a yearly basis.
The debate is not there (yet?) because many are obsessed with identifying the “deniers”, that includes whoever has questions about the “insurance policy” payment amounts.
What is the real point of your post, Mauri? There’s no obsession with identifying deniers – they are quite vocal.
The problem is that those in denial reflexively reject any measure that impacts their “liberty”.
Surely, your all-encompassing intellect is aware that most of the prominent faces of political denialism were believers – for a decade or more and as recently as 4 years ago.
Was Inhofe swayed by the outcome of his deep analysis of the science, his decades-long observation of weather patterns?
No, he was a believer until he saw the sticker price to avert or mitigate the consequences of a century of hydrocarbon profligacy – a pity the bedrock of his faith in a deus ex machina solution offers no soft landing for those who’ve been suffering and will suffer even more from the byproducts and after effects of our continued extravagance.
Considering that the National Academy of Sciences, AAAS, and a vast majority of practicing climate scientists all agree that some form of emissions reductions plan needs to be implemented, it would be prudent to start some mitigation plan now. Most agree that an investment in such a plan need not exceed a couple percentage points of GDP. I find that an incredibly worthwhile endeavor, considering that it would help avert the very likely scenario where the plains states of the USA turn to desert and the Sahara climate begins to creep into southern Europe. There are other effects, but that alone seems worthwhile, if just to preserve the climate and culture that we have known.
otter17 – Considering that the National Academy of Sciences, AAAS, and a vast majority of practicing climate scientists all agree that some form of emissions reductions plan needs to be implemented, it would be prudent to start some effective mitigation plan now. Most disagree on what that plan should be, and we’re still waiting for the COP cycles to produce something meaningful.
OTOH everybody knows that adaptation can be prepared for and there’s ton of effective ways to go about it. It’s as if instead of paying a gigantic insurance on the house, we’d modified it slightly to withstand what is expected to arrive. Just like we do with earthquakes.
ps Peter – is there any way to remove the coprolalia by a presumably very young commenter around here? It demeans the place, really.
You’re being overly optimistic about adaptation; if it were that easy, we’d have been 100% protected against every kind of natural disaster.
Yet we have increasing numbers of billion dollar disasters – and that’s just in the developed world.
What are the poor and the 3rd world supposed to do? We have a lot more to worry about than floods, hurricanes, droughts, tornadoes and snowstorms.
The most devastating will likely be crop failures, insect infestations and wildfires.
I’ve read the mountain pine beetle is adapting all too well.
Regrettably, the trees aren’t keeping pace with either the beetle or the flame.
Also, coprolalia has a specific meaning; while I agree that S. Sassi’s comment went much too far, a snide comment to someone else implying he suffers from Tourette’s is no better.
If you reply back directly to him that his comment was uncalled for, I’ll second your request to Peter to either censor or remove his comment.
Yes, people will disagree about how to implement a mitigation plan, but that doesn’t mean we ought to ditch mitigation entirely in favor of full adaptation. People will disagree how to adapt as well; so what? That fact does not give a rational reason to abandon adaptation entirely either.
The earthquake analogy is not applicable. First, it makes a qualitative comparison of two adaptation options (insurance versus structure modification). Moreover, in this case the scientific academies throughout the world have identified a credible risk that we have the power to mitigate now, with minimal and manageable risk to our current way of life. Earthquakes are a natural phenomenon that have no discernible mitigation possibility. Climate change of potentially up to 4-6 degrees Celsius global rise by end of century is a man-made risk with a readily identifiable mitigation possibility.
It isn’t exactly smart risk analysis to continue with unintentionally terra-forming your planet knowing that scientists have identified non-adaptable risks from doing so. There is a substantial amount of farmland in the Great Plains of the USA that will become desert at around 1-2 degrees Celsius global rise, since that prairie climate area happens to be marginal. There is no way to grow crops on the same scale in that area if desertification occurs.
Maybe if those “deniers” would shut the fuck up and quit insisting that we don’t need any insurance at all, we could actually start having a pragmatic public policy discussion.
Don’t you have a busy day playing in your own feces and eating paste Maurizio? Bugger off already.
I find this video a bit confusing – it states that the US generates 21% of the gasses that cause the greenhouse effect.
There has always been a greenhouse effect and a good thing too. Surely this should state something like; The US generates 21% of the gasses that are causing additional warming due to the greenhouse effect?
Morin,
Mo isn’t really interested in an honest discussion of climate science, but rather in getting people who’d otherwise be advocating a responsible policy to waste time by engaging him; his game is baiting you into batting at the recockulous strawmen he erects (and the “you’re busy trying to identify deniers” who are in fact quite vocal about their denial is one of the more awesomely dumbshitted ones he’s come up with lately).
The insurance policy analogy shows where the debate should be. Nobody would insure a 100,000$ house if they had to pay more than a minimal fraction of that on a yearly basis.
