|
SilverBoat -> RE: Climate change denial: Epic fail? (1/3/2012 7:48:57 PM)
|
I work in the oil industry, and like Winsome says, there's a reason that BP, Shell, etc, all the really big oil companies call themselves "Energy" companies nowadays. Their execs aren't stupid, they see the long-term issues, and they're scrabbling for control of coal, gas, alcohol, hydrogen, everything. They don't really give a damn what it is, they want to carve profits from it, and the longer they keep various rightwing lunatics and jackasses raging enough to obstruct rational public discussion and decisions, the more they'll wind up controlling and profiting in the end.
With regard to climate change, trends, cycles, influences, etc ... How long has it been since the Earth's atmosphere was reducing, not oxidizing? What fraction of its organic gases were eventually sequestered by anerobic microbes, and later by chlorophyllic lifeforms?
That's the fundamental baseline, and any major upset of the Earth's ecosphere could belch enough tera-tons of buried and submerged clathrates into the atmosphere that any species that couldn't rapidly evolve to breathe methane, ammonia or carbon-dioxide would join the fossil record.
Sure, that doesn't seem likely, short of a comet-strike overturning half an ocean basin, but 5C of warming could dry and torch billions of acre-feet of tundra-peat, reverse a dozen convective ocean currents, swamp the Sahara, dessicate Antartica, and generally leave the human race scrambling to feed the hundred-millions who survived the transition. And nobody really knows what the critical tipping points for atmospheric temperature and composition might be.
Yeah, yeah, cloud up the atmosphere enough, and the Earth's own heat of accumulation and radioactive decay will eventually cook the clouds off, and the whole cycle will start again, taking its hundreds, thousands, or whatever years. The point, however, is that some people (the real conservatives) look at that whole situation, and conclude that large-scale messing around with commerical effects on environmental stuff that is not well understood is probably not a good idea, like sticking fingers in an electrical socket before you've found its on/off switch. The pseudo-conservatives, along with various other plutopathic criminals, insist that the only plausible proof of 'bizness' upsetting the global climate enough to even warrant discussion would be catastrophic impact on their sacred-beyond-all-question profits.
The only reasons against shifting human economic systems towards less environmental impact all have to do with keeping currently profitable powerful entities in control of the status quo. Every other aspect would cost no human lives, and make no significant dint in any human freedom except the pursuit of greed and influence.
Blah ...
... I've better things to do this evening ...
... (That last not with regard to you, Winsome, but the topic in general. As usual, there seems to be group of good-willed people trying to engage in reasoned, rational discussion about a complicated matter, and a few rightwing lunatics trying to prevent that.)
...
|
|
|
|