The debate is not there (yet?) because many are obsessed with identifying the “deniers”, that includes whoever has questions about the “insurance policy” payment amounts.
What is the real point of your post, Mauri? There’s no obsession with identifying deniers – they are quite vocal.
The problem is that those in denial reflexively reject any measure that impacts their “liberty”.
Surely, your all-encompassing intellect is aware that most of the prominent faces of political denialism were believers – for a decade or more and as recently as 4 years ago.
Was Inhofe swayed by the outcome of his deep analysis of the science, his decades-long observation of weather patterns?
No, he was a believer until he saw the sticker price to avert or mitigate the consequences of a century of hydrocarbon profligacy – a pity the bedrock of his faith in a deus ex machina solution offers no soft landing for those who’ve been suffering and will suffer even more from the byproducts and after effects of our continued extravagance.
Considering that the National Academy of Sciences, AAAS, and a vast majority of practicing climate scientists all agree that some form of emissions reductions plan needs to be implemented, it would be prudent to start some mitigation plan now. Most agree that an investment in such a plan need not exceed a couple percentage points of GDP. I find that an incredibly worthwhile endeavor, considering that it would help avert the very likely scenario where the plains states of the USA turn to desert and the Sahara climate begins to creep into southern Europe. There are other effects, but that alone seems worthwhile, if just to preserve the climate and culture that we have known.
otter17 – Considering that the National Academy of Sciences, AAAS, and a vast majority of practicing climate scientists all agree that some form of emissions reductions plan needs to be implemented, it would be prudent to start some effective mitigation plan now. Most disagree on what that plan should be, and we’re still waiting for the COP cycles to produce something meaningful.
OTOH everybody knows that adaptation can be prepared for and there’s ton of effective ways to go about it. It’s as if instead of paying a gigantic insurance on the house, we’d modified it slightly to withstand what is expected to arrive. Just like we do with earthquakes.
ps Peter – is there any way to remove the coprolalia by a presumably very young commenter around here? It demeans the place, really.
You’re being overly optimistic about adaptation; if it were that easy, we’d have been 100% protected against every kind of natural disaster.
Yet we have increasing numbers of billion dollar disasters – and that’s just in the developed world.
What are the poor and the 3rd world supposed to do? We have a lot more to worry about than floods, hurricanes, droughts, tornadoes and snowstorms.
The most devastating will likely be crop failures, insect infestations and wildfires.
I’ve read the mountain pine beetle is adapting all too well.
Regrettably, the trees aren’t keeping pace with either the beetle or the flame.
Also, coprolalia has a specific meaning; while I agree that S. Sassi’s comment went much too far, a snide comment to someone else implying he suffers from Tourette’s is no better.
If you reply back directly to him that his comment was uncalled for, I’ll second your request to Peter to either censor or remove his comment.
Yes, people will disagree about how to implement a mitigation plan, but that doesn’t mean we ought to ditch mitigation entirely in favor of full adaptation. People will disagree how to adapt as well; so what? That fact does not give a rational reason to abandon adaptation entirely either.
The earthquake analogy is not applicable. First, it makes a qualitative comparison of two adaptation options (insurance versus structure modification). Moreover, in this case the scientific academies throughout the world have identified a credible risk that we have the power to mitigate now, with minimal and manageable risk to our current way of life. Earthquakes are a natural phenomenon that have no discernible mitigation possibility. Climate change of potentially up to 4-6 degrees Celsius global rise by end of century is a man-made risk with a readily identifiable mitigation possibility.
It isn’t exactly smart risk analysis to continue with unintentionally terra-forming your planet knowing that scientists have identified non-adaptable risks from doing so. There is a substantial amount of farmland in the Great Plains of the USA that will become desert at around 1-2 degrees Celsius global rise, since that prairie climate area happens to be marginal. There is no way to grow crops on the same scale in that area if desertification occurs.
Maybe if those “deniers” would shut the fuck up and quit insisting that we don’t need any insurance at all, we could actually start having a pragmatic public policy discussion.
Don’t you have a busy day playing in your own feces and eating paste Maurizio? Bugger off already.
I find this video a bit confusing – it states that the US generates 21% of the gasses that cause the greenhouse effect.
There has always been a greenhouse effect and a good thing too. Surely this should state something like; The US generates 21% of the gasses that are causing additional warming due to the greenhouse effect?
that’s probably a good ballpark of where we were annually in 1990
Morin,
Mo isn’t really interested in an honest discussion of climate science, but rather in getting people who’d otherwise be advocating a responsible policy to waste time by engaging him; his game is baiting you into batting at the recockulous strawmen he erects (and the “you’re busy trying to identify deniers” who are in fact quite vocal about their denial is one of the more awesomely dumbshitted ones he’s come up with lately).
Sagan was brilliant. Pity people weren’t listening hard enough back in 1990.